EPTAny thoughts?
Gay Marriage has come to Portland
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
Any thoughts? | ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
| ||
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
| ||
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
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. 3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else. 4. Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument. 5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of such an argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out through lack of procreation. If ten percent of all the human race were to suddenly refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into an already overburdened world. So why encourage them? 6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. That one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate sexually, and thereby reduce the number of supposed heterosexual marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. So you would have freedom of choice, of choosing what kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for tightening divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage. 7. Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and has since largely abolished it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction? 8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage. 9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers. If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue. 10. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it. 11. Sodomy is illegal. Ah, the ol' sodomy law argument! Why is sodomy still illegal in many states? Because conservative religionists (at whose behest those laws were enacted) have blocked attempts to repeal them in every state where sodomy laws are still on the books. Indeed, those laws are very rarely enforced (though it does happen), yet there is very stiff opposition to their repeal. Why? Because they're a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis of legalized discrimination. "Why should I rent an apartment to an unconvicted felon?" "I can't have an admitted criminal on my staff." "You're an unconvicted felon. I want you out of my restarurant and off my property." "I don't want you around my children. You're a criminal!" These are very real, actual arguments used in states where sodomy laws remain on the books. So even though the moral crusades of the religionists using the power of the police have largely ended, the sodomy laws that made them possible remain, and likely will for as long as conservative religionists have their way. Indeed, some state legislatures have even tried to reenact sodomy statutes! Heterosexuals would never allow such intrusion into their private sex lives, of course, but the homophobes among them see nothing wrong in using the power of the state to enforce their prejudices. State court systems, however, have begun to see the violation of the Fourth Amendment in such laws, and nearly as many state sodomy laws have been overturned as unconstitutional as have been repealed by state legislatures. | ||
|
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:15 Commander[SB] wrote: Multinomah county in OR is now the 4th (Or around 4th) county in the country to now allow gay marriage. Any thoughts? Let people do whatever they want to as long as they are not hurting anybody else. Its not my business. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
| ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
| ||
|
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
| ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:43 Beyonder wrote: The point that it is proven to be very important for a child to have both a father and a mother. Of course, and in an ideal world every kid would have a very loving mother and father. But in our not-so-ideal-world with kids already in orphanages, how does a gay couple adopting them hurt anyone in any way? They still love there kid just as much. And thats really what the world needs the most right now. A little bit of love. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
I mean they can marry and do whatever they want, but having a child means to put a boy with no possible opinino into a huge stress into school. I cant really imagine how they manage to survive school having 2 queers taking care of him... just imagine the mental abuse. Remember that post of that guy who was beated in hongkong?, well now imagine a kid with gay parents OMG! endless torture just because 2 god damn queers wanted to take care of someone... well buy a god damn cat. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:46 TranCe wrote: im sure kids have been raised by single parents before and turned out fine,so i doubt thats true.. Whats turning out fine? Not being on drugs, not having a drinking problem? And we are talking about statistics (percentages), knowledge of our kind - humans. Home is a secure environments for kids, a place where they can not be touched by the 'evil world'. Only having one parent, or growing up in an unsafe environment has a surprisingly big effect on a child. If you for example fight with your partner in front of your child, it has major negative effect. When it comes to having two partners from the same sex there's also the thing that you are very very likely to get teased during several early stages of your life. This again has a really negative effect on a child. Ofcourse that leads to the next point, should we hold all this in our mind and prevent it, or just let it go so gay marriage will slowly get a social acceptance? In the past people got teased for glasses, now it's all normal. Will the same thing happen with gay marriages? How will it be in, let's say, 30 years? | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
My brothers friend doesn't have to live through much 'mental abuse'. Edit: to baal | ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:48 Beyonder wrote: Whats turning out fine? Not being on drugs, not having a drinking problem? And we are talking about statistics (percentages), knowledge of our kind - humans. Only having one parent, or growing up in an unsafe environment has a surprisingly big effect on a child. If you for example fight with your partner in front of your child, it has major negative effect. When it comes to having two partners from the same sex there's also the thing that you are very very likely to get teased during several early stages of your life. This again has a really negative effect on a child. Ofcourse that leads to the next point, should we hold all this in our mind and prevent it, or just let it go so gay marriage will slowly get a social acceptance? In the past people got teased for glasses, now it's all normal. Will the same thing happen with gay marriages? How will it be in, let's say, 30 years? How will the world solve any of its problems if it lets cycles continue? War will never end while countering violence with violence. The only way to stop cycles is to do just that, STOP CYCLES. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:50 Commander[SB] wrote: Maybe they need to go to a better school. I go to a school where one of my brothers best friends dad is now technically a woman, dresses in female clothes, and comes to our school on a regular basis. My brothers friend doesn't have to live through much 'mental abuse'. Edit: to baal The level of acceptance on these kind of matters differs based on region, and population. In some places live the kind of people that easilly accept this, and their kids will take over this behaviour. In some places there are a lot of these people, in some not. I'm sure that at the point where I got teased for having glasses, it was already a normal thing somewhere else. It however isn't rational to send your kids to school 100 miles away now is it? | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
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. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:54 Beyonder wrote: The level of acceptance on these kind of matters differs based on region, and population. indeed. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:53 Commander[SB] wrote: How will the world solve any of its problems if it lets cycles continue? War will never end while countering violence with violence. The only way to stop cycles is to do just that, STOP CYCLES. Ofcourse, but the first wave will have it extremely hard. I said that it was a point of discussion, I didn't say that we should do or not do it. And as long as we have these really retarded systems in our so called super advanced western countries, we'll have retards at the top making decisions, and propoganda to make us believe our leaders are doing the right thing. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:54 baal wrote: 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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:29 Jim wrote: Let people do whatever they want to as long as they are not hurting anybody else. Its not my business. Agreed. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:57 Commander[SB] wrote: 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? | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:42 Commander[SB] wrote: Whats wrong with gay couples adopting kids? My reasoning being, first off I don't think I could survive so I can't say im ok with someone else going through it, but than again I am already raised a certain way which makes it seem to awkward. Secondly although there are 2 parents its as if the child only receives parenting from one parent in this case only one sex. How is that bad for the child you ask, well just look at men and women, both different on the mental and physical surfaces, so only being subjected to one sex they are deprieved of what the other sex may have to offer in the form of parenting such as insight or the sheer presence. I don't think the 2 same sex parents would be bad for them but rather the child would be missing out on something. I mean take a look at single parents, I mean its possible but is it really what you would want for a child. And please no hypotheticals such as what if the child were raised in a abusive home, because the arguement can be easily reversed. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:54 Beyonder wrote: The level of acceptance on these kind of matters differs based on region, and population. In some places live the kind of people that easilly accept this, and their kids will take over this behaviour. In some places there are a lot of these people, in some not. I'm sure that at the point where I got teased for having glasses, it was already a normal thing somewhere else. It however isn't rational to send your kids to school 100 miles away now is it? If a gay couple adopts a kid in like the middle of Redneck, Kentucky. Yeah maybe thats not the safest for the kid, but perhaps there are ways to prevent other students from knowing about him/hers parents. I mean I don't think it will be very good for the self-esteem of the kid to have to lie about his parents, but it surely beats being teased to death by kids in the classroom. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
I believe that this is a matter that should be very carefully handled in the class the kid is in. I think that if this is brought well in the class, that this could very well be accepted among the rest of the kids. I however doubt that in many places this would be handled well. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
What i see is that people try to use those kids as battery rams to open the society, but its not fair for the kids, they should be brought to those situations when it is totally normal and acceptable, nowaday the world its not ready, so wait until it is. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:01 Beyonder wrote: 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? yes, I guess it would be up to the wisdom of the gay couple to decide if they should kiss in public eh? I'm not saying gay marriage couples wouldn't have a lot more rescrictions about raising there kids, but like I said, it sure beats kids growing up without ANY parents. People get teased for pretty much everything that people can target. Although I'm not saying its right to use this as an excuse, but a lot of kids are teased for many reasons and are able to shrug it off and they turn out fine. I think as long as the kid doesn't wear a shirt that says 'GAY PRIDE' in junior high - it really wouldn't be as big of an issue as you make it out to be. | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
People get teased for pretty much everything that people can target. Although I'm not saying its right to use this as an excuse, but a lot of kids are teased for many reasons and are able to shrug it off and they turn out fine. I'm not saying that they don't turn out 'fine' - I'm saying that it has a negative effect, and in many cases a lifetime effect on the personality. (socially) I think as long as the kid doesn't wear a shirt that says 'GAY PRIDE' in junior high - it really wouldn't be as big of an issue as you make it out to be. Perhaps, all I'm saying that it could very well be a point against gay marriage. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:07 Beyonder wrote: At one point you say it would be sad to be ashamed of your parents, and at the other you wish to hide it. I understand what you mean, but do you see what I mean as well? And at that rate it will never get acceptance. I believe that this is a matter that should be very carefully handled in the class the kid is in. I think that if this is brought well in the class, that this could very well be accepted among the rest of the kids. I however doubt that in many places this would be handled well. I completely understand what your saying. Yes and it really does depend where the kid lives and what situation he is in. It is sad to be ashamed of your parents, but it also is pretty devastating to be teased by an entire class for something completely out of your control. You can't have it perfect. But like I said before, if we continue thinking this way the world will never improve and continue in the blind cycles its in now. I just think its important to take it one step at a time. 300 years ago my father could be owning slaves right now (well - if we had more money), 50 years ago black kids couldn't go to the same school as me. But that is changed because small steps were taken over the course of 300 years that now has made the world a better place. Issues like these NEED to be resolved before they get build up too much hate inside an entire group. I know its always been looked down upon to be gay, and gay people seem surprisingly cool about it. But everyone and every group has a snapping point. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:08 Commander[SB] wrote: yes, I guess it would be up to the wisdom of the gay couple to decide if they should kiss in public eh? I'm not saying gay marriage couples wouldn't have a lot more rescrictions about raising there kids, but like I said, it sure beats kids growing up without ANY parents. People get teased for pretty much everything that people can target. Although I'm not saying its right to use this as an excuse, but a lot of kids are teased for many reasons and are able to shrug it off and they turn out fine. I think as long as the kid doesn't wear a shirt that says 'GAY PRIDE' in junior high - it really wouldn't be as big of an issue as you make it out to be. Well hell some kids go nuts (columbine) And they probably had straight parents, now imagine what a child would go through in our society today if his parents were gay and not to mention every gay couple won't be spectacular parents. Personally the teen suicide rate will go up because those kids will not be ready for the society we live in today. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:08 baal wrote: Commander first of all you cant hide for long the fact that he has gay parents, and if you are going to lie about your parents then they should be allowed to have them. Well I wouldn't get my kids to lie about me, but I guess its because I live in a community that accepts it. And wtf, not 'being allowed to have them' just because you have to alter the truth slightly to save your kid from some social torment? | ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
But sure, at one point this will be a point - but this should be later, after the world is more ready. I would not 'take a child' during the first stages, but that is just because of my morals, values, and experiences. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
because a couple of men with breast say so? i say kill em  i had to let "baal" go out in this post :p | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
assuming stopping gay marriage stops gay adoption (why would it?) and conceding that statistics support a position that gays are more frequently "bad parents" (vague) than heterosexuals: why do people think that some random homosexual parents are going to be worse than some random hereosexual parents? assuming the statistics support such a generalization, since when do we settle for statistical trends when deciding to persecute an entire minority? crime is more prevelent in black communities; should we put all black people in jail? even if a higher percentage of homosexuals are bad parents compared to hetereosexuals, that should not be license to forbid all homosexuals from becoming parents (through adoption). if children having bad parents is your real concern, you could do much better than singling out a small minority and noting that they, statistically (assuming the statistics support this, which i am conceding for the sake of argument) are bad parents. how about coming up with actual standards to decide if a couple is allowed to be parents or not? oh, wait, there already are standards when it comes to adoption, and they can be applied without looking at the gender or sex of the parents. are the standards too low? then raise them, big whoop. why does "gay" even have to figure into any kind of parental argument? | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:02 DV8 wrote: My reasoning being, first off I don't think I could survive so I can't say im ok with someone else going through it, but than again I am already raised a certain way which makes it seem to awkward. Secondly although there are 2 parents its as if the child only receives parenting from one parent in this case only one sex. How is that bad for the child you ask, well just look at men and women, both different on the mental and physical surfaces, so only being subjected to one sex they are deprieved of what the other sex may have to offer in the form of parenting such as insight or the sheer presence. I don't think the 2 same sex parents would be bad for them but rather the child would be missing out on something. I mean take a look at single parents, I mean its possible but is it really what you would want for a child. And please no hypotheticals such as what if the child were raised in a abusive home, because the arguement can be easily reversed. Well I've already said. In an ideal world every kid would have two loving parents of the opposite sex. But men fall in love with other men, eh? And wanna have kids, eh? Better for the kids to have 2 parents of the same sex then having no parents of any sex and having to live in an orphanage. I'm sure the kids who grow up in an orphanage are not eager to tell everyone they meet either. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:21 stimey d okgm fish wrote: the parental argument against gay marriage: assuming stopping gay marriage stops gay adoption (why would it?) and conceding that statistics support a position that gays are more frequently "bad parents" (vague) than heterosexuals: why do people think that some random homosexual parents are going to be worse than some random hereosexual parents? assuming the statistics support such a generalization, since when do we settle for statistical trends when deciding to persecute an entire minority? crime is more prevelent in black communities; should we put all black people in jail? even if a higher percentage of homosexuals are bad parents compared to hetereosexuals, that should not be license to forbid all homosexuals from becoming parents (through adoption). if children having bad parents is your real concern, you could do much better than singling out a small minority and noting that they, statistically (assuming the statistics support this, which i am conceding for the sake of argument) are bad parents. how about coming up with actual standards to decide if a couple is allowed to be parents or not? oh, wait, there already are standards when it comes to adoption, and they can be applied without looking at the gender or sex of the parents. are the standards too low? then raise them, big whoop. why does "gay" even have to figure into any kind of parental argument? Good arguement only problem is no one said gay parents=bad parents. | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
| ||
|
Powerpill
United States1693 Posts
| ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:22 Commander[SB] wrote: I know this doesn't count for fact or even a stastitic but I thought Id bring it up, I knew 2 kids who grew up in a orphanage but both had no problems speaking of it and almost spoke of it as a self hardening experience that they are proud of.Well I've already said. In an ideal world every kid would have two loving parents of the opposite sex. But men fall in love with other men, eh? And wanna have kids, eh? Better for the kids to have 2 parents of the same sex then having no parents of any sex and having to live in an orphanage. I'm sure the kids who grow up in an orphanage are not eager to tell everyone they meet either. | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
If you want society to progress then you cant be scared to make changes. Sure, it might be hard at first but it will be better in the long run. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:19 Beyonder wrote: Perhaps, but what you must realise (which Baal said too) is that what you mention isn't the only way to make it widely accepted. There are other ways, positive propoganda - you name it. These do not effect a shit load of kids in a negative way. But sure, at one point this will be a point - but this should be later, after the world is more ready. I would not 'take a child' during the first stages, but that is just because of my morals, values, and experiences. Yes well depriving 2 people in love to not be aloud to adopt and marry because of 'positive propaganda' is stupid. They aren't hurting anyone, they aren't polluting the air, stealing money from old people, shooting up schools, selling crack to kids. They are not the real issue in America. Not saying the kid might not be scarred in some way - but how is it yours, mine, or a bunch of straight, white, conservitive fuckers in the white houses' place to say whether or not gay couples adopt or marry? It is depriving humans of there god-given rights to live and love how and whom they choose. And its ironic how bush wants to put 1.5 billion dollars forth to help keep couples together - when he could help the issue for free by legalizing gay marriage. | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:29 DV8 wrote: I know this doesn't count for fact or even a stastitic but I thought Id bring it up, I knew 2 kids who grew up in a orphanage but both had no problems speaking of it and almost spoke of it as a self hardening experience that they are proud of. Yes and I have many friends who are gay, and who speak it proudly. I also have had a few friends in the past who have had a gay couple as parents and they weren't too ashamed to admit it. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:29 Commander[SB] wrote: Yes well depriving 2 people in love to not be aloud to adopt and marry because of 'positive propaganda' is stupid. They aren't hurting anyone, they aren't polluting the air, stealing money from old people, shooting up schools, selling crack to kids. They are not the real issue in America. Not saying the kid might not be scarred in some way - but how is it yours, mine, or a bunch of straight, white, conservitive fuckers in the white houses' place to say whether or not gay couples adopt or marry? It is depriving humans of there god-given rights to live and love how and whom they choose. And its ironic how bush wants to put 1.5 billion dollars forth to help keep couples together - when he could help the issue for free by legalizing gay marriage. Um how does legalizing gay marriage help keep straight couples together in a marriage? | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
| ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:33 DV8 wrote: Um how does legalizing gay marriage help keep straight couples together in a marriage? I guess it doesn't, but that wasn't the point. The point was that he is trying so hard (1.5 billion is a fuckload of money) to keep couples together while he's trying SO hard to keep other couples apart. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:31 Commander[SB] wrote: Yes and I have many friends who are gay, and who speak it proudly. I also have had a few friends in the past who have had a gay couple as parents and they weren't too ashamed to admit it. Odd were their parents men? | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:37 Commander[SB] wrote: I guess it doesn't, but that wasn't the point. The point was that he is trying so hard (1.5 billion is a fuckload of money) to keep couples together while he's trying SO hard to keep other couples apart. The reason being a man/woman couple raising a child tends to do better than any other situation. Edit: You didn't think he did that just for the sake for keeping men and women together did you? | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
| ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
The first step to changing a society for the better, is to admit its faults. Gay predijuce is a huge fault in American society. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
It perverts the institution of marriage, and here's why: marriage has a religious foundation. You get married to your partner in the eyes of God. However, God does not approve of homosexual relationships. Therefore He will not allow them to be married. As such, any marriage between two gay people is void. So, they must resort to being joined in a civil union by a justice of the peace. Many atheists choose this route because they don't want to have to partake in a religious ceremony, and that is the only option for gays. I don't have a problem with gays joined in civil unions, just as long as they aren't married. They are NOT the same thing. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from anti-religious infidels who supposedly want equal rights for gays, but hey I don't make the rules. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and everything to do with perverting the institution of marriage in the way I described. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:38 Commander[SB] wrote: I don't remember one of them, it was a long time ago, but no the friend I do remember had 2 moms. Interesting they from the states? | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:45 Excalibur_Z wrote: The REAL argument against gay marriage is one that Beyonder never mentioned, though he came close. It perverts the institution of marriage, and here's why: marriage has a religious foundation. You get married to your partner in the eyes of God. However, God does not approve of homosexual relationships. Therefore He will not allow them to be married. As such, any marriage between two gay people is void. So, they must resort to being joined in a civil union by a justice of the peace. Many atheists choose this route because they don't want to have to partake in a religious ceremony, and that is the only option for gays. I don't have a problem with gays joined in civil unions, just as long as they aren't married. They are NOT the same thing. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from anti-religious infidels who supposedly want equal rights for gays, but hey I don't make the rules. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and everything to do with perverting the institution of marriage in the way I described. Ok, but should there be laws preventing infidelity/adultery? They also pervert the "institution of marriage." | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:45 Excalibur_Z wrote: The REAL argument against gay marriage is one that Beyonder never mentioned, though he came close. It perverts the institution of marriage, and here's why: marriage has a religious foundation. You get married to your partner in the eyes of God. However, God does not approve of homosexual relationships. Therefore He will not allow them to be married. As such, any marriage between two gay people is void. So, they must resort to being joined in a civil union by a justice of the peace. Many atheists choose this route because they don't want to have to partake in a religious ceremony, and that is the only option for gays. I don't have a problem with gays joined in civil unions, just as long as they aren't married. They are NOT the same thing. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from anti-religious infidels who supposedly want equal rights for gays, but hey I don't make the rules. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and everything to do with perverting the institution of marriage in the way I described. Marriage has evolved much past being a church-only thing. Hell, only a while ago almost everyone married because of financial reasons. The world is constantly becoming more controversal but that doesn't give people the right to use God as an excuse to deprive people of expressing their love to the world. Marriage is about love. Period. And if you fail to see this then there is nothing I can write or say that can help you. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
Don't actually know, I presume so. I lived in Littleton, Colorado at the time (columbine ring a bell?) and he didn't seem like he was gonna go pull out a semi-auto and bring the country media on him. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:48 BroOd wrote: Ok, but should there be laws preventing infidelity/adultery? They also pervert the "institution of marriage." Well according to the Bible, if someone commits adultery then the couple's marriage is void. The adulterer goes to hell and divorce becomes an option. I personally don't like the government getting involved in legislature regarding marriage. To answer your question, no there shouldn't be laws preventing it because that is already dealt with by God, and divorce is the answer. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:53 Commander[SB] wrote: Don't actually know, I presume so. I lived in Littleton, Colorado at the time (columbine ring a bell?) and he didn't seem like he was gonna go pull out a semi-auto and bring the country media on him. Unless he/she was born from one of the 2 parents it just seems a bit odd when in 1997 new jersey was the first state to legalize adoption by joint gay/lesbian couples. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:52 Commander[SB] wrote: Marriage has evolved much past being a church-only thing. Hell, only a while ago almost everyone married because of financial reasons. The world is constantly becoming more controversal but that doesn't give people the right to use God as an excuse to deprive people of expressing their love to the world. Marriage is about love. Period. And if you fail to see this then there is nothing I can write or say that can help you. You should really take a look at the past history of marriage in general before making a statement like that, Only recently has marriage been more about love than anything else. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:52 Commander[SB] wrote: Marriage has evolved much past being a church-only thing. Hell, only a while ago almost everyone married because of financial reasons. The world is constantly becoming more controversal but that doesn't give people the right to use God as an excuse to deprive people of expressing their love to the world. Marriage is about love. Period. And if you fail to see this then there is nothing I can write or say that can help you. WRONG! Marriage has not "evolved" at all. It has been the same for thousands of years. A man and a woman. There is no "evolution". Shut the fuck up with your bleeding heart bullshit. Nobody is using God as an excuse to deprive people of expressing their love to the world. And it's not even to the world, it's to each other. Get your fucking stories straight. You've been spouting all this liberal BS and it's all "feelings" and zero realism. God is not being "used as an excuse". If you got a problem you take it up with Him. The Bible is His work and He says being gay is wrong, so just deal with it. Marriage IS about love but it is love by God's rules. Remember that. Answer me this: WHY DO THEY NEED TO GET MARRIED? WHAT IS WRONG WITH A CIVIL UNION, OR JUST LIVING TOGETHER? I seriously hope you grow up and start thinking realistically instead of using your drug-induced spare time full of hippy fantasies to try and pervert something as sacred as marriage. | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
| ||
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:37 rplant wrote: Beyonder, are you just shamelessly plagiarizing or what? That same bit has been posted all over the place and is months old. lol | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
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. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:02 DV8 wrote: You should really take a look at the past history of marriage in general before making a statement like that, Only recently has marriage been more about love than anything else. Yes I said that. And not really to you, but I truely wonder if some people even yet understand the concept of marriage. with all this God and bible bullshit being brought into it. It doesn't matter that the christain church started it, its much beyond that now. Marriage is simply an offical bond that ties two people as partners for life. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: 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. The bible was written a couple thousand years ago. The authors I'm sure were homophobic. Don't take it so literally. | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: 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. Actually, they're not creating laws at all. They're breaking the current laws of marriage solemnization. So, by your logic, it's the laws PREVENTING gay marriage that should be taken away, seeing as the government has no place making any claims. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:16 Commander[SB] wrote: Yes I said that. And not really to you, but I truely wonder if some people even yet understand the concept of marriage. with all this God and bible bullshit being brought into it. It doesn't matter that the christain church started it, its much beyond that now. Marriage is simply an offical bond that ties two people as partners for life. Sorry, heathen! There are two things: marriage and civil unions. Marriage is religious, civil unions are not. What makes you come up with this bullshit? Seriously. No, I'm serious. I want to get to the bottom of this. Does that pot you love so bad give you all these sudden realizations? It would really help matters if you thought things through with logic rather than feelings. Otherwise it's like talking to an fing brick wall. DUDE I CAN SEE MY ANCESTORS! The Christian church didn't even invent marriage buddy, it's been around long before the days of Christ. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:18 Commander[SB] wrote: The bible was written a couple thousand years ago. The authors I'm sure were homophobic. Don't take it so literally. The Bible consists of the Words of God. Do you even know who God is? God isn't "some homophobic author", He is THE GUY. Remember what happened to that gay town in the Bible? Fire and brimstone buddy! | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote: WRONG! Marriage has not "evolved" at all. It has been the same for thousands of years. A man and a woman. There is no "evolution". That is where you are WRONG! It obviously has evolved, did you not see the first post? Oh my lord some of the stupitidy republicans can spurt. Shut the fuck up with your bleeding heart bullshit. Nobody is using God as an excuse to deprive people of expressing their love to the world. And it's not even to the world, it's to each other. Get your fucking stories straight. You've been spouting all this liberal BS and it's all "feelings" and zero realism. God is not being "used as an excuse". If you got a problem you take it up with Him. The Bible is His work and He says being gay is wrong, so just deal with it. Marriage IS about love but it is love by God's rules. Remember that. Answer me this: WHY DO THEY NEED TO GET MARRIED? WHAT IS WRONG WITH A CIVIL UNION, OR JUST LIVING TOGETHER? Why should they NOT be allowed to be married like everyone else? Doesn't matter if they NEED to or not, because no one NEEDS to. Its unfair and goes agenst human equality. And stop using the bible so fucking much in your arguements, you sound like a fucking priest. The bible is relative. Love is not. Oh yes, and just because a book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of homophobs says being gay is wrong means we should believe it. Ever tried thinking for yourself? Whats your beef with gay people? Why do I pick up such a resentful vibe from your post? I seriously hope you grow up and start thinking realistically instead of using your drug-induced spare time full of hippy fantasies to try and pervert something as sacred as marriage. Telling me to grow up while finishing your post with 'drug-induced spare time full of hippy fantasies to try and pervert something as sacred as marriage' R O F L. good one homie. Man you need a joint. Hell, you need a few of them. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:21 Excalibur_Z wrote: Sorry, heathen! There are two things: marriage and civil unions. Marriage is religious, civil unions are not. What makes you come up with this bullshit? Seriously. No, I'm serious. I want to get to the bottom of this. Does that pot you love so bad give you all these sudden realizations? It would really help matters if you thought things through with logic rather than feelings. Otherwise it's like talking to an fing brick wall. DUDE I CAN SEE MY ANCESTORS! The Christian church didn't even invent marriage buddy, it's been around long before the days of Christ. YEs but it was popularized by the christain church, doesn't take a genious to figure thats what I implied. And no pot didn't give me these realizations, its called common sense. But you should try a joint or two, it'd really help with the stress of having such a closed mind - maybe you'll be lucky and get a couple of realizations yourself. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
| ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:20 BroOd wrote: Actually, they're not creating laws at all. They're breaking the current laws of marriage solemnization. So, by your logic, it's the laws PREVENTING gay marriage that should be taken away, seeing as the government has no place making any claims. Boy you sure make things confusing. The government is intervening. There is no question about it. They want to change the definition of marriage. Okay now that we have established that, any intervention must be reversed. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
Anyway its 3:45 and I need to sleep. Peace. | ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:25 Commander[SB] wrote: That is where you are WRONG! It obviously has evolved, did you not see the first post? Oh my lord some of the stupitidy republicans can spurt. You're going to have to explain this because the first post says NOTHING about how marriage has "evolved", just how one ultraliberal city wants to pervert the institution. Why should they NOT be allowed to be married like everyone else? Doesn't matter if they NEED to or not, because no one NEEDS to. Its unfair and goes agenst human equality. And stop using the bible so fucking much in your arguements, you sound like a fucking priest. Look heathen, MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION WITH ITS ROOTS IN RELIGION. THROWING RELIGION OUT OF IT PERVERTS AND DESTROYS THE INTENT AND PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IT. Do you fucking GET IT YET?! The bible is relative. Love is not. Oh yes, and just because a book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of homophobs says being gay is wrong means we should believe it. Ever tried thinking for yourself? You REALLY need to get a clue. The Bible is NOT relative. Everything in there can be applied to everyday situations. Not that you would know. You're just happy living in your own hippy world ASSUMING everything you say about religion is correct. Who needs facts when you've got your fantasies! Whats your beef with gay people? Why do I pick up such a resentful vibe from your post? I don't have a problem with gay people, I just have a problem with homosexuality. Not that you can tell the difference. More ASSUMPTIONS from Commander the heathen! Maybe the reason you think I'm being so resentful is because you never use any logical argument. You think everything is equal. I sincerely hope you wake up. Telling me to grow up while finishing your post with 'drug-induced spare time full of hippy fantasies to try and pervert something as sacred as marriage' R O F L. good one homie. Man you need a joint. Hell, you need a few of them. Yeah I need a joint like I need a brain tumor. You're a slave to the substance buddy. What wacky ideas will Commander come up with next! | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:34 rplant wrote: Btw what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage? As far as the government is concerned (taxes, income statutes), nothing. | ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
| ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:45 Excalibur_Z wrote: The REAL argument against gay marriage is one that Beyonder never mentioned, though he came close. It perverts the institution of marriage, and here's why: marriage has a religious foundation. You get married to your partner in the eyes of God. However, God does not approve of homosexual relationships. Therefore He will not allow them to be married. As such, any marriage between two gay people is void. So, they must resort to being joined in a civil union by a justice of the peace. Many atheists choose this route because they don't want to have to partake in a religious ceremony, and that is the only option for gays. I don't have a problem with gays joined in civil unions, just as long as they aren't married. They are NOT the same thing. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from anti-religious infidels who supposedly want equal rights for gays, but hey I don't make the rules. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and everything to do with perverting the institution of marriage in the way I described. Did you call god and asked him what he thought about gay marriage, and he told you he didn't aprove it? Man, you really screwed it there. You could say "Christian religion doesn't aprove gay marriage" or jewish or whatever, but not God... | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
| ||
|
Fedaykin
Netherlands2003 Posts
Marraige is NOT a religious bond betweet two poeple. Marraige is a promis towards each other and (basically) signing a piece of paper making you a couple towards the law. And if this is not the case, than why did a friend of mine who recently got married had two seperate ceremonies, one in city hall and the other one in a church. Because he *and his wife) is/are religious and wanted to ask for God's blessing over his marraige. But since the ceremony in the church took place after the one in city hall they were already married then. The religious meaning of marraige isn't what decided whether a couple is married or not. It's just that if you are religious I can understand that you don't consider yourself married unless the church pronounces you man and wife. For non-religious couples the declaration of man and wife before the law is enough. So, marriage has evolved... If it didn't then, well... a very high percentage of the married couples in this world wouldn't be married. Anyway, bottemline, marraige isn't and shouldn't be bound with religion, although it's roots are based therein. Unless you want everyone to be forced into a religion and make it impossible for people to achieve the state of maried couple without the blessing of the church (and thereby base the whole law on the bible and go back to the middle ages) | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
 | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:58 Excalibur_Z wrote: Liberals, for some reason, want marriage to include gay couples. not really. i'd like to add: I don't agree with gay marriage, I don't care if they get married, I won't be losing any sleep, and humans are very strange. | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
| ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
You claim marriage is a religious institution which involves a man and a woman and is sacred by god. I assume you are a christian although I wouldn't read all that much love out of your posts as I would ideally expect from a true christian. American society nowadays is a secular Society. Secularism was invented in "old Europe" at about the time of French revolution. It's only principle is to strictly divide between anything religious and any matters of state to provide for freedom of religion. So any post using weird "interpretations" from the bible - and you seem to interprete the Old Testament much more intensely than you mind for the New One - is completely uncalled for in a legal debate. Another thing: Compare a straight christian couple, a straight hindu couple and a mixed christian/hindu gay couple. Do you notice that only one of these can claim the "holy christian bound of marriage". Yet you surely would agree that the hindu couple has by current law all right to get married and anything else would be religious discrimination. Which just proves that marriage nowadays is not only a christian sacrament. It has evolved, a point that you have so violently denied until I pointed this out to you ;-) Peace to the bible belt, may they no longer ignore their god given brain ;-p koehli | ||
|
CrazedZergling..
Norway8 Posts
| ||
|
SChasu
United States1505 Posts
| ||
|
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
Ps. SS-guy even if that may be true(I dont think so) why cant you just ignore them. They cause no harm.(If you feel they do, the problem lies with you not them) | ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
| ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
the numbers in US are something like 56% against and 30 some odd percent for gay marriage. | ||
|
rOm
Latvia1208 Posts
On March 05 2004 06:26 Muhweli wrote: It all comes to that!THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN THEY'LL HAVE | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
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 Sorry, but who are you to judge about that? They told you that or is it proven by good independ studies? I believe it's proven that from many gay men the brain is more siding to the female functioning then from hetero men. | ||
|
no.1
516 Posts
who cares? just have fun and give a fuck on all these ignorants, if two people want to live together..let them | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
can you link me to a page that explains it? | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
In a completely platonic way. 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? | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 08:06 Jim wrote: Since its pretty impossible to argue successfully over the internet I decided not to. However I would like to share a bit of information. 60% in Sweden support gay marriage. What are the numbers in the US? Ps. SS-guy even if that may be true(I dont think so) why cant you just ignore them. They cause no harm.(If you feel they do, the problem lies with you not them) I think its like 60% oppose it here in the states. WorldNetDaily shows that 60% of polled americans are against. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
or is there no such thing as marriage by the state and its just called civil union? sort of confused here :O | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Its not as though there is anything governmentally different between a civil union and a civil marriage. However, the reason there are tax cuts/benefits etc for married couples is because they have children asdfklajs;dflkasgdflaskh !!!!!!!! sigh. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
| ||
|
DooMeR
United States1519 Posts
 ) 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? --; | ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
I believe it's proven that from many gay men the brain is more siding to the female functioning then from hetero men. have they experimented with 'true' transvestites or people who are completely of another sex in another sex and seen 99.9% functioning like the other gender siding to female function would mean they like men...ok, but how does that make two people who side with women attract when they wanted 'real men' or do they prefer men who function more like women. do lesbians also lean towards male functioning... | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
On March 05 2004 10:40 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Excal I love you. 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? There are many things needless in this world, but fortunatley some of us (most of us do, as long as we have internet) do have them. Why do you need to play video games, travel around the world, or having sex with condom? In most cases it takes you nowhere, but we do it because, in my opinion, it helps us reach happiness, which in the end should be everyones goal (for many ppl surviving is still their major and most difficult goal :-/ ). And happines, being materialistic, makes people work harder & better (this is a fact). What i mean is that a marriage can be the way to reach happiness for two persons, and by doing this they harm nobody, so why should we deny it? just because it's unmoral for you? Think about how you would act if they banned BW, or your biggest hobbie, from your country. And for that guy who said "gays aren't born like that, they can change". That's wrong as far i as am concerned. I too was atonished becouse a guy didn't feel sexual atraction to a woman, but a simple example made me changed my point of view. Do you find a man sexually atractive? if you are hetero you'll say NO!. Same for gays. They are just born different from us. Of course i think hetero is the-way-we-should-be, but hey, mother nature made some mistakes when defining their sexuality, and we should be enough civiliced to accept them. Anyway, in a world where leisure is something very important (as i said, it's very important in the first world, i think it doesn't matter if a small percentage decides not to have children. | ||
|
Sky101
United States1758 Posts
Edit: directed to Vietnam_Oi | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:43 Beyonder wrote: The point that it is proven to be very important for a child to have both a father and a mother. so single parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt, right? | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
There are cases in which male or female anymals try to fuck with anymals of their same sex. A saw a chicken trying to fuck another chicken. That was so fcking hilarious, she keeped on trying, not realising she didn't have dick. And i was told she did that continuosly, not only once in a while. She also tried to fight against the roosters trying to fuck her. What i do doubt is the amount of gays there seems to be. I don't think nature makes SO many mistakes (as a gay person is a mistake for nature). This is something i'll also like to discuss about. | ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
 I still don't think we understand the issue and am having trouble finding any source that clearly defines the crap everyone's discussing so passionately. What was the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling? What makes marriage different from civil unions? Reading this article here about the ruling in MA, it seems to me that fags aren't allowed civil unions: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.ruling/, which in my opinion they should be. "Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family -- these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights," the majority opinion said. "And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations. | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
| ||
|
Ilintar
Poland794 Posts
) 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... | ||
|
Tolstoy
Canada144 Posts
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. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
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! | ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
| ||
|
Tolstoy
Canada144 Posts
On March 05 2004 13:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: 50 years ago the people against gay people had the same opinions regarding black people.  Thats a pretty shallow statement Drone. | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
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. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
are you offended because you're pro gay people but anti black? | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
Being that i am only a homosexual, inferior to the 'natural' heterosexuals, i suggest you just skip my posts. Being, however, that most of you 'natural' heteroseuxal's are uneducated, prejudiced, and out-right wrong, i'm annoyed, angered, and hurt, and so feel like i must respond - even if ignored. Be prepared for a long string of posts by TL.net's very own unnatural homosexual. --- On March 05 2004 01:33 DV8 wrote: Only thing I have against gay marriage, is it prolly furthers the chance of them adopting children and that is really my only issue with it, other than that let them do as they please. The only thing i have against the freedom for any person (or couple rather) to have kids, is that they are not tested to do so. This goes for heterosexuals and homosexuals. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:43 Beyonder wrote: The point that it is proven to be very important for a child to have both a father and a mother. Can u direct me to whom said that? I was told as a child by many people i considered smart and educated that sitting close to the TV would ruin my eyes. I then asked my optomologist, optometrist, and optician and they all had the same response: it's a myth. I believe it neccessary for a child to have a functional, positive environment to grow up in. I believe that this can be provided in a household that has 8 adults all partaking in the raising of a child, or a household of 1 parent. Parenting is not restricted to 2 people. Let alone restricted to 1 mother or father. Your studies are inconclusive, whereever they are from. They have not tested the effect of having 20 parents and the effect of having only 2. I would then add that gender would have even less a role in parenting. | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
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...I guess i expressed myself wrong, as i don't get why you say that about computer games. I agree with you, that is the pourpouse of the privileges that the goverment gives to couples, but, as said before, what if a couple doesn't have child? should those privileges be revoked at the end of their lives? I don't think so. And that problem would be fixed if gay couples were allowed to adopt kids, but that's an issue i don't have a firm opinion on, so i won't say anything. And i do think you are born gay or not. Being born gay is an error of course, but shit happens. If they are truly born gay, denying them their gayness would be like denying you the right to love women. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:48 Commander[SB] wrote: Of course, and in an ideal world every kid would have a very loving mother and father. But in our not-so-ideal-world with kids already in orphanages, how does a gay couple adopting them hurt anyone in any way? They still love there kid just as much. And thats really what the world needs the most right now. A little bit of love. in an ideal world, hate and prejudice would not exist. in an ideal world, there would be mutual love by both parents. I do not believe that gender of the parents would be ideal. I have dealt with more hate because of my sexuality, than most heterosexuals will in their lifetime. I personally think that this experience will benefit a child (if i ever have one). I can teach him what love is and what hate is. The difference between them, and where tolerance comes in. I do not hate heterosexuals (though, i do, by far, have a greater reason to than *any* heterosexual on this planet). I abhor hate. To harbor such a thing would be a flaw. Homosexuality is considered many a flaw of nature. Be that as it may. Those people who *condemn* me for that *percieved* flaw in nature, i in turn condemn. For their flaw is far greater. And it exists in their *human nature*. They think it natural and acceptable to hate. For that, do i condemn. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:48 baal wrote: Commander[SB] In my opinino your freedom ends when anotherone starts. I mean they can marry and do whatever they want, but having a child means to put a boy with no possible opinino into a huge stress into school. I cant really imagine how they manage to survive school having 2 queers taking care of him... just imagine the mental abuse. Remember that post of that guy who was beated in hongkong?, well now imagine a kid with gay parents OMG! endless torture just because 2 god damn queers wanted to take care of someone... well buy a god damn cat. Can you imagine having a parent who is in a wheelchair? (i dont know what kind of life u live, but i know that being that my dad is a professional soccer coach, the thought of him not having that aspect in his life would completely change who he is, and therefore make it 'unimagineable' to think otherwise). Your parents greatly effect the person you are. You can't imagine homosexual parents because u do not have homosexual parents. Being that you seem to have a prejudice against homosexuals having children, i would argue that your parents are poor ones. Had you been *my* son, you would not hate any1, nor hold prejudice. That is not something i would teach my kids. If my kids will suffer teasing at school, so be it. I will have dealt with far worse teasing than them, and through that experience and strength i will be able to help them through theirs. They will be better for it. If it can be avoided, by all means. But i wont refrain from having children because someone might have a problem with my child having *me* as a parent. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:54 baal wrote: 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. good. as a homosexual, i sure as hell wouldnt want u as a child. | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
[B]On March 05 2004 14:01 Teroru wrote I was told as a child by many people i considerd smart and educated that sitting close to the TV would ruin my eyes. I then asked my optomologist, optometrist, and optician and they all had the same response: it's a myth. thats funny. my eyes deteriorated from +1.0 to -1.1 because of watching tv very closely when I was a kid. (or so my eyedoctors said. yep not one) damn I never knew my eye-glasses were just a myth | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:01 Beyonder wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:02 DV8 wrote: My reasoning being, first off I don't think I could survive so I can't say im ok with someone else going through it, but than again I am already raised a certain way which makes it seem to awkward. Secondly although there are 2 parents its as if the child only receives parenting from one parent in this case only one sex. How is that bad for the child you ask, well just look at men and women, both different on the mental and physical surfaces, so only being subjected to one sex they are deprieved of what the other sex may have to offer in the form of parenting such as insight or the sheer presence. I don't think the 2 same sex parents would be bad for them but rather the child would be missing out on something. I mean take a look at single parents, I mean its possible but is it really what you would want for a child. And please no hypotheticals such as what if the child were raised in a abusive home, because the arguement can be easily reversed. in the form of insight and sheer presence? Yeah, thats true. And a professor of philosophy and a professor of physics will by far be able to provide more insight than a garbage man and a welfare mom. Heterosexuals do *not* have more insight than a homosexual simply because of their sexuality. They *may have more insight*; but this is because of their experiences in life and what they can share, not because they are attracted to the same sex or not. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:02 Commander[SB] wrote: If a gay couple adopts a kid in like the middle of Redneck, Kentucky. Yeah maybe thats not the safest for the kid, but perhaps there are ways to prevent other students from knowing about him/hers parents. I mean I don't think it will be very good for the self-esteem of the kid to have to lie about his parents, but it surely beats being teased to death by kids in the classroom. You really dig up some odd circumstances. Being that i am homosexual, i think i know more than any heterosexual where would be a positive environment for me to raise my kid. If i know that he would have a hard life living in Kentucky, then i, as a parent who wishes to be a good one, would not raise him there. And the parents that would? well, thats their right *as a parent*. I look at the parenting in the world, and i see a plethora of problems. Do u know what that means? Well, since not a single one of these parenting relationships are homosexual, they are a part of your heterosexual problems. Your presuming that homosexual parents will have the same problems that heterosexual parents have, and more. I argue that homosexual and heterosexual parents alike have problems, and not one more than the other because of their sexuality. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:16 DV8 wrote: Well hell some kids go nuts (columbine) And they probably had straight parents, now imagine what a child would go through in our society today if his parents were gay and not to mention every gay couple won't be spectacular parents. Personally the teen suicide rate will go up because those kids will not be ready for the society we live in today. "personally the teen suicide rate will go up". Personally? As in your person? As in ur own suicide rate will go up? Or do u mean 'personally, i think'. Well, sir, what u 'personally think' is flawed. U say that my kid will not be ready for society because i am gay. I argue that my kid will be more equipped to handle society *because* i am gay. I will teach him that people will blindly hate, and that u must defend yourself against such people, but not hate them. I will teach that there are people who surf forums and talk out of their ass without using their brain, but that you can ignore these people. I will teach that u can be stronger than any hate directed towards you, and that u will be better for it. You condemn me for the effects that my sexuality will have on my kid. i condemn you for encouraging those effects by perceiving them in the first place. | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:16 Teroru wrote: in the form of insight and sheer presence? Yeah, thats true. And a professor of philosophy and a professor of physics will by far be able to provide more insight than a garbage man and a welfare mom. Heterosexuals do *not* have more insight than a homosexual simply because of their sexuality. They *may have more insight; but this is because of their experiences in life and what they can share, not because they are attracted to the same sex. lets take a gay couple for example. lets say they adopt a girl. that girl one day has her first period. being that she only has male parents there wont be anyone close to her that knows what she is going through. noone that can truly understand her. sure a gynaecologist could but its not the same as talking about it with her mom is it? and thats just one example there are numerous others. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:19 Beyonder wrote: Perhaps, but what you must realise (which Baal said too) is that what you mention isn't the only way to make it widely accepted. There are other ways, positive propoganda - you name it. These do not effect a shit load of kids in a negative way. But sure, at one point this will be a point - but this should be later, after the world is more ready. I would not 'take a child' during the first stages, but that is just because of my morals, values, and experiences. This is where i believe the arguement is horribly wrong. People think that its about gays getting equal rights. Its not. It's about homosexuality not being reason enough for us not to be equal in rights. The lot of you think that because of my sexuality i am ill-suited to be a parent. But you guys do not know me. Your judging my ability to be a parent based solely on something that is not related to parenting. You guys take away my right and then hold it against me. I have never done any harm to any of you. I have not proven myself to be a bad parent. On the contrary. Time after time on this forum i have responded to hate with logic. I keep cool despite the rampant homophobia present in life. I have proven that i can take your shit, accept it, and move on. I, like many many other homosexuals, have shown the world that despite your fear and hate, we *can* survive, *can* be happy, and i now argue that despite you injustices and prejudices, we can be * damn * good parents. So fuck you. | ||
|
Dick
United States717 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:28 Powerpill wrote: Gay marriage is no problem in my book, it doesn't harm anyone. However, gay couples adopting children is a BIG nono..I'm sure there may be certain situations where it would be alright(such as no m/f couples will adopt them, and the kid is over 10yrs old)..but not many. Why is it a big nono? by nono, im going to assume u mean 'bad' or 'wrong'. So, tell me sir, what *specifically* about my parenting skills is bad or wrong. Tell me. Well? Wait, do u even know my parenting skills? i see.. So these skills (that u do not know) are bad because? Oh, you don't know that either... well then. im glad we've concluded that u dont know a whole lot about much at all. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:37 rplant wrote: Beyonder, are you just shamelessly plagiarizing or what? That same bit has been posted all over the place and is months old. samelessly plagiarizing?? He provides a good arguement with no intent to take credit for that arguement, and u accuse him of plaguerising? Do u have a fucking brain? I can't belive you people would believe this person who posted this bullshit to be more fit a parent than myself. This angers me. | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:29 Teroru wrote: I keep cool despite the rampant homophobia present in life. So fuck you. way to keep it cool | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:38 DV8 wrote: The reason being a man/woman couple raising a child tends to do better than any other situation. Edit: You didn't think he did that just for the sake for keeping men and women together did you? 'tends to do better'. How? Define success as a parent before you claim that heterosexuals are better at it. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:41 rplant wrote: Fags should be allowed to marry, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids. I don't know how to justify this, but man, I'd be fucking pissed if my parents were two homos. That's my justification. and if i were a parent, i'd be fucking pissed if my child was a homophobic prick such as yourself. I would say we're even, but we're not. You said you'd be pissed off if ur parents were homosexual. I'm pissed off that your *real* parents lack the ability to teach their son tolerance, accpetance, and morals. Thats *my* fucking justification. | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
your kind of losing your cool now though | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 02:45 Excalibur_Z wrote: The REAL argument against gay marriage is one that Beyonder never mentioned, though he came close. It perverts the institution of marriage, and here's why: marriage has a religious foundation. You get married to your partner in the eyes of God. However, God does not approve of homosexual relationships. Therefore He will not allow them to be married. As such, any marriage between two gay people is void. So, they must resort to being joined in a civil union by a justice of the peace. Many atheists choose this route because they don't want to have to partake in a religious ceremony, and that is the only option for gays. I don't have a problem with gays joined in civil unions, just as long as they aren't married. They are NOT the same thing. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from anti-religious infidels who supposedly want equal rights for gays, but hey I don't make the rules. It has nothing to do with equal rights, and everything to do with perverting the institution of marriage in the way I described. i won't waste much time on you. You blindly follow a religion that preaches hate and discrimination. Your right, marriage was once, at one time, about religion. That was a big oops. Don't set us back in the times for fixing that mistake. You condemn me because of your religion. I, in turn, believe i have the right to condemn that dogma you believe in. Marriage is not about Christianity. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. By law, i am correct. So fuck your religion, and fuck your god while ur at it. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 03:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: 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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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'. | ||
|
Ready2[ESC]
Hungary1436 Posts
[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 | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 10:40 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Excal I love you. In a completely platonic way. 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'. | ||
|
iT.Doki
United Kingdom2 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:42 Commander[SB] wrote: Whats wrong with gay couples adopting kids? fuck you. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
 | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:12 Teroru wrote: 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? | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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.... | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 13:49 Ready2[ESC] wrote: 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) | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
Thread created by: Commander[SB] United States. March 05 2004 01:15. Posts 2122 Now Property of: Teroru Canada. March 05 2004 15:09. Posts 543 | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:27 Ready2[ESC] wrote: lets take a gay couple for example. lets say they adopt a girl. that girl one day has her first period. being that she only has male parents there wont be anyone close to her that knows what she is going through. noone that can truly understand her. sure a gynaecologist could but its not the same as talking about it with her mom is it? and thats just one example there are numerous others. One of her fathers could be a gynaecologist. *or* if they are 2 men, and assuming they have a brain, might adopt a *son*. ::MUTUAL GASP::. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:09 Ready2[ESC] wrote: thats funny. my eyes deteriorated from +1.0 to -1.1 because of watching tv very closely when I was a kid. (or so my eyedoctors said. yep not one) damn I never knew my eye-glasses were just a myth Well, your professional doctors told you what they did. My professional doctors told me what they did. So whose right? My point still stands. I had a concept underneath the example. u tried to discount the example. Assuming u had discounted the example, u have still the concept to discout. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
Terrou, Simple Question: Do you think a kid would be more likely to turn out homosexual if his parents were straight or gay? considering how many people have "turned out" to be gay who were from straight parents, this is a silly question. it also implies, that turning out to be gay is wrong. who cares if they turn out to be gay? as a parent, my job has nothing to do with my childrens sexual orientation, i dont see why gay parents would be any differant. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:47 Ready2[ESC] wrote: because balance between good and evil is very real a bit naive there are we?btw applause for you keeping it cool again If the only flaw u can find in my arguement is that im losing my cool, than u have lost the arguement. im 18, and a victim of much hate. Im young, and struggling to understand why so many people can hate me without ever even knowing my name. They hate me because i am different, and for no other reason. I would argue that i am not losing my cool. I retaliate with agression and precision. The moment i lose my cool is when logic goes out the window, and mindless flaming takes place. Ok, i did lose my cool in a few posts, forgive my homosexual inferiority, i will try to work on it . (note the space-period) | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:06 Bill and Bill wrote: Terrou, Simple Question: Do you think a kid would be more likely to turn out homosexual if his parents were straight or gay? Since every single homosexual i know came from heterosexual parents, i would say it has no fucking effect at all. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:11 TranCe wrote: "Gay Marriage has come to Portland" @Http://www.Teamliquid.net/ Thread created by: Commander[SB] United States. March 05 2004 01:15. Posts 2122 Now Property of: Teroru Canada. March 05 2004 15:09. Posts 543 Trance <3 | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:16 Teroru wrote: in the form of insight and sheer presence? Yeah, thats true. And a professor of philosophy and a professor of physics will by far be able to provide more insight than a garbage man and a welfare mom. Heterosexuals do *not* have more insight than a homosexual simply because of their sexuality. They *may have more insight; but this is because of their experiences in life and what they can share, not because they are attracted to the same sex. No, you have me mistaken, What I ment was, can 2 males provide more insight on their female counterpart than a female can? | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:17 Teroru wrote: Since every single homosexual i know came from heterosexual parents, i would say it has no fucking effect at all. good logic...... | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:14 Bill and Bill wrote: They might adopt a son and raise him to be just like them! *gasp*! Ur right, if i raise a son, i will raise him to be just like me. He will be tolerant, understanding, responsible, educated, honest, compassionate, and most importantly, he will be accepted for whatever fucking seuxality he is. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
No, you have me mistaken, What I ment was, can 2 males provide more insight on their female counterpart than a female can? are you saying its a lack of female AND male perspective that is the prob? | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:19 DV8 wrote: No, you have me mistaken, What I ment was, can 2 males provide more insight on their female counterpart than a female can? What do u mean by female counterpart? Tell me what a male lacks in teaching his male son, that he cant possibly provide that a female can. And then tell me if every single women in the world has the ability to provide that. And then tell me that that reason is enough to not allow fags to have children. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 14:24 Teroru wrote: "personally the teen suicide rate will go up". Personally? As in your person? As in ur own suicide rate will go up? Or do u mean 'personally, i think'. Well, sir, what u 'personally think' is flawed. U say that my kid will not be ready for society because i am gay. I argue that my kid will be more equipped to handle society *because* i am gay. I will teach him that people will blindly hate, and that u must defend yourself against such people, but not hate them. I will teach that there are people who surf forums and talk out of their ass without using their brain, but that you can ignore these people. I will teach that u can be stronger than any hate directed towards you, and that u will be better for it. You condemn me for the effects that my sexuality will have on my kid. i condemn you for encouraging those effects by perceiving them in the first place. I have not condemn you, alot or our society has though, I am being a realist, and if you were too than you would understand that not every gay couple wanting children will not raise them the same way as you. Not all gay couples will be great parents, because ::Gasp:: they are human and that makes them fallible, So what happens to the child living with the not so great gay parents growing up in the society we live in? Do I promote the society we live in, No, but I do acknowledge it is what it is. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:11 Teroru wrote: One of her fathers could be a gynaecologist. *or* if they are 2 men, and assuming they have a brain, might adopt a *son*. ::MUTUAL GASP::. Once again you set yourself as some gay icon, not every gay person will be as you, what if the situation describes happens, what than? the child is basically lacking a mother, the only way she would get any insight is if she had a female friend as to whom she trusts and that's where I pity the child for being in the situation they had no choice being in. | ||
|
Ryan307 :)
United States1289 Posts
although he's gotten a litle too graphic at times ;] | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:22 Teroru wrote: What do u mean by female counterpart? Tell me what a male lacks in teaching his male son, that he cant possibly provide that a female can. And then tell me if every single women in the world has the ability to provide that. And then tell me that that reason is enough to not allow fags to have children. Women are different from men, a man can never provide an education a woman can and viceversa... but even so, i dont think that is a strong argument against gay adoption. Ill repeat it, its not fair using this childs as battery rams against the world societ to open up their minds. You must prepare the soil for the seeds, you dont make the seeds prepare the soil got it? | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:36 TeCh)PsylO wrote: i hate to break it to you, but many straight parents are horrible parents, and dont provide any meaningful perspective of any kind. so is it necessary to some kind of good parenting licsence? two adults who are activly seeking children and who have planed on parenthood are going to be far better parents than the average young couple who forgot to where a condom one drunken night. if the only real issue is the quality of parenting and the perspective that a parent can offer a child, than the issue is a far greater one than that of just gay couples. You also forget to take society into account, We can't magically change society in one day and as I said it is what it is, So you are more fortunate to be living with good heterosexual parents than with 2 homosexual parents, because the child will not be lacking of wisdom from either sex and they won't be singled out and attacked for having grown up with gay parents, its needless suffering that no matter how hard you try you can't prevent. I mean take a look at black people today I mean conditions have certainly improved since the 1950's but I have yet to meet one black person who hasn't been victimized by racism in one form or another. | ||
|
Tolstoy
Canada144 Posts
Although I will say that I dont have a complete "cross-section" of gay culture, in Kitchener/Waterloo I knew the vast majority of the gay people living there, but in Toronto my acquaintances were mostly madeup of people who frequented clubs like Fly, It, or 5.PS - My brother is getting married pretty soon to his boyfriend and they are going to adopt as well. I couldnt think of any 2 people who I think would make a better couple or better parents than those 2. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
The only icon i can use is myself. You are condemning my right to have children based on the *possibility* that other homosexuals might be bad parents. That is wrong . You do not need a license to be a parent. That is a right. You are refusing that right to homosexuals because they are homosexual. Ones sexuality has no bearing on whether they are a good parent or not, and should not be considered as such. Quite frankly, if my child has to deal with a bit of teasing because his parents are homosexual, so be it. Its just teasing. The benefits i can reward my child with are worth that teasing. And the teasing of my child is a very poor excuse to forbid me from having him in the first place. Short people should not be allowed to have kids, for if they pass on that gene, their kids will be teased. No race should ever commit to a relationships where offspring will come, because their kids will have to deal with being teased. Infact, black people in general should just not be allowed to have children, because there are racist white people out there. Dont you people get it? Your removing the problem by hurting the people who have all ready been hurt. I do not deserve the right of children being taken away from me. My child does not deserve to be teased. The only alternative, and the *best* alternative, is to educate the public. Explain to them what sexuality is, and why it should not be shunned, hated, or feared. To say that that goal is impossible and that the only solution is to go on punishing the innocent is *WRONG*. Why don't u people get that? | ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
Anyone can give birth to kids, but not anyone can adopt kids. It doesnt matter if they CAN or CANT raise a kid, the point is that even if they can, the kids have big possibilities of being mentally abused by others because the world isnt ready for it, the world will mock about the children. And their RIGHT ends there because the kid has the RIGHT to not suffer such a thing, because like it or not Terorou the world is not ready, you may be, the rest of the people dont. how in the hell you dare to say its allright while you have been mocked by people in this forum because you are gay, and now just imagine 3 HOVZ in the classroom of a child with gay parents, it would be brutal for the kid, and it doesnt matter how many rights you trample... its the best thing for the kids, atleast for now. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
By your logic, no one should be allowed to have kids because they might be teased. Infact, if a man loses his arm, he shouldnt be allowed to have kids, cause other kids might tease a kid about his dad not having his arm. Infact, now that i really think about it. Any1 who has a family member that is homosexual must not be allowed to have kids, because that kid might be fun of for having a homosexual family member. Soccer players should not be allowed to have kids because their kid might be teased for having soccer players as parents. Any person with 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth should not be allowed to have kids because their kid might be made fun of because his parents are *perfectly normal*. The second u say that my kid might be teased because of my homosexuality, and that that my homosexuality is reason enough for me not to have kids, u condone the teasing. You say 'your kid has a right to be teased because homosexuality is to be made fun of'. Its not. Anymore than being a soccer player is. Or having 2 eyes. You are restricting the possible wonderful life my kid will have because the people who exist in the world that hate, will in turn hate my kid. Baal, u are ethically wrong. The only way to defeat hate, is to defeat hate. Do you think that one day the whole of society will suddenly just be OK with homosexuals? Who the fuck are you to tell me i shouldnt have kids. Who the fuck do u think you are to think that u can predict whether my kid will be mentally abused by others or not. Your forbidding the existance of my child because of things that *MAY* happen. That is morally and ethically flawed. I will no longer respond to you. You appear to be incapable of following this train of logic. Your english fucking sucks. You're barely coherant. You're uneducated and ignorant. You do *not* know whats best for the kids, at this moment, or any other. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 16:30 Element)LoGiC wrote: Well, I can honestly say I have a newly found respect for Teroru. thank you sir | ||
|
Tolstoy
Canada144 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
I picture Taylor's child being the exact same. If and when the children at school learn that his father is a homosexual, they will tease, it is inevitable, the world is full of assholes; however, I stongly believe that with Taylor's beliefs, love and compassion, his son will be a strong child and will go through the teasing day by day and learn to survive it as it will die down when people find no point to it. His son will be teased, just like somebody will be teased for being tall, smart, short, overweight, skinny, or different from the "norm" in any way, shape or form, it is Taylor's job to make sure that he has taught his son to be strong and learn to survive the teasing. Taylor, I believe you are fully capable of teaching a boy such traits. Your son, if and when you decide to adopt, will be a strong individual because you are obvious a person who is capable of bestowing somebody with such a trait. Your love and compassion seems to lack any limits of any sort, and that will go farther than any female figure will. If you decide to have children, you'd have my full support to do so and any help I could provide, and my heart truly goes out to somebody such as yourself. You are a strong individual who must deal with the twisted ignorance of the world, and for that, my heart aches. You will always have the love and support of people like myself, if you have nothing else. FrEaK | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 16:13 Teroru wrote: It's not simple teasing, just look at teased a short, fat, geeky kid would get teased and they are not far from the norm, Now look at all the Anti gay people and how far they take it, that is what should be taken into consideration. Now it may sound as if you're giving into fear, but the life you are gambling with is not your own in this case. Secondly having a child can be a right if you conceive that child a privilege if you adopt it.Saying what 'could' happen is not a reason to restrict the rights of all gays. The only icon i can use is myself. You are condemning my right to have children based on the *possibility* that other homosexuals might be bad parents. That is wrong . You do not need a license to be a parent. That is a right. You are refusing that right to homosexuals because they are homosexual. Ones sexuality has no bearing on whether they are a good parent or not, and should not be considered as such. Quite frankly, if my child has to deal with a bit of teasing because his parents are homosexual, so be it. Its just teasing. The benefits i can reward my child with are worth that teasing. And the teasing of my child is a very poor excuse to forbid me from having him in the first place. Short people should not be allowed to have kids, for if they pass on that gene, their kids will be teased. No race should ever commit to a relationships where offspring will come, because their kids will have to deal with being teased. Infact, black people in general should just not be allowed to have children, because there are racist white people out there. Dont you people get it? Your removing the problem by hurting the people who have all ready been hurt. I do not deserve the right of children being taken away from me. My child does not deserve to be teased. The only alternative, and the *best* alternative, is to educate the public. Explain to them what sexuality is, and why it should not be shunned, hated, or feared. To say that that goal is impossible and that the only solution is to go on punishing the innocent is *WRONG*. Why don't u people get that? | ||
|
Ebenol
Sweden1983 Posts
On March 05 2004 16:41 Teroru wrote: Amazing post.my kid will not wear a stamp on his head saying 'MY PARENTS ARE FAGS!'. *snip* | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 16:52 Tolstoy wrote: Teroru -- where do you live in Canada? BC | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 17:03 Element)FrEaK wrote: If his child is 'mentally abused' because he gets teased a little, that would be the fault of taylor(my guess of your name, teroru being japanese for taylor...). A good environment, which it sounds like Taylor can quite easily provide, will make the kid strong emotionally, and if you are strong emotionally, no amount of teasing will take you to the breaking point. I have endured far more than what the normal bullied child gets from bullying and what not, because I am different from alot of people, no I am not gay, but I was very different and therefor stuck out. I went through alot of abuse at school but due to my raising and the environment I grew up in, I became very strong mentally and emotionally and the insults didn't bother me, I was proud of the thing's they would make fun of(quite often the fact I was goth) and there wasn't a damn thing they could do to change that fact. I picture Taylor's child being the exact same. If and when the children at school learn that his father is a homosexual, they will tease, it is inevitable, the world is full of assholes; however, I stongly believe that with Taylor's beliefs, love and compassion, his son will be a strong child and will go through the teasing day by day and learn to survive it as it will die down when people find no point to it. His son will be teased, just like somebody will be teased for being tall, smart, short, overweight, skinny, or different from the "norm" in any way, shape or form, it is Taylor's job to make sure that he has taught his son to be strong and learn to survive the teasing. Taylor, I believe you are fully capable of teaching a boy such traits. Your son, if and when you decide to adopt, will be a strong individual because you are obvious a person who is capable of bestowing somebody with such a trait. Your love and compassion seems to lack any limits of any sort, and that will go farther than any female figure will. If you decide to have children, you'd have my full support to do so and any help I could provide, and my heart truly goes out to somebody such as yourself. You are a strong individual who must deal with the twisted ignorance of the world, and for that, my heart aches. You will always have the love and support of people like myself, if you have nothing else. FrEaK wow. thank you, so much. You make the fight worth fighting for. And yes, my name is Taylor. i can't think you enough. It's truly amazing how far the truly complimentary can sink after i have built up a wall against so much hate. And boy, does it feel good. Thanks again sir. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 17:21 DV8 wrote: It's not simple teasing, just look at teased a short, fat, geeky kid would get teased and they are not far from the norm, Now look at all the Anti gay people and how far they take it, that is what should be taken into consideration. Now it may sound as if you're giving into fear, but the life you are gambling with is not your own in this case. Secondly having a child can be a right if you conceive that child a privilege if you adopt it. I'm not positive that i am going to have a kid. I believe that i spend too much time caught up in my own world and problems to be able to help another soul with theirs. However, i AM only 18, and hope that 1 day, life wont be so confusing. You seem to miss the whole concept of the arguement. It's about homosexuals having children. It's not about adoption vs conception. Either we're entitled to children, or we're not. You did not respond to my examples. If you are going to restrict my rights in having children, do you also believe that restricting blacks, fat, and short people from having children is also ok? Assuming that you're going to say no (if u dont say no, i consider your opinion moot) can you tell me how this is any different from homosexuals? edit - and i plan to have a women ensemenated with my semen. I will not adopt. Which again makes ur point of 'adoption vs conception' moot. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 17:31 Teroru wrote: I'm not positive that i am going to have a kid. I believe that i spend too much time caught up in my own world and problems to be able to help another soul with theirs. However, i AM only 18, and hope that 1 day, life wont be so confusing. You seem to miss the whole concept of the arguement. It's about homosexuals having children. It's not about adoption vs conception. Either we're entitled to children, or we're not. You did not respond to my examples. If you are going to restrict my rights in having children, do you also believe that restricting blacks, fat, and short people from having children is also ok? Assuming that you're going to say no (if u dont say no, i consider your opinion moot) can you tell me how this is any different from homosexuals? edit - and i plan to have a women ensemenated with my semen. I will not adopt. Which again makes ur point of 'adoption vs conception' moot. Actually I did address your examples, the severity of hatred for gays in our society is what has me concerned, You don't get teased the same way for being gay as you would for being geeky you get bashed. That is my problem right now. The problem lies within society, but at the same time I don't think it would be necessary to put a child in that enviroment until things change for the better. Maybe a few generations down the road things will be better and there won't be this kind of controversy, it's not fair but that is just how things are. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
your arguement is now null and void. gg. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
On March 05 2004 16:41 Teroru wrote: my kid will not wear a stamp on his head saying 'MY PARENTS ARE FAGS!'. I have news for you. You're never going to have a kid. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:12 DV8 wrote: Actually I did address your examples, the severity of hatred for gays in our society is what has me concerned, You don't get teased the same way for being gay as you would for being geeky you get bashed. That is my problem right now. The problem lies within society, but at the same time I don't think it would be necessary to put a child in that enviroment until things change for the better. Maybe a few generations down the road things will be better and there won't be this kind of controversy, it's not fair but that is just how things are. My kid wont be gay. If gays are capable of handling the hatred in a school system, i think their heterosexual children will do just fine . thanks ~ | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:36 Teroru wrote: fine. my kid will be homeschooled. your arguement is now null and void. gg. Rofl, I think i'll stop now since going further will only lead to an insane amount of hypothetical's. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:46 ObsoleteLogic wrote: I have news for you. You're never going to have a kid. im not? | ||
|
iggs999
Russian Federation722 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:17 Teroru wrote: Since every single homosexual i know came from heterosexual parents, i would say it has no fucking effect at all. thats obviously because there are more heterosexual parents, imagine a place where there was a balanced proportion of gay / straight couples, the gays would adopt kids and some of those kids would become gay , so on and so forth. man would be wiped out due to lack of reproduction!~~~!!!1!1 | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:47 DV8 wrote: Rofl, I think i'll stop now since going further will only lead to an insane amount of hypothetical's. Why?? If your best hypothetical arguement to choose from so far was that my kid will be teased, and i have now taken out the possibility of my kid being teased, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WITH ME HAVING A KID. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Its something that comes about fundamentally by combining the efforts of both the male and female reproductive organs. People see this so backwards nowadays. Our genitals are for reproduction, they just so happen to be pleasurable when stimulated. If you want to argue that, ask yourself the question as to which is more important for the survival of the human race. Be logical. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:47 Teroru wrote: Oh yeah they handle it alright, http://www.pflag.org/education/schools.htmlMy kid wont be gay. If gays are capable of handling the hatred in a school system, i think their heterosexual children will do just fine . thanks ~ | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:50 Teroru wrote: Why?? If your best hypothetical arguement to choose from so far was that my kid will be teased, and i have now taken out the possibility of my kid being teased, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WITH ME HAVING A KID. You're not the problem, Society is, but until that changes you have to apply some sense to the situation. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:54 ObsoleteLogic wrote: You might adopt a kid, you might have a kid grow up in your household, but you will never *HAVE* a child. Do you understand now? Its something that comes about fundamentally by combining the efforts of both the male and female reproductive organs. People see this so backwards nowadays. Our genitals are for reproduction, they just so happen to be pleasurable when stimulated. If you want to argue that, ask yourself the question as to which is more important for the survival of the human race. Be logical. Bingo. And I think "be logical" is the active sentence for this thread. | ||
|
iggs999
Russian Federation722 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:22 Teroru wrote: What do u mean by female counterpart? Tell me what a male lacks in teaching his male son, that he cant possibly provide that a female can. And then tell me if every single women in the world has the ability to provide that. And then tell me that that reason is enough to not allow fags to have children. feminine insight....its what a household of 2 men would inherently lack. Dont ask me to "elaborate" that, you know what the fuck it is, do not try to pull some contrived shit out of your ass such as men have that same insight, how can prove that a man cant provide that, etc. Its as simple as MEN ==/== WOMEN. Even straight men lack that insight, that is why its NECESSARY to have a woman in the household. If some straight men who pursue members of the opposite sex lack it, imagine how greatly fags would lack it considering they have no interest in females as specimens with which to reproduce. Considering not every child is a little divine angel, and that the majority are born with personality predispositions towards something or another, a child raised by a gay couple in the right (wrong) circumstances could undergo traumitization at an early age and have his whole personality altered as well as sex drive and outlook towards OTHER gay couples and men // women in general. This would obviously be developed into issues by teasing, and *LACK* of a woman in the household. It could be very validly argued that women play the role of sympathizer and a man simply cannot provide that same sympathy and nurture that a woman inherently posses. They would end up developing a sexless monster or some contrived psycho with a contrived view of the world due to an early disfunctional environment. Of course sometimes some of this could be avoided by simply having a decent gay couple which raise you right, although the womanly presence would still not be accounted for..but i ask you this: Why go looking for a potential problem in adopting and argue against the problem that YOU are potentially starting, it simply would not be there if you do not go looking to instigate it..by that same "logic" it is essentially saying that you as a parent are willing to compromise a childs well-being in order to satisfy your wanting of a "child", regardless of how good a parent you are sometimes some things simply cannot be accounted for such as the PRESENCE of a woman, and although you DO have kind intentions set, you are in actuality harming the child. SO DONT DO IT..and by the way for the retards arguing "who said different is worse", theres a reason why theres a majority and a minority, and while the minority is not necessarily always BAD the majority IS necessarily for the most part GOOD, that is why the two distinctions exist. normal(general majority) ---> more likely to exist , not normal (general(?) minorty) ---> less likely to exist. you know what i mean ,fuck | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 19:27 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Excal you seem like a pretty cool guy, ever play west? (yeah this is horribly offtopic, sorry) Yeah, I'm actually on right now (but tabbed out). | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
 .It's often hard to tell when someone does (or says) the right thing primarily because of their ability to make a rational decision, and when someone does the right thing primarily because they're following their religion / conscience / bias / other emotional reactions. Now, Excal reveals that he probably falls into the second category. I support giving homosexuals the right to marry. If anyone should be stopped from marrying, then it should be done on a case-by-case basis, just like how our legal system (ideally) works -- as someone else brought up. Also, it would be stopped for logical reasons, not because "My God owns marriage". And I say "My God" because obviously Excalibur can't speak for "The" God of Christianity ; more importantly, he can't speak for any other Christians, so he's essentially claiming that marriage belongs to him and anyone who believes the same things that he does.As for homosexuals being permitted to have children, I am currently (though with mediocre confidence) in favour of yes, because there's already a large number of heterosexuals who are permitted to have children who would make dreadful parents. Therefore, even if there is a higher chance that homosexuals will make for bad parents (including the ill effects that Beyonder talked about), it will be trivial in comparison to the number of children growing up poorly with heterosexual parents. Consequently, the fact that this would give individuals such as Teroru an opportunity to raise children -- which they deserve because it is fair treatment -- imo outweighs the possibilities of bad parents or ill-effects on the child, as they are seen in proportion to the number of ill-raised children in the care of heterosexuals. The argument against gay people having kids that worries me the most is how the children might be treated. But, Teroru, for one, sounds like he won't need to rely on an accomodating environment for him to be able to raise his children well. I'm sure that many other good gay parents would do the same and try extra hard to raise their children well. Lastly, this heightened concern will only start to dissipate in proportion to the dissipation of anti-gay prejudices, so that doesn't worry me. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 19:57 Bill307 wrote: Well, I can honestly say I have lost virtually all respect for Excalibur .It's often hard to tell when someone does (or says) the right thing primarily because of their ability to make a rational decision, and when someone does the right thing primarily because they're following their religion / conscience / bias / other emotional reactions. Now, Excal reveals that he probably falls into the second category. I support giving homosexuals the right to marry. If anyone should be stopped from marrying, then it should be done on a case-by-case basis, just like how our legal system (ideally) works -- as someone else brought up. Also, it would be stopped for logical reasons, not because "My God owns marriage". And I say "My God" because obviously Excalibur can't speak for "The" God of Christianity ; more importantly, he can't speak for any other Christians, so he's essentially claiming that marriage belongs to him and anyone who believes the same things that he does.As for homosexuals being permitted to have children, I am currently (though with mediocre confidence) in favour of yes, because there's already a large number of heterosexuals who are permitted to have children who would make dreadful parents. Therefore, even if there is a higher chance that homosexuals will make for bad parents (including the ill effects that Beyonder talked about), it will be trivial in comparison to the number of children growing up poorly with heterosexual parents. Consequently, the fact that this would give individuals such as Teroru an opportunity to raise children -- which they deserve because it is fair treatment -- imo outweighs the possibilities of bad parents or ill-effects on the child, as they are seen in proportion to the number of ill-raised children in the care of heterosexuals. The argument against gay people having kids that worries me the most is how the children might be treated. But, Teroru, for one, sounds like he won't need to rely on an accomodating environment for him to be able to raise his children well. I'm sure that many other good gay parents would do the same and try extra hard to raise their children well. Lastly, this heightened concern will only start to dissipate in proportion to the dissipation of anti-gay prejudices, so that doesn't worry me. Don't get the wrong idea. Like I said I don't make the rules. There is no bias present in what I've been saying (besides admitting that I don't approve of the act of homosexuality). I'm just restating what the intention of marriage is, what it means, and what it stands for. There have been a lot of definitions being thrown around but none of them are rooted in facts except for what I have said. I am just presenting facts as well as the meaning behind them. There is no fluff behind what I'm saying. I have already explained the fundamental differences between civil unions and marriage. One is a religious institution and one is not. Why do they need to be combined? It's fine if they are considered equal in the government's eyes, but why is that not good enough for gay marriage proponents? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:04 ObsoleteLogic wrote: whats your sn Excal? (I'm on Euro now, but I'll add you later or some such) You get one guess ^^ | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
P.S. No, I'm not going to try and support this, because I know I am right, and if you disagree, I know you are wrong. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:06 Bill and Bill wrote: Terrou, Simple Question: Do you think a kid would be more likely to turn out homosexual if his parents were straight or gay? there is no "more" or "less" likely to be any sexual orientation. have you ever met a kid who could "force" himself or herself to be gay ? i sure as fuck couldn't. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:54 ObsoleteLogic wrote: if you were reading teroru's posts, you wouldnt have posted what you just did. re read them and find out why your post is incorrect. hint: inseminationYou might adopt a kid, you might have a kid grow up in your household, but you will never *HAVE* a child. Do you understand now? Its something that comes about fundamentally by combining the efforts of both the male and female reproductive organs. People see this so backwards nowadays. Our genitals are for reproduction, they just so happen to be pleasurable when stimulated. If you want to argue that, ask yourself the question as to which is more important for the survival of the human race. Be logical. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:29 intotherei wrote: if you were reading teroru's posts, you wouldnt have posted what you just did. re read them and find out why your post is incorrect. hint: insemination Artificial insemination in no way implies he will be having sex with the mother. ObsoleteLogic was pointing out that there needs to be actual sexual contact to have a child. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:31 Excalibur_Z wrote: Artificial insemination in no way implies he will be having sex with the mother. ObsoleteLogic was pointing out that there needs to be actual sexual contact to have a child. even if you tried to discredit the aritficial insemination as "having a child" which is pretty hard.. he could STILL have sex with a willing woman to have a child (unlikely but .00000001% chance beats the word "never") so he's still wrong :O | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:37 intotherei wrote: even if you tried to discredit the aritficial insemination as "having a child" which is pretty hard.. he could STILL have sex with a willing woman to have a child (unlikely but .00000001% chance beats the word "never") so he's still wrong :O You're really grasping at straws here aren't you? | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
| ||
|
RickJSanchez
United States1585 Posts
| ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
AutumnLight
Ukraine2488 Posts
| ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
| ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:47 DV8 wrote: You also forget to take society into account, We can't magically change society in one day and as I said it is what it is, So you are more fortunate to be living with good heterosexual parents than with 2 homosexual parents, because the child will not be lacking of wisdom from either sex and they won't be singled out and attacked for having grown up with gay parents, its needless suffering that no matter how hard you try you can't prevent. I mean take a look at black people today I mean conditions have certainly improved since the 1950's but I have yet to meet one black person who hasn't been victimized by racism in one form or another. yea blacks and morons should not be allowed to adopt either. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On March 05 2004 17:25 Teroru wrote: wow. thank you, so much. You make the fight worth fighting for. And yes, my name is Taylor. i can't think you enough. It's truly amazing how far the truly complimentary can sink after i have built up a wall against so much hate. And boy, does it feel good. Thanks again sir. Aye, and I can think of few others more deserving. You defend yourself against these circle arguments with the knowledge that the blatant ignorance will most likely never stop, but you stand true to who and what you are. That, my friend, is very admirable. If these people cannot see that, know at least 1 person can. Btw, if you wish you can add me on msn or aim, if you have either of the 2. ElementalFrEaK@hotmail.com GodBoyHustler69 aim any others who had me are likely to be promptly deleted. I hope you win this fight, I really do, though it be a foolish one, as you should not have to fight it in the first place. You are who you are, you cannot change it, and I'm sure that more than anything else, you truly wish you could. All you are trying to do is live with your god given traits, and one of those traits is that your a homosexual. Why is that so hard for people to understand? I wish I could tell you. You are no different than anybody else, you are perfectly "natural" by the DNA that constructs your being, though maybe not the normal of what is human. You are no different in my eyes and no different in the eyes of people who are void of this anti-homosexual ignroance. You are a truly magnificent human being to us, until proven otherwise. FrEaK | ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
On March 05 2004 01:48 Commander[SB] wrote: Of course, and in an ideal world every kid would have a very loving mother and father. But in our not-so-ideal-world with kids already in orphanages, how does a gay couple adopting them hurt anyone in any way? They still love there kid just as much. And thats really what the world needs the most right now. A little bit of love. the que for adoption is quite large i understand. in fact it can/does take years to adopt. i have not heard of a single instance where a single parent has adopted. as for the child, s/he would be put under many prejudices in this world; hurting them. how they would be raised is another issue. | ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Jim
Sweden1965 Posts
On March 05 2004 23:19 Vietnam_Oi wrote: why do you (all) accept homosexuality? what's your reason? what's your evidence? start at the root of the problem...this will bring more awareness won't it? I accept it because it is a reality. Do you seriously believe 7% of the population is faking? There is no problem. Ps. I think that homosexuality will gradually decrease over the generations now that more people can be open about it. However this is a much more advanced topic and probably requieres a lot more knowledge than I have to make an accurate statement. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
| ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
u can think something is immoral without trying to stop it, or can you? if u relaly think something is immoral i guess its immoral to not try to stop it? morality... tampons | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 06 2004 00:16 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Would it suit you, Rei, if I said he and his partner, as a couple, could never have a child? I have more than a few friends who would carry my child. I would even fuck them to do it. Although... i WOULD have to close my eyes, and i would be thinking of George Stults, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon in a 3some :O | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
I'm done until someone comes up with a valid arguement. | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
| ||
|
baal 2
24 Posts
and i think it was rekrul | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
| ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:13 Eniram wrote: Gay people should not be allowed to adopt children. P.S. No, I'm not going to try and support this, because I know I am right, and if you disagree, I know you are wrong. Now you have convinced me, how could i be so totally wrong? I guess your religion, being from Qatar, is mulism, probably extremist, and mulism is ages back in every sexual issue. I can't understand how a religion that was CENTURIES ahead 1000 years ago can just have walked backwards since then. First you should recognise womans rights, and, maybe in some ages, if the world hasn't been blowed up yet, you might accept gay people as they are. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 06 2004 07:12 Bill and Bill wrote: I don't mind if a closet gay adopts a kid because they would make better parents than most straight people that adopt kids for the money. But I don't think guys that wear high heel boots, lipstick, and feathery scarfs should be allowed to have childred. That's just my beliefs. If you know who Bobby Trendy is from the Anna Nicole Show, and you think he should be allowed to have a child, I will be shocked. But I could be wrong. I dont think stupid whores or misogynistic men should be parents. You can't deny people rights because a small fraction of that group is nuts. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 06 2004 07:23 badteeth wrote: I dont think stupid whores or misogynistic men should be parents. You can't deny people rights because a small fraction of that group is nuts. whores and crackheads CAN'T adopt children. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
| ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
And i was arguing that a few rotten apples in the gay demographic doesn't make a gay coupleless fit to bring up people then a heterosexual couple. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
You should try to change peoples attitudes, not give in to bigotry and hatred. exactly | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 06 2004 07:48 badteeth wrote: And i was arguing that a few rotten apples in the gay demographic doesn't make a gay coupleless fit to bring up people then a heterosexual couple. Well I agree with that, so I don't know who you were arguing against T_T | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
On March 06 2004 02:43 Teroru wrote: I have more than a few friends who would carry my child. I would even fuck them to do it. Although... i WOULD have to close my eyes, and i would be thinking of George Stults, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon in a 3some :O Did you read what I said or did it just go in your eyes and out your ears? You and your homosexual buddy will never have a child together, capesh? | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
We all know how babys are made... and i haven't seen toruru or anyone else saying a member of a gay couple can get pregnant, that's something that can only happen in a Swartchenaguer movie (or however it's written). But they will anyways call it *their* child, as hetero couples call the kids they adopt. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On March 06 2004 09:03 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Did you read what I said or did it just go in your eyes and out your ears? You and your homosexual buddy will never have a child together, capesh? It'll still be his child. They will raise the child together, and care for it, and nurture it. That would make them the child's parents. Maybe not biological parents, but but todays definition, it's parents. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On March 06 2004 10:53 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Its impossible to argue with people who can't comprehend design or intent, nor follow subtext. Its impossible to argue with somebody who can't comprehend mordern terminology. Not to mention is endlessly ignorant. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 06 2004 09:03 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Did you read what I said or did it just go in your eyes and out your ears? You and your homosexual buddy will never have a child together, capesh? I do not believe in monogamy. I do not plan on having a long-term homosexual partner. If one of my female friends got insemenated, it would be my intent for me and her to raise the child together. If she did not wish to have child, i would attempt to be a single parent. However, i am only 18, and my opinions might change by the time i decide to have a child. I really don't see that happening until im 35+ years old. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 06 2004 07:32 Bill and Bill wrote: You can't adopt a child if you are going to cause the child harm. Being teased, and turning out gay is harmful to a child, because even Terrou says it sucks to be gay, so why would he want to put someone else through that if he isn't selfish? Because my child most likely WOULDNT be gay. If he decided to disclose the information about me, that would be his choice. If it did somehow got out that i was a homosexual father, i still believe that im equipped with enough skills to get the child through it. It's not like im giving my child a disease or something. You guys make it sound like my childs life wouldnt be worth living because he might get *teased*. Ask anyone on this forum if they would have rather NOT lived because of teasing. Being that i am pretty high on that totem pole, i can tell you that my life is worth it. Sure the teasing sucked when i was young, but i don't regret living the life i have. I woulnd't trade who i am now so i could be a different straight person. The only issue is whether a homosexual can raise kids with equal parenting skills as a heterosexual. Any hypothetical situation can be improved on or avoided. This arguement is now at rest from my perception: no one is arguing whether a homosexual can have good parenting skills, but only what kind of life that child would lead. As for gay marriages (the original topic) it seems that most people are in agreement - except for the religious, in which case the celebration of our love they somehow find offensive. So this is also at rest. Is God really that petty? In all of his brilliance and forgiveness, and love, why would he condemn his children for something they cannot control? Why would he condemn at all? Why would he create a hell, so that man must burn in hell for all eternity, when god is about Love and Forgiveness. I don't get it. Other than being homosexual, in the Christian eyes, im a good person. But because i don't get an erection over a female, im gonna be sent to hell? I just don't fucking get it. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 06 2004 12:57 Teroru wrote: I do not believe in monogamy. I do not plan on having a long-term homosexual partner. If one of my female friends got insemenated, it would be my intent for me and her to raise the child together. If she did not wish to have child, i would attempt to be a single parent. However, i am only 18, and my opinions might change by the time i decide to have a child. I really don't see that happening until im 35+ years old. I would never want to be a single parent. One person, man or woman, can't do the job of both. As an aside, I've noticed there is a lot of talk on college campuses and high schools where these students have sex with multiple partners then insist he/she can raise the child him/herself. I guess they say that because it's a personal challenge. That's fine for them but it's a selfish motive. How does that benefit the child, or have the child's needs in mind? If you want what's best for the child you need to have two parents =( | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 06 2004 11:06 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Nice typing there chief. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I wasn't aware that the world is supposed to conform to the whims of popular society. Relativists. (Yes, that includes "mordern" terminology. If you change the meaning of a word... heh) Shut the fuck up you ignorant hypocrite. The only thing you want is other people to conform to your narrow-minded, slightly less whimsical views of how society should be. Modern day American christianity is nothing more than a bunch of puritanical people who are so afraid of their own sins that they need a scapegoat to surpress their feelings of doubt and guilt. You fucking go cloth some homeless people like jesus intended you to do, and shut the fuck up about people who are at heart probably ten times the christian you'll ever be. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:19 Excalibur_Z wrote: I would never want to be a single parent. One person, man or woman, can't do the job of both. As an aside, I've noticed there is a lot of talk on college campuses and high schools where these students have sex with multiple partners then insist he/she can raise the child him/herself. I guess they say that because it's a personal challenge. That's fine for them but it's a selfish motive. How does that benefit the child, or have the child's needs in mind? If you want what's best for the child you need to have two parents =( like i said, i would want the childs mother to, in fact, BE his mother. However, i'm not going to go pick up some random female and/or male and be like 'hey, come live with me and be my kids parent ok?', over raising the child myself. I do not want to be a single parent for the challenge, its that i don't agree with most forms of parenting. They teach obedience instead of teaching the kid to think for himself. They believe in horrible forms of punishment such as physical harm, mental harm, or hurtful, unsuitable restrictions. Out of every single parent i have ever met, about 3 or 4 live up to my expectations. To think that i will find a person in life who can also live up to those expectations would be naive. I believe that i am far more capabale to raise a child as a single parent than most couples. However, this may be due to arrogance (thought i do not perceive it as such) - im willing to consider/accept that. That is also why i want to wait a long time before i make any decision. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:33 badteeth wrote: Shut the fuck up you ignorant hypocrite. The only thing you want is other people to conform to your narrow-minded, slightly less whimsical views of how society should be. Modern day American christianity is nothing more than a bunch of puritanical people who are so afraid of their own sins that they need a scapegoat to surpress their feelings of doubt and guilt. You fucking go cloth some homeless people like jesus intended you to do, and shut the fuck up about people who are at heart probably ten times the christian you'll ever be. You're in no position to judge his faith, and you aren't eligible to make claims as to what makes a "good" Christian. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:33 Teroru wrote: like i said, i would want the childs mother to, in fact, BE his mother. However, i'm not going to go pick up some random female and/or male and be like 'hey, come live with me and be my kids parent ok?', over raising the child myself. I do not want to be a single parent for the challenge, its that i don't agree with most forms of parenting. They teach obedience instead of teaching the kid to think for himself. They believe in horrible forms of punishment such as physical harm, mental harm, or hurtful, unsuitable restrictions. Out of every single parent i have ever met, about 3 or 4 live up to my expectations. To think that i will find a person in life who can also live up to those expectations would be naive. I believe that i am far more capabale to raise a child as a single parent than most couples. However, this may be due to arrogance (thought i do not perceive it as such) - im willing to consider/accept that. That is also why i want to wait a long time before i make any decision. I should reveal a bit of a background story. I was lucky enough to be involved with a very mature girl (my ex-fiancee) for two years. As time passed and we got closer to the wedding date we talked seriously about having children. Her job was a respite care worker so that already gave her some experience, essentially has a part-time surrogate mother. However, even as she was doing this job in the summer after she was out of high school, it was very stressful. Despite her impressive maturity, organization, and demeanor, she would not be able to raise a child on her own. The most important thing is to keep the child's well-being as the #1 priority. That well-being is jeopardized when the parent gets as emotionally and mentally drained as my ex. It surely is arrogant to believe otherwise, or to think that drain won't happen to you, because it is inevitable. As for disciplinary measures, those are mandatory too. Children love to test their limits. Parents just need to teach children not to do things, then explain why if possible. Many parents fall into the trap of wanting their children to like them, so they adopt a more lenient agenda, but that doesn't teach a child to respect or honor his parents because they have been placed at the same level. This also allows children to be more unruly and the parents become more submissive - it's a slippery slope. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:40 badteeth wrote: You're seriously telling me jesus promoted hatred? You're also seriously telling me obsolete logic is a good christian? Don't put words in my mouth, I told you no such thing. I'm also not going to judge ObsoleteLogic's faith. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:53 Excalibur_Z wrote: I should reveal a bit of a background story. I was lucky enough to be involved with a very mature girl (my ex-fiancee) for two years. As time passed and we got closer to the wedding date we talked seriously about having children. Her job was a respite care worker so that already gave her some experience, essentially has a part-time surrogate mother. However, even as she was doing this job in the summer after she was out of high school, it was very stressful. Despite her impressive maturity, organization, and demeanor, she would not be able to raise a child on her own. The most important thing is to keep the child's well-being as the #1 priority. That well-being is jeopardized when the parent gets as emotionally and mentally drained as my ex. It surely is arrogant to believe otherwise, or to think that drain won't happen to you, because it is inevitable. As for disciplinary measures, those are mandatory too. Children love to test their limits. Parents just need to teach children not to do things, then explain why if possible. Many parents fall into the trap of wanting their children to like them, so they adopt a more lenient agenda, but that doesn't teach a child to respect or honor his parents because they have been placed at the same level. This also allows children to be more unruly and the parents become more submissive - it's a slippery slope. Wholly anecdotal evidence, all crap. And if its so horrible for children to grow up with one parent, they should make marriage last to the death. no mroe divorce. You're arguement is crap. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:55 Excalibur_Z wrote: Don't put words in my mouth, I told you no such thing. I'm also not going to judge ObsoleteLogic's faith. I'm not questioning his obviously blind faith, i'm questioning his motives. Or you could say i'm qwuestioning the source of his blind faith. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
| ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
You rather have people living in a house filled with hate and contempt? You're priorities are seriously skewed. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:07 Teroru wrote: Because my child most likely WOULDNT be gay. If he decided to disclose the information about me, that would be his choice. If it did somehow got out that i was a homosexual father, i still believe that im equipped with enough skills to get the child through it. It's not like im giving my child a disease or something. You guys make it sound like my childs life wouldnt be worth living because he might get *teased*. Ask anyone on this forum if they would have rather NOT lived because of teasing. Being that i am pretty high on that totem pole, i can tell you that my life is worth it. Sure the teasing sucked when i was young, but i don't regret living the life i have. I woulnd't trade who i am now so i could be a different straight person. The only issue is whether a homosexual can raise kids with equal parenting skills as a heterosexual. Any hypothetical situation can be improved on or avoided. This arguement is now at rest from my perception: no one is arguing whether a homosexual can have good parenting skills, but only what kind of life that child would lead. As for gay marriages (the original topic) it seems that most people are in agreement - except for the religious, in which case the celebration of our love they somehow find offensive. So this is also at rest. Is God really that petty? In all of his brilliance and forgiveness, and love, why would he condemn his children for something they cannot control? Why would he condemn at all? Why would he create a hell, so that man must burn in hell for all eternity, when god is about Love and Forgiveness. I don't get it. Other than being homosexual, in the Christian eyes, im a good person. But because i don't get an erection over a female, im gonna be sent to hell? I just don't fucking get it. Are you going to talk to your kids about penises going down your esophagus? Or Brad Pitt and some other guys in a threesome? Or do you just keep that information between us Brood War buddies? Do you HONESTLY THINK every gay guy would keep that stuff private? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 06 2004 14:09 badteeth wrote: Anecdotal evidence is never ever considered compelling. Do you even know what anecdotal evidence is? You rather have people living in a house filled with hate and contempt? You're priorities are seriously skewed. You sure do blow things way out of proportion - another logical fallacy. There is a difference between discipline and hate/contempt. When you hate someone you wish ill of them, but when you discipline you do so with the intent to protect them in a future situation. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:53 Excalibur_Z wrote: I should reveal a bit of a background story. I was lucky enough to be involved with a very mature girl (my ex-fiancee) for two years. As time passed and we got closer to the wedding date we talked seriously about having children. Her job was a respite care worker so that already gave her some experience, essentially has a part-time surrogate mother. However, even as she was doing this job in the summer after she was out of high school, it was very stressful. Despite her impressive maturity, organization, and demeanor, she would not be able to raise a child on her own. The most important thing is to keep the child's well-being as the #1 priority. That well-being is jeopardized when the parent gets as emotionally and mentally drained as my ex. It surely is arrogant to believe otherwise, or to think that drain won't happen to you, because it is inevitable. As for disciplinary measures, those are mandatory too. Children love to test their limits. Parents just need to teach children not to do things, then explain why if possible. Many parents fall into the trap of wanting their children to like them, so they adopt a more lenient agenda, but that doesn't teach a child to respect or honor his parents because they have been placed at the same level. This also allows children to be more unruly and the parents become more submissive - it's a slippery slope. i never gave consideration to the draining part. :X i was only considering the concepts of treating kids/raising them. good point - however, that wasnt the arrogance i was referring to. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
You sure do blow things way out of proportion - another logical fallacy. There is a difference between discipline and hate/contempt. When you hate someone you wish ill of them, but when you discipline you do so with the intent to protect them in a future situation. I was talking about forcing a married couple to stay together. You really think its healthy fopr a kid to live in an environment with that kind of tension? And whats with the logical fallacy thing? Did i make one? Or are you trying to make me the subject of your intellectual masturbation? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 06 2004 14:21 badteeth wrote: I was talking about forcing a married couple to stay together. You really think its healthy fopr a kid to live in an environment with that kind of tension? And whats with the logical fallacy thing? Did i make one? Or are you trying to make me the subject of your intellectual masturbation? If a married couple doesn't stay together the child falls into the pitfall I described before. I grew up in one of those environments and I know the score. Bravo, bravo. You never can admit when you're wrong can you? | ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
I accept it because it is a reality. Do you seriously believe 7% of the population is faking? There is no problem. 1 in 14.28 people??? that sounds way too much are white people most affected cause it sure seems that way. i don't know of any gay black people. i know of a few gay asian people. why is homosexuality more prevalent in males? are there instances in animal nature? what is something else i can relate to? how does gay men's brain functioning side along women's function support homosexuality? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
being gay is less accepted in black communities. (same with hispanic ones. )that's why you know of less gay black people. the REASON why you think 1 in 14.28 people is a lot is because people are still ignorant thus gays often aren't honest about their sexuality out of fear of what people will think of them. | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 06 2004 13:19 Excalibur_Z wrote: I would never want to be a single parent. One person, man or woman, can't do the job of both. As an aside, I've noticed there is a lot of talk on college campuses and high schools where these students have sex with multiple partners then insist he/she can raise the child him/herself. I guess they say that because it's a personal challenge. That's fine for them but it's a selfish motive. How does that benefit the child, or have the child's needs in mind? If you want what's best for the child you need to have two parents =( No one wants to be a single parent. But if your wife leaves you, what the fuck are you gonna do about it? | ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
Here is a sampling of these newer studies: A study of 5,514 Canadian college and university students under the age of 25 found 1% who were homosexual and 1% who were bisexual. (King et al., 1988). A study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% had had "any homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever." (Johnson et al., 1992). A French study of 20,055 people found that 4.1% of the men and 2.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime. (ANRS, 1992). A Danish random survey found that 2.7% of the 1,373 men who responded to their questionnaire had homosexual experience (intercourse). (Melbye, 1992). The National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included "You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time." (Dawson, Hardy, 1990-1992) In a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. (Sundet et al., 1988). http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm that's considering "even one time" and experiences... | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 06 2004 14:42 Excalibur_Z wrote: If a married couple doesn't stay together the child falls into the pitfall I described before. I grew up in one of those environments and I know the score. Bravo, bravo. You never can admit when you're wrong can you? I'm a product of a failed marriage as well. I rather live with my single mom than living with fights every day. Anecdotal evidence means nothing, just like i told you before. And I'll admit i'm wrong when i'm actually wrong. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
either way the numbers don't make a difference. discriminating 2% of the population is still far too much. might be true that 7% is more than the real amount, but it doesn't change anything. ;( | ||
|
KarlSberg~
731 Posts
On March 06 2004 18:18 badteeth wrote: I'm a product of a failed marriage as well. I rather live with my single mom than living with fights every day. Anecdotal evidence means nothing, just like i told you before. And I'll admit i'm wrong when i'm actually wrong. So am I my parents divorced a few years ago, I, my brother and my sister were all happy about it. Too bad religion forbids it, but I hope one day God will come and save us from religion.   | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Discrimination is blind prejudice. The reasons for which I don't believe the homosexual act is right are based on what I consider solid logic. | ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
The weirdest thing about being gay is that you can't have kids of your own. That's the whole point of everything IMHO. | ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
homosexuality has been around for a long time and everyone has heard the homosexuality in the greeks and the homosexual hercules. that homosexuality has been around so long is strange don't you think? it's odd that it persists thoughout the ages despite having very little to no reproduction chance yet it remains. has it decreased over the years? what would have made it common in the first place? since it has been around for so long in humans has it also been present in animals? i heard some tests were done on 'gay' cows that showed they prefered same gendered cows but i never read the article myself. i would wonder how they determined they were gay and what is really meant be prefering. does prefer mean they'll still like the female when the male is not available? so would they be gay or bi? some have used taste as an analogy but how does that work? is being gay like prefering sweets "only" and disgusted at salty/sour? is being gay like not being able to taste sourness at all? can someone explain how it relates or think of a better analogy? if there are those who like males or females, are there those who prefer neither? if there are bi's, are there neithers? its it like being left or right handed or ambidextrous? "We don't know for certain what percentage of people are left handed. Estimates vary from 2 to 30 percent of any human population. Most estimates hover around 10%, depending upon the criteria used to assess handedness. Males are about one and one half to two times more likely to be left-handed than are females. Some animals like cats, badgers, wolves, bears, and lobsters favor their left side. Rats and monkeys favor their right side for handling things." http://www.handanalysis.com/lefthanded.html blah blah i don't get it... | ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
On March 06 2004 22:57 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Hey badteeth, you are wrong. Show me one thing I have said that is hateful or discriminatory, or false. Discrimination is blind prejudice. The reasons for which I don't believe the homosexual act is right are based on what I consider solid logic. Ever heard the expression ignorance is bliss? It means you don't KNOW your ignorant. Anyone who is against gay marriage is predijuce agenst gays whether they know it or not. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 06 2004 23:28 Commander[SB] wrote: Ever heard the expression ignorance is bliss? It means you don't KNOW your ignorant. Anyone who is against gay marriage is predijuce agenst gays whether they know it or not. I won't point out the incredible irony of that statement. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 06 2004 22:57 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Hey badteeth, you are wrong. Show me one thing I have said that is hateful or discriminatory, or false. Discrimination is blind prejudice. The reasons for which I don't believe the homosexual act is right are based on what I consider solid logic. Your logic is faulty. You want to deny people basic rights that are guaranteed in your own constitution on the basis of their sexual preferences. Your words may not have outright hatred in them, but your actions speak for themselves. | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
| ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
From a purely logical point of view, homosexuality is hideously unfruitful. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
not everything has to be fruitful, doing stuff because you enjoy doing it (without harming anyone else) is actually a good thing. | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
Hello? That's a story told to the ignorant poblations so that they believed in the mighty god and some smart people could live out of that poblations fear. Ah, it frustates me so bad. Do you REALLY believe in Onan, Noe's 5.000 years of live and that god created the world in 6 days? And i could keep on saying things... plz answer, do you believe in all that stuff? Because if you do so i'll stop discussing, since you can't discuss with a wall. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 07 2004 07:50 TeCh)PsylO wrote: the bible is symbolic, all "that stuff" can be beleived in when not translated so literally. there is alot to learn from the bible regardless if u are religious or not, i wouldnt bash it.. Ya sure there are good things in it, but the thing is people take everything so literally while its written by HUMANS in a time the people thought the world was flat. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
But it looks like these guys believe in the bible the way it's written, and that's something i don't understand. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
on the flip side, im sure there are plenty of people who just dont understand the bible, and do speak of it literally, but i woiuldnt assume that of any of my fellow forum members. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
I love how denominational churches think they have it right after 400. On versions of the Bible that have been changed/edited. (: Drone/Meat, tell me, is there a difference between accidentally (in some way out of your control) spilling a drink that wasn't meant for you and intentionally spilling it? | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 07 2004 09:11 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Drone/Meat, tell me, is there a difference between accidentally (in some way out of your control) spilling a drink that wasn't meant for you and intentionally spilling it? When you accidently spill it you are just clunsy and wasting, when you intentionally spill it but have lots of fun with it, then it had a purpose so it's good. The drink wont be used anyway since you dont have somebody to drink it, because you have to get marrierd first. | ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
Anyway, masterbating or not is something harmless, since it's a thing it only affects you. The problem comes when you people deny/take rights away from gays or whatever because of your thoughts about how the human being must or must not be. | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Nice logic, I like that. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 07 2004 09:11 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Actually, you see, the Catholic Church has been studying the Bible (and all the writings and such) for some 1700 years. I love how denominational churches think they have it right after 400. On versions of the Bible that have been changed/edited. (: Drone/Meat, tell me, is there a difference between accidentally (in some way out of your control) spilling a drink that wasn't meant for you and intentionally spilling it? Every church to this day has been a denominational church. Every generation is different than the last one, every meaning chanegs over time. You're arrogant enought to think you know wich faith is exactly right? Or are you even in a position to judge wich position is "more" right? You're parents are not talking to god, your bible is written by mere humans, your church doesn't have a hotline to heaven. Believing in god is fine as far as i'm concerned. But when you think your point of view is the only right one, and you're actively forcing your views upon other through unconstitutional laws, that's when you're taking it a step to far. Also the validity of an arguement is never measured in time. You can be wrong for centuries, you know.. | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 07 2004 09:45 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Meat, by your rationale, accidentally killing someone is clumsy and wasteful, but killing them for fun has a purpose, so its good. Nice logic, I like that. i didnt know you were sick like that, that it even comes up in your mind to compare spilling drinks with killing. I feel really sorry for you now. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
| ||
|
TigG
Spain369 Posts
Spilling YOUR drink in order to have fun will make you laugh. By killing someone BESIDES YOU, rather accidentally or with a porpouse, you take someone's right to live. I hope you see the difference. And if you don't, then be worried about it. | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
On March 07 2004 07:42 Liquid`Drone wrote: yeah that's also a good point. although I've never gone that long without masturbating so I wouldn't know. I guess spilling it while receiving pleasure is worse than spilling it without getting any satisfaction. well there you have it, god must prefer you fuck goats or other offensive things instead of being celebate. the point is, if you're going to sin, which they always say everyone will do anyways, you should make it less wasteful. the bible teaches unselfishness somewhere, right? well if you could trade your soul in exchange for saving many others, that would be very unselfish, right? if you murder people, maybe you're damned, or you risk damnation at least. if you murder someone whose soul is pure, they will not get a chance to sin. you've effectively given up your soul to guarantee theirs. therefore, mass murderers are great people. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
This isn't about offending god. People believe that homosexuality is a cause to have our rights *taken away* from us. Christians/bible-thumpers need to back the fuck off. They can't stand homosexuals, we offend them some how. So it's even. i can't fucking stand rleigious people and their hate-preaching dogma. The difference between us is that i don't demand that their rights be taken away from them. My lifestyle is about love, theirs is about hate - yet *im* the one who is persecuted. Fuck Christianity. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 15:15 Teroru wrote: the real world, and real life, and law, have nothing to do with religion. This isn't about offending god. People believe that homosexuality is a cause to have our rights *taken away* from us. You're confusing rights with privileges. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
That is NOT a privaledge. The union of 2 people has NO basis in Religion. I know because i have a union with another person. Your filthy religion is just power-hungry and wants to take marriage under its wing. (i mean, as u said, marriage existed long before christianity). I won't hold your ignorance against u. You can only go as far as your cult permits you to. edit - i realize my lack of 'keeping it cool'. I apologize. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 07 2004 15:25 Teroru wrote: Man has the right to have children. That is NOT a privaledge. The union of 2 people has NO basis in Religion. I know because i have a union with another person. Your filthy religion is just power-hungry and wants to take marriage under its wing. (i mean, as u said, marriage existed long before christianity). I won't hold your ignorance against u. You can only go as far as your cult permits you to. edit - i realize my lack of 'keeping it cool'. I apologize. Adopting a child is not a right, if that's what we are talking about. | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
Many of us grew up believing that everyone needs a mother and father, regardless of whether we ourselves happened to have two parents, or two good parents. But as families have grown more diverse in recent decades, and researchers have studied how these different family relationships affect children, it has become clear that the quality of a family’s relationship is more important than the particular structure of families that exist today. In other words, the qualities that help a child grow into a good and responsible adult – learning how to learn, to have compassion for others, to contribute to society and be respectful of others and their differences – do not depend on the sexual orientation of their parents but on their parents’ ability to provide a loving, stable and happy home, something no class of Americans has an exclusive hold on. That is why research studies have consistently shown that children raised by gay and lesbian parents do just as well on all conventional measures of child development, such as academic achievement, psychological well-being and social abilities, as children raised by heterosexual parents. That is also why the nation’s leading child welfare organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and others [see box], have issued statements that dismiss assertions that only heterosexual couples can be good parents - - and declare that the focus should now be on providing greater protections for the 1 million to 9 million children being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the United States today. Granting same-sex couples the right to marry, therefore, would enable the millions of same-sex parents raising children today to give their children what every child deserves – the safest, most secure environment possible, with all the legal protections that our country has put in place. Organizations that Support Same-Sex Parenting: American Academy of Pediatrics American Academy of Family Physicians Child Welfare League of America National Association of Social Workers National Council on Adoptable Children American Bar Association American Psychological Association American Psychiatric Association American Psychoanalytic Association Source: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16405 | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
You said you would raise your child with whomever you have it with. Yet you also said you don't believe in monogamy, and do not plan on having a long term sexual partner. All of this in a thread about marriage. So you're saying you want lots of short term marriages with as many sexual partners as you crave, while you and some woman raise a child together, without any sort of sexual act between you (aside from the impregnation)... That is the most selfish lifestyle of which I have ever heard. Bravo. You people all say I preach hate and discrimination. I say you're all silly relativists. I don't hate any of you, nor am I being discriminatory. Man oh man has that word been so abused and blown out of proportion. Do you even know what the definition is? "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" I don't treat all homosexuals the same way. In fact, one of the people I most admire is a homosexual man who has chosen to live a celibate life. You see, I don't see homosexuality as wrong, thats out of your control. I see the homosexual act as wrong, which is not. I judge everyone on their individual merit. So stop labeling me things I'm not. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:00 TeCh)PsylO wrote: i have already said this, but maybe i should again. in many places, gay couples can ALREADY ADOPT, so why is this an issue when it comes to marriege? yes i dont understand that either.. they dont want it recognized by the church but by the law, so imo anything that comes from the bible is irrelevant in this discussion. Second time marriages are also not allowed by the church, but it is by law and this should be too. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:04 Liquid`Meat wrote: yes i dont understand that either.. they dont want it recognized by the church but by the law, so imo anything that comes from the bible is irrelevant in this discussion. Second time marriages are also not allowed by the church, but it is by law and this should be too. It's not irrelevant at all. The issue of adoption isn't really an issue at all. If they want to adopt then so be it. However what you must realize is that marriage has religious roots, and there are also civil unions which, by government standards, are exactly the same. So why do gay couples want to get married (which is religious) when religion condemns homosexuality? That is the real question. They could always go for a civil union but that is apparently not good enough (even though it's the same thing). By the way, according to the Bible, second marriages are allowed if one partner was unfaithful. Otherwise the previous marriage cannot be cancelled and it is a sin. And for you guys who say I'm getting all preachy, look - this is not preaching. I haven't said one pro-religious thing. I am merely citing history. I do happen to consider myself religious but I use that term loosely because I don't actively practice. However I do know my history, and that is relevant to this discussion. Nevertheless, you treat me like a religious zealot when all I do is cite historical circumstances of note in the Bible, and the position of the anti-gay marriage community. You must understand that what I am saying is FAR from preaching. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
On March 07 2004 09:45 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Meat, by your rationale, accidentally killing someone is clumsy and wasteful, but killing them for fun has a purpose, so its good. Nice logic, I like that. HOLY SHIT THIS IS THE WORST POST I HAVE EVER READ WHAT THE FUCK seriously dude.. killing someone and spilling a drink.. yeah they're the same. I _really_ wasn't expecting anything THAT moronic from you, the self-appointed smartest member of the forum. seriously dude, that was so insanely stupid I can't even begin to comprehend you posted it. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
The issue of adoption isn't really an issue at all. If they want to adopt then so be it well shucks, i thought the last x number of pages had defined the gay marriege debate around the idea that gay marriege would ultimetly allow gay couples to adopt, and that would somehow be bad. i think people are just scrapping to rationalize there prejudices. gay marriege IS a civil rights issue. simple as that. the bible endorses a marrige between "a man and a woman", but it also endorsed slavery, and a generally unequall society. so if people want to stick to there anti-relativism arguments, then go ahead and endorse slavery, and stop the hypocrisy. maybe people just have not had experiences with gay people. i have had several friends, neighbors, shool and work mates, that have been gay. all were great people and would make great parents. people make the argument that adoption is a privilage, not a right. agreed. but basing the standards of that priviliage based on sexual orientation is discrimination. | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: It's not irrelevant at all. The issue of adoption isn't really an issue at all. If they want to adopt then so be it. However what you must realize is that marriage has religious roots, and there are also civil unions which, by government standards, are exactly the same. So why do gay couples want to get married (which is religious) when religion condemns homosexuality? That is the real question. They could always go for a civil union but that is apparently not good enough (even though it's the same thing). By the way, according to the Bible, second marriages are allowed if one partner was unfaithful. Otherwise the previous marriage cannot be cancelled and it is a sin. [.........] According to what i read in the article i linked above you dont have the same rights: Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married couples. Among them: > Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital. > Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits – resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner. > Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance. > Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner. > Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties. > Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners. > Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes. > Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection. > Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits. "By the way, according to the Bible, second marriages are allowed if one partner was unfaithful. Otherwise the previous marriage cannot be cancelled and it is a sin." Yes, but you can remarry also if the partner wasnt unfaithful right? Only not for the church, so that's why i say homo's should be able to do that too. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:00 TeCh)PsylO wrote: i have already said this, but maybe i should again. in many places, gay couples can ALREADY ADOPT, so why is this an issue when it comes to marriege? its not an issue when it comes to marriage. its a side tracked conversation as we discuess gay rights. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
I think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: personally I wouldn't really care if gays were banned from marrying and had to unite in a civil union or something similar instead. but only if the civil union provided the same privileges as marriages provide. would probably make some people renounce their faith, which I consider a good thing. I think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though. Not really. The marriage penalty that Bush has been trying to get reversed is a big tax hit to married couples. Gay and live-in couples don't get hit with the marriage penalty. http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html There's some brief info for you on it. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: nah because if it was extend to just "couples" it would becomse so abusive ttaI think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: personally I wouldn't really care if gays were banned from marrying and had to unite in a civil union or something similar instead. but only if the civil union provided the same privileges as marriages provide. would probably make some people renounce their faith, which I consider a good thing. I think it's a pretty horrible thing that married couples get more privileges than unmarried ones though. Yeah, but they care. They care more about the terminology than the rights. They want to be able to get married even if they can have the same rights through a civil union. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
| ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:58 Bill and Bill wrote: Marriage isn't a religious institution. Atheists get married all the time. It's no different. Of course it's a religious institution! You are getting married under God, by a pastor/priest/minister/what-have-you, and that's the whole point. By definition an atheist would want no part of that. | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 07 2004 17:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: Of course it's a religious institution! You are getting married under God, by a pastor/priest/minister/what-have-you, and that's the whole point. By definition an atheist would want no part of that. Ok, so if homosexuals dont marry in church its not a problem ? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:59 TeCh)PsylO wrote: are u saying that the goals of gays in long term relationships is to pervernt marriege? That is my guess, and it's the only possible explanation if you think about it. They have no reason to get married because according to religion, God does not approve of homosexuality, and they cannot be allowed to marry. So, essentially this becomes a leftist anti-religious movement to pervert marriage by creating a paradox where those who are not eligible to marry, can marry. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 17:19 Liquid`Meat wrote: Ok, so if homosexuals dont marry in church its not a problem ? Right, because the only eligible presider is a justice of the peace, which is not a religious position. However in that case it would not be marriage, it would be a civil union. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36379 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 07 2004 17:25 Hot_Bid wrote: excalibur_z, obsoletelogic, favorite unit in game, zealot. Your ignorance is showing =( | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
That is my guess, and it's the only possible explanation if you think about it. They have no reason to get married because according to religion, God does not approve of homosexuality, and they cannot be allowed to marry. So, essentially this becomes a leftist anti-religious movement to pervert marriage by creating a paradox where those who are not eligible to marry, can marry. o dear | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
If you can think of another reason I'd love to hear it. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On March 07 2004 17:42 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Familial stability, perhaps? True sign of commitment? Maybe to people who can't hold to a promise its worthless, but to honorable people that pledge, you know, "till death do us part" is rather reassuring. exactly | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
As far as infertile couples marrying, thats ok, from both a religious and logical standpoint, just as homosexual marriage is not. As I said early, there have been inexplicable cases of "infertile" couples conceiving. As far as seniors go, I think its alright for them to marry, but not to have sex. I mean, when your body stops working, it probably has a good reason. The more you mess with these things, the more they screw up. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36379 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
To add to that, no contraception, no abortion. My entire family follows by that. And we're pretty happy people, you know? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
sure thing hot_bid of course he wouldnt but hahaha dude are you for real about thinking seniors should stop having sex? that's just insanely fucked up. hahshfasdh | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 07 2004 17:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: Of course it's a religious institution! You are getting married under God, by a pastor/priest/minister/what-have-you, and that's the whole point. By definition an atheist would want no part of that. Do you know what marriage is? That stuff you do in a church isn't getting married. That's just tradition. You can do that 1000 times over and you won't be married. You will only be married when you get a marriage license from someone who is qualified to marry you, whether it be a priest, pastor, judge, clerk, or whoever. How you choose to carry out your ceremony has to do with you, not God. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 07 2004 18:00 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Adoption is a good thing, but it only exists because of *gasp* a lack of a good family (with heterosexual parents) in the first place. As far as infertile couples marrying, thats ok, from both a religious and logical standpoint, just as homosexual marriage is not. As I said early, there have been inexplicable cases of "infertile" couples conceiving. As far as seniors go, I think its alright for them to marry, but not to have sex. I mean, when your body stops working, it probably has a good reason. The more you mess with these things, the more they screw up. For some reason I don't think you are getting your information from a Psychology/Biology reference. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
The human body works a certain way. Get that through your head. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
| ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
On March 07 2004 18:14 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Psylo, you should only have sex for procreation + unity of a couple, something which can't really happen in both a physical and emotional way with homosexual couples. The human body works a certain way. Get that through your head. Yes but now we get back to reality and we realise there are also 1000's of children waiting to be adopted. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
It should be had as much as one can have it. U should always use contraception and protection. Sex is NOT ONLY about pro-creation. (unless of course oral-sex is about pro-creation). -- sorry excal, u are not the religious zealot, OL is. on that note - i do not believe gays should have the right to a Christian Marriage. I believe they have a right to Marriage. If that's called a civil union, then that's what i support. However, i WAS under the impression that a civil union is not entitled to as many rights as marriage. The only type of marriage i want gays to have rights to is the one by law. Full rights and privaledges. I have no desire to pervert your religion, it certainly doesn't need any help. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On March 07 2004 18:14 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Psylo, you should only have sex for procreation + unity of a couple, something which can't really happen in both a physical and emotional way with homosexual couples. The human body works a certain way. Get that through your head. why cant homosexual couples have sex for the "unity of a couple". not being gay, we may not understand the emotional and physical connection, but that does not mean it does not exist, and that certainly does not mean we have to deny people rights becuase they do understand it. i am perfectly aware of how the body works, and it is irrelivant. but what you are implying by your that, is that homosexuality is not natural. but homosexualality is not a current phenomenon. it has been apart of humanity for thousands of years. it is a part of differant species beyond humans. gays take up a much larger percentage of our population than most people may think. homosexuality is indeed natural. if it was not occuring naturally, how then would it be occuring? | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On March 07 2004 18:33 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Ah I give up, you people are stupid. I should just stay out of the general section. nothing like true colors | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 07 2004 15:57 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Teroru you have very confused ideals. You said you would raise your child with whomever you have it with. Yet you also said you don't believe in monogamy, and do not plan on having a long term sexual partner. All of this in a thread about marriage. So you're saying you want lots of short term marriages with as many sexual partners as you crave, while you and some woman raise a child together, without any sort of sexual act between you (aside from the impregnation)... That is the most selfish lifestyle of which I have ever heard. Bravo. You people all say I preach hate and discrimination. I say you're all silly relativists. I don't hate any of you, nor am I being discriminatory. Man oh man has that word been so abused and blown out of proportion. Do you even know what the definition is? "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" I don't treat all homosexuals the same way. In fact, one of the people I most admire is a homosexual man who has chosen to live a celibate life. You see, I don't see homosexuality as wrong, thats out of your control. I see the homosexual act as wrong, which is not. I judge everyone on their individual merit. So stop labeling me things I'm not. Love is not about sex. Lust is about Sex. I see no reason to confuse the 2 with each other and limit them to 1 person. How is that selfish? This isn't about _me_, its about every1. If my partner requires me to be monogamous, if i love him/her, i will BE monogamous - it doesn't mean i believe in monogamy though. I also do not believe in marriage. This isnt about Teroru getting married, it's about homosexuals having the right to BE married. I do not want short-term marriages. I DO want many sexual partners. And no, the mother of my child does not need to have sex with me. Raising a child isnt about me and a women having sex. And i would not have sex with her in the first place - i would have her insemenated. How can u say homosexuality is ok, but not acting on it? Why the fuck would god make me homosexual if i couldnt BE homosexual? You fucking expect me to be celibate? You judge our individual merit by judging the merit of homosexuality. How the fuck can you say thats not discrimination? Wait, your religious. So your fucking stupid anyways. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 07 2004 16:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: HOLY SHIT THIS IS THE WORST POST I HAVE EVER READ WHAT THE FUCK seriously dude.. killing someone and spilling a drink.. yeah they're the same. I _really_ wasn't expecting anything THAT moronic from you, the self-appointed smartest member of the forum. seriously dude, that was so insanely stupid I can't even begin to comprehend you posted it. is that ban worthy or what? . forgive my poor taste in joke. (meaning i would not ban him if i were a mod. *cough*). | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
if guys weren't meant to fuck eachother, why would god give us orgasms from having penises stuck up our asses? (yes, guys do get orgasms from that. girls however (normally) do not. ) how about the fact that having sex is REALLY HEALTHY? one of the best workouts you can have. it also makes you feel good, not just while having sex, but also afterwards, even the day after! but I mean, considering you've never masturbated nor had sex I don't expect you to understand any of this. and yeah I think your replies on this page shows how accurate my "self-appointed smartest forumer" comment was. you're ignorant, incredibly arrogant, and while you know a lot of large words and you have a high iq, you're equally lacking in social skills. basically, you need to grow up. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 07 2004 18:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: obsoletelogic I don't think *you* understand how the body works. if guys weren't meant to fuck eachother, why would god give us orgasms from having penises stuck up our asses? (yes, guys do get orgasms from that. girls however (normally) do not. ) If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have denounced homosexuality in the bible. I think Humans are the only animal that is gay, but I could be wrong. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
its quite frequent. (and I don't believe in god, that comment was mostly aimed at obsolete. ) | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 08 2004 06:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: you're very wrong about that one. many animals are gay, I remember I saw a tv program about homosexuality among monkeys. its quite frequent. (and I don't believe in god, that comment was mostly aimed at obsolete. ) That can't really be proven that it is homosexual. For example, a female dog goes in heat about once every six months, and when it does, it gives off some sort of chemical scent that a male dog can pick up from like 15 miles away. When the male dog picks up this scent, he will hump anything, be it a table leg, teddy bear, your leg, or a male dog. That doesn't neccesarily mean he is in love with a male dog, or your leg. I think this holds true for most animals but I'm not positive. p.s. I don't believe in god either. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 08 2004 06:20 Bill and Bill wrote: If God wanted us to be gay, he wouldn't have denounced homosexuality in the bible. I think Humans are the only animal that is gay, but I could be wrong. there are plenty of gay animals if god didnt want us to be gay, he would have made us *gasp* all not gay. alexander the great was gay (correct me if i am wrong) abraham lincoln was suggested to be gay (correct me again if im wrong) even fucking achilles was said to be gay (read mythology) i dont think they chose it, do you? i didnt choose to be gay or not gay, its just an innate feeling of how i was born. i could never like a guy its just how i am. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 08 2004 06:43 intotherei wrote: i dont think they chose it, do you? no p.s. God giving us the ability to be gay doesn't mean he wants us to be gay, because he also gave us the ability to murder people, steal from people, and eventually, clone people. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
you can choose to murder someone, but you can not choose your sexual orientation tt | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
On March 07 2004 18:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: obsoletelogic I don't think *you* understand how the body works. if guys weren't meant to fuck eachother, why would god give us orgasms from having penises stuck up our asses? (yes, guys do get orgasms from that. girls however (normally) do not. ) Prostate stimulation can occur from three areas (behind the testies, the perineum, and inside the anus). Furthermore, not all men find this to be pleasurable. And why doesn't the anus have a natural lubricant, as the vagina does? Its pretty obvious that Old Cap'n One Eye is supposed to lay anchor in that cave, so if we are *supposed* to have anal sex, why isn't the same provided for the anus? how about the fact that having sex is REALLY HEALTHY? one of the best workouts you can have. it also makes you feel good, not just while having sex, but also afterwards, even the day after! but I mean, considering you've never masturbated nor had sex I don't expect you to understand any of this. Whats this got to do with anything? I'm not some anti-sex Shaker (branch of the Quakers who didn't believe in sex) or anything. I'm simply against sex that is wasteful. and yeah I think your replies on this page shows how accurate my "self-appointed smartest forumer" comment was. you're ignorant, incredibly arrogant, and while you know a lot of large words and you have a high iq, you're equally lacking in social skills. basically, you need to grow up. I don't recall taking any personal jabs at you. I got frustrated and called you all stupid. I'm sorry. Frankly I consider you to also lack in social skills. Unless, by social skills, you mean conform to your liberal agenda...? | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
at least they invented the little things on the bottom of chairs so you can hang them o_o | ||
|
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
| ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
Would any of those "No-Tolerance"-Christians enlighten us all ? Greets, koehli | ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
Could someone more knowledgable on the subject expand on this perhaps? | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Leviticus means "the Law", its not a Gospel. Its one of the first five books of the Old Testament, written by Moses. | ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Its bizarre. | ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
Alright so is this or is it not where christians derive their beliefs on homosexuality from? | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 08 2004 07:03 intotherei wrote: he gave us the ABILITY to murder people, but he didnt give us the ability to choose our sexuality. you can choose to murder someone, but you can not choose your sexual orientation tt It isn't IMPOSSIBLE for someone to change their sexual orientation. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Whats more, its got plenty of logical backing too. You don't have 2000 years of Catholicism and just base it all off the Bible, you know. If you'd like, I can give you a non-directly religious logical argument for it. | ||
|
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
| ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
Whats more, its got plenty of logical backing too. You don't have 2000 years of Catholicism and just base it all off the Bible, you know. you know catholicism was wrong about the earth being flat for 1500 years right? 2000 years of oppressing human nature is not in any way logical. It's not logical god gives people overwhelming urges and punishes them for eternity for acting on them, especially when it doesn't hurt anyone. You shut the fuck up with your babbling about "the liberal agenda" and your believe in absolute morality. You're attitude is everything i loathe about human nature. You choose to believe in a god that is supposed to be a loving one, yet you show nothing but contempt for people that are different than you. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
You know the entire population of earth was wrong about the world being flat, right? Stop your hate mongering on my Church. I don't know what they did to you, if anything, but man almighty, you sure do continue to blast it with nothing but scornful biased opinion. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
| ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 08 2004 11:20 ObsoleteLogic wrote: badteeth, why the hate sir? You're the one who has nothing but contempt in your posts. You know the entire population of earth was wrong about the world being flat, right? Stop your hate mongering on my Church. I don't know what they did to you, if anything, but man almighty, you sure do continue to blast it with nothing but scornful biased opinion. I have nothing for contempt for people that force their views upon others. You can ignore my posts and go on like nothing is wrong, but the minorities you oppress by proxy have no such luxury. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
So you're allowed to bash and hate all the doctrines and beliefs of my Church, but I can't say I think what homosexuals do is wrong? | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 08 2004 11:30 Excalibur_Z wrote: Yeah I love how badteeth is so eager to paint anyone who mentions religion as a bloodthirsty zealot when in reality that just gives him an open ticket to bash religion as a whole, all while claiming he knows everything there is to know about religion's background, history, and morality. He has nothing but hate for religion and Christianity and it shows all too clearly. I have nothign against religion, i even welcome some christian groups because they do good work, like sheltering the homeless or giving advice to people. I dont even mind that people need a church to comfort their minds. Thats all fine with me. I don't claim to be omnipotent, that is a claim only religious people can make, through the bible and other man made dogmas. I know no hate, i try not to be distracted by transitional things. | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On March 08 2004 11:38 ObsoleteLogic wrote: yeah, I'm the man, holdin' um down! So you're allowed to bash and hate all the doctrines and beliefs of my Church, but I can't say I think what homosexuals do is wrong? like I said before, i dont force the world to conform to my own views through faulty, hatefilled legislation. You're supporting a church that pushes for these laws. You are a bigot. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Real polite fella, you are. I'm sorry that you don't believe in traditional morality, but you are making personal attacks rather than debating the issue. | ||
|
Bill and Bill
United States167 Posts
On March 08 2004 11:35 badteeth wrote: I have nothing for contempt for people that force their views upon others. You can ignore my posts and go on like nothing is wrong, but the minorities you oppress by proxy have no such luxury. Nothing but contempt for people who force their views upon others? Excuse me sir badteeth, but you are doing it just as much as they are. You are pushing your atheist views just as much as they are pushing their religious views. Just being honest and logical. Good day to you. | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
| ||
| ||
