|
On March 05 2004 03:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On March 05 2004 03:09 BroOd wrote:
I like how the government has to step in to take care of gay marriage, but when it's adultery, "it's being dealt with by God". I also like how divorce is the answer when the Bible is against it. Sounds like you need to read the Bible then. What I said may sound contradictory but in reality it's not. I saw through your attempted logic trap from the start. The government, mainly San Francisco, Vermont, and now Portland, is creating laws making gay marriage a recognized institution. The government has no place to make these claims, so the government must take action reversing this. Anyway back to divorce. Divorce is allowed if one is unfaithful and commits adultery but that is the ONLY time. READ THE BIBLE BUDDY. Don't challenge me on this.
u speak of reality?
When things go good, its gods gift to man. If things go bad, its mans own fault and sin. right, thats really balanced. Really 'real'.
Oh well, this is (hopefully) my last response to you. Go worship ur magic man on a cloud.
|
On March 05 2004 03:21 Excalibur_Z wrote:
The Christian church didn't even invent marriage buddy, it's been around long before the days of Christ.
well well, it appears i have a reason to respond.
Your right, marriage existed before christianity.
It appears that christianity has no rights to deem who should and should not be married. It wasn't your invention. It is not your invention to put restrictions on.
|
On March 05 2004 03:32 rplant wrote:
People who put their kids up for adoption should specify whether or not they want their biological kids being brought up by fags. If they're ok with it, everyone else should be too. If they're not, no fags can adopt their kids. As far as gays marrying for tax benefits and crap, that should be legal because any other system is discriminatory.
They should also be able to specify what incomes the parents must have, what color their skin is, how tall they are, and if they have a history of heart disease or not.
'ok'.
|
[B]On March 05 2004 14:44 Teroru wrote
u speak of reality?
When things go good, its gods gift to man. If things go bad, its mans own fault and sin. right, thats really balanced. Really 'real'.
Oh well, this is (hopefully) my last response to you. Go worship ur magic man on a cloud.
because balance between good and evil is very real  a bit naive there are we?
btw applause for you keeping it cool again
|
On March 05 2004 05:50 Ready2[ESC] wrote: you liberal ppl argue about gay marriage as if your life depends on it. talking 'bout too much free time. too bad you wont be able to convince anyone despite of the great effort. go play some bw instead
To any liberal who supports homosexual relationships, u have my immeasurable gratitude. i hope thats worth more than those 15 minutes u could have spent playing brood war.
|
On March 05 2004 07:46 CrazedZergling.. wrote:
I have no problem with homosexuals, its just a matter of raising a kid. I dont think its a good environment for a child to be raised in. I think people who support gay marriage dont realize that 5 or 10 years down the line, it may end up as a bad thing for the child.
Why will it be a bad thing? Thats a pretty arbitrary statement if u dont specify why its bad.
|
BTW divorce is not allowed in the Bible. THe man can get "seperated" from the wife, and the wife is stoned to death. The only reason the seperation is allowed is because of infidelity. Go read Deuteronomy. If you are advoacting reinstituting stony women then I am at a loss for words.
In modern terms, divorce (since the church's formal stance is divorce is not allowed) is called "seeking an anullment". This is where a recently married couple "annuls" their oath because they suddenly realized that the other person was drastically wrong for them. If you have a kid and have been married for 2 years the CHurch will never support you with your legal divorce.
|
On March 05 2004 07:57 SS-guy wrote:
i agree with crazed zergling except that i do have a problem with gays... if i meet them i dont show hate or anything like that, but being gay isnt natural and they arent "born gay" they can change if they want to... they just think they are born gay to make themselves feel good, even though when they see a naked chick they get a boner
ur naive and ignorant. When i was younger, i tried to be straight. I was sick of the hate and wished i could just be the same..
But then it hit me, i can't be straight. i'm not attracted to pussy. Its that simple. its nasty, disgusting, and fucking gross. The fact that u would put ur dick (and let alone mouth)there seems as disguting to me, as putting ur mouth on a mans dick is to you. You just dont seem to get that. What ur doing seems so horribly and fucking wrong to me, i cant possibly understand why u'd do it. But thats where common sense comes in. My perception is not reality, it is only real to me. It is *my* perception.
Your opinion isnt the be-all end-all to the way the world works kid. Get the fuck over it, ur not inherrantly right just because u can't see it any other way. Infact, your wrong for that very reason.
|
On March 05 2004 08:26 Bill and Bill wrote:
I think that gay guy on this forum will tell you that a woman doesn't turn him on. And he can't help that.
the numbers in US are something like 56% against and 30 some odd percent for gay marriage.
Woman don't turn me on !
It would be like saying to the lot of you. "if u want to prove me wrong, could u look at a naked guy and get an erection? better yet, could u insert your dick in his ass and keep ur erection? okok, better yet, could u let him slam his dick down your throat, and let that action *give* u an erection?"
The ovious answer is no. And by the way, *why the fuck wouldnt that be a 2 way street*? Use your fucking brains.
|
On March 05 2004 08:47 JjOnG wrote: It all comes to that!
Ur right, it does.
And my point is that homosexuality does not point in either direction.
|
in some places(here in michigan, it is by county) , gay couples can already adopt, so raising kids is a sererate issue.
|
On March 05 2004 10:40 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Excal I love you. In a completely platonic way. Show nested quote +
Bey said! :
2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought.
How many times have homosexual males gotten each other pregnant? I ask because I know of cases in which "infertile" couples have conceived. If there is only a .0001% chance of a heterosexual couple conceiving, thats a) still justifiable for marriage and b) a much higher chance than a pair of homosexuals have. As far as impotent/post-menopausal couples, well, they already did that song and dance, and I don't think they'll be doing it anymore, eh? Drop your anti-Biblical bias for a second and consider the term "One flesh". Keeping that in mind, try for once to assume a purely logical position and consider the human anatomy. Male + Male = excess! Female + Female = lack! Male + Female = I think we have a winner! C'mon, now. It isn't that hard to see that there is a way the world is supposed to work, is it?
So what about a couple that marry but decide because of their ill-equipped skills to be a parent, that they will never have children.
What does 'one flesh' have to do with anything? TOUCHE! 'FIVE FLESH'.
|
On March 05 2004 01:42 Commander[SB] wrote:
Whats wrong with gay couples adopting kids?
fuck you.
|
|
|
On March 05 2004 10:58 DooMeR wrote: I dont give a fuck really if the government is handing out marriage lisences. They are just peices of paper saying ur married. but i dont know why they would want to get married lol. The concept of marriage was made by the bible, in saying that a man and a woman be joined for the rest of their lives (well one of theirs ;P) and so thats where that came from. the only reason they want to marry is because they want "equal rights", but this is just gonna make more animosity between straight people and gays. Homosexuality goes against both the bible and science so i dont know how someone can say its civilized :O i dont see a chain of monkeys humpin each other, cuz even an animal that dumb(compared  ) is smart enough to know whats right. Personnally, i HATE the lifestyle, but if i met a gay person, i would treat them the exact same way as anyone else, cuz what they do dont affect me. so dont start with the homophobia shit Honestly. what will they think of next, WOMEN WITH JOBS? --;
Do u understand the nature of animosity?
My suggestion is to read 'The meaning of things' by A.C. Grayling. It would enlighten you.
And homosexuality is very pravelent in nature. This point will be argued by every1, so i will simply state it as my opinion. I have seen countless studies of how very naturally occuring homosexuality is.
|
On March 05 2004 13:20 Tolstoy wrote:
Well, the only argument against gay marriage that I sorta agree with is that it is one thing along a very long line of getting rid of old traditional values and having everything pc in our societies. Abortion, lack of punishment for children, lack of punishment for convicts, lack of responsibility in general is what this politically correct society has brought us into, and now the USA is decaying from the inside out.
Many of the people who disagree with gay marriage are those that grew up in a much more conservative age. One where they had responsibilities. They are unwilling to let go of these rules which they followed as children, because they see what their society was like compared to what it is today, and while there may be more freedom there is 1000000x the filth to go along with it.
Their is something to be said about traditional values that most of the youth of today pass off as dinosaur talk. Just take a look outside and see the results.
And Excalibur_Z -- that was the most moronic post I have ever seen and you are a complete fuckin moron if you believe half the stuff you said. I have a gay brother who has a bachelors in theology, then a dualmajor history/polisci and now is in his masters program for intelligence and a TA for christian history classes at Carlton. He has been a practicing Christian this whole time and knows and believes 100x more in God than you ever will.
List those traditional values. I fucking beg to differ.
|
On March 05 2004 14:12 Teroru wrote: Show nested quote +On March 05 2004 02:01 Beyonder wrote: On March 05 2004 01:57 Commander[SB] wrote: On March 05 2004 01:54 baal wrote: On March 05 2004 01:51 TranCe wrote:
i like to think i turned out fine.i can't speak for every other single parent/child though. interesting. but im not saying its a rule, im saying its a big possibility, if they pick sometimes on random targets imagine having such a "tail"... I only know that i'd really wouldnt want to be a child raised by homosexuals. Why? would you be ashamed of your parents? If you would, thats sad. Having two parents of the same sex is not as optimal as having two parents of different sex. Combine that with the point that you'll get teased and it will have a lifetime effect on you, that its not widely accepted, and looked at as gross - makes me perfectly understand why he would say such a thing. And about sad, your average parents take kids to stuff together, and kiss there for example. Imagine a person under 16 with their two male parents out, and they kiss? You'd feel really awkward, and would be ashamed. That's just the way society and the evolution of a person works in most cases? I don't blindly accept that a straight parenting couple is better than a homosexual one. Point me to someone who can back up their arguement. If your parent likes to pick his nose and wipe it on his partner, and this parent knows that it will embarass his kid, does he do it? Thats a very shallow arguement. If my child had grown his whole life learning what sexuality truly is, i dont think he would be embarassed by it. but *if he was*, there is no fucking way in hell, as a father, that i would put my child through that. No good parent would.
Terrou, Simple Question: Do you think a kid would be more likely to turn out homosexual if his parents were straight or gay?
|
On March 05 2004 11:59 Ready2[ESC] wrote: how can ppl born gay? so there should be a gene responsible for homosexuality? thats hard to believe because that would make homosexuality inheritable. considering homosexuals inability to have kids that gene would get extinct (or how do you say that in english) in a couple of centuries. how can it rear its ugly head every once in a while?
My lack of knowledge of the 'how' does not mean the answer is 'how not'. For this arguements sake, and the ironic amusement of it, i will say 'god made me this way'. lol....
|
On March 05 2004 12:08 Ilintar wrote: TigG, I think you're doing this completely the wrong way. I could write probably 15 points about "why should computer players have free internet" outlining the commonly mentioned evils of computer games and disposing of them one by one. That's not the case though. Tell me please - why should governments give _privileges_ to homosexual couples? An institution of marriage is a privilege. This privilege is granted to heterosexual couples because a heterosexual couple is a natural (and please don't tell me homosexuality is natural, it isn't, nature created two species the way it did) way of promoting procreation - even if not every heterosexual couple is capable of having kids, as a _general_ heterosexual couples are capable of having kids. Homosexual ones are not. That's why I don't think they should get any kind of active support from the government. True, sodomy laws are a relict from the middle ages ( ) and should be revoked, gay people shouldn't be discriminated in any way because that's simply not fair. But promoting something that is against the human nature just because there's a large lobby group is going a little too far...
Since u don't prodice any information to back up your claim, i wont provide any information to back up mine.
my claim?: you are wrong.
|
On March 05 2004 13:49 Ready2[ESC] wrote: Show nested quote +On March 05 2004 13:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
only thing wrong with gay marriage is the people unwilling to accept it.
same with gay abortion. if people stopped making fun of people for being gay or having gay parents, that wouldn't be a problem, but people sure as hell won't stop making fun of people for having gay parents when it's incredibly rare. 50 years ago the people against gay people had the same opinions regarding black people. is them being allowed to sit on the white seats on the bus and to go into the white stores a bad thing?
I dont think so at least!
yeah sure they were the same ppl. plz dont be dumb. you only say that because as a liberal you hate them for discriminating ppl but your comparison is not even remotely good. being black is not a deviance but being gay is. btw you are doing the "Slippery Slope" fallacy acording to the aforementioned site (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php) you compare ppl against gay marriage to ppl against black ppl and assume that this comparison is right. then you continue with racism which is a totaly different thing and assuming that these ppl are racist too.
You have horrible parents. They must be homosexual.
(this claim is based on the product of such parentage)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
