|
On October 22 2011 08:26 Kickstart wrote:
After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you.
If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion.
If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated.
Doncta know Jesus was gay? He hung out with 12 sailors and hosted a no girls allowed dinner party.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yIOp1.jpg)
Hopefully it gets through, a pity it has taken so long
|
United States1941 Posts
On October 22 2011 09:18 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 08:26 Kickstart wrote:
After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you.
If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion.
If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated. Doncta know Jesus was gay? He hung out with 12 sailors and hosted a no girls allowed dinner party.
I don't concern myself with the sexuality of mythical figures.
|
On October 22 2011 09:21 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 09:18 ShadeR wrote:On October 22 2011 08:26 Kickstart wrote:
After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you.
If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion.
If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated. Doncta know Jesus was gay? He hung out with 12 sailors and hosted a no girls allowed dinner party. I don't concern myself with the sexuality of mythical figures.
No way... You never been curious about the sexuality of unicorns ever?
|
i woulda went with a Dumbledore bit
|
On October 22 2011 09:20 Dirt McGirt wrote:Hopefully it gets through, a pity it has taken so long
i gay park my car all the time.
i don't get the picture.
|
Gay sex is wrong 
|
On October 22 2011 09:41 meatbox wrote:Gay sex is wrong
Nope, you are just doing it wrong.
|
On October 22 2011 09:46 Hipinretku wrote:Nope, you are just doing it wrong.
:r
|
United States5162 Posts
I don't think gay sex is pretty, but why so much concern about what two people do consensually in private?
|
United States1941 Posts
I'm not sure if I would describe any type of sex as pretty? Besides, sex is better when you go at it like two pigs anyways.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 09:52 Kickstart wrote:
I'm not sure if I would describe any type of sex as pretty? Besides, sex is better when you go at it like two pigs anyways.
It was more of an expression to say I don't like gay sex either. But either way, I actually lied, because I would say sex between two lesbians is very pretty 
edit: stereotypical lesbians of course
|
United States1941 Posts
Stereotypical lesbians like butch lesbians? or Lipstick lesbians? Anyways it is ok that the idea of gay sex makes you a bit uncomfortable, the thought of doing anything to a vagina is terrifying to me. Just realize that just because you find it odd or uncomfortable doesn't make it wrong.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 09:59 Kickstart wrote:
Stereotypical lesbians like butch lesbians? or Lipstick lesbians? Anyways it is ok that the idea of gay sex makes you a bit uncomfortable, the thought of doing anything to a vagina is terrifying to me. Just realize that just because you find it odd or uncomfortable doesn't make it wrong.
Stereotypical as in a straight mans fantasy. Normal lesbians(and normal life in general) is far less sexy.
And that was also my point. I find it odd and it makes me uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean what two people do in private is any of my concern.
|
On October 22 2011 08:58 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote:
Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers. What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too). I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Such a single study does not exist because it is unfortunately not attainable at this time. There are not that many families currently, because of the negative reaction to them and the discrimination that is pervasive in many cultures. However, there are a number of studies that have some of those traits, and, together, all paint the same picture. On all the metrics, there is very little difference in terms of quality and developmental landmarks, whether they be self reported or otherwise. I'm not saying that you aren't right, that there is some conclusive study that "proves" it. However, what I am saying is what is being said about many things in science. To the best of our ability, with significant effort in methodology and population, there appears to be no more negative effect towards same-sex parenting. Expecting a study that has ALL of those categories is unreasonable in many cases in science that involve people (but not only).
On the other hand, there is NO evidence that there are significant negative effects (unless you consider "slightly more accepting on average" a negative). So why should we believe that this means that gay parents are somehow inferior? And how can they prove themselves through these multi-thousand carefully designed studies if they are not allowed to have children?
Bottom line is that there's significant evidence that points in one direction and very little to no evidence otherwise, even though more work needs to be done, obviously. Even if the quality of the study is not necessarily "ideal" the fact that independent parties came up with virtually the same result no matter the dimension studied suggests that their conclusion is more likely than the alternative, at least.
|
§ 7. DEFINITION OF “MARRIAGE” AND “SPOUSE”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
two men or two women forming a legal union is not marriage
a homosexual and a lesbian forming a legal union is gay marriage
|
On October 22 2011 09:07 Iyerbeth wrote:
Honestly whichever way this turns out, the fact we're still letting the majority vote for rights for the minority is disgusting and as soon as we as a species start simply enforcing equal rights we might finally have legitimate claim to the word "civilised".
For clarification I mean that as a species wide thing rather than an attack on any one specific country/people/belief - I just find it impossible to get my head around voting on this kinda thing.
so true
could you imagine christians voting if sikhs are allowed to wear turbans? come on.
|
On October 22 2011 10:44 PrideNeverDie wrote:
§ 7. DEFINITION OF “MARRIAGE” AND “SPOUSE”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
two men or two women forming a legal union is not marriage
a homosexual and a lesbian forming a legal union is gay marriage
This is the Australian Gay Marriage thread and you bring in a US defintion?
~_~
Hope it goes through, I live in the US but I think that gay marriage should be a given everywhere
|
I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition, by forcing them to change their definition of marriage. But then marriage probably shouldn't be a state institution, and legally we should all be under civil unions.
Either way I think this issue is a lot hot air over something insignificant, its hardly going to have a major effect on the world no matter the outcome. I wish we were voting on more important issues like climate change, infrastructure, tax reform etc.
|
On October 22 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote:
I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition, by forcing them to change their definition of marriage. But then marriage probably shouldn't be a state institution, and legally we should all be under civil unions.
Either way I think this issue is a lot hot air over something insignificant, its hardly going to have a major effect on the world no matter the outcome. I wish we were voting on more important issues like climate change, infrastructure, tax reform etc.
Marriage is a civil institution it has nothing to do with the church. The church merely refuses to do christian marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and pressures the government to continue denying them the civil institution of marriage.
The church's right to traditions based on their beliefs? Does this mean the government should allow the church to hold slaves, stone people to death for eating the wrong things etc? Or are some traditions more important than others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
