Spain has voted Gay marriages & adoption... [Archive]

SwiftSloth

06-30-2005, 08:19 PM

Actually its fact, not opinion. Heterosexuality is the norm. It is normal. Homosexuality is a deviation. It is abnormal. Don't try to ignore objective facts now.

Normality, so what? No one is normal. Everyone is individual. Their have been many abnormal things in the course of history, that are now absolute normal. I suppose deep down you really do feel women are incapable of working dont you? Because it didnt used to be normal... But you see, now it is... Normality means nothing.

I think this thread proves that their activities have a huge effect on others.

Only because people choose their own reactions. I choose to be passive and allow them to enjoy their lives how they You choose to try and opress their happiness, because... IDK, you dont like things you dont understand? Your jealouse that they can actually be happy with eachother, and maybe you have trouble finding someone to be happy with? Maybe your a closet homosexual who was brought up in an extremely conservative environment that frowned on it, and you feel the need to opress it by lashing out at others? The reasons are numerous for any person to oppose homosexuality. But non of them are valid. Just old dogmas.

It will not happen because homosexuality is not the norm, it is abnormal. It is impossible. What are you hoping for, millions of genetic mutations to occur over the next 10 years making half the population gay? Thats not going to happen, bud.

? So in order to have the right, you must be the majority? :bs:

You see, I have no problem giving minorities the same rights as myself, so long as they dont use those rights to impose their beliefs on me. Gay marriage doesnt come close to imposing on my rights.

If you or gays don't like the fact that homosexuality is abnormal and a biological defect, them I suggest you go pack your bags and live in some kind of dream world.

... Let me try and put it this way: Humans are made to have sex... so if I never marry, and never have sex, I have a biological defect? So tell me, Contra, and you of course dont have to answer this is if you dont want to: Are you normal yet? Are you going to be? When can I become normal?

Its all about interpretation... And mass consensus does not = correct philosiphy contra.

SwiftSloth

06-30-2005, 08:20 PM

Another question: By your definition, those heterosexuals who either choose not to have children, or cannot have children biologically, are not married? Or are not worthy of marriage?

Whats more, by the logic used by Contra, they have a biological defect.

Patrician

06-30-2005, 10:46 PM

Honest question: What proof do you have that homosexuality is a biological defect, as opposed to a biological occurance, such as hair color, or eye color?

Current biological evidnce points in that direction. http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8622 These latest findings suggest a genetic abnormality or flaw which inadvertently "turns on" femininity in males and masculinity in females, the root cause of homosexuality or bisexuality. Where as eye color is a product of normal genetic development, homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia (ins some cases) and retardation (in some cases) are examples of unintentional genetic flaws which hinder the survival of the individual or species.

Another question: By your definition, those heterosexuals who either choose not to have children, or cannot have children biologically, are not married? Or are not worthy of marriage?

Families are the basic building block of Western cultures and of republican societies. Marriage is an institution designed to bind the family together according to judeo-christian tradition and for the transmission values. No such institution is neccessary for individuals outside of such relationships. Therefore the question is fundamentally moot. Legally they can be married, and they can call themselves married but there is really no point to it.

A father and a daughter could have a child, sick as that may be...

Yes I know, but that is simply biologically reproduction, not a true family.

Patrician

06-30-2005, 10:50 PM

Whats more, by the logic used by Contra, they have a biological defect.

I never stated anything of the sort. Stop making **** up. :rolleyes:

CowPunk

06-30-2005, 10:58 PM

Current biological evidnce points in that direction. http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8622 These latest findings suggest a genetic abnormality or flaw which inadvertently "turns on" femininity in males and masculinity in females, the root cause of homosexuality or bisexuality. Where as eye color is a product of normal genetic development, homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia (ins some cases) and retardation (in some cases) are examples of unintentional genetic flaws which hinder the survival of the individual or species.
- I see: because you don't LIKE it, it's a "flaw," despite the lack of any evidence of harm.

Families are the basic building block of Western cultures and of republican societies. Marriage is an institution designed to bind the family together according to judeo-christian tradition and for the transmission values.
- No, religious marriage is, and even that's not exclusively "Judeo-Christian," because people from non-Judeo-Christian religions married long before either existed.

Civil marriage is a civil institution, and not a religious one. And there are plenty of reasons for gay families to also bind within it.

No such institution is neccessary for individuals outside of such relationships. Therefore the question is fundamentally moot. Legally they can be married, and they can call themselves married but there is really no point to it.
- Bunk - married partners get a million benefits non-married ones don't, so there's certainly a legitimate point.

Yes I know, but that is simply biologically reproduction, not a true family.
- It's a "true family" if the family believes it is. Love defines a family and not arbitrary social standards.

Zoot

06-30-2005, 11:11 PM

None of us have any idea how this will work until a couple of decades have gone by. I bet it'll be the same end result as most marriages......which are in divorce status.

Patrician

06-30-2005, 11:31 PM

Normality, so what? No one is normal.

Yes, people are. Heterosexuality, for example, is normal. Deviation from heterosexual behavior is abnormal.

Their have been many abnormal things in the course of history, that are now absolute normal.

I think you are confusing normal behavior from accepted behavior. They are two very different things. Homosexuality will never be normal. Perhaps some day it will be forced into acceptance but that will not make it normal.

I suppose deep down you really do feel women are incapable of working dont you?

Not married ones with young children, no. They should raise their own children, not send them off to some minimum wage day care slob. Other than that I could care less. What does this have to do with what we are discussing?

Because it didnt used to be normal... But you see, now it is... Normality means nothing.

Normality has a very clear, straightforward definition:

normal
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

norm
n.
A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical

Normality does not mean "nothing". If it referred to a state that was undistinguishable from any other state, there would be label required. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

In the field of biology, normality is unwavering. Remember, we are not talking about acceptance. We are talking about the biological norm. Homosexuality does not fit this definition. Homosexuals are abnormal.

I choose to be passive and allow them to enjoy their lives how they. You choose to try and opress their happiness

Nonsense. I don't care about any of them or want to have any thing to do with them. When they try to change MY culture and impose themselves on ME, they are oppressing ME and its my job to fight back and highlight their crimes.

you dont like things you dont understand?

The problem here is that I understand too well exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

Your jealouse that they can actually be happy with eachother, and maybe you have trouble finding someone to be happy with?

Maybe your a closet homosexual who was brought up in an extremely conservative environment that frowned on it, and you feel the need to opress it by lashing out at others?

So now homosexuality is perfectly normal but those who question the actions of homosexuals are head cases? Don't you see the blaring hypocrisy in your own argument? You scream that its intolerant to label these people defective then you proclaim those who dissent and question are the defectives? You've argued yourself into a corner on this one bud. Nice move.

The reasons are numerous for any person to oppose homosexuality. But non of them are valid. Just old dogmas.

I am not opposed to the state of being known as homosexuality. I am opposed to homosexual marriage and other special rights for gays and the homosexual lifestyle, not because of dogma but because they are flawed and irrational, illegal and immoral.

? So in order to have the right, you must be the majority? :bs:

It is not a right. How old are you? Why do you keep confusing basic concepts like rights, normality and acceptance? Something that is normal is the norm or archetype of a population. In this case, heterosexuality. It has nothing to do with rights or the majority. Its a fact or reality, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, the archetype.

You see, I have no problem giving minorities the same rights as myself,

I propose that everyone have the same rights. Marriage is not a right, however, neither is normality. Marriage is a cultural institution which government should not be regulating. Normality is a label given to the state of being for some objects in relation to other objects. What you want is special rights for gays, not equal rights for all.

so long as they dont use those rights to impose their beliefs on me. Gay marriage doesnt come close to imposing on my rights.

Oh yes it does. Gay marriage is a direct attack on our freedom by left-wing extremists.

... Let me try and put it this way: Humans are made to have sex... so if I never marry, and never have sex, I have a biological defect? So tell me, Contra, and you of course dont have to answer this is if you dont want to: Are you normal yet? Are you going to be? When can I become normal?

Jesus man, where do you pull this **** from? Do you just make **** up as you go? Seriously how old are you? You REALLY need to work on your critical thinking skills.

Its all about interpretation... And mass consensus does not = correct philosiphy contra.

Again with confusing concepts. I was never talking about consensus, I was talking about normality, they are two totally separate things. You keep lumping different concepts together. Why do you think they have different names and definitions? Come on man, wake up already.

Patrician

06-30-2005, 11:46 PM

- I see: because you don't LIKE it, it's a "flaw," despite the lack of any evidence of harm.

Where did you pull this BS straw man from? Didn't you read what I wrote before you responded? Why don't you try responding to my argument rather than making something up? Can't compete?

- No, religious marriage is

What the hell are you yammering on about now?

even that's not exclusively "Judeo-Christian," because people from non-Judeo-Christian religions married long before either existed.

As I noted, I was speaking in contect of Western culture. Don't you pay attention duder? :rolleyes:

Civil marriage is a civil institution, and not a religious one. And there are plenty of reasons for gay families to also bind within it.

There is no such thing as a "gay family." "Civil marriage" is not an institution, its a program run by the state for regulating personal relationships. It should not exist, IMO, the state should not regulate marriage.

- Bunk - married partners get a million benefits non-married ones don't, so there's certainly a legitimate point.

Sorry, wrong again. I am talking about the institution of marriage, not civil marriage which I've alredy said should not exist as the goverment has no right or duty to involve itself in personal relationships. Don't you bother reading anything before you respond to it? :nonono:

- It's a "true family" if the family believes it is.

No its not. I am again speaking in the context of a Western society. How many times do I have to say this over and over until it FINALLY sinks in? A family has a specific definition. If a family can be anything, then the word family means nothing.

Love defines a family and not arbitrary social standards.

Love is part of the relationship between family members, but it does not define a family. Some of these relationships are valid, some are not. A gay cross-dressing man who ****s sheep pretending to me a mom to a young child is not valid- its perverse and totally unhealthy.

As marriage is a WESTERN cultural institution, it is western, republican, judeo-christian society that defines its limits and nature and we have defined gays OUT of it. Thats it bud, and nothing you say or do can ever change that. If gays want to be married and have families, they better either learn to control their instincts and starting acting like heteros or hope for a biological cure for gayness.

Erhnam

07-01-2005, 12:03 AM

http://www.lc.org/radiotv/nlj/nlj0502.htm

What happened to gay parents supposedly not having any impact on their adopted children? This is full of courses that claim otherwise. Haven't followed any of them up however, but i probably will later.

Della April

07-01-2005, 12:06 AM

Agreed, this makes me want to barf.

This just shows how a well organized minority group, no matter how radical or extremist, can manipulate the political system to their own benefit against the laws of sociey, civilization and nature. Unfortunatly the good guys didn't win this one this time but it doesn't mean we aren't right. We are. Might doesn't make right. Laws can't cover up the blaring realities of biology, those who still think see right past this act of tyranny. The homosexual extremists are making a power grab. The next thing we'll see is affirmitive action and reparations for gays as well as other special rights.
Well said, Dazen. :nice:

Della April

07-01-2005, 12:09 AM

w00t w00t.... Spain is the shizzle... Id say the US is within 10 years, then 10 years later no one will care, and it will be perfectly normal.
Let's hope not! :nonono:

Della April

07-01-2005, 12:14 AM

Honest question: What proof do you have that homosexuality is a biological defect, as opposed to a biological occurance, such as hair color, or eye color?

Another question: By your definition, those heterosexuals who either choose not to have children, or cannot have children biologically, are not married? Or are not worthy of marriage?

A father and a daughter could have a child, sick as that may be...
The founding of a family doesn't necessarily mean having children. IMO, homosexuality is a defect, and that's all there is to it. Most gays want it to be biological, but it is a choice, and not a healthy one, psychologically or physically.

Della April

07-01-2005, 12:19 AM

- I see: because you don't LIKE it, it's a "flaw," despite the lack of any evidence of harm.

- No, religious marriage is, and even that's not exclusively "Judeo-Christian," because people from non-Judeo-Christian religions married long before either existed.

Civil marriage is a civil institution, and not a religious one. And there are plenty of reasons for gay families to also bind within it.

- Bunk - married partners get a million benefits non-married ones don't, so there's certainly a legitimate point.

- It's a "true family" if the family believes it is. Love defines a family and not arbitrary social standards.

There was a case in New Zealand a few years ago, of a father who had had control of his daughter, and claimed to the neighbours she was his wife - he even got her pregnant - but he made the mistake of letting her get out of his control. He's now in prison for years to come - although she had to move to Germany to get truly free of him. Family, bullsh*t! :bs:

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 12:31 AM

Where did you pull this BS straw man from? Didn't you read what I wrote before you responded? Why don't you try responding to my argument rather than making something up? Can't compete?
- In other words, you can't deal with the point with a rational argument.

What the hell are you yammering on about now?
- See above.

As I noted, I was speaking in contect of Western culture. Don't you pay attention duder? :rolleyes:
- Irrelevant - civil marriage performed by a judge is NOT religious marriage.

There is no such thing as a "gay family." "Civil marriage" is not an institution, its a program run by the state for regulating personal relationships. It should not exist, IMO, the state should not regulate marriage.
- Civil marriage is CERTAINLY an institution - it's just a civil one. It is whatever the state says it is. Two entirely separate things: religious marriage and civil marriage.

And marriage has to be regulated because it involves child custody and property issues, and many other ones fundamental to the welfare of the state and people.

Sorry, wrong again. I am talking about the institution of marriage, not civil marriage which I've alredy said should not exist as the goverment has no right or duty to involve itself in personal relationships. Don't you bother reading anything before you respond to it? :nonono:
- Sorry, but this is bull**** - we DO have civil marriage, and the fact you don't like it doesn't change the fact that we do. The state has oversight of marriage, and that's that.

No its not. I am again speaking in the context of a Western society. How many times do I have to say this over and over until it FINALLY sinks in? A family has a specific definition. If a family can be anything, then the word family means nothing.
- Even if that were true it would NOT mandate that YOUR definition of "family" be the one accepted. A family for legal purposes is whatever the state says it is.

Love is part of the relationship between family members, but it does not define a family. Some of these relationships are valid, some are not. A gay cross-dressing man who ****s sheep pretending to me a mom to a young child is not valid- its perverse and totally unhealthy.
- Straw man - a parent's sexual behavior has NOTHING to do with the definition of "family," as married heterosexual partners' families aren't suddenly nonfamilies because the parents engage in sex with a sheep.

As marriage is a WESTERN cultural institution
- No, it's not - it's a universal human one, and not just a Western one.

it is western, republican, judeo-christian society that defines its limits and nature and we have defined gays OUT of it. Thats it bud, and nothing you say or do can ever change that. If gays want to be married and have families, they better either learn to control their instincts and starting acting like heteros or hope for a biological cure for gayness.
- No, actually what the Supreme Court says will change it. Whether you like it or not, the state has oversight and will define these things as is consonant with the law.

If they change the definitions that you now hold, they'll no longer exist under the scrutiny of the law as they did previously. The fact you think it isn't within your conception of culture is irrelevant.

The definitions of marriage and family are as fluid as anything else, and will change as society does. And, as always, you'll get owned.

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 12:32 AM

There was a case in New Zealand a few years ago, of a father who had had control of his daughter, and claimed to the neighbours she was his wife - he even got her pregnant - but he made the mistake of letting her get out of his control. He's now in prison for years to come - although she had to move to Germany to get truly free of him. Family, bullsh*t! :bs:
- This is irrelevant to the discussion. They never stopped being a "family," they were simply a family that committed incest.

SwiftSloth

07-01-2005, 12:59 AM

Yes, people are. Heterosexuality, for example, is normal. Deviation from heterosexual behavior is abnormal.

No. This is very simple, so follow me here:

Anything not normal is abnormal. The norm is what the majority believes. The majority, can often times be very wrong, making what was abnormal, actually correct. This is proven countless times during history. I’m not saying homosexual is the true correct/norm... I’m saying whether it’s normal or not does not for one second cause grounds to oppress those who would do it. You can’t say that because a majority of people do it this way, that is the norm, and there is no other way it can be done. There are so many levels of 'normal' that saying so only means your interpretation/breakdown of what normal is to you. So by your logic: All vegetarians shouldn’t be allowed to only eat vegetables, because eating meat is the norm. We should not allow abnormal behavior. We should not allow killing, because to murder is abnormal behavior, normally we do not do this. Eating peanut butter and jelly with carrots on it should not be allowed, as it is certainly not normal. See how flawed your logic is when applied to true worldly logic, as opposed to oppressive dogmatic views?

I think you are confusing normal behavior from accepted behavior. They are two very different things. Homosexuality will never be normal. Perhaps some day it will be forced into acceptance but that will not make it normal.

This can be said about tons of things going on today. And worse yet, a lot of the things that this can be said about, actually are oppressive and harmful to others then those who obtain those rights. Yet, you choose to back such ideals, and oppose ideals which would grant individual rights despite their lack of implications on your own.

Not married ones with young children, no. They should raise their own children, not send them off to some minimum wage day care slob. Other than that I could care less. What does this have to do with what we are discussing?

LOL. Thank you for proving my point... BTW, I went to daycare. I enjoyed it very much.

Normality has a very clear, straightforward definition:

Normal
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

norm
n.
A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical

Normality does not mean "nothing". If it referred to a state that was undistinguishable from any other state, there would be label required. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

No, it does. Because who decides what the 'standard, pattern or level/type' are? Its all a matter of opinion as to what should truly be normal. Let me help you on this one:

o•pin•ion P Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

mmk? Just because you feel that heterosexuality is 'your norm', this is far from true to the norm of homosexuals.

In the field of biology, normality is unwavering. Remember, we are not talking about acceptance. We are talking about the biological norm. Homosexuality does not fit this definition. Homosexuals are abnormal.

Hmm... I feel lame saying this, but alls I can say is--'So?' What does that do for your argument? It’s not normal... So I don’t like it... K, that’s fine... Also, defining the intentions done in sexual intercourse as opposed to homosexual intercourse are two very different things. One is impregnation, the other is sexual gratification, which is a very serious requirement of being human. They serve different purposes.

Nonsense. I don't care about any of them or want to have any thing to do with them. When they try to change MY culture and impose themselves on ME, they are oppressing ME and it’s my job to fight back and highlight their crimes.

What 'crimes' would that be? Did they harm you, take something from you? Are you going to be not allowed to do something anymore? Did they take your land? Did they try to force you into homosexual activities (forcing themselves on you)? Near as I can tell, when they ask for personal rights, that really doesn’t affect you. You can get over the culture shock. All those who fear change eventually do. Or grow old and bitter on their front porch talking about the good old days. Either way, you can’t really be happy with your position of oppressing others. Especially a losing one.

The problem here is that I understand too well exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

? The assertation of their own rights in society?

So now homosexuality is perfectly normal but those who question the actions of homosexuals are head cases?

Not at all. But those who would take it to a degree of oppressing that which they’ve never taken part in or for that matter clearly have no desire to understand the situation, I really could care less for. Unless you can tell me that you got gang raped by a bunch of gay guys, I have a hard time believing you have grounds for your opinion besides you were taught that homosexual is evil, which really has no grounds. And if it’s my perception that heterosexuality is evil, would I be correct? No more then you are. (Just so you don’t flip out, because I know you will, im not saying heterosexuality is evil.. At least I hope not. :))

Don't you see the blaring hypocrisy in your own argument? You scream that it’s intolerant to label these people defective then you proclaim those who dissent and question are the defectives? You've argued yourself into a corner on this one bud. Nice move.

Nah. Although I did enjoy your straw man.

I am not opposed to the state of being known as homosexuality. I am opposed to homosexual marriage and other special rights for gays and the homosexual lifestyle, not because of dogma but because they are flawed and irrational, illegal and immoral.

Special rights? I don’t see what’s special about having the exact same rights as everyone else. You’re denying them rights, and then claim they want special rights... Also, you prove that indeed you operate on dogmatic views by then turning around and claiming homosexuality (although you aren’t opposed to the state of it) is flawed, irrational, illegal and immoral... All dogmatic views which you have no grounds for.

Oh yes it does. Gay marriage is a direct attack on our freedom by left-wing extremists.

Well, sure sucks that you’re going to lose it... Damn the supporting of over 1.2 million members of this country... Dude, your going to have to accept it: There are over a million people in this country who are gay. They didn’t ship over here, they were born here this way. They are a part of our culture. As much as this bothers you, it’s how it goes.

Jesus man, where do you pull this **** from? Do you just make **** up as you go? Seriously how old are you? You REALLY need to work on your critical thinking skills.

Hahahaha... actually Id have to say if you cant grasp my analogy at all, and can merely say 'do you make this up', you must really be lacking in the area your attempting to critic me in. You see, my analogy makes perfect sense. But, because it doesn’t suite your dogmatic certainties in your own ideals, you would never stand a chance of willingly conceding it to be truth, even if god himself smacked you in the face with it. You’d say 'nope, gods wrong, because my logic is right.' It just doesn’t matter to you.

Again with confusing concepts. I was never talking about consensus, I was talking about normality, they are two totally separate things. You keep lumping different concepts together. Why do you think they have different names and definitions? Come on man, wake up already.

LOL... We live in a world where everything, all concepts and ideas must at all times be connected. You can’t just say 'I’m going to prove creationism by using the bible' and then be pist when people use scientific data to argue about what you’re saying... Bad analogy on that one, I know. But surely even you can grasp where im coming from: All aspects of a situation must be taken in to decide the truth of the matter. You can state your opinion, but you can’t pick and choose your argument, leaving out certain aspects that would go against it, in a real argument, and then get pist off when someone else brings them in.

Della April

07-01-2005, 03:43 AM

- This is irrelevant to the discussion. They never stopped being a "family," they were simply a family that committed incest.

Not, in her case, willingly. That being so, the father forfeited his right to be involved in any family his daughter was in.

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 03:45 AM

Yes, quite typically, gay families don't commit criminal offenses against their children. :rolleyes:

Von Apfelstrudel

07-01-2005, 06:58 AM

A marriage is a moral relationship whose purpose is to build a family. Gays cannot achieve these ends, wrong ...
nor could a relationship between say a father and daughter.
... and childish .

Erhnam

07-01-2005, 07:06 AM

Yes, quite typically, gay families don't commit criminal offenses against their children. :rolleyes:

According to Adolescence magazine's study, they actually do.

Della April

07-01-2005, 07:25 AM

According to Adolesence magazine's study, they actuslly do.
That makes sense to me....

johann_moritz

07-01-2005, 07:51 AM

Quo vadis, Domine?

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 08:39 AM

Thats impossible because homosexuality is not normal.

You really have an obsession with what's "normal", huh Dazen? Normal to who, you? NO thanks.

That you actually think homosexuality is a biological defect shows that you, are the one who is brainwashed. Spain voted to make this change, because just like we voted for Civil Rights, they realize its time to allow for change and evolution , and recognize what is now accepted . albeit not the norm, except, to biggots like you. :nonono:
You are 24 years old and think you have everything pegged, right? Do me a favor, watch this week's 30 Days by Morgan Spurlock. Its about taking someone like you, and having them live with a gay man in San Francisco for 30 Days to see if any of the prejudices change. You're young. There's still hope for you, in my mind. :nice:

Oh, and just so you know, I recently got married, to a man. Not in a church, by a JP who I do theatre with.... who is a Dead Head and a single mom :nice:
And although I would like to have a child someday, right now, my husband does not. We never got married just to have children. and to say that Saison, Baboon, and perhaps my stance on that is irrelvant is insulting.

Do you have children??? :rolleyes:

CowPunk

07-01-2005, 09:04 AM

According to Adolescence magazine's study, they actually do.
- Uh, no - according to forty years of research across multiple nations, they don't. Let's see some references to Adolesence's study so we can examine its validity.

Misteria

07-01-2005, 09:09 AM

wow i didnt realise how close minded some people were as regard to the rights of individuals rights such as living together legally and protecting their inheritance with their partners after nurturing and looking after each other as us straight people.........
i cant judge the love of 2 people of the same sex who am i to judge them?
who am i to turn my back on a person because he / she is a homosexual?
who am i to stop that a child be allowed to be adopted and given a happy home regardless of his parents sex?
i am no one but a lady with her heart in the right place and who cares enough for the happiness of others.

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 09:18 AM

king of kings

07-01-2005, 09:19 AM

Yeah you got that right, good post Anrora. :) :nice:

ÆSiR

07-01-2005, 09:26 AM

In further news, Spain is now called *lisp* Spheeeeeeyn *lisp*

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 09:34 AM

In further news, Spain is now called *lisp* Spheeeeeeyn *lisp*

Ok, Jon Stewart. :p

ÆSiR

07-01-2005, 09:38 AM

Ok, Jon Stewart. :p

I take it that Jon Stewart allready made this joke?

Damn him... I could so replace that morAn...
if I only knew something about politics.

...or news.

:|

SecretSamadhi

07-01-2005, 10:44 AM

I take it that Jon Stewart allready made this joke?

Damn him... I could so replace that morAn...
if I only knew something about politics.

...or news.

:|
No - don't worry - you're still the all original hysterical freak that you are. :p

You could sell him that joke though. :nice:

TheLateGreat

07-01-2005, 01:45 PM

In the field of biology, normality is unwavering. Remember, we are not talking about acceptance. We are talking about the biological norm. Homosexuality does not fit this definition. Homosexuals are abnormal.

You are absolutely correct on this point.

I am gay. Despite your point, I still deserve the many legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

Erhnam

07-01-2005, 01:50 PM

You are absolutely correct on this point.

I am gay. Despite your point, I still deserve the many legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

Not according to Webster:

The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

ÆSiR

07-01-2005, 01:50 PM

Can one go to spain, get married there, and come back to the states and be considered legally married. ...or does this marraige become null and void upon re-entering the US?

TheLateGreat

07-01-2005, 01:51 PM

Most gays want it to be biological, but it is a choice, and not a healthy one, psychologically or physically.

I'm gay. Because of the difficulties in life related to the views of people like you, I would saw off my arms at the shoulders if that would somehow correct the biological feature/condition/abnormality that makes my penis become erect over men instead of women. Unfortunately, despite wanting to be heterosexual with every fiber of my being, it is not going to happen.

If I had a choice in the matter, I would live my life in a heterosexual relationship because things would be oh so much easier. It is not a choice.

Whatever you want to argue about what government policy on homosexuality should be, argue it. But don't argue from the assumption that people make a conscious choice about what physical form people's sexual organs respond to. You sound like a moron.

X3nos

07-01-2005, 01:56 PM

Well its here and official :cool:
Lets see how it goes and what you guys and gals think.......... :D
discuss :|

I'm happy for Spain... Breaking anti-equality barriers. :)

-michele

X3nos

07-01-2005, 02:04 PM

I'm gay. Because of the difficulties in life related to the views of people like you, I would saw off my arms at the shoulders if that would somehow correct the biological feature/condition/abnormality that makes my penis become erect over men instead of women. Unfortunately, despite wanting to be heterosexual with every fiber of my being, it is not going to happen.

If I had a choice in the matter, I would live my life in a heterosexual relationship because things would be oh so much easier. It is not a choice.

Whatever you want to argue about what government policy on homosexuality should be, argue it. But don't argue from the assumption that people make a conscious choice about what physical form people's sexual organs respond to. You sound like a moron.

Good post.

Homosexuality is physiological. And perfectly natural, I might add. BECAUSE WE'RE ALL GAY! A little bit, at least.

Some may believe what they want about gays and their supposed ability to "choose," but your beliefs do not change reality.

I ask you this: can you all of a sudden up and "choose" to become gay? Why or why not?

-michele

igofast

07-01-2005, 04:14 PM

Not according to Webster:

The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law
He doesn't say he deserves to be married. He said he deserves the legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

There is a difference, and I'd like marriage to be allowed to gays, but even if it's not, they should be allowed legal partnerships that grant them the same privileges and protections as a marriage.

SwiftSloth

07-01-2005, 04:31 PM

BTW, Modern day webster sucks.

Stigger

07-01-2005, 06:14 PM

None of us have any idea how this will work until a couple of decades have gone by. I bet it'll be the same end result as most marriages......which are in divorce status.

Who knows how the gay marriage experiment will turn out, but while none of us can truly know what the future holds, there are many indications even today telling us what the likely result of our changing culture will be.

The West is becoming something twisted and decadent, weak from apathy, greed and perversion. While gay marriage is just a small example of this, I think it is a part that demonstrates very clearly it's decline, and what will be an inevitable departure, first from the world stage, then from the world altogether.

Westerners prattle on about values like equality, tolerance and diversity, but from their mouths these ideals ring hollow, because they are weak. Their spirits(not in a religious sense. I lack a better word) are atrophied and in the coming years they will lack the strength to defend these ideals. It might someday be argued that our inability to defend these ideals will have been due to their conception and overly enthusiastic adherence to them in the first place.

You can see the beginning of our fall even now. The countries of the west are filling up with those who are not of the west. They mouth it's values but it is only a charade. In the end they will not truly integrate but instead build something new over the bloated corpse of what was the West. We will have been replaced by a stronger more virile civilization. One that liberal-minded people are not going to like(or conservatives for that matter).

living love

07-03-2005, 12:37 AM

If homosexuals were taken out and stoned to death like in the old days you would find almost no one practicing this evil. This homo stuff is just mind control by the Luciferan, Illuminati (TPTP) to rob you of you soul and family. This is being pushed for population reduction etc. http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html http://www.savethemales.ca/241001.html

Della April

07-03-2005, 12:53 AM

Betrade

07-03-2005, 08:07 AM

You are absolutely correct on this point.

I am gay. Despite your point, I still deserve the many legal protections a marriage certificate provides.

A marriage certificate can allow certian protections, but it can also create the biggest nightmare imaginable if things don't work out. Being legally bound to another person is a huge responsibility, with huge, long term ramifications.

So be very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. Marriage isn't all it's cracked up to be in many cases, and when gays start down the road of divorce, child custody battles, child support, alimony, etc., many of them WILL wish they had not gotten married. They'll be longing for the good old days when these things weren't an issue. Those who marry to prove a point to society will be very disappointed when things go sour. They'll understand what many of us straight people have had to suffer through.

Over half of heterosexual marriages fail ( since 1990, it's up to 64% in America, according to one poll I have read), and out of the other half, a certian percentage are miserable unions that are only continued because of the children created during the marriage or financial reasons.

With the high incedence of promiscuity and unfaithfulness in male homosexual relationships (statistically speaking), I would bet all of my money that the divorce rate in that group will exceed 75% if marriages become the norm. I don't really care much about the issue one way or another, but all I can say is, "good luck, you're gonna' need it".

Smashing Young Man

07-03-2005, 08:26 AM

Who knows how the gay marriage experiment will turn out, but while none of us can truly know what the future holds, there are many indications even today telling us what the likely result of our changing culture will be.

The West is becoming something twisted and decadent, weak from apathy, greed and perversion. While gay marriage is just a small example of this, I think it is a part that demonstrates very clearly it's decline, and what will be an inevitable departure, first from the world stage, then from the world altogether.

Westerners prattle on about values like equality, tolerance and diversity, but from their mouths these ideals ring hollow, because they are weak. Their spirits(not in a religious sense. I lack a better word) are atrophied and in the coming years they will lack the strength to defend these ideals. It might someday be argued that our inability to defend these ideals will have been due to their conception and overly enthusiastic adherence to them in the first place.

You can see the beginning of our fall even now. The countries of the west are filling up with those who are not of the west. They mouth it's values but it is only a charade. In the end they will not truly integrate but instead build something new over the bloated corpse of what was the West. We will have been replaced by a stronger more virile civilization. One that liberal-minded people are not going to like(or conservatives for that matter).
Well said and all too true.

It really amazes me how an entire culture - the West - can become so adamantly suicidal. Liberals claim to be the intellectual vanguard, yet they can't see the inevitable outcome of the path they have set us all upon. This won't end in a Utopian equalitarian society, and it won't be we western conservatives who bring it all crashing down upon their heads.

I sometimes feel like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, when she was caught up in that nightmare, screaming and banging on the fence while the children play in their little equalitarian playground, oblivious to their imminent doom.

johann_moritz

07-03-2005, 09:03 AM

Hmmm, I guess they have now the right to suffer like the rest of us. This really sweetens the news.

Stigger

07-03-2005, 11:04 AM

TheLateGreat

07-03-2005, 12:29 PM

A marriage certificate can allow certian protections, but it can also create the biggest nightmare imaginable if things don't work out. Being legally bound to another person is a huge responsibility, with huge, long term ramifications.

Fantastic. As an intelligent, responsible adult, I'm eager to make my own decisions on the matter.

Somebody

07-03-2005, 02:44 PM

I'm gay. Because of the difficulties in life related to the views of people like you, I would saw off my arms at the shoulders if that would somehow correct the biological feature/condition/abnormality that makes my penis become erect over men instead of women. Unfortunately, despite wanting to be heterosexual with every fiber of my being, it is not going to happen.

If I had a choice in the matter, I would live my life in a heterosexual relationship because things would be oh so much easier. It is not a choice.

Whatever you want to argue about what government policy on homosexuality should be, argue it. But don't argue from the assumption that people make a conscious choice about what physical form people's sexual organs respond to. You sound like a moron.

You're gay due to something that happened in your llife, the way you were raised, some outer influence. People are not born gay.

I'm sure you don't want the persecution. Everyone wants to be accepted.
Everyone deserves to be accepted as an equal human being, but homosexuality does not have to be accepted.

Love the person, hate the act.

Everyone is equal.

Homosexual marriage doesn't make sense.

It's just one step closer to the end of time.

When this world gets so bad that there's no redemption.
(Sodom & Gomorrah) our Lord will come.

This is just one more step in that direction.

Evil Pure Evil

07-03-2005, 03:02 PM

You're gay due to something that happened in your llife, the way you were raised, some outer influence. People are not born gay.

I'm sure you don't want the persecution. Everyone wants to be accepted.
Everyone deserves to be accepted as an equal human being, but homosexuality does not have to be accepted.

If you go by that then civilisation will never improve. We've got to learn to treat eachother with respect and accept everyone. The same thing happened with people of different races. They were heavily discriminated against, and now that has stopped the world is a better place. Gays are just the same. I don't particualry agree with homosexuality, but stopping them from making a family and being able to love in public will get us nowhere. You may not want homosexuality to be accepted but it's the 21st century, it is becoming accpeted whether we like it or not.

Somebody

07-03-2005, 04:45 PM

If you go by that then civilisation will never improve

It's a biblical fact that it won't.

I do accept the person,
but I don't accept the act.
Me and many others never will.

Homosexuals are not a race.
Very different than blacks.

jmarley60

07-03-2005, 05:18 PM

(...)

When this world gets so bad that there's no redemption.
(Sodom & Gomorrah) our Lord will come.

This is just one more step in that direction.

I'm confused here. The Christians I know want the Lord to return yesterday. Going by this logica - wouldn't that just mean that gays are (indirectly) helping Christians to reach that day faster?

Battletoad

07-03-2005, 10:06 PM

Well said and all too true.

It really amazes me how an entire culture - the West - can become so adamantly suicidal. Liberals claim to be the intellectual vanguard, yet they can't see the inevitable outcome of the path they have set us all upon. This won't end in a Utopian equalitarian society, and it won't be we western conservatives who bring it all crashing down upon their heads.

I sometimes feel like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, when she was caught up in that nightmare, screaming and banging on the fence while the children play in their little equalitarian playground, oblivious to their imminent doom.

Stupid liberals and their unhealthy desire to encourage legal recognition of gay marriages...err, don't they know that the fate of western civilization itself depends upon it?! Since lame generalizations are necessary for such discourse...maybe my sarcasm begs the question: why are conservatives such fervently paranoid douchebags? :rolleyes:

Stigger

07-04-2005, 10:38 AM

Stupid liberals and their unhealthy desire to encourage legal recognition of gay marriages...err, don't they know that the fate of western civilization itself depends upon it?!

No one said that the fate of western civilization depends on whether or not a law allowing same sex marriage passes. I think the fate of the west is already a done deal, the point of no return was crossed a long time ago. As I said, homosexual marriage is merely one example of the kind of thinking that got us where we are.

Since lame generalizations are necessary for such discourse...maybe my sarcasm begs the question: why are conservatives such fervently paranoid douchebags? :rolleyes:

It is a small mind that separates every issue into liberalism and conservatism. One does not need to be a conservative to oppose homosexual marriage, or to oppose the dead-end that liberalism will prove to be for it's practitioner nations. It is pretty clear as well that contemporary conservatism has proved to be just as harmful to the west as liberalism, perhaps more so.

Somebody

07-04-2005, 11:15 AM

I'm confused here. The Christians I know want the Lord to return yesterday. Going by this logica - wouldn't that just mean that gays are (indirectly) helping Christians to reach that day faster?

The path is already set.
This world is in a downward decent.
No one is against the people that commit homosexual acts.
The acts are abnormal.
They are against God.
We're still here for one reason,
for as many souls as possible to be saved,
before the world is deemed hopeless.

Marriage between homosexuals ia a farce.
God won't acknowledge such marriages,
so they're not real. :not:

Von Apfelstrudel

07-04-2005, 11:22 AM

God won't acknowledge such marriages,
so they're not real. :not:
the law will acknowledge such marriages.
so they're real .

Let this "God" person sue the spanish goverment in court, or get elected in the Spanish chamber /get appointed in the Spanish Goverment, if he wants to have abrogate the law

btw, what's his first name ? John God ? Manuel God ? We'll have to know, for his lawsuit to be valid . :|

:rolleyes:

Myrddin

07-04-2005, 01:11 PM

God can be made support any side of any issue because he is just a voice in some persons head or just a person cynically using the name of this supernatural being to support what ever they are saying. Unless God can physically come forward to state his opinion, what he says what he says through proxies is irrelevant.

TheLateGreat

07-04-2005, 01:53 PM

Marriage between homosexuals ia a farce.
God won't acknowledge such marriages,
so they're not real.

Well then the gays will all go to Hell when they're done. Fantastic. Meanwhile, during their 60/70/80 years on earth, the man-made institution of government can treat them like anyone else who pays taxes to said institution and walks up to the courthouse for a marriage license: give it to them so that in their time on earth they can be certain that their legal guarantor/heir/etc is the person they want in that role. It has no bearing, as you've said, on how God decides their fate, so let's not lay the smackdown on 'em twice.

Battletoad

07-04-2005, 03:30 PM

No one said that the fate of western civilization depends on whether or not a law allowing same sex marriage passes. I think the fate of the west is already a done deal, the point of no return was crossed a long time ago. As I said, homosexual marriage is merely one example of the kind of thinking that got us where we are.

Which is what, precisely?

It is a small mind that separates every issue into liberalism and conservatism.

I was being very tongue-in-cheek. But I agree, and is largely what I hate about political debate nowadays. Instead of discussing deficiencies in the tax system, or industry groups' not-so-positive influence on government-funded research, most of us end of debating how liberals generally hate freedom , and how conservatives are generally inbred hicks. I've heard replacing the "c" with a "k" in America and public school alleviates this problem.

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 03:37 PM

It's a biblical fact that it won't.

Hahahahaha... What an oxymoron.

I do accept the person,
but I don't accept the act.
Me and many others never will.

Join the KKK. I think they'r still opposed to change of any sort.

Homosexuals are not a race.
Very different than blacks.

People are born the way they are. Just because you cant say the design that makes someone homosexual, compared to the design that obviously makes someone black, certainly doesnt mean its not there. Let me put it this way:

Straight man : Erection of Women :: As Gay Man: Erection over Man.

Now, try and make yourself get an erection over an attractive guy. Cant do it can you? Come on... Cant you help it? Yea exactly. Its how your designed. Its how their designed. Whether you choose to perceive it as a flaw or not is up to you, but its the equivilient of perceiving black skin as a flaw. It has no effect on you, and to do so is just dumb.

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 03:47 PM

It's a biblical fact that it won't.

I do accept the person,
but I don't accept the act.
Me and many others never will.

Homosexuals are not a race.
Very different than blacks.

Not a race, but a dis-grace . Already the others are comming out of closets . Go check out zoophiles and tolerate beastiality too , and most homos accept them . Wil we love the serial killer and hate the person ? The serial killer is the person, so I don't like him or his act, he is the act and vice versa . This is just something a hypocrit money snatching preacher came up with, makes no sense . Acts don't just happen .

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 03:53 PM

I think you're reading from the wrong end of the bible, Pap...

I don't understand why we won't allow homosexuals to marry, or "have the same protections under the..." whatever...

Who gets hurt if gay people want to be married? Or enter into civil union, if "marriage" is a word that, by definition, cannot apply. So freakin' what?

If two people declare their love for each other, why should I care if it's two dudes or two chicks? They're both consenting adults, then WHO CARES?

I don't get this at all...

As for the biblical argument, the bible says a LOT of things we should and shouldn't do... As for me, I go with what the Big Guy said- "There is no greater law than this: Love one another as I love you."

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 03:53 PM

Hahahahaha... What an oxymoron.

Join the KKK. I think they'r still opposed to change of any sort.

People are born the way they are. Just because you cant say the design that makes someone homosexual, compared to the design that obviously makes someone black, certainly doesnt mean its not there. Let me put it this way:

Straight man : Erection of Women :: As Gay Man: Erection over Man.

Now, try and make yourself get an erection over an attractive guy. Cant do it can you? Come on... Cant you help it? Yea exactly. Its how your designed. Its how their designed. Whether you choose to perceive it as a flaw or not is up to you, but its the equivilient of perceiving black skin as a flaw. It has no effect on you, and to do so is just dumb.

Is this the way you look at child molesting killers too ? Or people who like animals ? It shouldv'e been kept out of society . Lots of people like drugs and can't change , some will do anything for money too, but this is no reason for society to have to bare it .

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 03:56 PM

Is this the way you look at child molesting killers too ? Or people who like animals ? It shouldv'e been kept out of society . Lots of people like drugs and can't change , some will do anything for money too, but this is no reason for society to have to bare it .

Care to recognize the difference between homosexuals and child molestation? TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 04:31 PM

A marriage certificate can allow certian protections, but it can also create the biggest nightmare imaginable if things don't work out. Being legally bound to another person is a huge responsibility, with huge, long term ramifications.

So be very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. .....

How dare you imply that he might not know that simply because he's gay. And how dare you imply that, by virtue of homosexualitly, one might not be willing or able to make the leap of faith into a marriage that heterosexuals are free to make. How dare you patronize the gay community in that way. Shame, shame on you!

And, yes! I am wagging my finger at you!

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 04:40 PM

Stupid liberals and their unhealthy desire to encourage legal recognition of gay marriages...err, don't they know that the fate of western civilization itself depends upon it?! Since lame generalizations are necessary for such discourse...maybe my sarcasm begs the question: why are conservatives such fervently paranoid douchebags? :rolleyes:

better douche bag than enema .

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 04:43 PM

Well then the gays will all go to Hell when they're done. Fantastic. Meanwhile, during their 60/70/80 years on earth, the man-made institution of government can treat them like anyone else who pays taxes to said institution and walks up to the courthouse for a marriage license: give it to them so that in their time on earth they can be certain that their legal guarantor/heir/etc is the person they want in that role. It has no bearing, as you've said, on how God decides their fate, so let's not lay the smackdown on 'em twice.

where will you draw the line ? Or is there a line ?

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 04:52 PM

Care to recognize the difference between homosexuals and child molestation? TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Meh. I seriously think theirs just a filter in their brain that blocks out the entire 'consenting' thingy when discussing things they dont like. They view being gay as wrong, so they compare it to other things they think is wrong. The only problem is, they take it to far, citing things like murder, child molestation, rapers, crack heads, etc etc... The only problem is, being gay, while done safely (just like heterosexuality) has no negative effects on society (unless you consider Society what is, should always be). You see, homosexuality imposes wrong will on no one. It is love between two men or women. Not a catholic priest molesting an unconsenting naive child, who's told if he doesnt do what the priest says, he's going to hell... But oh yes, lets not discuss nastiness such as this... The catholic church is good for allowing 1,000+ of these men to exist... On the other hand, Gay people, who'v never done **** to 99.99999999% of the people who oppose homosexuality, get criticed to high hell. I love society.

Pappy&Me

07-04-2005, 04:53 PM

Care to recognize the difference between homosexuals and child molestation? TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Once they have stepped over the line , everuthing else is easier. Most homos like children for sex . Thats why they call little boys,' chicken '. Lesbos aren't quiet as bad . But they protect the males 'choice'. Watch how many gather at NAMBLA functions. How can one pervert correct anothers lifestyle ?

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 04:57 PM

Once they have stepped over the line , everuthing else is easier. Most homos like children for sex . Thats why they call little boys,' chicken '. Lesbos aren't quiet as bad . But they protect the males 'choice'. Watch how many gather at NAMBLA functions. How can one pervert correct anothers lifestyle ?

*sigh*

First off, your claim of 'most homos like children for sex' is perhaps the most baseless stupid claim iv heard in quite a while. It just stamps 'baseless prejudice' on your forehead for you.

You do of course realize theres far more raping of underage females in this country then boys, dont you? Not to mention far more underage porn sites focusing on females.

Somebody

07-04-2005, 05:03 PM

People are born the way they are. Just because you cant say the design that makes someone homosexual, compared to the design that obviously makes someone black, certainly doesnt mean its not there. Let me put it this way:

Straight man : Erection of Women :: As Gay Man: Erection over Man.

Now, try and make yourself get an erection over an attractive guy. Cant do it can you? Come on... Cant you help it? Yea exactly. Its how your designed. Its how their designed. Whether you choose to perceive it as a flaw or not is up to you, but its the equivilient of perceiving black skin as a flaw. It has no effect on you, and to do so is just dumb.

Pedophiles + small children = erection

Pedophiles + adults = no erection

I bet they'd say they were born that way too.

Same thing as homosexuals, something in their upbringing made them that way.

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 05:09 PM

Pedophiles + small children = erection

Pedophiles + adults = no erection

I bet they'd say they were born that way too.

And Im born with the urge to sleep with women. This doesnt mean I go around raping girls i find attractive. Mature consent with knowledge of what your doing is required by both parties.

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 05:09 PM

Wonder if anybody would notice if I type it like this...

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CON-FREAKING-SENTING ADULTS!!!

lily

07-04-2005, 05:10 PM

Wonder if anybody would notice if I type it like this...

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. TWO CON-FREAKING-SENTING ADULTS!!!

Is everything between two consenting adults right?

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 05:14 PM

Is everything between two consenting adults right?
I'm hard pressed to think of an example where it might not. (don't get me wrong, there is plently that adults do to/with each other that make me go, "ewwww"), but to characterize any of it as "wrong". I'm thinking no.

The opperative words there, of course, being, "adult", and "consenting".

lily

07-04-2005, 05:18 PM

I'm hard pressed to think of an example where it might not. (don't get me wrong, there is plently that adults do to/with each other that make me go, "ewwww"), but to characterize any of it as "wrong". I'm thinking no.

So adultery is ok?

Is a mother having consensual sex with her 18 year old son perfectly normal and right?

Is it ok if someone asks someone else to get a gun, and kill them... and the other person does?

(just asking)

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 05:18 PM

Is everything between two consenting adults right?

While I can't think of anything in particular right now, I get the feeling you're going to give me an example... ;)

Anyway, my point is in drawing a distinction between two guys (or two chicks) shacking up and the sexual abuse of a child. In fact, just in typing that I realize what a horrible, horrible thing it is for someone to even make that comparison.

Two guys filing jointly = child abuse? It's absurd, and it diminishes the vileness of child abuse.

lily

07-04-2005, 05:26 PM

Love the person, hate the act.

I agree with you, and I think that could be said about 50 million times, and it still wouldn't be enough times for some people.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 05:30 PM

So adultery is ok?

not to me, but in terms of two adults who are in agreement with that action? Who am I to tell them that they're wrong simply because they don't meet the ideals that I've set up for myself?

Is a mother having consensual sex with her 18 year old son perfectly normal and right?

Again, to me, that's wrong. And in the society that we have today, incest is wrong, but that wasn't always the case. So, again, heavy on the "ewwww" factor, and, thank God, by the laws of the land that we live in, such a relationship would not flourish, but who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

Is it ok if someone asks someone else to get a gun, and kill them... and the other person does?

We were speaking only of sexual matters, but if you really want to go there, then is it illegal for one person to shoot another? Yes. Is it immoral? If I'm in the last stages of N-stage cancer and I simply can not bear the pain, and I ask my best friend, the person who, above all in the world, loves me, to end my suffering, is that immoral? Is that wrong? And who are you, or who am I, to say it's wrong?

There are plenty of things in this world with which I don't agree, but I'm really reticent to hand out judgement. (but then again, that's just me)

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 05:31 PM

So adultery is ok?

The problem with adultery is that someone DOES get hurt- The spouse of the adulterer.

Is a mother having consensual sex with her 18 year old son perfectly normal and right?

If I reply here that "no mother and son in their right minds wouldhave consensual sex", but I'm thinking that you might reply that no two men would, either... My dilemma becomes, admit to that, or point out that the relationship between a mother and a son is quite different than that between two men, i.e.- nurturing a child from birth, through infancy, into chidhood, adolescence and into adulthood. In fact, in this light, one might assume that any son who would do such a thing would have been manipulated...

Is it ok if someone asks someone else to get a gun, and kill them... and the other person does?

(just asking)

Assisted suicide... not sure how I feel about this, but I tend toward the "all life is sacred" side. But then I also believe that if a person wishes to end their suffering, or wish not to be sustained, they should have that freedom.

You make interesting points, but I ask you this one simple question: What is wrong with two members of the same sex loving each other?

lily

07-04-2005, 05:42 PM

not to me, but in terms of two adults who are in agreement with that action? Who am I to tell them that they're wrong simply because they don't meet the ideals that I've set up for myself?

Again, to me, that's wrong. And in the society that we have today, incest is wrong, but that wasn't always the case. So, again, heavy on the "ewwww" factor, and, thank God, by the laws of the land that we live in, such a relationship would not flourish, but who am I to tell them that they're wrong?

We were speaking only of sexual matters, but if you really want to go there, then is it illegal for one person to shoot another? Yes. Is it immoral? If I'm in the last stages of N-stage cancer and I simply can not bear the pain, and I ask my best friend, the person who, above all in the world, loves me, to end my suffering, is that immoral? Is that wrong? And who are you, or who am I, to say it's wrong?

There are plenty of things in this world with which I don't agree, but I'm really reticent to hand out judgement. (but then again, that's just me)

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

And if someone even dares to have the belief (whether it's religious, or just their own personal belief) that homosexuality is wrong, then they're bad, they're evil, they're a "bigot"!! So, not with all, but with some, it has become the Thought Police. Who are THEY to tell the other side that they can't believe something?

The problem with adultery is that someone DOES get hurt- The spouse of the adulterer.

If I reply here that "no mother and son in their right minds wouldhave consensual sex", but I'm thinking that you might reply that no two men would, either... My dilemma becomes, admit to that, or point out that the relationship between a mother and a son is quite different than that between two men, i.e.- nurturing a child from birth, through infancy, into chidhood, adolescence and into adulthood. In fact, in this light, one might assume that any son who would do such a thing would have been manipulated...

Assisted suicide... not sure how I feel about this, but I tend toward the "all life is sacred" side. But then I also believe that if a person wishes to end their suffering, or wish not to be sustained, they should have that freedom.

You make interesting points, but I ask you this one simple question: What is wrong with two members of the same sex loving each other?

Thanks. I don't think there is anything wrong with 2 people of the same sex loving eachother. But homosexual sex is against my religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I hate gays at all. I don't, in fact I can love them just as I would love anyone.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 05:50 PM

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

And if someone even dares to have the belief (whether it's religious, or just their own personal belief) that homosexuality is wrong, then they're bad, they're evil, they're a "bigot"!! So, not with all, but with some, it has become the Thought Police. Who are THEY to tell the other side that they can't believe something?

You know what? You are absolutely right. If I wag my finger at you and say, "bad" and "wrong", then I am just as guilty of that which I despise the most. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

I'll still arm-wrestle you over the idea of homosexuals being allowed to legalize their union, but I won't tell you that you're wrong or bad or a bigot, simply because you don't subscribe to my beliefs.

Stigger

07-04-2005, 05:50 PM

Which is what, precisely?

The kind of thinking that dictates that ideals damaging to the West as an entity, are not merely tolerated but forced into acceptance. I actually believe homosexual marriage to be relatively benign when compared to some of the absurd ideals that are paraded as fact by the intellectual and financial elite of this country.

I would have voted to allow same sex unions, had the people even been given a choice in the matter. Unfortunately we were not given a choice. We had the decision made for us, just as it is every time our choice would have possibly interfered with the ideals of our intellectual elites.

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 05:58 PM

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

And if someone even dares to have the belief (whether it's religious, or just their own personal belief) that homosexuality is wrong, then they're bad, they're evil, they're a "bigot"!! So, not with all, but with some, it has become the Thought Police. Who are THEY to tell the other side that they can't believe something?

Thanks. I don't think there is anything wrong with 2 people of the same sex loving eachother. But homosexual sex is against my religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I hate gays at all. I don't, in fact I can love them just as I would love anyone.

I can certainly respect that.

I have no problem with folks who find homosexuality "icky". To be honest, I kinda do to, but that's why I'm not gay (tho' that's not to say that I find they "themselves" icky... just the act). My problem begins when folks want to legislate against it, or deny equal rights (no more, or less, than those enjoyed by the rest of us).

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 07:03 PM

People are free to believe what they want, we all have free will... This is not about saying people can't believe what they want. In fact, it's the other side who is doing that. It seems to me that it's the other side who is practically saying 'you can't even THINK that homosexuality is wrong.'

Oh. You can think its wrong. I think many, many things are wrong. I think smoking is horribly wrong. I think drinking is wrong. I think the diets of many people today is wrong. I think mass consumeraism is pointless stupid and wrong. But I dont attempt to legaly impose my beliefs on these people. They have a right to choose how to live their lives.You want your rights, but you think one of those rights is the right to limit the rights of others? Strange logic.

You can dislike gays as much as you like. But the fact is, your rules shouldnt apply to them, if what their doing doesnt effect anyone who's not consenting.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 07:19 PM

Oh. You can think its wrong. I think many, many things are wrong. I think smoking is horribly wrong. I think drinking is wrong. I think the diets of many people today is wrong. I think mass consumeraism is pointless stupid and wrong. But I dont attempt to legaly impose my beliefs on these people. They have a right to choose how to live their lives. ]You want your rights, but you think one of those rights is the right to limit the rights of others? Strange logic.

You can dislike gays as much as you like. But the fact is, your rules shouldnt apply to them, if what their doing doesnt effect anyone who's not consenting.

Well, now that's an excellent point. As I said before, I wouldn't try to tell someone what they might or might not feel or believe, but when it comes down to a question of legislation, in my opinion, feeling has less to do with it. I can see no earthly reason, under the law, to limit or exclude the union of two people, not matter their gender.

lily

07-04-2005, 08:19 PM

Oh. You can think its wrong. I think many, many things are wrong. I think smoking is horribly wrong. I think drinking is wrong. I think the diets of many people today is wrong. I think mass consumeraism is pointless stupid and wrong. But I dont attempt to legaly impose my beliefs on these people. They have a right to choose how to live their lives.You want your rights, but you think one of those rights is the right to limit the rights of others? Strange logic.

First of all, all laws are an imposition of someone's beliefs on someone else. I'm not the one trying to change the law, YOU are. Whether you will admit it or not, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the other side of doing. You are imposing YOUR belief on what the definiton of marriage is. Others disagree. The fact that you are so vocal about this, and then deny that you're trying to impose your beliefs on anyone, is laughable.

You can dislike gays as much as you like....

That is a flat out lie. Once again, you twist and misrepresent. I just finished saying that I don't dislike gays and that I love gays as I'd love anyone. And the next thing that comes out of your mouth is, "you can dislike gays all you want..." Can you read? Or is it that you purposely like to twist the words of others? Which is it, SS?

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 08:25 PM

I'm not the one trying to change the law, YOU are. Whether you will admit it or not, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the other side of doing. You are imposing YOUR belief on what the definiton of marriage is.

Currently law does not allow gays to enjoy the same priviledges as straight people. This is an imposition on their rights. Changing the law does not make any imposition on the rights of straight people.*

*(Unless of course we take into consideration the cabal of rabid militant homosexuals bent on world domination and eradicating the entire straight population of the planet. ;) )

lily

07-04-2005, 08:32 PM

Currently law does not allow gays to enjoy the same priviledges as straight people. This is an imposition on their rights. Changing the law does not make any imposition on the rights of straight people.*

*(Unless of course we take into consideration the cabal of rabid militant homosexuals bent on world domination and eradicating the entire straight population of the planet. ;) )

Well, whether marriage is a "right" or not is debatable. Second, it will definitely be an imposition on everyone else, if the government puts a stamp of approval on it, because then schools will be teaching that homosexuality is perfectly normal, natural and healthy...and the fact is, there are MANY people in this country who do not agree, and would rather not have the goverment tell their kids something that they do not agree with. That's called forcing a belief.

Bear Stories

07-04-2005, 08:33 PM

buttercup, just out of curiosity, would you have less of a problem with this whole issue if the argument were for civil unions as opposed to marriage?

Personally, I would be satisfied with the idea of a civil union, and I think it would side-step the issue of the whole Christian ideal of "marriage"

(and obviously, I'm not a homosexual, so maybe I shouldn't try to speak for them)

Pints with Plato

07-04-2005, 08:40 PM

I would say that the government has no business in "marriage". However, when I got married, I signed a marriage license that entitled my wife to all the rights and priviledges therein.

Schools don't teach that heterosexual behavior is normal and healthy... why would they teach that homosexual behavior is?

In my opinion, nothing more than basic sexuality should be taught to students. Matters of heterosexuality and homosexuality should only be brought up in philosophy classes... Or maybe not. Not sure about that...

I agree that I don't want the government to tell kids that it's okay to be gay, but then I also don't want the government to tell kids that it's okay to be straight.

SwiftSloth

07-04-2005, 09:29 PM

First of all, all laws are an imposition of someone's beliefs on someone else. I'm not the one trying to change the law, YOU are. Whether you will admit it or not, you are doing the same thing that you accuse the other side of doing. You are imposing YOUR belief on what the definition of marriage is. Others disagree. The fact that you are so vocal about this, and then deny that you're trying to impose your beliefs on anyone, is laughable.

Umm.... When the laws of this land were written, and as time has passed, for the most part there have been no real people for gay marriage to be allowed. This is why it’s not a law. Not because it’s bad, but because nobody wanted it, because their weren’t that many gays. But now with over 1.3 million gays and many of them wanting this right, I think they should be allowed to have it. Our laws are, generally, based on an ideal--That your physical actions don’t impose on those without consent. You don’t take from those who don’t want to be taken from, you don’t kill those who don’t want to die, you don’t sleep with those who don’t want to sleep with you, you don’t force people to do things they don’t want to do. Now, the idea of gay activities or marriage for that matter falls under none of these. It is merely two consenting adults who choose to express their love in a way that you don’t see fit. That is fine. But their is no legal valid reason to deny them the right to be married.

Just because it hasn’t been added yet, doesn’t mean it’s wrong to begin with. You think they threw every law down in our books the moment they began writing them? No. Laws are progressive, being added, changed, so forth. Trying to invoke change for good is hardly invoking my personal preference on others. On the abortion issue, BC, do you not claim you fight for the rights of those who can’t fight for others? Then why do you speak out against gay households, when it should be their right? B/C You like one cause, and dislike another? Your political ideology appears very based on personal prejudices and inconsistent at best.

That is a flat out lie. Once again, you twist and misrepresent. I just finished saying that I don't dislike gays and that I love gays as I'd love anyone. And the next thing that comes out of your mouth is, "you can dislike gays all you want..." Can you read? Or is it that you purposely like to twist the words of others? Which is it, SS?

Oh, alright... You love gay people. You just hate what they do, and compare them to rapists, child molesters, and those who commit adultery... but you still like them. You love the people, you just don’t think they deserve the rights that you have.

Della April

07-04-2005, 10:32 PM

Meh. I seriously think theirs just a filter in their brain that blocks out the entire 'consenting' thingy when discussing things they dont like. They view being gay as wrong, so they compare it to other things they think is wrong. The only problem is, they take it to far, citing things like murder, child molestation, rapers, crack heads, etc etc... The only problem is, being gay, while done safely (just like heterosexuality) has no negative effects on society (unless you consider Society what is, should always be). You see, homosexuality imposes wrong will on no one. It is love between two men or women. Not a catholic priest molesting an unconsenting naive child, who's told if he doesnt do what the priest says, he's going to hell... But oh yes, lets not discuss nastiness such as this... The catholic church is good for allowing 1,000+ of these men to exist... On the other hand, Gay people, who'v never done **** to 99.99999999% of the people who oppose homosexuality, get criticed to high hell. I love society.
I wondered when someone would bring up the old 'child-molesting Catholic priests' red-herring! And that's all it is. Fewer than 1% of Catholic priests have even been accused, much less convicted of pedophilia - compare that to Boy Scout leaders, sports coaches and school teachers!
As for what homosexuals may have done - get real! A friend of mine was kidnapped and assaulted by a homosexual on his way home from school in the 1970s, and when I met him in the 1980s, he was a wreck, with hospitalisations all over the show. He was one of many treated the same way, by homosexual men, at least one of which became a 'famous homosexual' because his molester told him "well, you must be one, or I couldn't have done it to you".