10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Originally posted by RAIDER14
Gay Marriage = AIDS
Originally posted by lasersailor184
While I personally don't care whether or not gays are allowed to marry, I will not for one second admit that there is nothing wrong with it. And because of this, I will always vote against it.
Originally posted by Debonair
Public flatulence death penalty.
Originally posted by Jackal1
I think gays should have the right to get married and live happily ever after just as soon as we get a large enough shuttle to provide them ALL transportation to their new home on some far away planet. One generation should do the trick.
Originally posted by SirLoin
There might even be employment opportunities over there for a good Commandant.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Because I was just taught that way. I was taught that Homosexuality is a choice, not something that happens by birth.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Because I was just taught that way. I was taught that Homosexuality is a choice, not something that happens by birth.
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's understandble, the people that taught you this probably weren't aware of biological studies done about homosexual in the past few years. But you have the opportunity to become informed about them now.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Laser, are you saying that the only people who aren't biased are the ones who say homosexuality is perverted and aberrent?
Originally posted by Suave
I think that most gays will await the legalization of gay divorce before they get gay engaged.
Originally posted by storch
I think gay marriage is a perfect fit for europe. that would put one more nail in the coffin of western culture and ideology.
Originally posted by Shuckins
On the issue of whether or not gay-marriage should be sanctioned by the government I'm neither hot nor cold.
This might be off-topic slightly, but a short perusal of Google yields the following facts about the gay life-style that ought to give pause to anyone seriously considering adopting that life-style:
Members of a gay couple, or spousal arrangement, are nearly twice as likely as members of a straight couple to suffer some form of physical abuse.
Contrary to the trend in other areas of the world, the rate of HIV infection in the U.S. among the gay population is at 25%, far higher than in the heterosexual community. Efforts to reverse this trend in the city of San Francisco have not been nearly as successful as those concerned with gay health issues had hoped.
Rates of infection by sexually-transmitted diseases, particularly Hepatitis A and B, are much higher in the gay community, due primarily to a reluctance on the part of members of that community to forego the practice of unprotected anal intercourse, and to widespread drub abuse involving the sharing of needles. (The reluctance to give up the sharing of needles puzzles me, for the dangers of such use have been widely known for decades.)
A much greater prevalence of mental disturbance, often leading to suicide, which the gay-community attributes to the "hostility" of homophobes in American society.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Don't take every study and just assume it's right. You have to look at the other studies they've performed.
Originally posted by lazs2
Looking at it dispassionately.... We have to decide what it is that we want to achieve by the sanctioning of marriage.
Do we wish to reward behavior that is benificial to society by pairing up domestic partnerships only?
Or do we wish to reward parents who make the commitment to raise a child in marriage?
Do we think that heterosexual marriage is important enough to not marginalize it? maybe marginalize is too strong a word? "dillute" is certainly accurate tho.
The vast majority of the people in the U.S. are heterosexual... they simply do not want to be lumped in with gays on the marriage thing.
maybe the gays just need a new term to describe their domestic contract?
lazs
Originally posted by Shuckins
While I agree with you about everyone having the right to the pursuit of happines, in real life that right too often grates against the right to freedom of association, or perhaps, more correctly, the freedom to not associate with groups one finds to be objectionable.
I don't know if there is a solution to that conundrum, but I feel that it is the crux of the matter.
Originally posted by Curval
Hilarious.
This from the same guy who wrote this:
"Because I was just taught that way. I was taught that Homosexuality is a choice, not something that happens by birth."
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok :rofl :rofl :rofl
Originally posted by Chairboy
Which of these objections apply differently to interracial marriage? Historically, there has been large scale public disapproval over the idea of people of different races marrying, especially in the United States.
Would their right to not associate with the objectionable behavior of interracial marriage qualify as a legit reason to ban said act?
Originally posted by Jackal1
I just love it when someone trys to mingle in the idea that gays are a race of people. Race/racism has nothing whatsoever to do with the with the panzy packers. Then the human rights BS is thrown in for more smoke and mirrors. From my point of view, to expect and receive human rights you should first be a human being or at the very least act like one. IMO gays are nor do either. More like an experiment gone wrong that produces some mutant, disgusting life form.
Originally posted by eskimo2
You missed the point entirely. The point is that people didn�t want to acknowledge/recognize/allow interracial marriage basically because they found it objectionable. Nowadays people don�t want to acknowledge/recognize/allow gay marriage basically because they found it objectionable.
Laws should never discriminate because some people find others to be objectionable. [/B][/QUOT
Laws should never discriminate because some people find others to be objectionable.
Originally posted by YeagerI already said that, copycat
ship all teh gays to europe......
Originally posted by john9001there may be something to that. by way of an example I present europe as exhibit "A"
homosexuals cannot reproduce, so how can homosexuality be hereditary?
Originally posted by Chairboy
show me the laws of nature being violated by homosexuals.
BTW, to use your own line, "I love it when people try to mingle the idea that child molestation and homosexuality are linked".
Originally posted by Vudak
Jackal,
Having the opinion that gays don't act like human beings is one thing. Flat out saying they are not human beings is quite another.
I wonder, what exactly would you prefer we call them?
Originally posted by Jackal1
Male/female= natural
Originally posted by straffo
Snails are aliens ?
Originally posted by straffo
yes :)
Look at reproduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snail
Is it natural or not ?
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Because I was just taught that way. I was taught that Homosexuality is a choice, not something that happens by birth.
Originally posted by Nash
Listen to these people.
Originally posted by deSelys
Hey, we should all shut up and listen to Lazs when he's talking about the value of marriage. :lol
Originally posted by Casca
What gay folks do is of little moment or concern to me. If they want to go though a ceremony and call it anything they want I think its just ... fabulous.
If however one accepts gay marriage as a cultural and legal institution by what logic can one exclude polygamy/polyandry? Polygamy has much stronger cultural and historical claims to the institution than gay unions.
At that juncture the term "marriage" starts to become so diluted as to be essentially meaningless. Say, that wouldn't be the ultimate objective here would it? Nah.
Originally posted by Casca
At that juncture the term "marriage" starts to become so diluted as to be essentially meaningless. Say, that wouldn't be the ultimate objective here would it? Nah.
Originally posted by Vudak
Well, I don't know if what I'm about to say could be viewed as looking at it dispassionately, but, in my opinion, what I'd like to achieve by legalizing gay marriage is simply to ensure that yet another group of Americans are allowed the pursuit of happiness. It's just one of those things I believe every American is entitled to. And being told, "sorry fella, you can't marry who you love" kinda kills that pursuit.
I'd agree with you that if gays were ok with coming up with an alternative term to their domestic contract, things would be great. However, I can also see how many would not want to do this on the basis that "seperate but equal" can't be equal. And, given the two options here, I'm going to have to side with them.
Originally posted by mora
Marriage should defintely be abolished when it comes to law and goverment. It would stop the crying from both sides.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So what if I love a sheep, or I love 10 woman, or I love an inanimate object, or I love a 10 year old......are you saying that it is my RIGHT to persue who I love and the state should let me marry?
(don't assume I'm linking anything either....if you give one minority group it's "right" you have to give them all. What yard stick do you use to draw the line?)
I laugh at the assumption that this is a civil rights issue and that anyone who disagrees with it must be a homophobe/bigot/intolerent.
I bring this up in every single one of these threads and it seems the usually players don't like the "slippery slope" argument. What if NAMBLA was just as organized and had the lobbiests to overturn the statutory laws in order for them to persue their "happienes"? My points are valid because of the gay marriage "issue" many poligemist groups are now lobbying to overturn poligemy laws because it interupts their "happieness"
You can ASSUME what you want to about me but I say all of this while at the same time supporting any kind of laws that recognize a "civil union" of any two consenting adults gay or strait.
Originally posted by BluKitty
no gunslinger it's just not worth arugureing because it's logical flaws are obvious..... if you were objective at all
Animals can't sign marrige contracts
Children can't legaly marry in the U.S.
So your argurement is poligemy?
Sounds like a diffrent arguement too me...... Not sure what this has to do with the issue. Mormon's are allowed to marry, like anyone else.... but only once (unless they divorce)....I don't have problem with poligemy really, as long as it's truely a 3-way union... and not some guy haveing a wife in 2 cities, or a girl haveing two husbands.
Your trying to disallow a group, the rights eveyone else has..... just like this country did with Blacks....the U.S. needs a good outgroup, "Americans" seem lost without one.
Originally posted by Vudak
See BluKitty's response for my views. The argument that you should be able to marry a sheep or a child is a ridiculous smokescreen and you know it. Your point on polygamy does have some merit, however.
And as to my views on polygamy, BluKitty also pretty fairly summed them up. Still, I feel that we should concentrate on giving two gays the right to marry before we worry about three :cool:
Also, I wouldn't say that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage must be a homophobe/bigot/intolerant. I would say that this thread has shown that many are (and I'm not lumping you into this category, by any means). It's perfectly fine if you just have a conflicting opinion for respectable reasons (I'll grant there are some).
Edit - One more thing - That this is a civil rights issue is certainly not an assumption.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thanks for your response. Mine is based on an assumption that you think this is a civil rights issue.
I have yet to have anyone explain to me what civil rights are being broken. What discrimination is happening here?
Two people of the opposite gender reguardless of race, creed, color, religion, or sexual orientation can legally enter into a marriage contract. No one is denying anyone their civil rights.
Now if you redefine this and allow gays to marry why wouldn't you HAVE to let other groups (even as sick as they are) in based on the same argument?
No one is denying a RIGHT they are denying a WANT. Gays want to be like strait people and marry somone. The problem is that's not what a marriage is and gay people arent strait. Therefore this isn't a civil rights issue.
Again I base my opinion on the premis that I beleive some type of "civil union" would be entirly appropraite.
Originally posted by Vudak
I'm looking at it from a Constitutional view, albeit a different interpretation of the Constitution than others have.
If all men are created equal, then a gay man is my equal. I, as a heterosexual, have every right to marry the person I love. In my case, this will be a woman. If he is my equal, a gay man also has every right to marry the person he loves, in his case, that would be a man.
In my view, his right to equality, and his very defintion of being my equal, is trampled on by not being allowed to marry the person he loves.
Therefore, I see this as a civil rights issue under the thought that seperate but equal (civil union vs. marriage) is not equal.
Perhaps a way to solve this issue is to simply throw out the term "marriage" for everyone and just have "civil unions" for everyone. I don't really care which way we go, but I do insist the same term be applied to everyone.
Gonna be a scary, scary world when I'm 80 and my grandkids think I'm a conservative old fart, huh? :)
I'm looking at it from a Constitutional view, albeit a different interpretation of the Constitution than others have.
If all men are created equal, then a SICKO man is my equal. I, as a heterosexual, have every right to marry the person I love. In my case, this will be a woman. If he is my equal, a SICKO man also has every right to marry the person (or ape) he loves, in his case, that would be a man.(or ape)
In my view, his right to equality, and his very defintion of being my equal, is trampled on by not being allowed to marry the person he loves.
Originally posted by Vudak
Alright fair enough, but then again, a child in this country is not recognized by the law as being able to enter into a legal contract until they're [insert state's age here]. It is assumed (and yeah, I'm sure some kids are exceptions), that they cannot possibly understand the ramifications of the contract they're entering into.
An ape, though it could probably sign an X and use sign language, wouldn't, in my mind, be capable of truly understanding what it was doing, thus the contract would be invalid. I understand what you're saying about the fringe groups though, and, who knows, maybe there is an ape out there who could - I'm doubting it.
Different states have different ages to enter a marriage contract, my cousin, for example, got pregnant and ran off with the loser to FL to get married at 15 :rolleyes: .
I could see how one might say "well then, isn't this seperate/not equal (marriage ages)", but I'd argue that regardless of where you live in the country, if you're heterosexual you're going to be allowed to get married eventually - gotta leave state's some say of there own, anyway.
In the end though, although I hear what you are saying about opening the flood gates, you have to consider, as others have pointed out, that blacks and whites couldn't marry each other at one point either. When they were suddenly allowed to, all the groups you mentioned didn't swarm the gates (successfully), and I don't see that happening now.
It's something to think about, sure, but I just don't see it as happening.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't disagree with mixed race marriages but I think the point is invalid. Those are in fact people being denied their right to marry. A marriage being a union between a man and a woman.
Originally posted by eskimo2
And a few years ago most people would said: A marriage being a union between a man and a woman of the same race.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Traditional roles arent allways a bad thing.....especially when they've worked for thousands of years.
Originally posted by Vudak
You try telling that to some woman from my neck of the woods. You think forgetting her birthday was something? :eek:
Trust me, not fun, not fun at all lol
Originally posted by Vudakthat's because you have failed in your training. I have mine trained not expect anything on any supposedly significant date. she is aware that christmas, valentine's day, birthdays, mother's day etc. were created by New York haberdashers and as such should be eschewed. when ever I run across a good deal, be it diamonds gold or automobiles she receives a gift. the other thing is to always step up to your responsibilities to defend and provide for her and the offspring, at the end of the day that's our raison de etre and our only justification for being here.
You try telling that to some woman from my neck of the woods. You think forgetting her birthday was something? :eek:
Trust me, not fun, not fun at all lol
Originally posted by Gunslinger opposite gender
Originally posted by Chairboy
BTW, you use the example of "those are the rules, tough". I'll note that until partway into the 20th century, women couldn't vote.
Originally posted by Chairboy
...I'll note that until partway into the 20th century, women couldn't vote. Those were the rules too...
Originally posted by lazs2
blu and vudak... equal does not mean that everyone get't to be quarterback or.... even pays the same amount of taxes.
the law is that any two people can get married so long as.... as a bunch of requirements are met.... they can't allready be married... they both have to be human... they can't be immediate relatives... they can't be below a certain age... and....
They have to be of the oppossite sex. these are all rules that everyone has to live by if they want to participate in marriage... You choose one of the rules and say it is unfair...
There are many who think one or the other rules are not fair to them.
Tough....those are the rules. If society as a whole want's some of the rules changed then it will.... being incestuous and not being able to be married does not mean that your civil rights are being violated any more than being gay and not being allowed to marry does.
and blu.... other than adding hysteria... what does your transexual example have to do with anything?
lazs
Originally posted by TexMurphy
lazs
Why shouldnt a gay person have the same rights in society as you do?
Its exactly the same thing as saying blacks, asians, you name the race shouldnt have same rights in society...
Its exactly the same thing as saying muslims, jews, budhists, hindus shouldnt have the same rights in society as christians....
Originally posted by lazs2
As for women not being able to vote? we would be in a hell of a lot better shape if they had never been able to.
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
you are ABSOULTELY right tex!!
i think that if someone wants to marry someone they really love be it gay or not they shouldn't be denied to get married. what difference would it make to straight people if they banned gay marraige?
as was said before, being gay is a choice and if they also CHOOSE to be married then so be it.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So if you had a minor child who was loved by a creepy adult they should be allowed to get married and the adult now takes your child out of your home?
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Is it just me who is seeing the double standars here?
Got to love double standars...
Tex
Originally posted by Curval
Tell you what...start a thread about child molestation and the rights of creepy adults to abuse children.
That way we can chat about the subject matter of THIS thread without the red herrings you keep throwing in which are totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
Originally posted by Chairboy
I just can't take Jackal1 seriously, would the rest of you anti-gay marriage folks say that he speaks for you?
A few decades ago, interracial marriage was illegal. It was 'the law' (lazs) and it was a small minority that wanted to do it(Elfie). Before the law was changed, they had the same equal rights that the gays do now. They were free to marry within their race, the same as gays are free to marry people of the opposite sex. How again, exactly, was that different from what we're talking about now? Is 'seperate but equal' still the goal?
Originally posted by Vudak
Jackal - you know what? Never mind. I'm not going to let my first censored post be a jab at you.
I will say if I'm a lemming, so are you. You weren't born into this world detesting gays. You picked it up from someone along the way and have followed right along to present. [/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Jackal1
No, I didn`t pick it up from anyone but myself and self observation and self esteem enough to come out and say what I think. Does noone have the capability of thinking for themself anymore or do you beleive everyone has to follow the pack no matter right or wrong?In this case, I say it`s sickening, disgusting, but most of all totaly ridiculous to ask for a law to be put in place to promote and legalize obvious perversion and goes against everything one`s common sense should point out for them. To do it in our country I take as an outright insult to those who made this country what it is.
If someone wishs to put a flower behind their ear and walk hand in hand with the back seat boogie boyz shouting and wailing about their woes and injustice being done to them , that`s their problem, but certainly not mine.
Originally posted by Jackal1
I`d come more thinking that you might need to study that. ;)
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Jackal and laz
Say that you guys some day have a daughter
say that she is gay
hand on your heart can you honestly say that you would force her to marry a man?
Would you force her to a life where she has to put aside who she really is for her entire adult life?
Originally posted by lazs2
...That does not mean that the rest of us have to recognize it as being normal behavior....
Originally posted by lazs2
I have been around a lot of em... they are not like you and I. It is a noticeable difference... it cuts both ways too.. they all recognize that I am "different" too..
Originally posted by lazs2
We accept that about each other. We do not intrude on each others world save for decency and treating each other with respect.
Originally posted by lazs2
Trying to invade heterosexual marriage is not respect. Any more than a group of meterosexuals all invading the gay bars every night... they don't want heteros there. It is legal but.... disrespectful.
Originally posted by TexMurphy
This is what I mean... its the same kind of racistical segregation arguments as you had in the US up till the 60s with the black population and reading things like that in the year 2006 gives me the creaps
Humanity consists of individuals. Each individual is different no one is identical. But everyone regardless of gender, religion or sexuality should have equal rights in society
everyone should be treated with the same respect.
Originally posted by deSelys
okay, Curv is as kindergarten as you. Both of you will stand in opposite corners during next recess.
Originally posted by deSelys
Jackal1, has a civil wedding the same value to you than a church weeding?
If you value most the church (religious) wedding, why do you accept that divorced people are allowed to contract another marriage?
Do you feel less married to your wife because 10 houses down your road, two men are 'married' instead of having contracted a civilian partnership?
Why would gay have to follow a different, and probably more expensive and complicated procedure (hint=lawyer) to formalize their union?
You won't have to go and be merry at the party, you won't have to call them differently, you won't be tempted to become a gay....so why? [/B][/Q
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Jackal1
No gay couples dont have the same rights... they dont have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with...
you do they dont.
Originally posted by Jackal1
Contract? See you are looking at marriage as if it was some form of document or legaly binding text.
If a man and a woman get a divorce, with one stating to the other the wishs and reasons for the divorce, why shouldn`t they be allowed to marry someone else?
10 houses down there could not be two men "married" unless it was a two family household. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
IF two men contracted a civilian partnership around here ,and it was anything but a business partnership, their biggest concern would be locating a good realtor to relocate. :)
Because it would be their decison to do so, not anyone elses. At that point they have a choice either to hire the lawyer, form the partenrship or not. Because they are asking for sperate laws/legalization from the rest of society you beleive we should foot the bill? Why wouldn`t they be held responsible for their own actions? The rest of us are. Ridiculous.
So why......what?
I find it totaly ludicrous that anyone would find it appropiate to support and ask for laws to be put into place especialy for perverts. If they decide to live that way, they should go do it and deal with the circumstances of their choice, just as the rest of society deals with the responsibilty that we all have for our decisons.
You want to push through some new "special" laws for child molestors? Molesting children is what makes them happy. Should we be able to stand in their way of "happiness" and fulfillment? Just how far would you be willing to go with this charade?
Originally posted by Jackal1
I am not, nor do I ever wish to steep so low as to sell out my values to make the PC crowd happy.
Originally posted by BluKitty
Define the sexes, Define "Male", Define "Female" ...... and don't leave ANYONE out.
Originally posted by deSelys
Now you're beginning to see the light: marriage is a contract giving you certain rights (and obligations). The rest is up to you and the person you're marrying: love, care, etc...
You've already proven that you're pretty obtuse
Foot the bill? You have to pay for other married couples??
Texas is a worse commie hell than Europe!
Do you imply that by marrying, you're less responsible for your own actions?
Perverts? Yes...to your eyes mostly as homosexuality isn't forbidden by law as child molestation is.
The molested child is not consenting (even if he says that he is, his young age voids this affirmation) and is a victim.
Or do we have to show concern to how you've raised your 4 daughters?
Because the church doesn't marry already divorced people either. And you seem to confuse the religious and civilian definitionS of marriage.
Originally posted by BluKitty
"my values"? really?
what language do you speak?
Originally posted by lazs2
wow curval... so now you think that certified water or wastewater treatment plant operator is a lowly position? beneath the silver spoon trust fund set set? I am supossed to take advice from you on prejudice?
the last time religion dictated what to do, people were burned at the stake.
During the wedding, the couple says yes to each other but the audience is not asked to vote its (dis)agreement AFAIK.
What you do is simply sprout whatever you have been "taught" without any independent or logical thinking. You sell yourself out by towing social and political "lines" that you seem incapable of questioning.
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Jackal1
No gay couples dont have the same rights... they dont have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with...
you do they dont...
Sexuality isnt a race but obviously it works just as well as a segregating instrument as race...
Tex
When they came for the hermaphrodites,
I remained silent;
I was not a hermaphrodite.
When they locked up the hermaphrodite,
I remained silent;
I was not a hermaphrodite, but i do have nipples.
When they came more hermaphrodites,
I did not speak out;
I was still not a hermaphrodite .
When they came for the rest of the hermaphrodites,
I did not speak out;
I was not hermaphroditic.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out about hermaphrodites
STFU already about hermaphrodites, they said
and now there aint no more hermaphrodites
Originally posted by Elfie
Marriage is an institution, designed and ordained by God from the beginning of time, between one man and one woman.
Originally posted by straffo
Certainly not.
Like I said... I have no problem with gays coming up with their own form of marriage
we are all subsidizing marriage through taxes etc. and making an investment in a way of life. You are asking me to subsidize a whole new group with my money
Originally posted by Elfie
I'd be interested to hear what you have to say on how/when the institution of marriage came about.
Elfie, I consider religious views a pretty respectable reason for not wanting gay marriage, but you have to understand, in a nation anchored in large part by the Separation of Church and State, they're completely invalid.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Elfie, so you're saying that the Judeo-Christian religion created marriage?
Originally posted by Elfie
Where do we draw the line on who can marry anyone they want because of the love they have for another human being? The line has to be drawn somewhere or we will have perverts trying to marry kids. If we make an exception for one group, that sets a precedent for the next group.
Even if homosexuals are granted the ability to *marry* by law, I will have a very hard time equating what they have to what I have. It just isnt the same imo.
Originally posted by Elfie
Vudak 20 or 30 years ago allowing same sex marriages was unthinkable. If we now allow same sex marriages and set a precendent for changing the laws....which group will be next in line to want the laws changed for them?
It may not happen the very next day, but what about in the next 20 or 30 years? Do we really want to start down that road? I personally dont.
Originally posted by Curval
What you do is simply sprout whatever you have been "taught" without any independent or logical thinking.
You sell yourself out by towing social and political "lines" that you seem incapable of questioning.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Can you participate in this discussion without the personal insults, Jackal1? .
Now go put on your pink shorts and run to the store for shrimp to put on the barbie for when Biff and Buff arrive......Mmmmmmmm K.There ya go, I'm guessing you had forgotten typing that.
Originally posted by Chairboy
There ya go, I'm guessing you had forgotten typing that.
Originally posted by Chairboy
mmmmmmkay, I'll let you work that out for yourself.
My own ethics have changed dramatically since my conversion. Brothers and sisters, I don't need a civil law to tell me Gay Marriage is wrong, you shouldn't either, and I tell you there is no danger of me performing one.
And as others have pointed out, there was once a time interracial marriage wasn't allowed either.
Originally posted by Elfie
It's also been pointed out that interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman. This was a race issue that to my knowledge only applied to blacks/white folks. This issue has been rectified and rightfully so. Homosexuality is not a race issue. Comparing apples to oranges imo. :)
In an interracial *straight* marriage the couple are still able to fulfill God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. In a homosexual relationship, that is impossible.
Originally posted by Vudak
Well, although I guess I am comparing it in that light, I'm also using it as an example of how a fundamental change in our marriage laws occurred in our nation at an earlier time, without such things as 4 year old marriage flooding the gates.
Originally posted by Elfie
Consider Man's general attitude though. Like small children we push the limits to see just how far we can go. Do you really think that some other group of folks won't say....hey look at what the homosexual community got for themselves...they can marry now! Lets try to get XXXXX for our selves now.
Originally posted by Vudak
Just browsing it quickly Seagoon (lot of material) but so far:
"Gay marriage is designed for precisely for the facilitating of uncleanness rather than its prevention."
I'm probably reading too much into this. I'd say if two gays are happily married and monogamous they'd be more likely to be clean of things such as STDs than two gays swinging it.
What's your interpretation of the word "uncleanness" - is it what I'm thinking of or maybe something more broad?
Just asking you to clear it up, been awhile since I've gone to a Church for something other than a Christmas pageant :)
Originally posted by Vudak
I'm sure some other group will, but by the time this whole gay marriage thing works out I'll probably be on my deathbed, anyway, so the next group will be my grandkids' debate :cool:
Originally posted by Elfie
Not true......my religious beliefs dictate what I do on a daily basis and I have never burned anyone at the stake, nor have I contemplated doing anything so drastic.
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
I didnt mean it literal!
gah !
*shakes head* :confused: i dont understand why people mix state laws and religion......
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
I didnt mean it literal!
gah !
*shakes head* :confused: i dont understand why people mix state laws and religion......
Originally posted by YUCCA
It doesn't cost you anything. They aren't hurting you.
Originally posted by BluKitty
Well problem is your wrong in one sense... It harms thier sense of defenition's-the very words and symbols they think in are broad and ambiguious. Most people don't handle confusion well.
On thing has become quite clear to me. People here ethier don't have the education to argure such things on a scientific ground ... or are scared to argue it.
Define the sexes... don't leave anyone out ... and I want clearly defined Z scores for gays, lesbians, hermaphrodites, transsexuals, bisexuals, et cetra.
Since they are so keen on "Normal", they need to define "Normal". Can anyone define normal?
Originally posted by Elfie
For some of us, it isnt a scientific issue. For some of us, it's wrong in a moral sense. For some of us, that sense of morals comes directly from the Bible.
No one can define what you want defined. Science hasnt gotten that far. ;)
Personally, I just can't take the Bible seriously. I don't have any faith that man could have a text with such power to sway in his hands for so long without acting on the urge to add to it from his own agenda, but that's probably for another thread.
Originally posted by Elfie
I'd be interested to hear what you have to say on how/when the institution of marriage came about.
Originally posted by Jackal1
blah blah blah (brute force argumentation - inefficient but hey, it keeps you busy)
So , are you willing to legalize child molestation also? How about murder? How far are you willing to go with the charade?
So you wish to legalize that also?
Originally posted by Jackal1
I wouldn`t suggest it, but if you do we can discuss it face to face. :)
Originally posted by Jackal1
I don`t know what church you are refering to, but any church that I would consider being married in allows marriage of divorced people.
Originally posted by Elfie
Actually.....every wedding I have been to, right at the end of the ceremony before the Pastor pronounces the couple Man and Wife.....he asks the folks gathered....if anyone present knows any reason these two should not be joined together in Holy Matrimony speak now or forever hold your peace. (or words to that effect) Although technically the *audience* isnt being asks to vote, they are being asked to speak up if they know any reason why the two love birds shouldnt be married.
Originally posted by Jackal1
Never had a problem coming up with my own opinions and thinking for myself. I know that is foreign to you. Now go put on your pink shorts and run to the store for shrimp to put on the barbie for when Biff and Buff arrive......Mmmmmmmm K. :)
Originally posted by deSelys
Man, I feel for you. With such reading skills, you must have had a pretty hard time in class, uh?/B]
Anyway, my answer is NO so you don't need to keep asking about the obvious.
Great! An internet threat! Take a plane to Brussels and I'm your man but you'll have to know that:
Here in Europe the lukewarm (tm Seagoon) catholics aren't allowed to marry at the church again after a divorce.
Mmmm so you take what suits you in religion and reject the rest? How convenient... Don't expect to gather much respect from believers and non-believers, though.
Originally posted by Curval
Why do you assume independent thought is foreign to me?
Shrimp on the barbie is an Australian thing...is your lack of geography education raising its head again?
The pink shorts and Biff and Buff comment "appears" to be dissmissive and hints at the possible accusation of me being gay...maybe not, but I think that is what you are trying to do.
Strange because I have a beautiful wife and three great kids.
Is it the wearing of pink shorts that makes me "gay"?
Originally posted by Jackal1
Naw.......actualy school was a cakewalk. Pissed a lot of people off. :)
Originally posted by Jackal1
Priceless! You must be hard to discuss things with if you are hiding under the bed. :rofl
You ever get to Texas , give me a yell. I`ll buy ya a beer. :)
Originally posted by Jackal1
Explain to me again how much you know about my religion. :aok
Originally posted by Jackal1
Please do come back again if you can figure out what is being discussed.
Originally posted by deSelys
Chicken... If I'm unlucky enough to have to go to Bumfux, Tx, I'll sure come and ask you to put your fists where your mouth is. THEN we'll have a beer B]
But again, there better and more interesting things in life and being brainwashed is not on my to-do list.
I understand that you're bitter because, just like the roundness of Earth, the wrongness of slave labor, the rights of black people, gay marriage will eventually be accepted and the opponents will realize that it wasn't such a big deal after all.
Originally posted by lazs2
curval.. you (or anyone else) have not answered the question. you say that gays should be allowed to marry.. I suppose that you feel it is some kind of "right" in order to equalize?
but then you never answer the question of why brother and sister should not be allowed to marry under the same contract.
Originally posted by Jackal1
Maybe because as I have never seen any evidence of any from you> Mostly canned Liberal Yupnish.
You obviously haven't read many of my threads. You cannot place me in a stereotypical "liberal" light. Not sure many liberals voiced support for Bush's presidency, which I did some time ago, for example. My recent anti-Bush postings have resulted from his actions since he was re-elected. I am more right wing orientted in my outlook on financial matters, but probably slightly left of the middle on social matters. Canned bible thumping concervatism is what I see from you in this thread.
Shrimp on the barbie is pretty well a worldwide thing with the Yup crowd....even here in the friggen huge state of Texas. You need to get out more.
I need to get out more? LOL. What would you know about anything being a "worldwide" thing...you don't go anywhere. I was in Mumbai India in December, Boston last week, I go to Toronto on May 31st, the UK in July for the Farnsborough airshow and then I travel to Uganda (that is in Africa, just so you are clear) in August. Where have you been or where do you plan to travel during these times?
Naw.........just a little Gurly Mannish. :) To claim to be so "behind" this gay marriage thing you seem very defensive and a little touchy on the subject. Not as permissive as you wish to be believed?
I'm not the touchy one. You are so anti gay marriage that "methinks you doth protest too much". (You can google that expesssion if you don't understand it.)
Which would prove absolutely nothing. Like I said......your just a little Gurly Mannish, but I`m proud you brought that up. You hear all the time about family men who all of a sudden "decide" they are gay. Guess the genetics were time release, huh? :rofl
I suppose that is true, but I have no plans to become gay at any time. Wearing pink shorts every once in a while will not change that.
Seriously Curvie........proud to see you came back. Chair was awful concerned about you. ROFL
?????
Originally posted by lazs2
nope curval... what if one of the incestuous couple is sterile? what is your objection then? I believe that is game set and match.... to use your terms..
lazs
Originally posted by deSelys[/b]
Here in Europe the lukewarm (tm Seagoon) catholics aren't allowed to marry at the church again after a divorce.
Mmmm so you take what suits you in religion and reject the rest? How convenient... Don't expect to gather much respect from believers and non-believers, though.
Elfie... since the beginning, I'm talking about civilian, administrative marriages ONLY. Religions decide to forbid gay marriage or not, and I'm fair with that. So try again (and read and think twice before posting please). [/B]
Originally posted by Seagoon
As a pastor, I am authorized to act as an agent of the state in conducting weddings. Once the parties involved have obtained a marriage license from the state, I can officiate at their wedding, and that marriage is considered both valid and legally binding. Therefore, if I refuse to marry two men or two women, they could potentially bring a civil rights suit against the church on the grounds that they are being unfairly discriminated against contrary to the laws of the state. Such suits have already been brought, for instance, against evangelical churches that have fired gay employees. In fact, if gay marriage is legalized, it is very possible that churches that refuse to marry persons of the same sex will have their civil authority stripped so that a marriage performed by an evangelical pastor would not be considered legally binding.
- SEAGOON
Originally posted by Jackal1
Even with a very young age, I`d be willing to bet that you will never live to see the day that gay marriage is legalized and accepted in my home state.
Originally posted by VudakDitto. The seperation between church and state goes both ways, religion must be protected from government meddling.
All I can say is I guarantee you that if this bad case scenario ever starts to happen, I'll be arguing as vigorously for your right to refuse to marry the couple in the church as I am arguing for gay marriage right now.
Comparing homosexuality with pedophilia is mixing oranges and (bad) apples,
Elfie... since the beginning, I'm talking about civilian, administrative marriages ONLY. Religions decide to forbid gay marriage or not, and I'm fair with that. So try again (and read and think twice before posting please).
also... pedophiles claim that they can't help their behavior just as homosexuals do. There is pretty persuasive proof that pedophiles can't be "cured".
Originally posted by Elfie
Also see Seagoon's post for potential ramifications of a Pastor refusing to marry a homosexual couple. This isnt just a civil issue. If homosexual marriages are made legal throughout the US, someone will ask a pastor to marry them, when he refuses they will file a lawsuit and most likely win regardless of Freedom of Religion in this country.
Originally posted by Vudak
I highly doubt they'd win. Not everyone for gay marriage hates and wants to oppress religious freedoms. Just like not everyone against gay marriage is a bigot. If they win the lawsuit the SC would certainly strike it down as Unconstitutional.
Originally posted by Elfie
I'm not so sure about that. The *offended* homosexual couple will argue that their civil rights have been violated, the church will argue that their refusal to perform the ceremony is based on Freedom of Religion.
Some large churches are fairly wealthy, smaller churches like Seagoon's have very little. Some will be able to afford attorneys others wont. At some point I believe the Church loses that legal battle simply due to lack of funds.
Originally posted by BluKitty
So your argurements are based on religious grounds?
Sorry, But I find that UNAMERICAN. Maybe you should find another country if you want a theocracy.
I happen to belive in the Constitution and great men like Hamilton.
Originally posted by lazs2
no curval... you either admit that some exceptions are ok and therfore gays can be excluded or... that there can be no exceptions between two humans.
That is the end of the match... you can't play any longer so it is over.
Originally posted by BluKitty
Your the one who wants to base Laws on religous books of ambiguous orgin.
Seperation of church and state is to keep such things seperate.
Any argurment made on religion is moot, you can find another realigion. and another and another.... where does it stop? Well that's why the Consititustion explicitly says to not base the goverment on religion.
What's the largest religion in the world? Should we just adopt it's rules because it's the majority?
No ... that would be UnAmerican
Originally posted by eskimo2
One more time:
Suppose that two siblings live together (non-sexually/incestually) and decide that they want to raise children together. Does the government have any right to deny them any rights or privileges that it grants a married couple? If so, why?
Originally posted by BluKitty
Most of the south wanted slavery too.... they would have voted for it. How long were Jim Crow laws voted for?
So lets put it to a vote then, a national referendum.
Come on define the sexes. I know your smarter than the worlds leading scientists... you can do it with your bible.
Originally posted by Curval
You obviously haven't read many of my threads.
You cannot place me in a stereotypical "liberal" light.
Canned bible thumping concervatism is what I see from you in this thread.
you don't go anywhere.
I was in Mumbai India in December, Boston last week, I go to Toronto on May 31st, the UK in July for the Farnsborough airshow and then I travel to Uganda (that is in Africa, just so you are clear) in August.
Where have you been or where do you plan to travel during these times?
You are so anti gay marriage that "methinks you doth protest too much"
Wearing pink shorts every once in a while will not change that.
I do have a few gay friends though and they're good guys (and one girl), and good people. I feel bad for them and sympathize with their plight. Also they are a minority. If people like me don't step up for them then their votes are always going to be in the minority. Even with people like me, they still are, but perhaps not forever.
So that's why I stand up for them.
Originally posted by Jackal1
Way too many. Read one, you`ve pretty well read em all. :)
Try reading them without your blinding bias.
I don`t have to. You have done a fine job of that all by yourself. I do not wish to place you period.
Yes you do. You want to "place me" into your stereotypical image of a liberal. On so many counts you'd be wrong.
LOL I haven`t made reference to the bible or my religion other than to ask one to enlighten me on what he knew about my religion. I have stated my views and beliefs, nothing more , nothing less. I realize that`s hard for you to get a grip on, but hey.........................
Your views are simply regurgitated right wing ultraconservatism. You show absolutely no original thought in anything you write. Just because I said "bible thumping" does not mean I think you are religious....it is simply a way to describe your neoconservatism...it's right out of the bible-belt.
Shame you didn`t get to go anywhere worth going to, but hey, that`s not my fault.
Again, you simply demonstrate your ignorance.
Oh I`ve just kicked around mindlessly in 7 or 8 states here in the good ole U.S. of A. Not all of us can have it so good, so don`t let it get ya down. Ya see, none of the places I went to I had to go to. I went because I wanted to, got to take my time and do what I wanted to do when and where I wanted to do it. :)
Guess what..I wanted to go to the places I went to also. You should try and "get out more"...outside the good ole U.S.of A. You might then have some valid opinions.
And I have still haven`t gotten my answer to why a straight male would get so solidly "behind" ( Pun intended) the gay movement. Amazing.
A very close family friend, who just past away (from natural causes), was gay. He was a doctor in charge of a very large New York hospital. The man dedicated his life to pediatrics and saving children from abuse. He wrote numerous books and helped thousands of children. His foundation raised millions of dollars for various causes and he was recently honoured by the City of New York for his life's work.
He saved my grandfather's life on two separate occasions and saved my father's life on another.
To an ignoramus like you he was just a studmuffin though.
Originally posted by Vudak
Jackal, I have responded to your question of why I am so solidly for gay marriage. Page 3.
"I do have a few gay friends though and they're good guys (and one girl), and good people. I feel bad for them and sympathize with their plight. Also they are a minority. If people like me don't step up for them then their votes are always going to be in the minority. Even with people like me, they still are, but perhaps not forever."
Oh and Jackal - If you have the means, definately travel the world, Sir! Such a culture shock, it's fun
Originally posted by Curval
A very close family friend, who just past away (from natural causes), was gay
He wrote numerous books and helped thousands of children.
To an ignoramus like you he was just a studmuffin though.
Originally posted by Jackal1
:D Yea, I read it.....and it didn`t answer the question. As a matter of fact it pretty well sums up the asking of the question. Poor little twinkle toes are a minority. You betcha sweet bippy they are a minority in society. So are pedophiles and mass murderers also. You feel sorry for them based on that fact too?
They choose to live a life that disgraces themselves. They will get no sympathy from me. More importantly , they will get no "friendship". That is what raises the question that has yet to be answered.
You don't see anything ironic in your question given your reasoning for why interracial marriage doesn't have any similarity/or can't be an argument to/for the current struggle?
Originally posted by Elfie
I can see how others could see the irony in that.
Interracial marriages didnt change the basic definition of marriage in either the secular or religious views. (Which is, 1 man, 1 woman) Thats why I think interracial marriages being allowed/banned cant be an arguement here. (Just in case I wasnt clear on that before. :D )
Originally posted by straffo
Nope, you reject it becasue it doesn't match your view , no logic involved.
btw who is this guy called god you're speaking about ?
I never heard of him.
Originally posted by Vudak
Pedophiles, well, I feel sorry that they're missing out on the full grown thing, but other than that, nope, don't feel sorry for them either.
You don't see anything ironic in your question given your reasoning for why interracial marriage doesn't have any similarity/or can't be an argument to/for the current struggle?
If I'm still not answering your question, yer gonna have to rephrase,
Originally posted by Jackal1
"The current struggle"...............:rofl ...........Wheeew buddy! Now that is rich. LMAO
Gay is not a race. It is irrelevant. The race card cannot be played here.
Maybe , with that kind of logic, gays would be better off to first try to get a "special" law passed declaring them a "special" race.
Originally posted by Vudak
What'd you prefer we call it?
And no, gay is not a race, and no one is saying that. The comparison is being made to the... ah, how many pages in? How many times has it been said? You still claim not to get it?
But don't worry Jackal, a few years from now once I've earned my classroom, I'll fill your kids/grandkids/nephews/whatever
Originally posted by Jackal1
And that`s where you would be wrong in assuming that. Have fun in the public school circus though trying to teach your own agenda.
Originally posted by Vudak
Who said I'm settling for high school? ;)
B]
Originally posted by Seagoon
In fact, if gay marriage is legalized, it is very possible that churches that refuse to marry persons of the same sex will have their civil authority stripped so that a marriage performed by an evangelical pastor would not be considered legally binding.
You know Lazs, if civil gay marriage become a reality, you won't be forced to go to gay weddings, wipe a tear, get drunk and dance on country music all night long... So where's YOUR problem?
Jackal1, has a civil wedding the same value to you than a church weeding?
...sigh, once again:
Perverts? Yes...to your eyes mostly as homosexuality isn't forbidden by law as child molestation is. Btw, gay marriage is between two consenting adults. The molested child is not consenting (even if he says that he is, his young age voids this affirmation) and is a victim.
Originally posted by Elfie
I have already stated that no one can define the sexes in the way that you want them defined. It just isnt possible because even the world's leading scientists havent broken the DNA code for humans (or any other species for that matter) completely. In fact, that work is still in it's beginning stages with the majority of our DNA code still being unknown.
As far as what the Bible has to say on the sexes:
Gen 1:27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.
Originally posted by Jackal1
This story starts off very familiar. :)
There was a gentleman in the news pretty heavily the last portion of 2005. He wrote childrens books. He was on death row and executed in December. Tookie.
Nice little story, but just that.
Do a google search on a man named Dr. Vincent J. Fontana.
Then take your sarcasm and your ignorance and please put them where the sun doesn't shine.
Don't compare a great man and a great human being with some crimminal who was executed on death row. This again shows just how ignorant you can be Jackal.
We can pretty well just skip the rest of the drivel in your posts and go with this.
Coming from you, I will take that as a compliment.
I certainly wouldn`t wish to be on the same plane as you.
From your starting comments to Lazs concerning the cool guys driving by in their nifty rides looking down upon a working man as something inferior to yourself and your "click". Pretty well says it all. Do you also have indepth conversations belittling the farmer while you stuff your face with food?
Yups and Libs.......gotta luv em.
Yes, stick your head in the sand and dismiss anything you don't agree with by using a petty snapping match I was having with lazs. Very ninja-like.
[/B]
Originally posted by deSelys
The fact that you qualify homosexuality as a perversion has no value:
there are no laws punishing this sexual practice.
Originally posted by Curval
Do a google search on a man named Dr. Vincent J. Fontana.
Then take your sarcasm and your ignorance and please put them where the sun doesn't shine.
Don't compare a great man and a great human being with some crimminal who was executed on death row.
This again shows just how ignorant you can be Jackal.
Yes, stick your head in the sand and dismiss anything you don't agree with by using a petty snapping match I was having with lazs.
Originally posted by lazs2
Are you saying that they will continue to use protection even tho married?
lazs
Originally posted by Curval
You think yourselfr so enlightened and so "on topic" and yet all you have done is used this thread to highlight your bigotted views.
You won't go and google the man I mentioned. Why is that?
It's sad really because I suspect you have taught your 4 daughters to be just as bigotted as yourself. What a shame.
Originally posted by deSelys
OTOH, you are right: it won't stop at gay marriage!
As soon as this matter is over, I'll promote the sterilization of idiots. You'd better start campaigning against this right now because, contrary to gay marriage, you're directly implied
Originally posted by Jackal1
The entire thought and idea is a charade and a mockery to human rights when using that as a toll free pass.
It`s been asked here a few times..."Why do you care or what business is it of anyone`s what goes on in the privacy of their bedroom, etc?"
If it had been kept in "orivacy" and the "bedroom" there probably wouldn`t be much of a problem in society. The fact is, it has been brought out of the bedroom and privacy and made very public. Now it is being asked for it to be viewed as a human rights issue. It certainly is not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. There are laws that allow them to accomplish what they are saying they want. It`s a charade and a farce. A mockery.
Saying that by making gay marriage legal wouldn`t open the door to more mockeries and charades is a bit more than naive.
If it is based on and is looked upon as a human rights isuue, you open the door to almost anything. What`s next? Leagalization of child molestation, murder, the right to marry your milk cow? Should bank robbery be legalized? Without legalizing it we are standing in the way of the bank robbers pursuit of happiness and fullfilment. Sound far fetched. A very few years ago if you had made the suggestion or made reference to "gay marriage" you would have been the life of the party because you would have been laughed under the table.
There is some real sickos out there in the world that will take the naive and use them to promote their cause.
Getting a wedding ring on a squirrel would be a real trick. Might be next.
Originally posted by Jackal1
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Originally posted by Elfie
I have already stated that no one can define the sexes in the way that you want them defined.
The fact that you qualify homosexuality as a perversion has no value: there are no laws punishing this sexual practice.
Male and Female are just words..... They cannot be defined... The U.K., for instance, tried to do it with genetics for awhile(XX/XY), then it was proven that this doesn't work ethier.
big·ot (bĭg'ət) pronunciation
Funny what puts fear into mutant freak rednecks.
Originally posted by lazs2
I still see no problem with allowing them to have their own form of marriage.
Originally posted by Vudak
Yanno, if you could just type out explanations like these without getting into your superiority rants (see a few posts above for a few prime examples of your "class"), people might actually take you seriously.
Now, if you could actually read our posts without just thinking of ways to make "us" look stupid, you might realize just about all of your questions have already been answered.
Originally posted by Elfie
Then why did you demand they be defined in a genetic way? I said it couldnt be defined genetically, now you say it cant be defined genetically.
A biological definition would be as simple as: male has a noodle, testicles and apple between his legs and a female has a vagina between her legs, ovaries and uterus inside of her. Definitions of male/female may or may not ever be able to be defined genetically, but they will always be able to be defined biologically.
---------------------------------------------------
Bigot? Hardly. I have argued my postition and done my best to remain respectful to other posters.
Originally posted by lazs2
I still see no problem with allowing them to have their own form of marriage.
Originally posted by Curval
"You can bet my main concern is making some here look stupid."
LOL!
You accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of being a liberal pansy who totally condone and supports a gay lifestyle.
You question me about my support of this issue, hinting that maybe I have gay tendancies etc.
Then, when I give you an honest answer you point-blank refuse to even check out why I feel strongly about the issue because...it is off topic.
Oh yes...you've done a great job of showing how stupid everyone else is.
Originally posted by Vudak
Say half that stuff in any good-sized workplaces and kiss your butt good bye.
No one's asking you to be over the top PC here. "Gay" or even "Queer" would do just fine.
Just things called common curtesy & respect Jackal.
Originally posted by Jackal1
That went over your head I see. I`ll hang thetag on it next time for the challenged. :)
Yes please. I doubt you will though...just like in the past when you make clanging geography mistakes and then when it is pointed out you turn around and say "I knew that, I was just being sarcastic". RRRiiiight.
So......you are now trying to say that you do not condone and support the gay lifestyle? Is that it? If it is you are sure going about it in the wrong way because so far you have been a candidate for the poster child of gay lifestyle. You do. you don`t, you do, you don`t. Corky Romano perhaps? :)
If by not referring to gays as non-humans, or by thinking they aren't freaks mutants and perverts who do in fact deserve to live on ths planet this means I totally condone and support the gay lifestyle, then fine. By your definition I suppose I do.
Once again.....I am not interested in the least about your gay "family friend". Deal with it.
Yes, I realise that you bury your head in the sand and refuse to admit that some gay people have done more for humanity that many straight people. That would make them human. This is unacceptable to you, so you act like a child, stick your fingers in your ears and say "Lalalalalalaa I can't hear you." I hope one day you need help from a gay person and they find out your views and refuse to help you. That would be poetic justice.
"Everyone" does not enter the picture. Don`t try to hide behind someone else when you swing your purse please. :)
So, it's ME you are trying to look stupid? But I thought you were being sarcastic? Or are you being sarcastic again?
I`ll lay it out simple for you one more time. I am against any"special" laws being passed for gay marriage or anything else so totaly ridiculous or anything that laws that support/promote something so totaly disgusting and sickening. Lke I said earlier, you can whitewash it and cover it in roses. The stench still comes through like a steaming pile of horse crap. Ridiculous and pathetic.
If you are expecting me to use terminology that shows respect for something I hold in great disdain and find disgusting................... well......you have a long wait.
You are a lost cause...I can see that. Again, it is my sincere hope that some event happens in your life which forces you to accept that gay people are not just disgusting non-humans. I hope your views turn around and bite you on the rear end...so to speak. Fact is, it is more than likely that a gay person, doctor, dentist, lawyer, whatever, have already helped you out and you never knew it. Unfortunately they probably didn't know your views.
Originally posted by lazs2
I wonder how the gays who were "regestered relationships" would feel about letting in the pedophiles and incest groups and polygamists?
Originally posted by Curval
If by not referring to gays as non-humans, or by thinking they aren't freaks mutants and perverts who do in fact deserve to live on ths planet this means I totally condone and support the gay lifestyle, then fine. By your definition I suppose I do.
So, it's ME you are trying to look stupid?
You are a lost cause...I can see that.
Fact is, it is more than likely that a gay person, doctor, dentist, lawyer, whatever, have already helped you out and you never knew it.
Unfortunately they probably didn't know your views.
I hope your views turn around and bite you on the rear end...so to speak.
Originally posted by BluKitty
What about people that don't fall into such defenitions?
Where do you draw the line, Where does one person get an 'exception' and another doesn't?
Originally posted by BluKitty
....and your a 'Father'?
I shudder to think that your teaching your kids to 'debate' and 'think' in such a way. It's really not good for their brains. People that can't argure logicaly don't do too well in school.
And intresting quote from San Antonio..... I wonder what you know about SA and Texas....
You can't define Male or Female except in your twisted and perverted brain. Lets see you try.... I've asked many times.
Originally posted by Jackal1
Why`s the sky blue? Where does rain come from?. What color is clear? Give it a rest.
Originally posted by lazs2
In the U.S. why do gays want to be married... perhaps that is how we should approch the discussion. What are the reasons..
I will start... Is it community property?
Is it health benifiets?
lazs
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.
However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.
On the surface of water, molecules continuously travel between the gaseous and liquid form. When there is enough energy for the water to give up more vapor than it absorbs, the vapor which is now warm, rises into the atmosphere until it is cooled by the surrounding air.
When enough water vapor is concentrated in a given volume of air, the vapor comes out of solution with the air and forms tiny droplets. These are seen as clouds.
When the aerodynamic forces are too small to keep the droplets in suspension, the droplets begin to fall.
This is where rain comes from.
As color is a wavelength of light, the color we see on objects is actually the reflected lightwaves from that object. A reflection from the surface of a completely clear object would be all the spectrum of the light source.
Hope this helps.
Originally posted by pole dancing sheep 'tard guy
I just want to know why Hermaphrodites perfectly matches your avatar color?
Originally posted by Debonair
hermaphrodite happinstance?
chicks-with-d**ks chance?
gynadromorph good luck?
Originally posted by Debonair
Its seven pages & still nobody know what to do about
Hermaphrodites
Originally posted by lazs2
curval.... if it is community property then there is no need to marry.... any contract would work and "regestered relationship" could have that as part of it.
most health benifiets today are a package... you get so much... you can spend it or not. it is usually some portion or all of what it would cost to insure a "family"... if you are single you get the balance to in cash or 451's say... that is something everyone should be pushing for in a health plan... not some kind of gay marriage... gay marriage only helps gays with this.
children? why would it make it easier for them to adopt than say a "regestered relationship"? I would not want them to adopt in any case but.... If that is their agenda it seems weak.... regestered relationship would mean the same thing for all legal contracts.
Sooo... I don't think any of those reasons are valid or, if nothing else... worth destroying a current institution or marginalizing it.
Some say that incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because.... well... there aren't that many of em? what is the numbers cut off for human rights? There are enough gays (or are there?) who want to get married so... they made the cutoff point and their rights are worthwhile? incest, polygamy and all the other various forbidden groups don't have enough numbers?
Is there some other point to this that I am not being told about? What is wrong with finlands solution?
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2Is that really the best argument you can make? Do you honestly believe that the female getting the child usually is right?
for instance... in a normal marriage... if it breaks up it is allmost a given that the female get's the child.... How would you resolve custody where there is no female or.... two or more of em?
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
well.... why should hermos be left out?
lazs
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... sorry for not being clear. Say everyone gets $800 a month to spend on their health benifiets package... that is the amount that it would reasonably cost to insure an entire family.
If you don't use that money because you are single or have other insurance (many do) then you can put that money in a retirement plan. it does not matter if you are married or not.
It doesn't matter what is involved with finlands "regestered relationship" to me. it only matters that people who should be excluded from heterosexual marriage have their own program. What they do with it is up to them.
The adoption issue has nothing to do with it. the regestered relationship would be a contract that would make a gay couple.... if gay couples could adopt through conventional marriage then it would be no more or less difficult through "regestered relationship" A relationship by any other name.... with community propety and such it would be the same so far as adoption agencies go but... Other factors would make a gay marriage or "relationship" so different that adoption would still be far more complex even if it were allowed...
for instance... in a normal marriage... if it breaks up it is allmost a given that the female get's the child.... How would you resolve custody where there is no female or.... two or more of em?
So really... what else is there? what is the point to it? what do they really want?
lazs