PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage



Pages : [1] 2

Hulud
04-05-2005, 08:28 AM
Cmon lets hear it i want your take on it...

carrascopa
04-05-2005, 08:39 AM
kill em all

00CIVICSI
04-05-2005, 08:45 AM
kill em all :goodjob:

4dmin
04-05-2005, 10:30 AM
w/ divorce rate over 50% who fucking cares... trying to preserve marriage went out the window back in the 60's.... its amazing the people fighting over this topic... what the hell does the goverment have to do w/ who you should marry? they shouldn't have any rights in this topic... you should be able to marry a sheep if thats what you want. fucking gonzo had camilla(muppet babies); lol. maybe people should worry more important issues like SS, Medicare, Gas prices, War, education, enviroment, etc...

silver
04-05-2005, 10:47 AM
If I were a lesbian full time and she was the hottest girl ever... yeah then gay marriage rocks.... but since I am not and I see no hot girls... I could care less...

Jaimecbr900
04-05-2005, 01:34 PM
We have heatedly discussed this topic at length. It is pretty much black and white for both sides. No real gray area here.

Everybody knows I don't personally agree with it for many reasons.

Hulud
04-05-2005, 02:14 PM
w/ divorce rate over 50% who fucking cares... trying to preserve marriage went out the window back in the 60's.... its amazing the people fighting over this topic... what the hell does the goverment have to do w/ who you should marry? they shouldn't have any rights in this topic... you should be able to marry a sheep if thats what you want. fucking gonzo had camilla(muppet babies); lol. maybe people should worry more important issues like SS, Medicare, Gas prices, War, education, enviroment, etc...
i agree with you

Hulud
04-05-2005, 02:15 PM
the gov't should not be able to say who you can and cannot be married to

civic95
04-05-2005, 03:22 PM
I don't really care, but most religous people do. There is still a percentage of people that want to preserve whats left of the image of marriage.

My take is if 2 lesbians live together for 30 yrs, one dies, they should be entitled to the others life insurance, house, 401K, etc just like a married couple since they have been together for so long.

Mr.Big
04-05-2005, 04:46 PM
Being gay is wrong peroid

quickdodge®
04-05-2005, 05:35 PM
^^^ Opinions are like assholes......... Later, QD.

babygurl
04-05-2005, 05:44 PM
like the old saying goes you cant help who you love...so if a guy wants to marry another guy then go for it...same with females if you want to marry a female...then so be it like paul said WHO FUCKING CARES

Trey
04-05-2005, 10:10 PM
Being gay is wrong peroid


That's an OPINION...not a fact.

You need to get out more........

Hulud
04-05-2005, 10:18 PM
That's an OPINION...not a fact.

You need to get out more........
true

SLOWR/T
04-06-2005, 12:17 AM
if thats what they want thats between them and the man above.

Mr.Big
04-06-2005, 12:51 AM
That's an OPINION...not a fact.

You need to get out more........

Naw man it aint no opinion its a fact. Well im not trying to bring chunch in 2 this but... Its a sen to be gay right??? 2 men together aint right. God made male and female Not!!! male male or female female. So u telling me that being gay is right???

SLOWR/T
04-06-2005, 01:04 AM
Quote "Naw man it aint no opinion its a fact. Well im not trying to bring chunch in 2 this but... Its a sen to be gay right??? 2 men together aint right. God made male and female Not!!! male male or female female. So u telling me that being gay is right???"

man i so agree with you but with the way the world is nowadays it just crazy. like i said ill let the man above deal with em!!

Dragonfly5338
04-06-2005, 01:39 AM
I think God is more concerned with bigger things than who you want to marry. And we as a country should be, too. When did it turn okay for the gov't to control our love lives?

Mr.Big
04-06-2005, 01:50 AM
I think God is more concerned with bigger things than who you want to marry. And we as a country should be, too. When did it turn okay for the gov't to control our love lives?

True But God has rules and if people do not follow them u will have to deal with him later on anyway

SLOWR/T
04-06-2005, 02:19 AM
Quote "I think God is more concerned with bigger things than who you want to marry. And we as a country should be, too. When did it turn okay for the gov't to control our love lives?"

ummmm.... bigger??? i think fucking up his plan for man is pretty big. i think if we were asked to vote for it (as a country) than its pretty big also. im not trying to be an ass about it, but if you want to marry a man and your a man its your life you can fuck it up i dont care.

FrnkPwrs
04-06-2005, 07:30 AM
My take is if 2 lesbians live together for 30 yrs, one dies, they should be entitled to the others life insurance, house, 401K, etc just like a married couple since they have been together for so long.


EXACTLY! Nobody sees anything wrong with denying someone something because of who they love? I mean, it is their BELIEF that what they are doing is right. Is there a victim in this "crime"? Politicians are saying its a moral issue. Politicians?The same politicians who receive under the table deals, are caught in hotel rooms smoking crack with hookers, the same who get drunk driving charges while in office?

I can care less about what goes on in the bedroom of other people. But I dont buy "protecting the sancaty of marriage" by saying gay people cant marry. LOL, if this country was so "religous", then why are there states that still sell alcohol on sunday? Why dont we outlaw premarital sex? Divorce as well! Anal and oral sex has gotta go! I mean, I dont agree with any of that, but doesnt that all look like a spit in the face of what a good marriage looks like?

Government has no place in the bedroom, the private lives as others as well. Hell, there are people who can argue that there is something wrong with interracial dating! And guess what? It can be legitimized by the bible! Ive learned a lot in my life about how people can use the bible to legitimize anything. People blow up abortion clinics and gay nightclubs claiming that its gods work. And its funny how people become all for religion when it talks about gay marriage, but are the same people you see commiting other sins. We all sin, but how is one sin better or worse than the other???? I mean, if you eat catfish, that is a sin! Pork, sin. You smoke, sinnin! If you ever dropped a "GD", sin. And guess what? Every gay/lesbian couple isnt based on a christianity! Some people are atheist! So therefore its not in violation of their religion, so they are being restricted by others?

Just a little food for thought...

4dmin
04-06-2005, 08:44 AM
People blow up abortion clinics and gay nightclubs claiming that its gods work. And its funny how people become all for religion when it talks about gay marriage, but are the same people you see commiting other sins. We all sin, but how is one sin better or worse than the other???? I mean, if you eat catfish, that is a sin! Pork, sin. You smoke, sinnin! If you ever dropped a "GD", sin. And guess what? Every gay/lesbian couple isnt based on a christianity! Some people are atheist! So therefore its not in violation of their religion, so they are being restricted by others?
^ well put... it is amazing people like to use christianity to fit their own means... yet, they commit sins if not worse ones themselves. I find it amazing we have a president who can so easily stand up and say he is on the side of "life over death" in any case yet he comes from the state w/ the most executions every year ;)

Jaimecbr900
04-06-2005, 11:09 AM
What some of you are failing to see is that there has to be boundaries to everything.

If there is no "definition" of "legal" marriage, then why wouldn't somebody suddenly want to "marry" their sibling or a goat or a monkey? And then in turn, the gov't be FORCED to send that sibling, goat, or monkey a CHECK from mine and yours tax dollars when the idiot kills over dead. What about polygamy? It is illegal here in the states, although in some religions it is acceptable. What's wrong with that then? What about a 50yr old man wanting to marry a 12 yr old girl? It's against the law now, but according to some of yall's definition of marriage it COULD and SHOULD be allowed. What about a couple that only LIVES together but want "spousal" benefits? How are you gonna limit that? Couldn't EVERYBODY "say" they're "married" in order to get benefits they are otherwise NOT entitled to? What would that do to the costs of all of us that ARE in fact legally married when we go apply for the same benefits? Where do you think the additional costs are gonna be passed on to?

Again, it all boils down to limits. This was never an issue before because it was understood that marriage was legal only between opposite sexes.

BTW, the majority of the arguments stem from MONEY. Benefits this and money that. Do yall realize that anyone can bequeath anything they want to whomever they want NOW? Tax burden aside, IF the big argument is leaving money to a "significant other" IS in fact that big a deal.....why not bequeath it to them then? If you can leave money to your dog, you can leave money to your gay lover too. What's the beef?

Yall are right about one thing though. This should not be just a religious issue. I have not once mentioned religion above, yet gave 50 different reasons why there HAS to be legal definition of marriage. Not one of those arguments had to do with religion or beliefs.

FrnkPwrs
04-06-2005, 11:50 AM
Couldn't EVERYBODY "say" they're "married" in order to get benefits they are otherwise NOT entitled to? What would that do to the costs of all of us that ARE in fact legally married when we go apply for the same benefits? Where do you think the additional costs are gonna be passed on to?
So straight people are incapable of doing this too? Has anyone ever looked at the divorce rate for Gay and Lesbian relationships? Im looking for it online, but I remember it being EXTREMELY low. Like less than 8%. Compare that to the percentage of straight divorces.

Hey, maybe sex with a goat wouldnt end up in divorce, but a goat cant do things like give sexual consent, so that may be one of many reasons its illegal. A 12 year old girl isnt seen as capable of making a decision such as marriage, that is why it requires the consent of her guardian [and hey, it happens].

Polygamy. Yea, some religions find it ok. One is Islam. You can have as many as 4 wives. Some see a problem with that. I dont. Because people leave out the part that says that you must treat each as equals, and you cant even think of doing it unless you are financially and emotionally capable. Its not seen as "Oh, I get to sleep around with different women". Plus its not as common as many think as well. I think thats the problem, with this issue and gay marriage. People cant focus past the gay sex, and sex with multiple woman. There is more to a relationship than kissing and having sex.



BTW, the majority of the arguments stem from MONEY. Benefits this and money that. Do yall realize that anyone can bequeath anything they want to whomever they want NOW? Tax burden aside, IF the big argument is leaving money to a "significant other" IS in fact that big a deal.....why not bequeath it to them then? If you can leave money to your dog, you can leave money to your gay lover too. What's the beef?


But at the same time, why shouldnt two women or men share the same benefit as a man and a woman? Because of their sexual preference? I mean, why not have a man and woman do the same? Then there are some who actually get married for love, and to show commitment to the person they are with, the exact same way a straight couple would. Nobody see anything wrong with denying people the same privelages as others because they are gay? Thats what it boils down to. IF you are gay, you cant do X. Set limits, I agree, but in a different light. Because if we dont set a limit on this soon, soon it will be if you are X you cant do B. I think the convo has had a money focus because we are talking government. The government isnt really known to operate based on emotion, and its hard to translate that into FACT. I mean, when you get married you fill out paperwork, but it has nowhere requesting information on why you love someone, how you met, how much you love the other, what you plan on doing in case of problems. Its a political issue. I dont think "I love this man!" holds up as valid convo because many people find it hard two people of the same sex loving each other [I know I do].

Hulud
04-06-2005, 12:58 PM
GOD DAMN

4dmin
04-06-2005, 01:01 PM
^ lol

Hulud
04-06-2005, 01:09 PM
there i said it, nothings going to happen to me because there is no god to me

i just dont understand why people live their life in fear of what some book says will happen to you. who wrote it? humans. so who says that they (even if they were talking to "god") wrote down what "it" said. humans are not perfect they will not tell the truth, wouldnt they write down what they wanted? More than what something told them? I think that the bible has great points in it and "jesus" was a great person. No one does as the bible says, which is disheartening.

Also with the governemental side of this, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Opening of the declaration of independence. So why can they say who can and cant be married? Also we are not a religious country, we have no official religion and there is separation of church and state right? So where the hell do they get off thinking "we will use religion as an excuse"?

Dont people love others based on the inside anymore? How can you not see how someone would love another person of the same sex? Do you love someone for how they look FrnkPwrs? Just a thought....

SwiftGTiRacer
04-06-2005, 01:23 PM
My take is if 2 lesbians live together for 30 yrs, one dies, they should be entitled to the others life insurance, house, 401K, etc just like a married couple since they have been together for so long.

I agree ^. But it doesn't always have to be about the money. people get married to show they are commited to each other and proud of who they are with. Its a "special" bond. why can't gay people express the same? Talk about sins, so i guess you've never lied in your life huh? God, or whoever you believe in, doesn't expect everyone to be 100% perfect. Whats the difference in being gay and telling a lie to someone? Is there one sin that is greater than the other?

Swifty

quickdodge®
04-06-2005, 01:58 PM
True But God has rules

Maybe your God does. Not everyone goes for that shit. Later, QD.

Hulud
04-06-2005, 02:26 PM
Maybe your God does. Not everyone goes for that shit. Later, QD.
yup

efman
04-06-2005, 02:26 PM
kill em all
i agree

Dragonfly5338
04-06-2005, 02:36 PM
Maybe your God does. Not everyone goes for that shit. Later, QD.

amen, brotha! preach on! :bowdown:

Hulud
04-06-2005, 02:45 PM
:upchuck: "god"

buddha@TeamFX
04-06-2005, 03:54 PM
i agree

i agree as well...something is wrong upstairs when someone is gay

quickdodge®
04-06-2005, 04:04 PM
^^ Not really. As nasty as you and I may think it is, it doesn't actually mean they have problems. Later, QD.

Dragonfly5338
04-06-2005, 05:40 PM
i agree as well...something is wrong upstairs when someone is gay

Why? Because you say so? Maybe someone who is gay thinks something is wrong with you upstairs because you like women. It's how they are and what they find attractive. So what? Unless you're unsure of what you enjoy in the bedroom, then you shouldn't have a problem with what goes on in others' bedrooms.

Why does anyone care? God loves everyone. It looks to me like you're the only ones judging, not Him.

quickdodge®
04-06-2005, 06:01 PM
Exactly. Gay people don't bother me because I don't let it. I got more worries than to sit around and worry about what benefits gay people get or why they're gay. It's not my problem. It's not their problem. It's their life. Later, QD.

Kevykev
04-06-2005, 06:57 PM
I think God is more concerned with bigger things than who you want to marry.

Interesting statement.


Anyway, here's my take. Being gay is unnatural, that is the simple truth, who can argue that?

I have absolutely nothing against the gay community but i know that if gay marriages are legalized alot of other issues will follow.

There's people that think that murder should be legalized, and the would have a great justifiable argument to support it.

But Legalizing that would cause other problems to arise.

quickdodge®
04-06-2005, 07:12 PM
There's people that think that murder should be legalized, and the would have a great justifiable argument to support it.

I doubt that, seriously. It's kind of obvious that there is no reason for murder to legalized. being gay is a lifestyle that won't harm another person.



But Legalizing that would cause other problems to arise.

I don't see any problems coming out of it. Like I said, it doesn't affect me, I see no reason to worry about it. Let them be them. Later, QD.

Hulud
04-06-2005, 08:26 PM
yea how can you compare murder and being gay?

Bishop
04-06-2005, 09:57 PM
god made adam and eve...not adam and steve

Bishop
04-06-2005, 09:59 PM
but i dont give a shit either way...what ever floats your boat

Hulud
04-06-2005, 10:07 PM
...

Mr.Big
04-06-2005, 10:12 PM
this is for you "god" :2up:

Hey man chill out with that shit

Mr.Big
04-06-2005, 10:12 PM
All i have to say is the world is fuck up

Mr.Big
04-06-2005, 10:14 PM
I doubt that, seriously. It's kind of obvious that there is no reason for murder to legalized. being gay is a lifestyle that won't harm another person.




I don't see any problems coming out of it. Like I said, it doesn't affect me, I see no reason to worry about it. Let them be them. Later, QD.

Gay does harm u AIDS!!!!!

Hulud
04-06-2005, 10:16 PM
Gay does harm u AIDS!!!!!
stop being fuckin ignorant and open your eyes, gays are not the reason there is aids. Damn your ignorant.
And i will not "chill out with that shit"
Freedom of Speech

Kevykev
04-06-2005, 10:39 PM
this is for you "god" :2up:


You lost all potential respect for that one...

How ignorant of you to post that gesture! How can you call Mr. Big ignorant when you are guilty of the same thing???

i'm not comparing murder to being gay (do not take the superficial perspective). There are people that believe in taking justice into there own hands ie: if you kill my brother, i should legally be able to kill you.

QD, it all boils down to opinion, there are people that are harmed by homosexuality not physically but emotionally! They really are affected by it, Bottom Line!

And when i speak of other issues arising, i mean if gay marriages are legalized it will serve as a gateway for other types of legalization. Does it matter? Not really, what ever will happens will happen.

Hulud
04-06-2005, 10:41 PM
how am i being ignorant?
all i said was FU god thats not being ignorant
an asshole..yes but not ignorant

Hulud
04-06-2005, 10:42 PM
i'm not comparing murder to being gay (do not take the superficial perspective). There are people that believe in taking justice into there own hands ie: if you kill my brother, i should legally be able to kill you.
ok well i didnt know what you meant. i thought u meant murder in general.

Hulud
04-06-2005, 10:44 PM
You lost all potential respect for that one...

How ignorant of you to post that gesture! How can you call Mr. Big ignorant when you are guilty of the same thing???

i lost all respect for posting my feelings?
i could say the exact same for everyone on this board but i respect everyone and their beliefs even if they differ from mine. so explain please why i am losing YOUR respect for saying that. Is it because you believe in "god"?

Kevykev
04-06-2005, 10:49 PM
i lost all respect for posting my feelings?
i could say the exact same for everyone on this board but i respect everyone and their beliefs even if they differ from mine. so explain please why i am losing YOUR respect for saying that. Is it because you believe in "god"?

Damn it, I told myself that i would not debate on the Internet :mad:

Anyway your statement is contradictive because you say you have respect everyone's beliefs. However, you say FU to whom they believe in?

And Yes, i believe in God. That's not the only reason why, you're basically denouncing people's religion by sayin FU. Therefore, there is no respect.

See what i'm sayin'?

Hulud
04-06-2005, 10:56 PM
Isnt "god" different to everyone?
what i meant was the "god" that pertains to me. Im sorry if you were offended. But im still not being ignorant. So i lost your respect because i denounce something you believe in? Most people on this thread are bashing gays for no reason yet i dont lose any respect for them. Even the ones who said kill them all, its their opinion respect that.
I dont "believe in gays" so its not the same but still.
YOu believe in god thats good for you what ever helps you sleep at night, but its pretty shitty to lose respect for a person because of how they feel, even if it offends you.

Kevykev
04-06-2005, 11:09 PM
Yep the definition of God varies form left to right.

If you said i don't belive in "god" that's one thing, fine and respectful with me since it's your opinion. But you didn't just say that, i recall seeing a figure next to the word "god" two different things.

Don't worry, I didn't get offended man. i just though i should let you here my thoughts on the issue.

Hulud
04-06-2005, 11:10 PM
ok thats cool i respect that i realise what i said was pretty shitty actually
sorry for that im gonna edit it out

Kevykev
04-06-2005, 11:14 PM
ok thats cool i respect that i realise what i said was pretty shitty actually
sorry for that im gonna edit it out

I'm glad you understand bro.

Hulud Respect History:

-10 for ( :2up: "god" ) gesture
+15 for Removal and understanding.

Now we all can go watch the Lifetime channel! :bigok:

Hulud
04-06-2005, 11:17 PM
lol, YES! :cheers:

Dragonfly5338
04-06-2005, 11:18 PM
[QUOTE=Kevykev]

QD, it all boils down to opinion, there are people that are harmed by homosexuality not physically but emotionally! They really are affected by it, Bottom Line!

QUOTE]

How is anyone harmed emotionally by a person being gay? And why should that be a reason to not let them marry, if you can prove how being gay is detrimental to society.

Kevykev
04-06-2005, 11:26 PM
I really don't feel like proving anything Val, because at the end of the day/night you will continue to have your view and i will continue to have mine.

But i'll leave you with this: Are you harmed emotionally by a 36 year old man having sex with a 14 year old?

If you say "that's disgusting" = Harmed Emotionally *EDIT* Maybe Not Brutally harmed but affected to some degree.

Some people think it's fine beleive it or not. Do you think such acts should be condoned? Some people do.

Now apply that to the topic.


btw add the **[/** to **QOUTE]** to make it official if you feel the need. :)

Jaimecbr900
04-06-2005, 11:42 PM
You lost all potential respect for that one...

How ignorant of you to post that gesture! How can you call Mr. Big ignorant when you are guilty of the same thing???

i'm not comparing murder to being gay (do not take the superficial perspective). There are people that believe in taking justice into there own hands ie: if you kill my brother, i should legally be able to kill you.

QD, it all boils down to opinion, there are people that are harmed by homosexuality not physically but emotionally! They really are affected by it, Bottom Line!

And when i speak of other issues arising, i mean if gay marriages are legalized it will serve as a gateway for other types of legalization. Does it matter? Not really, what ever will happens will happen.


I'm glad someone can see beyond the obvious.

This is exactly what I was saying and have been saying all along. I said it two pages ago. Noone has yet been able to rebut it because simply saying "let them do what they want in their bedroom" is beyond what the argument and reasoning IS. The argument is not about abolishing or trying to convert GAY people. The argument SHOULD be, now that we have such a crazy and possibly even crazier morphizism of what "marriage" is or should be....someone...anyone SHOULD step up and device a way to DEFINE LEGALLY what a "marriage" is and ISN'T. IF in 10 yrs it is deemed that it needs another re-definition, then do it again to reflect what PEOPLE in that timeframe really want.

As Kev was saying and I've been screaming as long as this debate has been around here, it really doesn't have to be argued ONLY on the religious merits alone. The only argument that perpetually comes from the side that WANTS to change things is "Don't tell me what to do in my bedroom". IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. It's about LAWS and LEGAL PRECEDENTS. The arguments started NOT because people were saying NOT to be gay. The argument started because gay people wanted the benefits of hetero marriages. That's it. You can paint it any color you want, but that's the only real issue....BENEFITS. If it was truly about sexual preference, then there is NO argument because no where in any law in any state does it say you CAN'T be gay. So that argument is a farce. It is smoke and mirrors.

Again, noone has shown how you're going to later on you'll close the pandorah's door that this may open. I was a little facetious with my analogy of goats and monkeys, but the point was that there has to be a limit to everything. If not, then you'd have all the coo coo's coming out of the woodwork with far fetched ideas of what or who they COULD and SHOULD be allowed to marry that you'd then have to give the same consideration you are forced to give everyone else. How can you tell them they're ideas of marrying their sister or having 15 wives is NOT going to be allowed? Or are you saying it should be a total anarchy free-for-all view on marriage? Then why even bother getting married at all? Again, who do you think is going to absorb the costs of insuring, paying, and giving benefits that are now reserved to legally married couples that suddenly will be afforded to every tom/dick/and harry? You think insurance companies are just gonna suddenly agree to suddenly add monkeys and goats w/o a LAW saying they have to? Then you start over again because you will then have to debate EVERY single "new" idea of what a marriage SHOULD be.

It's a never ending cycle otherwise. Don't yall see that? And none of that has anything to do with religion.

Jaimecbr900
04-06-2005, 11:52 PM
But i'll leave you with this: Are you harmed emotionally by a 36 year old man having sex with a 14 year old?

If you say "that's disgusting" = Harmed Emotionally *EDIT* Maybe Not Brutally harmed but affected to some degree.

Some people think it's fine beleive it or not. Do you think such acts should be condoned? Some people do.

Now apply that to the topic.




That's the "pandorah's box" I was referring to.

Kevykev
04-06-2005, 11:57 PM
Completely agree Jaime!

One thing ALWAYS leads to another.





P.S great discussion, time to go cuddle with the cutie :D

Jaimecbr900
04-07-2005, 12:09 AM
Werd!!! Til tomm when the others wake up and start calling me crazy..... ;)

Mr.Big
04-07-2005, 01:32 AM
stop being fuckin ignorant and open your eyes, gays are not the reason there is aids. Damn your ignorant.
And i will not "chill out with that shit"
Freedom of Speech

See people like u get me in trouble!!! U better hope i never see u. Calling me ignorant??? watch urself

RandomGuy
04-07-2005, 02:19 AM
I respect all of your opinions, but in my opinion I think that homosexuality is some type of social/mental disorder. I have no problem w/ gays in general... but they are just "fakes" or trying to mutilate nature to be different. There is NO GAY CHROMOSOME Homosexuality isnt hereditary, its a learned behavior, or disorder I guess kids these days want to rebel and convert?
Lets use the Nissan Skyline as an example. Its a great car, yeah... but to legally have one from motorex nice and pimped out used to be 100k+. You could easily get a better performing car for much lower domestically. What makes the Skyline so much more appealing? You always want what you cant or shouldn't have. Why did people get them? The most appealing things are those that you cant acquire. I think by legalizing gay marriage, it would reduce the gay population in a couple of generations: not that they're harming us in any way. Just for the good of the people, facing the psychological disease.

Personal Experience: I know these are just a select few incidents , but they stuck with me. The few gay people I run into like to let you know they are gay through their actions. They are changing their own natural behaviors to pretend to be something they're not. Now how can you justify that?
In conclusion, I believe homosexuality is 100% learned behavior, more of a social disorder than anything. Gay marriage should be legalized so the ones who are gay right now can live in peace, but to stop the spread of the "Gay disease" in future generations

Just an opinion... no offense

quickdodge®
04-07-2005, 04:21 AM
Ok. I still think that homosexuality is what you make it. If you let it bother you, then it will. If you go on about your life and not worry about it, then there's no harm to you. Emotionally, there is no harm. Just because I think it may be disgusting is not harming me emotionally.

That's all I'm saying, still. Let them do them. You do you, Kevy Kev. And you do your cutie, lolol. Later, QD.

Kevykev
04-07-2005, 10:07 AM
Emotionally, there is no harm. Just because I think it may be disgusting is not harming me emotionally.


It better not harm you emotionally.

*Shavio's case harmed (hurt) lots of people emotionally.


*just used it as an example not even remotely trying to bring that discussion back.

Hulud
04-07-2005, 11:39 AM
Gay does harm u AIDS!!!!!
that comment is so ignorant. Thats why i said you were being ignorant.
If you dont like it then dont say ignorant comments.
AIDS did not develop because of gays. It developed from a monkey, now tell me why gays harm you again?

Mr.Big
04-07-2005, 03:55 PM
that comment is so ignorant. Thats why i said you were being ignorant.
If you dont like it then dont say ignorant comments.
AIDS did not develop because of gays. It developed from a monkey, now tell me why gays harm you again?

I am going to tell u this Gay man do start Aids!!! Just read it
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=34325

1978: Gays in the United States and Sweden start to show the first signs of a disease that will later be called AIDS
This too http://www.advocate.com/news_detail.asp?id=15339

blacknightteg
04-07-2005, 04:02 PM
ok, here's my opinion on this shit, if your gay your gay, you cant help it, you were BORN that way, im sorry but thats wat i think, i mean yeah you can maybe choose to be gay, but i highly doubt anyone actually has done that, your born with it like that, its a fucked up gene in your DNA in my opinion, but neways, i mean if you wana get married and you are gay, there is nothing wrong with that, its two people that love each other, whehter your gay or straight, as long as you love the 2 people love each other then there should be no right or wrong in the situation.....and i doubt being gay is a sin, because if there born with it, then that means there automatically doomed to hell when they are born

Mr.Big
04-07-2005, 04:16 PM
that comment is so ignorant. Thats why i said you were being ignorant.
If you dont like it then dont say ignorant comments.
AIDS did not develop because of gays. It developed from a monkey, now tell me why gays harm you again?
No u do not say some bull shit like (fuck god) No fuck u. Thats still my God

quickdodge®
04-07-2005, 04:37 PM
No fuck u.

Would your God want you to represent him that way?

And about the links in your other post. Read the QUOTE in my signature. Later, QD.

Mr.Big
04-07-2005, 04:48 PM
Would your God want you to represent him that way?

And about the links in your other post. Read the QUOTE in my signature. Later, QD.

Just getting fuckin mad on this forum. God has bless me alot and some person saying fuck god What the hell!!!! And im trying to be cool about it.

Hulud
04-07-2005, 10:08 PM
o so its ok because god will forgive you? is that what your saying?

Hulud
04-07-2005, 10:10 PM
sin some more...

anyways http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/ check that if you want to through in internet sources... Gay men in the US and Sweden -- and heterosexuals in Tanzania and Haiti -- begin showing signs of what will later be called AIDS.

Jaimecbr900
04-08-2005, 09:08 PM
ok, here's my opinion on this shit, if your gay your gay, you cant help it, you were BORN that way, im sorry but thats wat i think, i mean yeah you can maybe choose to be gay, but i highly doubt anyone actually has done that, your born with it like that, its a fucked up gene in your DNA in my opinion, but neways

You're contradicting yourself. You can't be "born" and ALSO have a "choice" to "be" anything. Sorry. You are either one or the other, but not both.


.and i doubt being gay is a sin, because if there born with it, then that means there automatically doomed to hell when they are born

I've tried very hard to maintain this side of the argument W/O using religion, but for some reason everyone wants to sway that way. So I'll bite.

You are absolutely, 100000% WRONG. Read the Bible. ANY Bible. It clearly says it IS a SIN to be a homosexual. If the site had not gone down, you could go easily search and find the numerous quotes from the bible I've quoted to prove this point. I'm not going to again because I don't think when you are discussing this issue we should only have the "religion" platform.

If religion was the only platform, the liberal side of this equation would've NEVER had a leg to stand to begin with because there is no religion on the face of the earth that ENDORSES homosexuality. In other words, if religion was the ONLY litmus test for this debate the homosexual side would fail the test everytime because it would have nothing to argue back with.

Jaimecbr900
04-08-2005, 09:12 PM
I respect all of your opinions, but in my opinion I think that homosexuality is some type of social/mental disorder. I have no problem w/ gays in general... but they are just "fakes" or trying to mutilate nature to be different. There is NO GAY CHROMOSOME Homosexuality isnt hereditary, its a learned behavior, or disorder I guess kids these days want to rebel and convert?




I agree to big extent with your statement. I believe you are the first to put that on the table.

Hulud
04-09-2005, 12:37 AM
i dont see how people can use religion as a basis for any argument because it will get both peopel no where. you can't prove or disprove religion

RandomGuy
04-09-2005, 02:43 AM
1 more thing i want to add to the mix....
This is real life info... not textbook. I know in the books there isn't any link with AIDs and homosexuality. da da da.... etc
My cousin is doing his residency all around GA right now. He was working in some hospital in GA working with infectious diseases or something. I kid you not he told me word for word...over 90% of the AIDs patients there were male homosexual african-americans. There may be some link? Maybe the demographic region? He later on said that most of the AIDs patients he worked with throughout the nation had some link to homosexuality. This is by NO means an alternative to scientific research ... but it sure raises eyebrows. There may be a link? So that one dude's statement... although grammatically retarded... may even possibly be true.

quickdodge®
04-09-2005, 08:34 AM
I honestly can't say whether or not being gay is a choice or something you are born with.I can't state, as fact, something that I don't know myself. I do NOT think that there is a mental disorder in your "choice." I don't have anything to do with the bible, but if I remember correctly, aren't we all born into sin in the first place? Later, QD.

Jaimecbr900
04-09-2005, 08:53 AM
i dont see how people can use religion as a basis for any argument because it will get both peopel no where. you can't prove or disprove religion

Well, ironically enough I do agree with you to an extent although you can technically "prove" religion because the definition is a BELIEF in something greater than themselves. There are a bizillion people that fit that definition to a tee, so religion COULD technically be proven. But I do get your jist, I think you meant to say something else. Faith is a little more harder to prove because it's not as tangible.

Be that as it may, you are correct in the message. This argument could never be argued on religious merit alone for the reason I stated earlier. It's VERY black and white in EVERY religion what they unanimously believe in regards to homosexuality. So it'd be no argument to make, no way to rebutt it.

Jaimecbr900
04-09-2005, 09:01 AM
I don't have anything to do with the bible, but if I remember correctly, aren't we all born into sin in the first place? Later, QD.

I usually can follow where you're going with a point, but you lost me on this one bud.

Yes, we are all born sinners. No sin is greater than the other. People that sin CAN marry. But again, if the sin angle is brought up, then you have to admit there is a religious reason to marriage and therefore again open the dead end argument in this topic.

I was trying to stay steer away from the religion issue because noone can rebutt it. There's no way.

What about all the other issues Kev and I and now Random brought up? You know what I mean?

quickdodge®
04-09-2005, 09:05 AM
I usually can follow where you're going with a point, but you lost me on this one bud.


I was just responding to blacknightteg's posting about being gay is a sin, and if you are born gay......you know? That's all. Later, QD.

blacknightteg
04-09-2005, 09:09 AM
i dont think i was contridicting myself, i was stating that whether you be born with it or some how choose to be gay, which i doubt very many people would ever do, i honestly dont think its a sin, whether it be supposedly quoted in the bible, or not even tho alot of the stuff said in the bible can be taken so many different ways...i for one dont think its a sin, and QD had a point, as soon as we are born, we are born with sin in us, now im catholic, and you might be something else, our view points maybe different and thats understandable but i still honestly dont think that its something anyone can help, and it is agains gods will, thats pretty f'ed up that he would make it to where someone was born with the intention of going to hell just because someone like the same sex

quickdodge®
04-09-2005, 09:10 AM
What about all the other issues Kev and I and now Random brought up? You know what I mean?


As I stated in my previous post, I can't comment too much because I don't know. I don't know if you can be born gay or if you choose for it. Like I said, earlier, I do NOT think that you are necessarily "fucked in the head" if you do choose to be gay. It's just like some men love BIG girls, some love small girls, some love U_G_L_Y girls, some love beautiful ones. Basically, I don't see that the person has issues. Later, QD.

blacknightteg
04-09-2005, 09:13 AM
As I stated in my previous post, I can't comment too much because I don't know. I don't know if you can be born gay or if you choose for it. Like I said, earlier, I do NOT think that you are necessarily "fucked in the head" if you do choose to be gay. It's just like some men love BIG girls, some love small girls, some love U_G_L_Y girls, some love beautiful ones. Basically, I don't see that the person has issues. Later, QD.

its just their preference on what they like, i wouldnt condone someone for liking something the way that they do, you have to be really evil to do that

Kevykev
04-09-2005, 10:05 AM
you guys still goin' i see :)

Dragonfly5338
04-09-2005, 05:05 PM
FYI - Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - aka, the psychologist's bible) permanently in 1973. In the current publication (DSM IV-TR) the only sexual disorders are as follows:

Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders:
Sexual Desire Disorders: Aversion | Hypoactive
Sexual Arousal Disorders: Female Sexual Arousal Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder
Orgasmic Disorders: Female | Male | Premature Ejaculation
Sexual Pain Disorders: Dyspareunia | Vaginismus
Sexual Dysfunction Due to a General Medical Condition: Female Dyspareunia | Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder | Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Dyspareunia | Other Female Sexual Dysfunction | Other Male Sexual Dysfunction | Substance-Induced Sexual Dysfunction
Sexual Dysfunction NOS (302.70)
Paraphilias: Exhibitionism | Fetishism | Frotteurism | Pedophilia | Masochism | Sadism | Transvestic Fetishism | Voyeurism | Paraphilia NOS (302.9)
Gender Identity Disorder: Children | Adolescents or Adults | Gender Identity Disorder NOS (302.6)
Sexual Disorder NOS (302.9)

So nice try for those who think it's a clinical disorder. I'm sure you have a much better grasp of the human mind versus the worlds' top psychologists. If you don't believe me, I have a copy. I'll read to you if you want me to. ;)

Hulud
04-09-2005, 05:17 PM
its just their preference on what they like, i wouldnt condone someone for liking something the way that they do, you have to be really evil to do that
im confused on what you meant. do you mean that gay people are evil?

Kevykev
04-09-2005, 05:21 PM
I think he meant Condemn not condone as he typed.

To Condemn = Evil

Hulud
04-09-2005, 05:24 PM
o ok that makes sense. lol. wow one word can really change the meaning of a sentence

Kevykev
04-09-2005, 05:27 PM
always man, always.

Jaimecbr900
04-11-2005, 04:04 PM
I follow you now QD. Thanks.

Now, why is it that we are still talking about "sins" and lack thereof? This should NOT be a debate about RELIGION folks. Again, I challenge anyone to find a viable and real "religion" that ADVOCATES homosexualism. Some are more tolerant than others, but NONE have ever refuted what it says in the BIBLE. NOONE. So, let's get away from RELIGION because that's a short debate. It's crystal clear what the church's view on this subject is. But once again, that's NOT the only view here or the only reason why this should NOT be done.

Politically, it can still be a very prickly decision. It opens up the door for every nut job to "claim" that their own definition of marriage should now be legal too. Again, what about the additional costs for essentials such as insurance and benefits? Who's going to absorb those costs and why should they if they didn't agree with it? Then you also then open up legal liabilities such as lawsuits for discrimination when you turn down someone (because of costs) and then suddenly they turn it around to something else. Again, we could go on tons of tangents if we really dug. But why should we?

Hulud
04-11-2005, 05:29 PM
Again, we could go on tons of tangents if we really dug. But why should we?
its something to talk about that people have strongs feelings on

Nismo2nr
04-12-2005, 08:43 PM
FYI - Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - aka, the psychologist's bible) permanently in 1973. In the current publication (DSM IV-TR) the only sexual disorders are as follows:

Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders:
Sexual Desire Disorders: Aversion | Hypoactive
Sexual Arousal Disorders: Female Sexual Arousal Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder
Orgasmic Disorders: Female | Male | Premature Ejaculation
Sexual Pain Disorders: Dyspareunia | Vaginismus
Sexual Dysfunction Due to a General Medical Condition: Female Dyspareunia | Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Erectile Disorder | Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder | Male Dyspareunia | Other Female Sexual Dysfunction | Other Male Sexual Dysfunction | Substance-Induced Sexual Dysfunction
Sexual Dysfunction NOS (302.70)
Paraphilias: Exhibitionism | Fetishism | Frotteurism | Pedophilia | Masochism | Sadism | Transvestic Fetishism | Voyeurism | Paraphilia NOS (302.9)
Gender Identity Disorder: Children | Adolescents or Adults | Gender Identity Disorder NOS (302.6)
Sexual Disorder NOS (302.9)

So nice try for those who think it's a clinical disorder. I'm sure you have a much better grasp of the human mind versus the worlds' top psychologists. If you don't believe me, I have a copy. I'll read to you if you want me to. ;)


PWND, good counterpoint...
still think they got a couple marbles missin but thats me.
nice post tho

FrnkPwrs
04-13-2005, 07:48 AM
FYI - Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - aka, the psychologist's bible) permanently in 1973. In the current publication (DSM IV-TR) the only sexual disorders are as follows:

Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders:
....Transvestic Fetishism | Voyeurism | Paraphilia NOS (302.9)
Gender Identity Disorder: Children | Adolescents or Adults | Gender Identity Disorder NOS (302.6) ...

So nice try for those who think it's a clinical disorder. I'm sure you have a much better grasp of the human mind versus the worlds' top psychologists. If you don't believe me, I have a copy. I'll read to you if you want me to. ;)

Well, if a woman thinks she is a boy, and wants to date other women, is she not considered gay? IS that not gender identity disorder? So is that the gender confused or the gay?

Dragonfly5338
04-13-2005, 08:12 AM
Well, if a woman thinks she is a boy, and wants to date other women, is she not considered gay? IS that not gender identity disorder? So is that the gender confused or the gay?

No, a lesbian doesn't consider herself a man. She knows she has a vagina. We're talking Buffalo Bill-esque behavior AKA Silence of the Lambs. Where a man or a woman BELIEVES he or she is the opposite sex and goes to extreme measures to hide or change his or her true gender.

Remember: A mental disorder is classified when:

A) It causes disruption in the way your daily life functions, ie: work, school, etc.
B) It causes you extreme mental duress
C) It causes harm to self
D) It causes harm to others

I don't think a girl eating another girl out classifies under that. :p

blacknightteg
04-13-2005, 09:55 AM
i wasnt stating that it was a mental disorder in my previous post, if all that was directed towards me

4dmin
04-13-2005, 11:46 AM
i don't see what the big deal is... there has been homosexual acts since before christ and the wave of christianity, the romans/greeks used to engage in group orgies all the time.

i believe there should be a definition to "marriage" for sure, but it shouldn't be based on religious beliefs, b/c if we do that than why don't we allow incest if your believe in christianity your obviously a product of INCEST from ADAM & EVE to NOAH... we can't adapt laws on doctrine supposeably written BC, they didn't even have automobiles or toilets back then.

- underage children shouldn't be allowed to marry (under 18)
- blood related reletives shouldn't be allowed to marry

but who gives a shit if adam & steve want to unite in marriage, why should be they denied the right, they pay taxes, they vote, they are us born citizens... i'm sorry but over 50% of black males will see some type of correction institute in their lifetime should we deny them the right to marry & produce; just so we can try to end a cycle. not gonna happen, we aren't talking about animals, but human beings like you or i.

Jaimecbr900
04-13-2005, 01:13 PM
i don't see what the big deal is... there has been homosexual acts since before christ and the wave of christianity, the romans/greeks used to engage in group orgies all the time.

You're going back to arguing this on religious merit again. Remember, that's a closed end argument.



i believe there should be a definition to "marriage" for sure, but it shouldn't be based on religious beliefs, b/c if we do that than why don't we allow incest if your believe in christianity your obviously a product of INCEST from ADAM & EVE to NOAH... we can't adapt laws on doctrine supposeably written BC, they didn't even have automobiles or toilets back then.


So there is agreement on atleast one point. Definition. Question is, where is it gonna come from and how to decide?



- underage children shouldn't be allowed to marry (under 18)
- blood related reletives shouldn't be allowed to marry


Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that?

Again, there's that pandorah's box I've been referring to since the beginning. Once you open it, you can't close it back again. Tell me how you will set a limit for the wackos of the world to suddenly lay a NOW legitimate claim that THEIR beliefs are worth anymore merit??? Limits my friend, limits have to be set to everything that has a legal ramification. This is one of those. Everybody wants to dress it up and fight it on moral side, yet the legal side is even pricklier.


but who gives a shit if adam & steve want to unite in marriage, why should be they denied the right, they pay taxes, they vote, they are us born citizens...


I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.

BTW,Marriage is NOT a "right". It is NOT in the Constitution anywhere. Marriage, legally, is granted thru a license. The issuing body granting ANY license sets the rules of that license. Unlike taxes, voting, and citizenship, there are no provisions automatically given to anyone in regards to "marriage".



i'm sorry but over 50% of black males will see some type of correction institute in their lifetime should we deny them the right to marry & produce; just so we can try to end a cycle. not gonna happen, we aren't talking about animals, but human beings like you or i.

You're describing genocide. Homosexualism in America is by far and wide the biggest in terms of numbers than any other country on the face of the earth. That is far from genocide.

Now, you're inferring that by arguing against Gay marriages it somehow means that you are trying to estinguish a particular segment of people, i.e. trying to do away with them all together......???? Is that what you're saying?

Hulud
04-13-2005, 01:37 PM
I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.
so your saying that because you dont like what they do behind closed doors they shouldn't get the same privledges as you because you dont want your insurance premiums to raise?
You're going to be that selfish? How can you live with yourself and know that your being that greedy?

"Human is a degrading word, as human i renounce myself"
that quote works perfectly here

blacknightteg
04-13-2005, 01:54 PM
You're going back to arguing this on religious merit again. Remember, that's a closed end argument.





So there is agreement on atleast one point. Definition. Question is, where is it gonna come from and how to decide?





Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that?

Again, there's that pandorah's box I've been referring to since the beginning. Once you open it, you can't close it back again. Tell me how you will set a limit for the wackos of the world to suddenly lay a NOW legitimate claim that THEIR beliefs are worth anymore merit??? Limits my friend, limits have to be set to everything that has a legal ramification. This is one of those. Everybody wants to dress it up and fight it on moral side, yet the legal side is even pricklier.




I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.

BTW,Marriage is NOT a "right". It is NOT in the Constitution anywhere. Marriage, legally, is granted thru a license. The issuing body granting ANY license sets the rules of that license. Unlike taxes, voting, and citizenship, there are no provisions automatically given to anyone in regards to "marriage".




You're describing genocide. Homosexualism in America is by far and wide the biggest in terms of numbers than any other country on the face of the earth. That is far from genocide.

Now, you're inferring that by arguing against Gay marriages it somehow means that you are trying to estinguish a particular segment of people, i.e. trying to do away with them all together......???? Is that what you're saying?


are u a homophobe or somesthit man? i mean i can tell who you prolly voted for in this past election....but shit man, gays should be able to be married they should be able to have the same rights as straight people, marrige for example, i mean, honestly it may not be in the constitution, but isnt there that statement in the constitution " all men are created equal" well if thats the case n its true, then they should be able to be married, i feel like this whole political argument is the same thing for when there was the whole civil rights movemnt, and then the right for gurls to vote

4dmin
04-13-2005, 01:54 PM
Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that? there is rull proof of why marrying w/ in your family is wrong and underage children... there is tons of mental/physical anguish involved... but gays marrying is a compeletly different issue, if two guys marry what is the harm?



Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? yeah b/c the cost are very minimual... its not like there is millions of gay couples, and millions of gay couple w/o insurance. i work w/ 2 gays at work both have insurance what would be the difference if they got married? none, b/c if they were straight you would feel even more of a burden on your pocket. you have kids, have you every taken a look at what medical cost are for children. obviously gays can't reproduce as easily.


there are no provisions automatically given to anyone in regards to "marriage". but there is you have to be STRAIGHT

Jaimecbr900
04-13-2005, 02:24 PM
are u a homophobe or somesthit man? i mean i can tell who you prolly voted for in this past election....but shit man, gays should be able to be married they should be able to have the same rights as straight people, marrige for example, i mean, honestly it may not be in the constitution, but isnt there that statement in the constitution " all men are created equal" well if thats the case n its true, then they should be able to be married, i feel like this whole political argument is the same thing for when there was the whole civil rights movemnt, and then the right for gurls to vote

First off, you don't know anything about me, so don't misinterpret your lack of knowledge.

Second, why is it that if someone doesn't agree with Gay marriages and PROVES intelligently why they feel that way.....there are still ying yangs like you that want to over simplify it into homophobia? Can you not rebutt my point of view any more intelligently than the ole redneck anecdote of, "gee whiz, you must be a homophobic if you don't like Gay marriages...."???? If I truly was a homophobe, I'd stick to the ONLY argument that NOONE could argue against....religion. I could hide behind that rock solid stance forever then. But I don't, and I'm not. I have nothing to fear nor envy from a homosexual person. My point has always been the same two: 1. I believe it should not be allowed for few reasons; 2. IF it's allowed, it opens a door that can never be closed again. So, if you wanna argue against either of those two points with me, go for it. Until then, don't call me shit since you don't know shit about me.

Finally, you obviously didn't get it, so I'll repeat for your benefit. "Marriage" is NOT a right of anyone. Not me, not you, not your parents, not anyone. We should be discussing the LEGALITY or lack thereof of "marriage" and NOT if its a sin, not if its homophobic, not if its what the church wants, etc etc etc. LEGALLY a marriage had previously been DEFINED as between a man and woman. The question should be: LEGALLY what can we expect IF we allow the DEFINITION to expand to man and woman and whatever else. If you can't elaborate yourself any better than to say, "duh, are you a homophobe or what man?".....then just don't say anything at all then.

4dmin
04-13-2005, 02:38 PM
^ what a homo ;)

Jaimecbr900
04-13-2005, 02:41 PM
there is rull proof of why marrying w/ in your family is wrong and underage children... there is tons of mental/physical anguish involved... but gays marrying is a compeletly different issue, if two guys marry what is the harm?

Some people call the Bible "proof" for much grander things, including homosexuality. Again, religion aside.....there are many many "reformed" gays that all now say the same thing about homosexuality that you are saying about underage marriages. I saw a documentary just last week about this guy that is now a "reformed" gay person (he used to be gay and is now straight) in which HE said that being gay WAS, just as you stated above, mentally and physically demanding.

Either way, you still can't ignore that allowing one sect of our population to fight their way into legally getting something is not also going to have the same effect on the rest of the population. Crazy or otherwise. You will then have a never ending cycle of challenges to the definiton of marriage. When would it end?



yeah b/c the cost are very minimual... its not like there is millions of gay couples, and millions of gay couple w/o insurance. i work w/ 2 gays at work both have insurance what would be the difference if they got married?

I know for a fact that insurance for a married couple is more expensive than single insurance. So there is an additional cost.



you have kids, have you every taken a look at what medical cost are for children.

Exactly the same reason why insurance companies, in their pursuit to maintain their profits high, would then pass the additional costs of the sheer volume influx to you and me both.


obviously gays can't reproduce as easily


Not neccesarily. Look at most gay and lesbian couples. They all have children. Which to be honest, then means that they are adopting (which is a good thing).

Jaimecbr900
04-13-2005, 02:42 PM
^ what a homo ;)

I knew you'd go there...... :2up: :D ;)

4dmin
04-13-2005, 02:51 PM
Not neccesarily. Look at most gay and lesbian couples. They all have children. Which to be honest, then means that they are adopting (which is a good thing).
most gay couples i know either don't have kids or have them from previous straight marriages... but the likely hood of gay couples having children is less than your normal straight couple, obviously due to the ++ or -- factor...


I knew you'd go there...... lol you know me too well... shit i always have to make a funny at the best time... :D

Jaimecbr900
04-13-2005, 03:18 PM
so your saying that because you dont like what they do behind closed doors they shouldn't get the same privledges as you because you dont want your insurance premiums to raise?

Yep.

Just like I don't want to pay for someone who doesn't work to sit their lazy ass at home....just like I don't like to pay for bad drivers that are demographically the same as me......just like I don't like to pay for fraudulent insurance claims.....Yep, just like I don't like to already pay for the anything that is someone else's fault. Imagine that.

Do you?


You're going to be that selfish? How can you live with yourself and know that your being that greedy?



Greedy? I pay my way for everything I do. I expect people to do the same. What's wrong with that?

FrnkPwrs
04-13-2005, 03:26 PM
No, a lesbian doesn't consider herself a man. She knows she has a vagina. We're talking Buffalo Bill-esque behavior AKA Silence of the Lambs. Where a man or a woman BELIEVES he or she is the opposite sex and goes to extreme measures to hide or change his or her true gender.

I dont think your seeing what I was trying to say. You agree that a lesbian doesnt consider themself a man right? Ok, but a if a female considers themself a man, and wants to persue another woman, they are still denied marriage. So are you saying that you are in agreement of gender-confused people being able to marry? Or do you see a problem with that too?

There was a big story on the news about some transsexual in Cali who was like 18 and he was living as a female since he was like 12 and was killed by some dudes who figured it out. That aside, they lived a female life. Female clothes, female name, female room at home, considered themeself female full blooded, just no surgery. If gays arent allowed to marry, he/she would not be able to marry. So since by your own admission that gender misidentification is very valid, I assume that you think that those people should have the ability to marry same sex?

Hulud
04-13-2005, 03:44 PM
Yep.

Just like I don't want to pay for someone who doesn't work to sit their lazy ass at home....just like I don't like to pay for bad drivers that are demographically the same as me......just like I don't like to pay for fraudulent insurance claims.....Yep, just like I don't like to already pay for the anything that is someone else's fault. Imagine that.

Do you?



Greedy? I pay my way for everything I do. I expect people to do the same. What's wrong with that?
who said someone was going to sit their lazy ass at home? Are you married? Do you have a wife/husband? Do they stay at home? If not what makes you think a gay person is going to stay at home? Is this country supposed to treat everyone equally? So then if we are supposed to then we must amend marriage and say between two humans. Rather than a man and a wife.

If you want to talk about lazy people we shouldnt be talking about gays we should be talking about the sons o' bitches who sit around pop out babies just to collect their damn welfare check! Sorry they just really piss me of. lol

quickdodge®
04-13-2005, 03:45 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/quickdodge/gaypridecopy.jpg

Later, QD.

Hulud
04-13-2005, 03:47 PM
haha wow did you do that?

FrnkPwrs
04-13-2005, 04:20 PM
Problem is you're looking at it with a narrow mindset. What's to stop nutso's from laying claim that since THEY believe it's OK to marry Suzie at 12, he should be allowed to do so? Afterall, isn't that the gay rights main argument? Same with marrying of cousins and sisters. How can you tell THEM they are any less right or wrong? More importantly, how will you be able to LEGALLY contradict that?
Me personally, I can care less if some guy that is 35 wants to marry their 42 year old sister. I understand that it is a problem because of the genetic abnormalities in kids, but I honestly never met someone who was in love with their sister. I know tons of people who have hooked up with 5-6th tier cousins though. Thats not illegal, but do we need to have a big discussion on preserving that sancatity of a "family"?

I think the gay mans argument is a little more complex than how your putting it. You dont really hear much about gay marriages ending in the same manner the hetero ones. Look at the gay marriage divorce rate. When you think about gay marriage, do thing like marrying over a child, money, citizenship, being forced by parents, etc. Usually the main factor that a lot of these people are on the news talking about is love, not financial benefits. Usually the financial part is brought up by straight sympathisers [examplein many of the post of this board]. The strong point is why shouldnt 2 people who love each other be able to marry.

One of your main points is the financial effect that it may have on society. Another point that many politicians have is that want to preserve the "pureness" of marriage. Ok, understood. But what about the legitmacy of a straight marriage. Like you said, it is a license. I mean, the government ensures that I cant marry people from the Dominican Republic without going
through some sort of review. I find it a joke that someone like GWB wants to talk about how they feel so strongly about preserving a positive image when two people wed, but we havent heard him say anything about the drive thru Wedding Chapels in Las Vegas. Nothing about the Anna Nicoles or others who marry people 3 steps from teh edge of death in order to inherit millions. No news stories there!

And in the same right, there are people on this VERY BOARD who believe that there should be no interracial dating, so Im sure that they believe that interracial marriage is wrong too. And they could use the bible, the effect that it would have on their insurance, the way it opens up things like incestual [sp] relationships, etc. Do you believe that interracial dating is wrong? Why or why not?


Again, there's that pandorah's box I've been referring to since the beginning. Once you open it, you can't close it back again. Tell me how you will set a limit for the wackos of the world to suddenly lay a NOW legitimate claim that THEIR beliefs are worth anymore merit??? Limits my friend, limits have to be set to everything that has a legal ramification.[quote]
Once again, what makes this issue so different than an interracial relationship? You yourself admitted that you were in one once in your life. Like I said, nobody looks at whats wrong with some people that are already married. What makes a gay couple so different that any other type? Limits, I can understand, but refusal to accomadate a group I can not.


[quote]I do, if it costs me more money to support something I didn't approve of. Just like anything else. Are you willing to absorb additional costs in healthcare, insurance, and lowering of benefits? Why, you say? Because now you'd open up the doors to a ton of "new" people coming in that suddenly have the "right" to get benefits they DIDN'T get before. Who do you think will pay for the added costs associated with that? The insurance companies are just gonna chalk it up themselves??? Riiiggghhhhttttt. They'll just pass it on to me and you just like any other additional cost of doing business.
LOL, do you realize that those gay married couples also pay the things that your hetereo couple pays as well? LOL, I seriously doubt that because you are gay you are exempt from the additional costs of healthcare, insurance, and lowering and benefits. If there are 20k extra straight marriages a year, do people raise the same issues?


You're describing genocide. Homosexualism in America is by far and wide the biggest in terms of numbers than any other country on the face of the earth. That is far from genocide.
Very far indeed. But is denying the right to marry a step forward or backward for the gay community? Is it being selective based on someones sexual orientation?

blacknightteg
04-13-2005, 04:30 PM
fucking polititions......government fucks up every god damn thing in society today....FUCK BUSH!

Dragonfly5338
04-13-2005, 11:41 PM
I find it a joke that someone like GWB wants to talk about how they feel so strongly about preserving a positive image when two people wed, but we havent heard him say anything about the drive thru Wedding Chapels in Las Vegas. Nothing about the Anna Nicoles or others who marry people 3 steps from teh edge of death in order to inherit millions. No news stories there!

I may not agree with everything you say, Frank - but that statement right there hit the nail on the head. Props, man. :goodjob: Or Britney Spears and her 24 hour marriage, etc, etc..

Jaimecbr900
04-14-2005, 12:39 AM
who said someone was going to sit their lazy ass at home?

Are you serious? Did you really understand that from what I said?

Here, I'll say it again just for you: I said that just like I don't like to pay (i.e. NOW) for lazy people to sit at home, or careless drivers, or people that cheat insurance co's......I wouldn't want to pay a higher premium when the opportunist insurance company raises MY premiums because they suddenly have to insure people they otherwise wouldn't. Yes, the insurance company is the bad guy, but most everyone else I think got the point. Did you now?

I never implied that gay people are lazy. As a matter of fact, I've personally never met one of those. I'm sure they exist, but I've never seen any. So, I certainly wouldn't make a dumb statement like that. You obviously missed the point.



If you want to talk about lazy people we shouldnt be talking about gays we should be talking about the sons o' bitches who sit around pop out babies just to collect their damn welfare check! Sorry they just really piss me of. lol

We finally agree on something then. :goodjob:

Jaimecbr900
04-14-2005, 01:08 AM
Me personally, I can care less if some guy that is 35 wants to marry their 42 year old sister. I understand that it is a problem because of the genetic abnormalities in kids, but I honestly never met someone who was in love with their sister.

They're out there. Trust me. And my only point was.....what happens when those looneys suddenly think they too can challenge what THEIR definition of "marriage" should be? They will have to be heard and this whole political firestorm would start over again. Maybe not to the same scale, but it could.


I think the gay mans argument is a little more complex than how your putting it. You dont really hear much about gay marriages ending in the same manner the hetero ones. Look at the gay marriage divorce rate.


The numbers are skewed bud. Since gay marriages LEGALLY don't exist, neither do figures about their dissolution. Unlike hetero marriages where everything from blood work to licenses exist to be able to get those numbers from, gay marriages have until now been simply "unions" that noone would ever be able to track. So there is no way in this world that anyone could say with any accuracy that gay marriages last or don't last as long as hetero ones. No way. They're basically ghosts now, so they can't be counted.




I mean, the government ensures that I cant marry people from the Dominican Republic without going through some sort of review. I find it a joke that someone like GWB wants to talk about how they feel so strongly about preserving a positive image when two people wed, but we havent heard him say anything about the drive thru Wedding Chapels in Las Vegas. Nothing about the Anna Nicoles or others who marry people 3 steps from teh edge of death in order to inherit millions. No news stories there!


Point well taken. I actually agree with your logic there. I also agree that there are many many ridiculously messed up hetero marriages. I grant you that.



Once again, what makes this issue so different than an interracial relationship?

Because it's about hetero vs homo and not black vs white.



You yourself admitted that you were in one once in your life.


I'm STILL in one bud. Don't divorce me off ;) . Going on 12 yrs married, 18 yrs total together. She's GA born and raised, and I.....well, you know where I'm from.



Limits, I can understand, but refusal to accomadate a group I can not.


We're right back to ground zero. Who's gonna set those limits? Again, no matter what your answer to that question is.....some group somewhere will say it's not fair. What then?




LOL, do you realize that those gay married couples also pay the things that your hetereo couple pays as well? LOL, I seriously doubt that because you are gay you are exempt from the additional costs of healthcare, insurance, and lowering and benefits.


I'm not saying they don't pay for their own benefits. I'm saying insurance companies are always looking for an excuse to raise premiums. Here is one handed to them on a platter. A large number of people that now can go on a policy TOGETHER (because they suddenly can when their "union" becomes a legal "marriage") rather than as individuals. Insurance companies see a decline in one side, what do you think is going to happen to the other in order for them to keep profits up? They're certainly not gonna eat it. They're gonna pass it on to everyone else, including them too.

Jaimecbr900
04-14-2005, 01:10 AM
haha wow did you do that?

If you email him a pic of you, he'll be glad to put it right in the middle of the pack too...... :D ;)

quickdodge®
04-14-2005, 04:30 AM
Lolol. Later, QD.

Hulud
04-14-2005, 08:36 AM
o yeah! :gay:

FrnkPwrs
04-15-2005, 08:23 AM
The numbers are skewed bud. Since gay marriages LEGALLY don't exist, neither do figures about their dissolution. Unlike hetero marriages where everything from blood work to licenses exist to be able to get those numbers from, gay marriages have until now been simply "unions" that noone would ever be able to track. So there is no way in this world that anyone could say with any accuracy that gay marriages last or don't last as long as hetero ones. No way. They're basically ghosts now, so they can't be counted.


Maybe we dont have much to sample data from in the US, and the rush of marriages pre-media storm havent had time to be a good sample source since they havent had as much time, but in other countries where it is legal, the gay marriage divorce rate is a little less than 1%. Here in the US, the hetero Christian divorcec rate is 25%.



Because it's about hetero vs homo and not black vs white.
But the situations can be seen as similiar. I fully realize that they are seperate situations, but if it werent for changes in the past, then that group would be in the same position today. I dont think that the gay and lesbian crowd have things as bad as black people in the 60s, but I do very seriously think that they arent treated as equally as everyone else.

We're right back to ground zero. Who's gonna set those limits? Again, no matter what your answer to that question is.....some group somewhere will say it's not fair. What then?
The government will set those limits. But the government is supposed to work without bias. Is it not the governments job to take into consideration the desires of the people? Gay people are taxpayers, do they not deserve to feel the government is acting in their best interest when it comes to an issue such as this?


I'm not saying they don't pay for their own benefits. I'm saying insurance companies are always looking for an excuse to raise premiums. Here is one handed to them on a platter. A large number of people that now can go on a policy TOGETHER (because they suddenly can when their "union" becomes a legal "marriage") rather than as individuals. Insurance companies see a decline in one side, what do you think is going to happen to the other in order for them to keep profits up? They're certainly not gonna eat it. They're gonna pass it on to everyone else, including them too.
But that can happen in any situation. If you live in a state where they want to lower the driving age, a new vehicle is invented so people needs to be licensed and insured for it, etc. I just think the right for someone to do something to emotionally advance them outwieghs the extra couple of dollars I would hae to pay a year.

Hulud
04-15-2005, 09:24 AM
But that can happen in any situation. If you live in a state where they want to lower the driving age, a new vehicle is invented so people needs to be licensed and insured for it, etc. I just think the right for someone to do something to emotionally advance them outwieghs the extra couple of dollars I would hae to pay a year.
True

Jaimecbr900
04-15-2005, 01:41 PM
Maybe we dont have much to sample data from in the US, and the rush of marriages pre-media storm havent had time to be a good sample source since they havent had as much time, but in other countries where it is legal, the gay marriage divorce rate is a little less than 1%. Here in the US, the hetero Christian divorcec rate is 25%.

Maybe true, but in those other countries the regular divorce is also NOT the U.S.'s 50% either. So again, the numbers are skewed.




The government will set those limits. But the government is supposed to work without bias. Is it not the governments job to take into consideration the desires of the people? Gay people are taxpayers, do they not deserve to feel the government is acting in their best interest when it comes to an issue such as this?


What you are describing is fine, except the Gay side DOES NOT WANT A VOTE on this issue. They DON'T because they know popular vote would mean a certain loss for sure. I've said the same exact thing like a gazillion times in everyone of these debates. Why not put it up to a popular vote, most votes wins? The people you're advocating don't want it that way. They say it's not fair. As a matter of fact, last year's elections included in many states a referendum asking this very question. Results? Overwhelmingly towards NO to legalized Gay marriages. AND may I add that this was during the highest voter turn out elections in history, i.e. a LOT of people voted and STILL they didn't have the popular support.

What's next? A vote just in the city of San Francisco? :gay:

I agree with you there.



But that can happen in any situation. If you live in a state where they want to lower the driving age, a new vehicle is invented so people needs to be licensed and insured for it, etc. I just think the right for someone to do something to emotionally advance them outwieghs the extra couple of dollars I would hae to pay a year.


Lost you there. I don't follow.

Bajjani
04-16-2005, 09:55 AM
It shouldn't be an issue that is voted about. This is where it gets me, how does two gay people being married hurt or harm you in any way. How does it deter you from accomplishing your goals in life. If you are that against gay people then its hard for you to live in public because there are a lot more gay people than you think. I personally don't care if two gay guys want to get married. It does no harm to me what-so-ever and it makes someone else happy...so who gives a shit if they are gay. And if it is so wrong religiously then let God decide where they go upon death not how they are limited in life. We aren't ones to play God so don't try to use religion as a defense I think. Also, if two gay guys got married, they'd both probably have wedding bands. When you see a guy with a wedding band are you going to know whether hes straight gay bi married to a man or woman? No, your gonna know hes married. If it affects you personally that much then you need to think long and hard because you'd be prejudice. About the whole black and white topic, if you ask a gay guy or lesbian when they "became" gay, many of them will say I was born this way. I don't fully agree with that, but then again I don't know what it is to be like that. So if they truely feel like that, how are we not holding it against them and being prejudice. Its hipocracy I think. (This is not directed at anyone in general I was saying "you" in a general sense)

FrnkPwrs
04-16-2005, 05:19 PM
I understand the otherside of the argument perfectly. Jaime is basically standing on that if there are no standards set, and if something like 2 males marrying happens, then it opens a floodgate for people who want to form other crazy, weird, marriages [i.e. incest]. I can understand that, but personally weighing the issue, i believe that gay couples should be able to wed. Even though many are thinking of some financial reprecussions, I dont think that the majority of these couples are marrying for tax breaks, but for emotional reasons. Marriage is supposed to be something beautiful, and symbolic of a union. I dont think that many men get togethor and plot a marriage as a tax scheme or since joint insurance is cheaper per person than a single account.

Sanctatity of marriage? Sounds like a good marriage. So two people of the same sex marrying is tarnishing the image of marriage. So can it be understood that two people marrying of the same sex is seen as wrong by the government? I think its an issue where personal opinions of government officials are making the decisions. Too much bias

blacknightteg
04-16-2005, 05:25 PM
i dont think the government should be involved in who marrys who...i jus don think its fair to everyone

Negrodamus
04-16-2005, 10:53 PM
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

Bajjani
04-16-2005, 11:52 PM
I guess its hard for the stubborn to understand what its like to be the one who is put in the situation they are...being oppressed(sp?)...I gurantee you'd hate it if it was something as seroius as this (to many)...I really don't get why people are so against it as if it will change the world into a violent place where you can't even be safe on the streets...

RandomGuy
04-17-2005, 02:09 AM
I guess its hard for the stubborn to understand what its like to be the one who is put in the situation they are...being oppressed(sp?)...I gurantee you'd hate it if it was something as seroius as this (to many)...I really don't get why people are so against it as if it will change the world into a violent place where you can't even be safe on the streets...
i dont agree with the whole idea of it... but as i said pages and pages back in the thread... let them do their thing.. .because some ppl are only becoming :gay: to rebell. If its out in the open like that they will just become a extreme minority, become persecuted, etc... maybe as extreme as coming to the advent of some gay country like gayland or something off the coasts of florida, who knows? It happened before hadnt it?... The 13 colonies, remember? I DO NOT BELIEVE ITS GENETIC/ ETC and i think its 100% their fault mental (marbles missing, etc) thats my belief... i dont have proof, yall dont either so its a belief.

what is also true is what one dude said earlier... it has been going on since time was time. Do u know how many fags are in greek mythology, etc?
I don't believe in them at all.. have very little respect for them ( dont show it outwards completely tho).... but they should have their rights... it would also slow the "infection rate". it wouldnt be as considered - to rebell by converting :gay: ...


just my belief...

Dragonfly5338
04-18-2005, 12:03 AM
i dont agree with the whole idea of it... but as i said pages and pages back in the thread... let them do their thing.. .because some ppl are only becoming :gay: to rebell. If its out in the open like that they will just become a extreme minority, become persecuted, etc... maybe as extreme as coming to the advent of some gay country like gayland or something off the coasts of florida, who knows? It happened before hadnt it?... The 13 colonies, remember? I DO NOT BELIEVE ITS GENETIC/ ETC and i think its 100% their fault mental (marbles missing, etc) thats my belief... i dont have proof, yall dont either so its a belief.

what is also true is what one dude said earlier... it has been going on since time was time. Do u know how many fags are in greek mythology, etc?
I don't believe in them at all.. have very little respect for them ( dont show it outwards completely tho).... but they should have their rights... it would also slow the "infection rate". it wouldnt be as considered - to rebell by converting :gay: ...


just my belief...

I feel bad for you.

Allstar3.8T
04-18-2005, 09:33 AM
I tried to not come here , but I did, a rant follows;
The Governmant, like us... MUST stand against somethings, and stand FOR somethings, or you will fall for anything.
I proudly stand against gay marraige. When did a moral wrong become a civic right?
Dont say The Constitution.
The context of this countrys Constitution and Bill of Rights is so misread, and misunderstood that its a shame. In the gay marraige rights fight, they keep crying out there is separation of church and state, because of the Churches fight against thier marraige. Do you really know where this claimed separation is found? Doubt it. Most people that fight for this dont actually know w/o research.
Once you find it, you'll see the separation is FOR the church to provide Gov leadership, and also protect the CHURCH from the gov trying to impose a particular faith on them, the reason this country was REALLY founded, that the liberal few had removed from text books. Also to prove this, our currency says "In God we Trust", our pledge is "One nation UNDER God"...and so on...This country was fouded on Faith and its (the early churches) idea of morality. The same morality that opposed gay marraige.
Its a weak argument to hear people make claim that former greats were gay. What this proves is nothing. You can not prove, nor can I disprove anyone that is dead, and has been for a thousand years was gay. If they were gay...and you are "outting them" now, then obviousally they were ashamed, and they didnt out themselves, so they realized how morally wrong it is. Its just ignorant to do it now, especially when you cant REALLY prove it.

I know some people experiment in ways, I am not stupid, I am disputing a way of life that is Bibically sacred and reserved as a covenant relationship, by its founder. The founder of marraige also stated that it was to be ONE man with ONE woman. A fight that is long behind us, like this will be one day as well. Its funny how people only want something, when they realize they cant have it.
Go ahead w/ your lives, sorry for the interruption.
GC

blacknightteg
04-18-2005, 09:39 AM
i still think it should be right for them to marry, other wise, our country in my opinion, does not give equal rights to everyone whether they be gay or not

FrnkPwrs
04-18-2005, 10:09 AM
Its a weak argument to hear people make claim that former greats were gay. What this proves is nothing. You can not prove, nor can I disprove anyone that is dead, and has been for a thousand years was gay. If they were gay...and you are "outting them" now, then obviousally they were ashamed, and they didnt out themselves, so they realized how morally wrong it is. Its just ignorant to do it now, especially when you cant REALLY prove it.


I wish I had more time to post, but I have to go to work. I dont think that its hard to prove the people mentioned in this thread was gay. Its really is mostly common fact that a lot of people dont read in the school textbooks. Julius Ceaser, for example, was known for having sex with multiple men, and it was documented the same way people document when a famous figure today is out.

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 01:23 PM
I tried to not come here , but I did, a rant follows;
The Governmant, like us... MUST stand against somethings, and stand FOR somethings, or you will fall for anything.
I proudly stand against gay marraige. When did a moral wrong become a civic right?
Dont say The Constitution.
The context of this countrys Constitution and Bill of Rights is so misread, and misunderstood that its a shame. In the gay marraige rights fight, they keep crying out there is separation of church and state, because of the Churches fight against thier marraige. Do you really know where this claimed separation is found? Doubt it. Most people that fight for this dont actually know w/o research.
Once you find it, you'll see the separation is FOR the church to provide Gov leadership, and also protect the CHURCH from the gov trying to impose a particular faith on them, the reason this country was REALLY founded, that the liberal few had removed from text books. Also to prove this, our currency says "In God we Trust", our pledge is "One nation UNDER God"...and so on...This country was fouded on Faith and its (the early churches) idea of morality. The same morality that opposed gay marraige.
Its a weak argument to hear people make claim that former greats were gay. What this proves is nothing. You can not prove, nor can I disprove anyone that is dead, and has been for a thousand years was gay. If they were gay...and you are "outting them" now, then obviousally they were ashamed, and they didnt out themselves, so they realized how morally wrong it is. Its just ignorant to do it now, especially when you cant REALLY prove it.

I know some people experiment in ways, I am not stupid, I am disputing a way of life that is Bibically sacred and reserved as a covenant relationship, by its founder. The founder of marraige also stated that it was to be ONE man with ONE woman. A fight that is long behind us, like this will be one day as well. Its funny how people only want something, when they realize they cant have it.
Go ahead w/ your lives, sorry for the interruption.
GC

Where the hell have you been when I needed back-up????? ;)

Totally agree with your statement.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 01:24 PM
just because they kept it a secret doesnt mean its morally wrong. they just didnt want to be judged by a society who doesnt understand them (i.e. you). and who ever said it was IMMORAL to be a homosexual?

Hulud
04-18-2005, 01:26 PM
I know some people experiment in ways, I am not stupid, I am disputing a way of life that is Bibically sacred and reserved as a covenant relationship, by its founder. The founder of marraige also stated that it was to be ONE man with ONE woman. A fight that is long behind us, like this will be one day as well. Its funny how people only want something, when they realize they cant have it.
Go ahead w/ your lives, sorry for the interruption.
GC
and who is this founder of marriage you speak of?

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 01:42 PM
I understand the otherside of the argument perfectly. Jaime is basically standing on that if there are no standards set, and if something like 2 males marrying happens, then it opens a floodgate for people who want to form other crazy, weird, marriages [i.e. incest]. I can understand that, but personally weighing the issue, i believe that gay couples should be able to wed.

So essentially what you are saying is that THIS particular cross section of people is worth giving something to, but the others (crazies, incest, monkey fuckers, etc) are not? My question to you is, if that's so, how can you justify that? Further more, when is there ever going to be a limit to anything anymore? WHY do we keep giving in to every tom/dick/and harry that wants something and justifies it by saying "this is the land of the free, so you GOTTA give it to me"?


Even though many are thinking of some financial reprecussions, I dont think that the majority of these couples are marrying for tax breaks, but for emotional reasons. Marriage is supposed to be something beautiful, and symbolic of a union. I dont think that many men get togethor and plot a marriage as a tax scheme or since joint insurance is cheaper per person than a single account.


Wrong. The biggest argument the Gay supporters have ALWAYS made about this has NEVER been about "emotions". It has ALWAYS been about "rights" (or lack thereof) and "benefits" married couples receive that they don't. Again, no Gay couple will ever be married thru a church, so therefore it's a LEGAL battle because they feel entitled to something that they feel is rightfully theirs. Without legally defining what legal "marriage" is and isnt', they actually have a valid point right now. In order to settle the complaint, you have to first have some boundaries. W/O boundaries, everything goes.

All the Gay supporters make all the non-supporters out to be some kind of lynch mob. I don't see any hangings or burnings. I don't even see people being told NOT to be Gay or with people of the same sex. As a matter of fact, there are countries today that BAN the practice of homosexuality. To the point of killing people that are found to be Gay. Why not go fight that fight? That's much more oppressive than being told you don't have, what many supporters here have referred to as marriage being....just a piece of paper.

The reason? No money in it. Crude, but true. Nothing to personally gain from fighting that fight, although it is allegedly about "warm and fuzzies" and the sanctity of finally being seen as a "married" couple. BS. It's about wanting something for themselves.

How many people do yall think are not out there RIGHT THIS SECOND living as husband and wife W/O ever getting LEGALLY married? How many of those people do you think are belly aching about not getting this or that which their "married" neighbor gets?

It's about public acceptance via the end of a gun.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that marriage is a "sacred" or "special" union, only to come back and let that mean anything and everything. How's that special and sacred? On the other hand, you can't argue that it's only a piece of paper, and then stomp up and down until you get that worthless piece of paper. If it is so "worthless", why are you bitching to get one?

I agree with Greg, and I've been saying so all along. We have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, sometime. If you don't, then it's anarchy. And considering that marriage has been taken so lightly in the last few decades in the U.S., this seems like the perfect issue to draw a line on.

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 01:47 PM
just because they kept it a secret doesnt mean its morally wrong. they just didnt want to be judged by a society who doesnt understand them (i.e. you). and who ever said it was IMMORAL to be a homosexual?

I'll bite.

Then why did they keep it secret then?

BTW, Billions of people feel it's immoral to be Gay.

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 01:52 PM
I proudly stand against gay marraige. When did a moral wrong become a civic right?


Just curious, but how will gay marriage hurt you?What will change so drastically, or at all, in your life that you have to take a stand? I don't think it is a moral wrong, just because they choose to be that different. I wouldn't do it. I think it's gross as hell, but it doesn't hurt or affect me, so I don't worry about it.



I DO NOT BELIEVE ITS GENETIC/ ETC and i think its 100% their fault mental (marbles missing, etc) thats my belief

Two out of Three I agree with. I don't think it is genetic and I am sure it is their fault(they chose this lifestyle). But I keep failing to see where it is a mental problem. Later, QD.



Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

That's why they are called opinions. Later, QD.

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 01:56 PM
I tried to not come here , but I did, a rant follows;
The Governmant, like us... MUST stand against somethings, and stand FOR somethings, or you will fall for anything.
I proudly stand against gay marraige. When did a moral wrong become a civic right?
Dont say The Constitution.
The context of this countrys Constitution and Bill of Rights is so misread, and misunderstood that its a shame. In the gay marraige rights fight, they keep crying out there is separation of church and state, because of the Churches fight against thier marraige. Do you really know where this claimed separation is found? Doubt it. Most people that fight for this dont actually know w/o research.
Once you find it, you'll see the separation is FOR the church to provide Gov leadership, and also protect the CHURCH from the gov trying to impose a particular faith on them, the reason this country was REALLY founded, that the liberal few had removed from text books. Also to prove this, our currency says "In God we Trust", our pledge is "One nation UNDER God"...and so on...This country was fouded on Faith and its (the early churches) idea of morality. The same morality that opposed gay marraige.
Its a weak argument to hear people make claim that former greats were gay. What this proves is nothing. You can not prove, nor can I disprove anyone that is dead, and has been for a thousand years was gay. If they were gay...and you are "outting them" now, then obviousally they were ashamed, and they didnt out themselves, so they realized how morally wrong it is. Its just ignorant to do it now, especially when you cant REALLY prove it.

I know some people experiment in ways, I am not stupid, I am disputing a way of life that is Bibically sacred and reserved as a covenant relationship, by its founder. The founder of marraige also stated that it was to be ONE man with ONE woman. A fight that is long behind us, like this will be one day as well. Its funny how people only want something, when they realize they cant have it.
Go ahead w/ your lives, sorry for the interruption.
GC


I gotta comment on one part (i can't read it all cause I'm at work so I jus read the first half) the part, under god, was add'd in the 50s? i believe. It wasn't part of the original pledge. Go look up that part on why it was add'd if you don't know. This country was founded on people wanting to be free and not forced to do things or restricted from doing other things. I say it does not cause any harm to people to allow gays to marry. If they are going to be persecuted as someone said in a previous post, then the government should stop THAT from happening, not from letting them marry. A marriage is a bond between two people that care about each other. If its two guys two girls or coed who gives a shit. Who is to say that their love is different. If you've ever loved someone so much that you never wanted to lose them...nothing would ever seperate you two, and then you were told you werent allowed to marry, what would you say? Would you say? Two people love each other they are going to show it, who cares if they have a band on their finger or not...let them live their lives how they want to.

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 01:59 PM
So essentially what you are saying is that THIS particular cross section of people is worth giving something to, but the others (crazies, incest, monkey fuckers, etc) are not? My question to you is, if that's so, how can you justify that? Further more, when is there ever going to be a limit to anything anymore? WHY do we keep giving in to every tom/dick/and harry that wants something and justifies it by saying "this is the land of the free, so you GOTTA give it to me"?

I do agree with this paragraph. You can't just keep giving and giving just because people keep wanting and wanting.

Crazies, incesters, and monkey fuckers(lolol) seem, to me, to be a different type of different. Homosexuals are not, nor potentially, harmful to others. Crazies, obviously, are. Incesters can produce messed up children. Monkey fuckers(lolol) can ....I have no fucking clue. Lolol.




BTW, Billions of people feel it's immoral to be Gay.

Who's to say they're right? As nasty as it is, I don't feel that it is immoral. Later, QD.

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 01:59 PM
If ANYONE on this board dares to say they do not have a secret that they hide because they know some of the things that may come about by letting it out publicly..a past incident or anything...then they shall burn in hell for lies..EVERYONE has secrets...I know straight couples who keep their relationships secret because of morons who like to start drama...

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 02:03 PM
You know what? I honestly do NOT have any secrets that I am afraid of people finding out. I have done nothing that I am worried about people finding out. Later, QD.

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 02:15 PM
This country was founded on people wanting to be free and not forced to do things or restricted from doing other things.

That doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is going to be allowed or legalized. Some countries allow marijuana to be smoked publicly and legally. Why aren't we suddenly taking up arms against THAT "hinderance" here?

Whatever. There has to be limits to everything. EVERYTHING. If you wanna get really technical, this country was founded on LAWS. LAWS that were decided on by the gov't AS a rep of the masses. You wanna take just a little sample vote of the "masses" in the U.S. and THEIR wants and desires towards this???? I'll put money on that going over like a lead balloon. Wanna bet me?

Like I said before, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "I want this law, but I want to be the only one to VOTE on it". Doesn't work that way.



Two people love each other they are going to show it, who cares if they have a band on their finger or not...let them live their lives how they want to.

Wow, thanks for proving my point. What else is there to talk about now?

Hulud
04-18-2005, 02:16 PM
I'll bite.

Then why did they keep it secret then?

BTW, Billions of people feel it's immoral to be Gay.
ok you wouldnt have to ask that question if you read my entire post. here ill quote my own post for you.

and just because billions of people feel its immoral than its immoral? and plus where does it say that its immoral? i have never heard anyone except a hypocritical christian say that (not all are hypocritical just to clarify that satement, just this one that i have heard that from) you dont judge whats immoral.

just because they kept it a secret doesnt mean its morally wrong. they just didnt want to be judged by a society who doesnt understand them (i.e. you).

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 02:16 PM
LoL...QD, it was a generalized statement basically getting at the point there are many people who have secrets that they don't talk about openly because of people who would bash them for it

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 02:19 PM
Jamie, you are defending my side as well here. If they have a band on their finger does it hurt you, because thats what they want. You are saying that because YOU don't want it, it shouldn't be. Marijuana is a completely differnet subject. Thats comparing apples to oranges. Marijuana hurts people, both themselves and people around them. Yes so does alcohol but like I said, these are NOT related. How does two gay people cause harm to ANYBODY? Answer me that

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 02:20 PM
I do agree with this paragraph. You can't just keep giving and giving just because people keep wanting and wanting.

Crazies, incesters, and monkey fuckers(lolol) seem, to me, to be a different type of different. Homosexuals are not, nor potentially, harmful to others. Crazies, obviously, are. Incesters can produce messed up children. Monkey fuckers(lolol) can ....I have no fucking clue. Lolol.


What if they argue that IF they want to harm themselves, they should be allowed to do so? What if they argue that since babies are not 100% of the time affected by incestual relations, they should be allowed to try for that small percentage that do turn out half right?

I do see your point, but again there has to be a limit to everything. Where do we set it for this?






Who's to say they're right? As nasty as it is, I don't feel that it is immoral. Later, QD.


I was just answering his question. He asked, "who says it's immoral?", and I'm merely saying "billions of people" do. Right or wrong, that's true. ;)

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 02:29 PM
What if they argue that IF they want to harm themselves, they should be allowed to do so? What if they argue that since babies are not 100% of the time affected by incestual relations, they should be allowed to try for that small percentage that do turn out half right?

As I see your point, too. If it causes potential harm to others or themselves, then no, obviously it shouldn't be catered to. If there is a chance of a fucked up child, then no.



I do see your point, but again there has to be a limit to everything. Where do we set it for this?

You know what, dude? We will probably never know.




I was just answering his question. He asked, "who says it's immoral?", and I'm merely saying "billions of people" do. Right or wrong, that's true. ;)

I got ya. Later, QD.

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 02:32 PM
ok you wouldnt have to ask that question if you read my entire post. here ill quote my own post for you.

and just because billions of people feel its immoral than its immoral? and plus where does it say that its immoral? i have never heard anyone except a hypocritical christian say that (not all are hypocritical just to clarify that satement, just this one that i have heard that from) you dont judge whats immoral.

To someone with your belief system, What is YOUR morality geiger? Since you don't believe in God of any kind, what do YOU base your scrutiny of right vs wrong on?

There is no tangible proof that we evolved from a "big bang", yet individuals like yourself believe that. Contrary to your assertions, that my friend is in fact FAITH. It's a crazy FAITH IMO, but by definition it is YOUR FAITH because it's belief in something that is not tangible. Point? By definition, you yourself are being hypocritical, so I wouldn't be so quick in labeling people in the future.

What makes YOUR faith any more viable a gauge for morality than mine? And if we're not going to use FAITH as the gauge for morality, what will we use?

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 02:34 PM
What makes your opinion so much more important than the people actually affected by not being allowed to marry? I still fail to see where you are hindered or harmed by them being married

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 02:41 PM
Jamie, you are defending my side as well here.

Umm, not really. I don't agree with Gay marriages and you do. How's that the same?




If they have a band on their finger does it hurt you, because thats what they want. You are saying that because YOU don't want it, it shouldn't be.


It doesn't hurt me one bit. It never has and it probably never will. That has never been my contention. I'm not SCARED of people. I really don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone. I really don't care if they want to live in that way. My only point has always been the same: There has to be a limit. This is great place to drill that message home because it is very black and white divided along personal belief lines. Not many fence riders here.


Marijuana is a completely differnet subject. Thats comparing apples to oranges. Marijuana hurts people, both themselves and people around them. Yes so does alcohol but like I said, these are NOT related.


Not really. There are many many people that truly feel marijuana is NOT harmful but actually beneficial because it's natural and has been actually shown to ease ailments. Obviously, you disagree with that view. Would it be fair for Pot Smokers of America to rally their troops behind this and suddenly want to legalize marijuana? If you allow one group to do so, you will have to allow ALL groups to do so. Again, where will it end?



How does two gay people cause harm to ANYBODY? Answer me that

I've answered that question 15 million times already. Go back a few pages and check it out.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 02:42 PM
To someone with your belief system, What is YOUR morality geiger? Since you don't believe in God of any kind, what do YOU base your scrutiny of right vs wrong on?

There is no tangible proof that we evolved from a "big bang", yet individuals like yourself believe that. Contrary to your assertions, that my friend is in fact FAITH. It's a crazy FAITH IMO, but by definition it is YOUR FAITH because it's belief in something that is not tangible. Point? By definition, you yourself are being hypocritical, so I wouldn't be so quick in labeling people in the future.

What makes YOUR faith any more viable a gauge for morality than mine? And if we're not going to use FAITH as the gauge for morality, what will we use?
you are the one labeling me, saying what people LIKE ME believe. you dont know me dont tell me what i believe. who was i labeling? it wasnt you or anyone on this board just a person i know personally. and what makes your gods view more important than someone elses views? i have not been hypocritical show me a quote where i was hypocritical please. and i never said what i believe in is more viable than anothers, your the only one implying that.

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 02:43 PM
What makes your opinion so much more important than the people actually affected by not being allowed to marry? I still fail to see where you are hindered or harmed by them being married


How are they "affected"?

Let's see how many times you are able to prove your point w/o resorting to double talk and trying to have it both ways. :rolleyes:

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 02:51 PM
How is it double talk. Listen to yourself first off. You keep saying that it isn't going to harm you probably never will nor will it hinder you. You keep saying that YOUR viewpoints are obviously better than ours and that it shouldn't be allowed because people who aren't gay don't want it. So I guess if this was some 50 years ago you would say that blacks shouldn't be allowed to share drinking fountains because there has to be a limit somewhere. If you want to compare marijuana to gay marriage then I guess you can compare it with racism. You would be the type of person who would have been for segragation. I have not "double talked" or tried to have it both ways yet. I keep trying to get you to understand this small detail. IT DOES NOT HURT OR IMPEDE YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM...IT MAKES TWO PEOPLE HAPPY AND DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BESIDES THEY CAN SAY THEY ARE MARRIED. Why should they NOT be allowed. Why do you even have an opinion on the topic if it doesn't affect you? And yes it does affect me, I have friends who are gay and I stand up for my friends. If I disagreed with them I wouldn't. Are you really just a homophobe?

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 03:00 PM
you are the one labeling me, saying what people LIKE ME believe. you dont know me dont tell me what i believe. who was i labeling? it wasnt you or anyone on this board just a person i know personally. and what makes your gods view more important than someone elses views? i have not been hypocritical show me a quote where i was hypocritical please. and i never said what i believe in is more viable than anothers, your the only one implying that.

I'm not going to quote the things you said because they were foul and unwarranted. That's your right to voice your opinion, just like it's mine not repeat something so ridiculous. They clearly showed your belief system, so it left little to no doubt what you believe in and don't.

Now, you did in fact label that "person" as hypocritical because of their faith in something you don't agree in. I was simply showing you that if we disected your own statements about your "beliefs" then we too could label you a hypocrite. Therefore, I was trying to show you how you too could be wrongly labeled.

Show me where I said anything about how "MY" God's views are any more important than your atheist views. Show me.

Let me help you. YOU WON'T FIND THAT. Reason? Because I've clearly said that this issue should be discussed on the ONLY point that could possibly have varying views.....Legal and political. Trust me, if this was a biblical debate, you and the other people that support this would NEVER have a leg to stand on. NEVER. So, you may want to opt to keep the discussion religiously free otherwise it would be a short and sweet debate. ;)

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:04 PM
I'm not going to quote the things you said because they were foul and unwarranted. That's your right to voice your opinion, just like it's mine not repeat something so ridiculous. They clearly showed your belief system, so it left little to no doubt what you believe in and don't.

Now, you did in fact label that "person" as hypocritical because of their faith in something you don't agree in. I was simply showing you that if we disected your own statements about your "beliefs" then we too could label you a hypocrite. Therefore, I was trying to show you how you too could be wrongly labeled.

Show me where I said anything about how "MY" God's views are any more important than your atheist views. Show me.

Let me help you. YOU WON'T FIND THAT. Reason? Because I've clearly said that this issue should be discussed on the ONLY point that could possibly have varying views.....Legal and political. Trust me, if this was a biblical debate, you and the other people that support this would NEVER have a leg to stand on. NEVER. So, you may want to opt to keep the discussion religiously free otherwise it would be a short and sweet debate. ;)
we're keeping it religiously free because there is no way to prove or disprove religion so that would get everyone no where. and what did i say that was so foul and unwarranted? i dont see it.
and dont assume you know why i called that person a hypocrite because you obviously dont have any idea why. its not because they are christian, i have many friends who are christians. this person is a hypocrite saying things and doin the opposite, saying "you are wrong for doing that" then doing it, this person judges others christians are not supposed to judge others. so nextime before you go one making an assumption stop and think about what was said.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:10 PM
your right my bad you have not said any religious reasons

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 03:11 PM
this person is a hypocrite saying things and doin the opposite, saying "you are wrong for doing that" then doing it, this person judges others christians are not supposed to judge others.

That's how I find all Christians. Very hypocritical. That's what got me to be untrusting of Chrisitian folks. Later, QD.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:13 PM
That's how I find all Christians. Very hypocritical.
thats how i feel too but i dont judge people till i get to know them first

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 03:16 PM
thats how i feel too but i dont judge people till i get to know them first

Lolol. I used to be that way. But I still pre-judge Christian peeople because I know that's what they do. And "Lord help them" if they find out you aren't Christian yourself. Lolol. Later, QD.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:19 PM
yea but you shouldnt judge them though not all of them are like that.

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 03:24 PM
I know that. But literally everyone that I got to be friends with that were Christians did the backstabbing, prejudging shit to me. So I tend to just say fuck em. Later, QD.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:26 PM
ah ok

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:27 PM
yea but your just being like those people that judge you

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 03:33 PM
How is it double talk. Listen to yourself first off. You keep saying that it isn't going to harm you probably never will nor will it hinder you.

It doesn't and won't.




You keep saying that YOUR viewpoints are obviously better than ours

Show me where I have said something of the sort.



and that it shouldn't be allowed because people who aren't gay don't want it.

I have a standing challenge to you and any supporter of Gay marriages to show ANY way they see as "fair" to find out what the majority of people want. Remember, according to you and everyone else, Gov't is supposed to represent the PEOPLE and not themselves. Therefore, how else are THEY going to represent the people? Come up with a better way of finding out what PEOPLE want and thereby putting a new law into effect, and I'll be happy to agree with you. Until then, it's all a bunch of double talk. You want the "Gov't" to allow something that majority do not approve of, yet admit the "Gov't" is supposed to represent that majority????? Exhibit A: Double talk.




So I guess if this was some 50 years ago you would say that blacks shouldn't be allowed to share drinking fountains because there has to be a limit somewhere.

People can live w/o a marriage license, they can't survive w/o WATER. You're right, that's exactly the same. :rolleyes:



You would be the type of person who would have been for segragation.

Funny, how I've been involved in a bi-racial relationship longer than you've probably been alive, employ 8 different nationalities in my business, coach little league which has kids from all over the world, I have friends from all walks of life, and yet you fill your mouth with something so moronica as that? Just because I don't agree with something you do doesn't make me a Nazi. You're not lilly white anglo either. How bout I make some assumptions about you? Would you like that? Then you better start showing some respect or this could get ugly quick.


I have not "double talked" or tried to have it both ways yet.

Yes you did. You are contending that it's strictly about "love" and all those warm and fuzzy things, yet that has nothing to do with the stance of the very people you are defending.



I keep trying to get you to understand this small detail. IT DOES NOT HURT OR IMPEDE YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM...IT MAKES TWO PEOPLE HAPPY AND DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BESIDES THEY CAN SAY THEY ARE MARRIED.

If it in fact is soooo simple, then why all the hoopla? Noone is making Gay people stop being "gay". Noone is burning down their homes or businesses. Noone is saying they have to ride in the back of the bus. Noone is directly persecuting them or ostracising them by not allowing them to legally marry. So, why all the fuss? Might it be because it's a little MORE complicated than a "simple piece of paper"????? HMMMMMMM.......it seems that makes a complete circle then HUH? Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't say marriage is a simple piece of paper, only to then argue its all important. You can't say what's the big deal, only to then put so much importance on "marriage". Get it? Probably not.


Why do you even have an opinion on the topic if it doesn't affect you? And yes it does affect me, I have friends who are gay and I stand up for my friends. If I disagreed with them I wouldn't. Are you really just a homophobe?

You want a cookie? What, so now only people that know Gays can have an opinion? Only people that are friends with Gay people know what's fair for them? Are you gay? If not, by your justification, then you too shouldn't have an opinion on this either now should you. It doesn't affect you.....

BTW, if you wanna take the gloves off and take it to a personal level, I'd be happy to obligue. I'm very transparent. What you see is what you get. You're the second person that's called me something I'm not simply because you can't phathom in your vast array of neurons in your noggin that someone doesn't have to agree with you to respect you. So, I will only ask you once to not call me names unless you want to go personal. If you want to take the gloves off, just let me know. Otherwise, respect me like I'm respecting you and we can debate until the cows come home.

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 03:38 PM
yea but your just being like those people that judge you

Yea I know. Lolol. Later, QD.

blacknightteg
04-18-2005, 03:40 PM
.....i could seriously say something mean but im not gunna

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:43 PM
hey jaime were you referring to me calling you names?

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 03:44 PM
we're keeping it religiously free because there is no way to prove or disprove religion so that would get everyone no where.

Really? You actually have thought out that and came to that conclusion? Well, let me ask you a simple question then.......how come if all these atheists have came up with the good ole "big bang theory" of how we all got here and how they've micro-disected everything to come up with how single celled organisms mixed and formed multi-cell organisms like us........how come none of these "brilliant" minds have ever been able to REPLICATE it????? Just a thought. That would make mindless single celled organisms SMARTER than them now wouldn't it?




and what did i say that was so foul and unwarranted? i dont see it.


Then go back a few pages and re-read your own quotes about God this and God that. I wasn't the only person that didn't take a liking to that. So, why would it be surprising to you?


and dont assume you know why i called that person a hypocrite because you obviously dont have any idea why. its not because they are christian, i have many friends who are christians. this person is a hypocrite saying things and doin the opposite, saying "you are wrong for doing that" then doing it, this person judges others christians are not supposed to judge others. so nextime before you go one making an assumption stop and think about what was said.

You are right. I didn't see it from that angle. You do also have to remember that noone is perfect. Everyone can falter at any time. Noone can or should claim to be perfect. That also does not claim to discredit them as Christians either. So you have to see it from that angle too.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:44 PM
Yea I know. Lolol. Later, QD.
ok........

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 03:45 PM
hey jaime were you referring to me calling you names?


I don't remember. Did you call me a homophobe too?

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 03:47 PM
.....i could seriously say something mean but im not gunna


Towards.... Later, QD.

blacknightteg
04-18-2005, 03:49 PM
jaimes religious veiws

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:50 PM
Really? You actually have thought out that and came to that conclusion? Well, let me ask you a simple question then.......how come if all these atheists have came up with the good ole "big bang theory" of how we all got here and how they've micro-disected everything to come up with how single celled organisms mixed and formed multi-cell organisms like us........how come none of these "brilliant" minds have ever been able to REPLICATE it????? Just a thought. That would make mindless single celled organisms SMARTER than them now wouldn't it?

ya know i dont know and i really just dont care about where we came from i just choose not to believe in any god. maybe the single celled organisms are smarter than us who knows. all i was saying is that there is no way to prove there is a god or to prove there is not a god.


You are right. I didn't see it from that angle. You do also have to remember that noone is perfect. Everyone can falter at any time. Noone can or should claim to be perfect. That also does not claim to discredit them as Christians either. So you have to see it from that angle too.
i never said anyone was perfect, but when someone is supposed to not judge someone (and claim they are christian) repeatedly then i would say they are not a good person.

Hulud
04-18-2005, 03:51 PM
I don't remember. Did you call me a homophobe too?
nah that wasnt me i was just wondering, i couldnt tell if you were implying that is was me or not.

blacknightteg
04-18-2005, 03:51 PM
I don't remember. Did you call me a homophobe too?


no, i was the one that ask you whether or not you were a homophobe like nere the begginning or middle of this thread

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 03:53 PM
If you are referring the the homophobe comment, thats was literal not sarcastic, and if you take it offensively, well, thats not how it was intended. You just seem to not want them to be married period end of story and maybe you just don't want to know people are gay and the topic can come up when talking about someones married life, ignorance is bliss.

Marriage is a personal thing. Me, I'd be pissed if someone wouldn't let me marry the girl I wanted for any reason. Its a very PESRONAL thing. When I say personal I'm referring to the two people being married, friends, and family, not the whole damn nation. It is something important to an INDIVIDUAL, not to a NATION. "Get it?"

Did I say it was strictly abotu love? No, I said if two people are truely in love, let them be married, it doesn't hurt harm anyone and so what if it helps them with taxes. I'd be more worried about people who have kids for tax purposes.

Did I say you are in fact, right now, prejudice? Did I imply that right now, today, or throughout your life, you have been, are, were, will be, prejudice? No. I stated that your stance against gay marriage would be the same as if you were in a debate about black rights defending pro-segragation. Simple enough?

So people can't survive w/o Marijuana then? People do fight for Marijuana to be legalized, but there is proof that it harms you. There is facts that it doesn't help you at all. We have enough legalized shit in this world to fuck us up as it is. Gay marriage does NOT hurt anyone.

When did I say the gov't should represent the majority? Please, point that exact statement out. If I said it then I didn't intend to. I said the government should protect peoples rights and freedoms. There are people who don't like fast cars and turbos because people race with them and get killed. There are people who don't think old folks should be allowed to drive because they have slow reactions. They still allow both of those. There are tons and tons of topics in which majority may not agree with but it is allowed anyways. The Gov't is suppose to PROTECT peoples rights.

The whole your opinion is better and more important goes to the majority comment. You are saying the majority agrees with you, the majority must be right, because they are in the majority. Therefore their veiws, and yours, must be right and the views in which we should listen to.

Where it gets me everytime is the fact that it causes no harm or hinderence to you but you stand against it so much

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 04:58 PM
Marriage is a personal thing. Me, I'd be pissed if someone wouldn't let me marry the girl I wanted for any reason. Its a very PESRONAL thing. When I say personal I'm referring to the two people being married, friends, and family, not the whole damn nation. It is something important to an INDIVIDUAL, not to a NATION. "Get it?"

I agree, yet I don't see how a "piece of paper" is going to suddenly make it acceptable and all rosy with your friends and family. If they didn't accept it before, they probably won't even with a paper that says it's now legal. I understand what you're saying, but once again this is why I said you were wanting it both ways. You can't say it's not acceptance or something else using the example you gave above. Now, I turn the question the other way: How is MY view going to affect YOUR decision to marry anyone or love or live with or whatever other variation there is?




Did I say you are in fact, right now, prejudice? Did I imply that right now, today, or throughout your life, you have been, are, were, will be, prejudice? No. I stated that your stance against gay marriage would be the same as if you were in a debate about black rights defending pro-segragation. Simple enough?


Understood differently now that you've clarified it.



So people can't survive w/o Marijuana then? People do fight for Marijuana to be legalized, but there is proof that it harms you. There is facts that it doesn't help you at all. We have enough legalized shit in this world to fuck us up as it is. Gay marriage does NOT hurt anyone.


Again, that is your opinion too. Substitute the words "Gay marriage" everywhere you used Marijuana above. There are people that strongly would agree with your paragraph then. They truly feel and can articulate how there are "harms" and "hurt" from homosexuality. How's that make them any more wrong than you?


the government should protect peoples rights and freedoms. There are people who don't like fast cars and turbos because people race with them and get killed. There are people who don't think old folks should be allowed to drive because they have slow reactions. They still allow both of those. There are tons and tons of topics in which majority may not agree with but it is allowed anyways. The Gov't is suppose to PROTECT peoples rights.

What you don't want to understand is that there are NO RIGHTS tied to marriage. Not for Gays and NOT for ME either. Right now, if the state of GA decides that you are not a good candidate for a marriage license, they simply don't give you one. You can't even sue them about it. There ARE NO RIGHTS TO MARRIAGE ANYWHERE IN THE U.S. NO WHERE. So what is there for the Gov't TO protect if there is nothing there?


The whole your opinion is better and more important goes to the majority comment. You are saying the majority agrees with you, the majority must be right, because they are in the majority. Therefore their veiws, and yours, must be right and the views in which we should listen to.


Again, noone has yet come up with any other possible scenario on how to reach a decision. Everyone is saying, "well, just because", well that's no different than the opposition. Come up with something better than a vote yourself then.


Where it gets me everytime is the fact that it causes no harm or hinderence to you but you stand against it so much

I stand against for a few reasons. Harm to me directly is not the only litmus for having an opinion one way or the other. It goes a lot deeper than simply saying, what harm does it do to YOU? That is looking at things with blinders on IMO.

Bajjani
04-18-2005, 05:03 PM
Don't expect a response soon, I'll respond 2nite when I get back to my dorm I'm leavin work soon

Jaimecbr900
04-18-2005, 08:05 PM
jaimes religious veiws


You couldn't hold my jock strap in a religion debate, but you're welcomed to try.

quickdodge®
04-18-2005, 08:44 PM
Lolol. He'd sure like to try, though. Later, QD.

blacknightteg
04-19-2005, 05:32 AM
do you really even need a jock strap tho? i doubt you have the big enough balls or dick to even need one.......but neways i wasnt stating i wanted to challenge you in a dumbass religious debate cuz i know our views are completely differnt. thats why i stated that statement, cuz by some of your STRONG views i kind of get the idea of wat your religion is, nothing wrong with that. i jus dont have the greatest respect for it

Jaimecbr900
04-19-2005, 09:57 AM
do you really even need a jock strap tho? i doubt you have the big enough balls or dick to even need one.....

Big words spoken by such a little man. I tell you what, let's find out how big your little nads are. Why don't you come up and introduce yourself next time you see me at a show or something? That way you can come back and report to everyone how wrong you were about the size of mine.......



..but neways i wasnt stating i wanted to challenge you in a dumbass religious debate cuz i know our views are completely differnt. thats why i stated that statement, cuz by some of your STRONG views i kind of get the idea of wat your religion is, nothing wrong with that.

Then why would you say anything derrogatory about it then? If you say there's nothing "wrong with that"? Besides, when you're ready to start a debate on religion, you're welcome to open a thread and go for it. I'll be happy to join in. Until then, what's my religious view have to do with this topic?



i jus dont have the greatest respect for it


Considering that comment is coming from someone that thinks a tape worm is a cool sig....... :gay:

Kevykev
04-19-2005, 02:06 PM
ok, i think i missed something here guys?

Hulud
04-19-2005, 02:34 PM
yea i think you missed a lot

quickdodge®
04-19-2005, 03:36 PM
Considering that comment is coming from someone that thinks a tape worm is a cool sig.....

Sorry, but I had to lolol at that. Later, QD.

blacknightteg
04-19-2005, 03:40 PM
wow jaime...your cool....making fun of a sig......damn that goes right to the heart

Hulud
04-19-2005, 03:51 PM
ok enough bashing each other.....so how about gay marriage?

Jaimecbr900
04-20-2005, 07:44 AM
wow jaime...your cool....making fun of a sig......damn that goes right to the heart


I made fun of more than just your sig.

You wanna let it die or keep going?

Jaimecbr900
04-20-2005, 07:46 AM
ok enough bashing each other.....so how about gay marriage?

I think the discussion has reached sort of an end pass. Neither side is really disproving the other.

Kevykev
04-20-2005, 08:16 AM
I think the discussion has reached sort of an end pass.
I though this happend last week man? :confused:

but hey it's fine "Gay" discussions attracts lots of opinions.

Jaimecbr900
04-20-2005, 08:21 AM
but hey it's fine "Gay" discussions attracts lots of opinions.

Don't they????? It's usually cause my big mouth jumps in every one of them..... ;)

Hulud
04-20-2005, 12:06 PM
I think the discussion has reached sort of an end pass. Neither side is really disproving the other.
it sure does bring lots of opinions its kinda sad that its dying now :(
i feel like a part of me is dying.....lol

Bajjani
04-21-2005, 10:49 AM
neither sides opinion is going to change I think, either people are stubborn or feel that strongly about their side. Either way, its just a discussion not so much a debate...

Hulud
04-21-2005, 10:43 PM
yea so are we still gonna talk about it?

DrivenMind
04-21-2005, 11:09 PM
i think it's dumb, people who can't produce their own children don't NEED to be married. it's stupid. they deserve the right to be married just like anyone else, but it's not important that they be married and they can go other places to do it if they'd like.

Want gay marriage? get a sex change. problem solved ?

Hulud
04-21-2005, 11:11 PM
what about the benefits? health care etc.?

DrivenMind
04-21-2005, 11:35 PM
what about the benefits? health care etc.?

hmmm... I never looked at it that way. What about the drawbacks?

Hulud
04-22-2005, 12:04 AM
like?

Dragonfly5338
04-22-2005, 12:29 AM
i think it's dumb, people who can't produce their own children don't NEED to be married. it's stupid. they deserve the right to be married just like anyone else, but it's not important that they be married and they can go other places to do it if they'd like.

Want gay marriage? get a sex change. problem solved ?


so a woman who has had a hysterectomy doesn't need to get married because she can't produce children?

DrivenMind
04-22-2005, 12:32 AM
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

people who can't physcially produce a baby shouldn't be having sex (im being hyopocritical here), but given the aggressively growing number of STDs and those they infect, why not leave marriage to those who can produce and add to the population?


so a woman who has had a hysterectomy doesn't need to get married because she can't produce children?

Good point. She needs to get divorced immediately, and made illegal to wed (sarcasim). He asked for opinions...? :(

gays deserve benefits, so don't get me wrong... I just think marriage should be left alone, it barely works as it is.

Dragonfly5338
04-22-2005, 12:42 AM
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

people who can't physcially produce a baby shouldn't be having sex (im being hyopocritical here), but given the aggressively growing number of STDs and those they infect, why not leave marriage to those who can produce and add to the population?



Good point. She needs to get divorced immediately, and made illegal to wed (sarcasim). He asked for opinions...? :(

gays deserve benefits, so don't get me wrong... I just think marriage should be left alone, it barely works as it is.

no, i was just asking. you said people who can't produce children - that would include sterile heterosexual couples.

so for example, if a couple has two children, the man gets snipped, then the couple gets divorced - that man shouldn't be able to remarry because he can no longer have children?

i'm not being a smartass, i'm just trying to understand your reasoning here, man..

DrivenMind
04-22-2005, 01:35 AM
no, i was just asking. you said people who can't produce children - that would include sterile heterosexual couples.

so for example, if a couple has two children, the man gets snipped, then the couple gets divorced - that man shouldn't be able to remarry because he can no longer have children?

i'm not being a smartass, i'm just trying to understand your reasoning here, man..

yep. it's a new policy, meaning that everyone who is now infertile/sterile must get divorced. People who are not going to have kid will get a fine if they don't produce a baby within the first 3 years of marriage, after 5 years they are forced to divorce if they have yet to produce offspring. If after the 5 year period the couple has a child, they take it to the local DMVS and show it as proof and are allowed to remarry. Also people who get sex changes will be forced to get the letter "T" tatooed in red on their forehead. Elderly men will be forced to divorced the first time they are inable to maintain an erection, until they can maintain one at least 8 out of 10 times. Of course erection stanima will be tested bi-annually, to see if a divorce is required. Women... well they'll just be forced to divorce and retire when they begin menopause.

dohctec
04-22-2005, 01:36 AM
atleast you don't have to worry bout pullin out.

DrivenMind
04-22-2005, 01:38 AM
atleast you don't have to worry bout pullin out.

..................... :bowdown:

Hulud
04-22-2005, 09:18 AM
What about the drawbacks?
like??

DrivenMind
04-22-2005, 12:32 PM
like??

no offspring produced?

intercourse would be purely for recreation, possibly aiding in the spread of STDs. (this applies to sterile hetrosexual couples as well)

I mean I really don't feel that strongly against it, I just think it's unnecessary. I think homosexual couples should be allowed the same benefits as a married couple, just through a different means.

I know "love" knows no boundaries, but marriage does and was established that way.

im not trying to offend anyone or come off as "conservative", that's just my opinion.

dohctec
04-22-2005, 02:07 PM
no offspring produced?

intercourse would be purely for recreation, possibly aiding in the spread of STDs. (this applies to sterile hetrosexual couples as well)

I mean I really don't feel that strongly against it, I just think it's unnecessary. I think homosexual couples should be allowed the same benefits as a married couple, just through a different means.

I know "love" knows no boundaries, but marriage does and was established that way.

im not trying to offend anyone or come off as "conservative", that's just my opinion.

ill say it again

atleast you dont have to worry bout pullin out

Jaimecbr900
04-23-2005, 09:38 PM
I never thought this thread would turn out to be funny.... :lmfao:

DrivenMind
04-23-2005, 10:28 PM
I never thought this thread would turn out to be funny.... :lmfao:

heh... life is full of surprises.

absolude
04-24-2005, 09:48 AM
Wow, you guys are REALLY passionate about the subject... Amazing. This is the same kind of emotion that swarmed over everyone last fall. Hope we can all still remember our common link here: IMPORTS!!! Thats why we are all here (On IA, not on Earth). Keep it real peeps, and will someone please think of the cars....

Kevykev
04-24-2005, 04:06 PM
what about gay animals?

DrivenMind
04-24-2005, 04:12 PM
what about gay animals?

eh, we'll find a way around them.

Hulud
04-26-2005, 10:12 PM
what about gay animals?
what about them?

absolude
04-28-2005, 09:14 AM
Interesting phenomenon- those gay animals... Nothing is more "natural" than animals, right? So if there are gay animals, that MIGHT imply that being gay is indeed natural. Animals don't have any of our higher level reasoning, like "choosing" to be gay to be rebellious (as someone proposed earlier), so can anyone explain this one?

Hulud
04-28-2005, 09:16 AM
^^my point exactly

Jaimecbr900
04-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Interesting phenomenon- those gay animals... Nothing is more "natural" than animals, right?

Ok, I'll bite. Name some "gay" animals and why they are considered "gay".




So if there are gay animals, that MIGHT imply that being gay is indeed natural. Animals don't have any of our higher level reasoning, like "choosing" to be gay to be rebellious (as someone proposed earlier), so can anyone explain this one?

Will all depend on your answer above. Some animals have both male and female organs. That IMO doesn't necessarily make them "gay". Some animals have sex and it's not for procreation purposes. That's not necessarily "gay" either.

If an animal acts "gay" by having intercourse with the same sex of the same species AND does so on a frequent basis (i.e. not just one time because he/she didn't know any better) AND subsequent sub species do the same (i.e. is not simply a learned behaviour they saw their big brother do once) THEN you may have a point that the species is in fact "gay" per se. I personally don't think you'll find any animal that remotely fits that kind of description. Humans on the other hand fit that description to a tee.

Also, count how many different species of "animals" there are. Now take that number divide it by the number of species that exhibit even a remote inkling of "gay" behaviour. The percentage of even remote "gay" behaviour in the wild animal kingdom I would be willing to be it so miniscule it be expressed in decimal numbers rather than whole numbers. Wanna bet? Point? The absolute overwhelming and substantial majority of all dumb and wild animals is HETEROSEXUAL and NOT homosexual. So the point of it being "natural" is ludicrous and incorrect.

Think about this: If it were "natural" to be "gay"......how would people procreate aside from science intervening? You honestly think that's how we were wired since the beginning? For science to determine our procreation and continuation of our species? That makes absolutely no common sense at all.

absolude
05-05-2005, 02:14 PM
Sorry- have not been online in a minute.


Will all depend on your answer above. Some animals have both male and female organs. That IMO doesn't necessarily make them "gay". Some animals have sex and it's not for procreation purposes. That's not necessarily "gay" either.
You're right. Some animals, and people, are born with reproductive organs from males and females. This makes that individual a hermaprhodite. One thing most people need to realize is that sexual orientation should not be mistaken for gender confusion. Not every gay man thinks he is supposed to be a woman and vice versa. If one has sex with a member of his own gender, that would label him as gay. How would it not? I don't understand what you are using to qualify somone as gay other than that.
If an animal acts "gay" by having intercourse with the same sex of the same species AND does so on a frequent basis (i.e. not just one time because he/she didn't know any better) AND subsequent sub species do the same (i.e. is not simply a learned behaviour they saw their big brother do once) THEN you may have a point that the species is in fact "gay" per se. I personally don't think you'll find any animal that remotely fits that kind of description. Humans on the other hand fit that description to a tee.
There are a few species of animals that have sex for pleasure. Dolphins, dogs,penguins, and monkeys to name a few. I was watching the news the other day, and at a zoo in New York, there are several homosexual male penguins. These penguins, despite the presence of female penguins, these males exclusively limit sexual activity to one or another. The staff even attempted tp isolate the "gay" penguin with female and elicit some kind of respose, but there was nothing...
Also, count how many different species of "animals" there are. Now take that number divide it by the number of species that exhibit even a remote inkling of "gay" behaviour. The percentage of even remote "gay" behaviour in the wild animal kingdom I would be willing to be it so miniscule it be expressed in decimal numbers rather than whole numbers. Wanna bet? Point? The absolute overwhelming and substantial majority of all dumb and wild animals is HETEROSEXUAL and NOT homosexual. So the point of it being "natural" is ludicrous and incorrect.
Just because the majority of people are dong one thing does not make it natural. By your own statement, I would be unnatural because I am black, and minority to whites and hispanics. Or we both would be unnatural because we are men, and minority to women. Percentages and statistics can never be used to support a theory that being gay is unnatural.
Think about this: If it were "natural" to be "gay"......how would people procreate aside from science intervening? You honestly think that's how we were wired since the beginning? For science to determine our procreation and continuation of our species? That makes absolutely no common sense at all.[/QUOTE]
Ok, now you lost me. Wouldn't you say that being heterosexual is natural? Instinctual? Not learned? Yes. So if there are people out there who feel the need to have sex with members of the opposite sex, then there is no need for science to intervene. And "common sense" has no place in a discussion such as this. No one has implied that science was supposed to take over natural procreation.
The thing you might be misunderstanding and misconceptualizing is that gay people do NOT believe being gay is the ONLY way. Gay people think that there are many approaches and fits to life. One's belief that homosexuality is natural does not by any means imply that heterosexuality is unnatural.

absolude
05-05-2005, 02:14 PM
btw- I am in the italics.

Jaimecbr900
05-05-2005, 03:38 PM
One thing most people need to realize is that sexual orientation should not be mistaken for gender confusion. Not every gay man thinks he is supposed to be a woman and vice versa. If one has sex with a member of his own gender, that would label him as gay. How would it not? I don't understand what you are using to qualify somone as gay other than that.

I was simply anticipating your "animal's are gay" response and saying that just because some species are hermaphrodites or in the absence of an opposite sex suitor CHOOSE to have intercourse with the same sex THAT doesn't make their species, ie. the animals, "gay" per se. In other words, if 1 horse out of a gazillion accidentally tries to hump his buddy instead of a mare, that does not signify that it's a "natural" act and thereby validate homosexuality as "natural" by default. Get it?




There are a few species of animals that have sex for pleasure. Dolphins, dogs,penguins, and monkeys to name a few. I was watching the news the other day, and at a zoo in New York, there are several homosexual male penguins. These penguins, despite the presence of female penguins, these males exclusively limit sexual activity to one or another. The staff even attempted tp isolate the "gay" penguin with female and elicit some kind of respose, but there was nothing...

That shows nothing other than a handful of penguins in a zoo somewhere are acting gay. HOW would that make homosexuality a "natural" act when a gazillion other penguins don't act gay? As a matter of fact, that would actually prove the argument someone else brought up about mental disorder and it's link to this subject. Seems to me that it could just as easily be argued that those particular penguins have something "wrong" with them. Why not? It's just as plausible as any other rationalization. And to be honest, I don't even believe that myself. But it could be argued.




Just because the majority of people are dong one thing does not make it natural. By your own statement, I would be unnatural because I am black, and minority to whites and hispanics. Or we both would be unnatural because we are men, and minority to women. Percentages and statistics can never be used to support a theory that being gay is unnatural.


See, this is where it gets to the nitty gritty of what you believe and don't. If you believe that you are "born" a certain way, then your statement would make sense. IF on the other hand you believe this is a "learned or chosen" behaviour, then your statement is ridiculous. The color of your skin is not decided by you. You are born with it. It is NOT a choice. So, that must mean that you also believe that being "gay" is something you're born with? If so, how do you explain identical twins sharing the SAME DNA, yet having DIFFERENT sexual orientations? If it's genetic, that would be one strand of DNA that would SHARE that gene IF it existed, right? Explain that one.

The reason why I used numbers as part of the discussion is not to say that if the majority does it it's right. It was to show that there will NEVER be one single way for anyone to prove that homosexuality is a "natural" act because the percentage of cases where it has occured in the wild, i.e. naturally, is so infinitely miniscule that it has to be attributed to something other than "nature" because of the overwhelming numbers of identical cases of the same species where they DON'T exhibit homo behavior. Therefore, there are way too many things that it COULD be attributed to, nature NOT being one them, otherwise the majority of the species would be homo because it was predetermined in their DNA. Follow that? Same with humans.




Ok, now you lost me. Wouldn't you say that being heterosexual is natural? Instinctual? Not learned? Yes. So if there are people out there who feel the need to have sex with members of the opposite sex, then there is no need for science to intervene. And "common sense" has no place in a discussion such as this. No one has implied that science was supposed to take over natural procreation.

I do believe heterosexual is the only "natural" way.

Common sense does factor into a discussion like this because if we use it we can see a huge logic and pattern to our entire sexual history. Millenia have passed, players totally differ, yet the plot remains basically the same. You can only procreate via a man and a woman. Marriage has been recognized in every culture, until recent years, as a union between man and woman. Nature also shows what the "natural" way is, and it is very seldom via same sex relations. That to me shows plenty of common sense usage.


[I]The thing you might be misunderstanding and misconceptualizing is that gay people do NOT believe being gay is the ONLY way. Gay people think that there are many approaches and fits to life. One's belief that homosexuality is natural does not by any means imply that heterosexuality is unnatural.

That is a lot of double talk.

Just because a homosexual person is tolerant does not mean much as far as this discussion is concerned.

I too am aware that there are many approaches to life. Does that mean that I'm going to approve of something I see as wrong? Absolutely not. Does it mean that I'm going to commit a hate crime and beat up someone just because they are gay? Absolutely not too. I am very tolerant to all kinds of different people. Even gay people. I worked in an environment for 4.5 yrs where the owners were openly gay, half the personnel were openly gay, and even the majority of discussions were gay. There were plenty of discussions where we discussed this very issue. Openly. I respected their point of view to an extent, and they did mine to an extent. Did we agree? Hell naw! But could we co-exist? Sure. I had only one clear rule: Don't touch me. They respected that, so I didn't have an issue with working there.

My point has always been simple. I have a very strong belief about homosexuality. I don't think it's right. But that doesn't mean that I can't be tolerant and deal with people that choose to be gay. That is their perrogative. I do not ever cram down their throats MY beliefs, but be damn sure that I'm not gonna let them do that to me either. Anyone asks my opinion, I'll give it. That does not mean that I go "gay hunting" at night. That just means I have a strong belief about being on one side of the fence on this issue.

Jaimecbr900
05-05-2005, 03:49 PM
btw- I am in the italics.

BTW, we need to teach you how to do quotes differently. It's hard to read when you just insert it into the text.

BTW2, Noone has come up with that elusive "gay" animal example and why you consider it "gay"....... ;)

Hulud
05-05-2005, 08:41 PM
here i got a study on homosexual rams...

Biology behind homosexuality in sheep, study confirms
OHSU researchers show brain anatomy, hormone production may be cause
PORTLAND, Ore. – Researchers in the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine have confirmed that a male sheep's preference for same-sex partners has biological underpinnings.
A study published in the February issue of the journal Endocrinology demonstrates that not only are certain groups of cells different between genders in a part of the sheep brain controlling sexual behavior, but brain anatomy and hormone production may determine whether adult rams prefer other rams over ewes.

"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans," said the study's lead author, Charles E. Roselli, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, OHSU School of Medicine. "The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development and regulation of heterosexual, as well as homosexual, behavior."

The results lend credence to previous studies in humans that described anatomical differences between the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men, as well as sexually unique versions of the same cluster of brain cells in males and females.

"Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species." said Roselli, whose laboratory collaborated with the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University and the USDA Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.

Kay Larkin, Ph.D., an OHSU electron microscopist who performed laboratory analysis for the study, said scientists now have a marker that points to whether a ram may prefer other rams over ewes.

"There's a difference in the brain that is correlated with partner preference rather than gender of the animal you're looking at," she said.

About 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don't believe it's related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes.

"They're one of the few species that have been systematically studied, so we're able to do very careful and controlled experiments on sheep," Roselli said. "We used rams that had consistently shown exclusive sexual preference for other rams when they were given a choice between rams and ewes."

The study examined 27 adult, 4-year-old sheep of mixed Western breeds reared at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. They included eight male sheep exhibiting a female mate preference – female-oriented rams – nine male-oriented rams and 10 ewes.

OHSU researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain, which they named the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus or oSDN because it is a different size in rams than in ewes. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain that controls metabolic activities and reproductive functions.

The oSDN in rams that preferred females was "significantly" larger and contained more neurons than in male-oriented rams and ewes. In addition, the oSDN of the female-oriented rams expressed higher levels of aromatase, a substance that converts testosterone to estradiol so the androgen hormone can facilitate typical male sexual behaviors. Aromatase expression was no different between male-oriented rams and ewes.

The study was the first to demonstrate an association between natural variations in sexual partner preferences and brain structure in nonhuman animals.

The Endocrinology study is part of a five-year, OHSU-led effort funded through 2008 by the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists will work to further characterize the rams' behavior and study when during development these differences arise. "We do have some evidence the nucleus is sexually dimorphic in late gestation," Roselli said.

They would also like to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, such as by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.

In collaboration with geneticists at UCLA, Roselli has begun to study possible differences in gene expression between brains of male-oriented and female-oriented rams.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/ohs-bbh030804.php

Hulud
05-05-2005, 08:42 PM
and now thanks to everyone who sees this. this is my 500th post!!!! yay........ anyways, back to gay marriage!

Jaimecbr900
05-05-2005, 09:11 PM
I'm actually impressed that you have found a good example of an animal that has gay tendencies. Props for that.

Now, based on this study it implies that there may be a hormonal imbalance between hetero and homo brains. Which to be honest, would definetly sometimes explain why there's such a predominant opposite sex tendencies, ala flamer or butch.

I think we're getting off the subject though. We're starting to get into some technical stuff about homo and hetero instead of focusing on the marriage aspect.

Hulud
05-05-2005, 10:39 PM
yea we are getting off topic. i just found that and you wanted to see an example so i posted it. but yea gay marriage...
i think we beat it to death

Kevykev
05-05-2005, 11:31 PM
sup guys! :D

Hulud
05-05-2005, 11:32 PM
wuddup

Kevykev
05-06-2005, 08:54 AM
You might just be the creator of the most posted in, NON-Whoreslounge thread in Ia history. :)

Jaimecbr900
05-06-2005, 10:09 AM
You might just be the creator of the most posted in, NON-Whoreslounge thread in Ia history. :)

It's actually a lot more civil now than it was before. It used to get ugly when there were certain, ahem, people around IA that were pretty passionate about the subject. Nah mean??? ;)

Hulud
05-06-2005, 10:23 AM
nope i dunno what you mean... lol i just joined in march

sweet! i created something special!!!!

RandomGuy
06-08-2005, 06:29 PM
It's actually a lot more civil now than it was before. It used to get ugly when there were certain, ahem, people around IA that were pretty passionate about the subject. Nah mean??? ;)
lol i remember...

Damn i dont even know how many pages back I am. Too far to catch up, fuck it lol. I still think allowing gay marriage = like letting retards cross the street during busy traffic. Honestly. Thats my opinion. (lets get this heated back up jamie)

Z33_kid
06-09-2005, 01:20 AM
lol i remember...

Damn i dont even know how many pages back I am. Too far to catch up, fuck it lol. I still think allowing gay marriage = like letting retards cross the street during busy traffic. Honestly. Thats my opinion. (lets get this heated back up jamie)


allowing gay marriage = like letting retards cross the street during busy traffic.
baashashaahahahahhahahahha :eek: :lmfao:

C22H19N3O4
06-09-2005, 03:34 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/korean_teg/yo.jpg

Jaimecbr900
06-13-2005, 03:32 PM
lol i remember...

Damn i dont even know how many pages back I am. Too far to catch up, fuck it lol. I still think allowing gay marriage = like letting retards cross the street during busy traffic. Honestly. Thats my opinion. (lets get this heated back up jamie)

It's actually a lot less fiery around here than it used to be. I remember when this or a bible or election time debate.......wow, we got into some doosie debates. Most were actually pretty educational. I learned a lot out of those myself.

Hulud
06-20-2005, 03:59 PM
thats what debates are for.. they let everyone understand more

RandomGuy
06-22-2005, 03:19 AM
so just for the record, the final answer to this thread:

GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG AND SHOULD BE BANNED

------------------------------Thread finished------------------------------------------------------

Hulud
06-22-2005, 05:07 PM
ok your right its wrong... since you are all knowing and everything

Annihilation
06-22-2005, 11:04 PM
two ppl with a Dick is just nasty

2 chicks is acceptable..... :) happy toughts

absolude
06-28-2005, 10:16 PM
You can't straddle the fence....

Hulud
07-27-2005, 03:20 PM
agreed http://p2.forumforfree.com/images/smiles/newscoffee.gif

Hulud
03-15-2006, 12:12 AM
so does anyone have a valid non-religious reason why this shouldnt happen?

i cant remember if anyone posted one its been so long

GsrTurbo320
03-15-2006, 12:36 AM
This thread is homo
I= Out of here.

Hulud
03-15-2006, 12:45 AM
This thread is homo
I= Out of here.
good, no room for ignorance and unintelligence

metalman
03-15-2006, 05:28 PM
The reasoning that being gay is immoral therefore gay marriage should not be allowed puts the rest of people on a slippery slope. First, many of the people objecting to it on moral grounds are themselves whoring around or going through marriages like dirty socks. If morality is the question to be decided then there is plenty of "blame" to go around.

However, since the government should regulate only civil matters, and even then as little as possible, I see no civil grounds to object to two consenting adults being married.

The ridiculous truth is that there are many laws governing sexuality, not only with regard to gays but concerning straight sex/relationships as well. Example, in a number of states oral sex between man and woman is considered sodomy and a punishable crime. There are other even more insane laws! Such laws really have no place in America where freedom of individual concience and morality is SUPPOSED to be a principle.

Hulud
03-15-2006, 05:53 PM
The reasoning that being gay is immoral therefore gay marriage should not be allowed puts the rest of people on a slippery slope. First, many of the people objecting to it on moral grounds are themselves whoring around or going through marriages like dirty socks. If morality is the question to be decided then there is plenty of "blame" to go around.

However, since the government should regulate only civil matters, and even then as little as possible, I see no civil grounds to object to two consenting adults being married.

The ridiculous truth is that there are many laws governing sexuality, not only with regard to gays but concerning straight sex/relationships as well. Example, in a number of states oral sex between man and woman is considered sodomy and a punishable crime. There are other even more insane laws! Such laws really have no place in America where freedom of individual concience and morality is SUPPOSED to be a principle.
and thats how i feel, i just think its the govt sleepin with the church is why they dont approve it

FDslider
03-16-2006, 01:31 PM
Let gay marriages be legal. They have the right to be as miserable as all of the straight married people! hehe. FUCK MARRIAGE!

BluesClues
03-16-2006, 01:36 PM
w/ divorce rate over 50% who fucking cares... trying to preserve marriage went out the window back in the 60's.... its amazing the people fighting over this topic... what the hell does the goverment have to do w/ who you should marry? they shouldn't have any rights in this topic... you should be able to marry a sheep if thats what you want. fucking gonzo had camilla(muppet babies); lol. maybe people should worry more important issues like SS, Medicare, Gas prices, War, education, enviroment, etc...
:werd: I couldn't agree more!

FDslider
03-16-2006, 01:45 PM
:werd: I couldn't agree more!
same here.