View Full Version : Queer Marriage
Loose and Baron don't run this time, lets have at it, fire away!
Wait, i'll start your talking points off since libs are like a broken record of defeated viewpoints on this subject, i'm homophobic or I must be a homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist lol:laugh2:
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 02:32 PM
Loose and Baron don't run this time, lets have at it, fire away!
Wait, i'll start your talking points off since libs are like a broken record of defeated viewpoints on this subject, i'm homophobic or I must be a homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist lol:laugh2:
I think you're neither. I think you truly believe that letting consenting adults live their lives the way they want to is going to lead to the downfall of our society. Now me, I'm less of a "believer" on all fronts. I like to take facts into account, like the fact that gay marriage doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever, and form my opinion (that society should have no say on what two consenting adults do together sexually or emotionally and that the whole "debate" is one sided and irrelevant) on that.
I think you're neither. I think you truly believe that letting consenting adults live their lives the way they want to is going to lead to the downfall of our society. Now me, I'm less of a "believer" on all fronts. I like to take facts into account, like the fact that gay marriage doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever, and form my opinion (that society should have no say on what two consenting adults do together sexually or emotionally and that the whole "debate" is one sided and irrelevant) on that.
If it was just about letting "two consenting adults" do what they want that would be fine but thats not where it ends with them, is it?
Anyway waiting for my two runaways to log on today and se if they have the balls to jump in or if they will avoid the topic and flame the shit out of me like bitches:laugh2:
Birdzeye
05-02-2007, 02:52 PM
Loose and Baron don't run this time, lets have at it, fire away!
Wait, i'll start your talking points off since libs are like a broken record of defeated viewpoints on this subject, i'm homophobic or I must be a homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist lol:laugh2:
Well, you sure do seem obsessed with homosexuality. I wonder why. :coffee:
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 02:55 PM
If it was just about letting "two consenting adults" do what they want that would be fine but thats not where it ends with them, is it?
Are you referring to the misconception that homosexuality leads to child molestation? Or are you referring to the misconception that allowing gays to live the way they want will lead to the conversion of our youth into...*gasp* the gay lifestyle!? Either way you've got a misconception on your hands.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 03:06 PM
Well, you sure do seem obsessed with homosexuality. I wonder why. :coffee:
There it is OCA. The first liberal insinuating you're a fag. Just as you predicted.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 03:08 PM
Faggots shouldn't "marry", as in a "holy union", which is "between a man and woman." They can have civil unions all day long as for as I'm concerned. But "marriage"... no.
Well, you sure do seem obsessed with homosexuality. I wonder why. :coffee:
LMFAO!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
Birdshit you never fail, I thank you!
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 03:12 PM
Faggots shouldn't "marry", as in a "holy union", which is "between a man and woman." They can have civil unions all day long as for as I'm concerned. But "marriage"... no.
All this time I thought it was the civil union part you conservatives had a problem with "government sanctioned" and all that. But I don't even think you have an argument as far as "marriages" are concerned. Freedom of religion has got you. If some kooky church somewhere wants to marry homosexuals, you don't have a say at all.
There it is OCA. The first liberal insinuating you're a fag. Just as you predicted.
They are so predictable, they keep trying the same shit and failing, that is the definition of insane.
Notice that Loose is logged on and not responding. He don't want none of this.
All this time I thought it was the civil union part you conservatives had a problem with "government sanctioned" and all that. But I don't even think you have an argument as far as "marriages" are concerned. Freedom of religion has got you. If some kooky church somewhere wants to marry homosexuals, you don't have a say at all.
Some kooky church can marry queers all they want, if its against the law in the state then they don't get shit for it, no benes no nothing. Hell waste the money on rings for all I care, I will laugh my ass off when they are denied property rights, inheritance rights etc. etc.
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 03:21 PM
Some kooky church can marry queers all they want, if its against the law in the state then they don't get shit for it, no benes no nothing. Hell waste the money on rings for all I care, I will laugh my ass off when they are denied property rights, inheritance rights etc. etc.
Why though? Do you actually get pleasure from seeing people unhappy? Do you claim to be a Christian?
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 03:22 PM
All this time I thought it was the civil union part you conservatives had a problem with "government sanctioned" and all that. But I don't even think you have an argument as far as "marriages" are concerned. Freedom of religion has got you. If some kooky church somewhere wants to marry homosexuals, you don't have a say at all.
I have no problem with civil unions. It's having the advantages of a real marriage between a man and a woman that the queers been bitching about. Let 'em have the union.
But marriage, as in a holy union, in the eyes of God, can only be between a man and woman. To think it can be anything else is foolishness.
Roomy
05-02-2007, 03:27 PM
I have no doubt you believe every word you post.:laugh2:
Missileman
05-02-2007, 03:28 PM
There it is OCA. The first liberal insinuating you're a fag. Just as you predicted.
While it is stupid, it's something I've seen you do too.
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 03:29 PM
I have no problem with civil unions. It's having the advantages of a real marriage between a man and a woman that the queers been bitching about. Let 'em have the union.
But marriage, as in a holy union, in the eyes of God, can only be between a man and woman. To think it can be anything else is foolishness.
Well dude, the issue of civil unions is the kernel of the debate. Nobody cares about religious marriages. If queers get to have civil unions, which are unions recognized by the state, they will get all the rights they deserve, such as inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. that hetero couples enjoy. My question is why shouldn't they have these rights? Do you really believe that it would somehow make hetero marriages less special?
Birdzeye
05-02-2007, 03:30 PM
LMFAO!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
[inane personal insult removed] you never fail, I thank you!
Well, this IS the steel cage!
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 03:31 PM
While it is stupid, it's something I've seen you do too.
I give what I get.
Why though? Do you actually get pleasure from seeing people unhappy? Do you claim to be a Christian?
Baptised yes, what I consider to be a practicing hardcore Christian no.
What is mistaken for unhappiness is possibly a mental condition.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 03:37 PM
Well dude, the issue of civil unions is the kernel of the debate. Nobody cares about religious marriages. If queers get to have civil unions, which are unions recognized by the state, they will get all the rights they deserve, such as inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. that hetero couples enjoy. My question is why shouldn't they have these rights? Do you really believe that it would somehow make hetero marriages less special?
No. Not at all. They should have all the rights to go with the union. I just feel marriage is for a man and woman.
I really don't give a ratass what faggots do. It's when they start pushing their agenda in school, trying to pass laws that stiffle opposing opinions, and try and tell people they're normal, that I have a huge problem with them.
They should just keep their shit packing, cock sucking ways behind closed doors out of sight. It's sick and disgusting, and normal poeple don't want to hear or see anything about it. Because like most, the more I'm forced to hear about fags pushing this and that, in schools trying to indoctrinate little boys and girls, and pass laws trying to shut normal up, it really pisses me off. It makes me dislike them even more.
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 03:43 PM
No. Not at all. They should have all the rights to go with the union. I just feel marriage is for a man and woman.
I really don't give a ratass what faggots do. It's when they start pushing their agenda in school, trying to pass laws that stiffle opposing opinions, and try and tell people they're normal, that I have a huge problem with them.
They should just keep their shit packing, cock sucking ways behind closed doors and out of sight. It's sick and disgusting, and normal poeple don't want to hear or see anything about it. Because like most, the more I'm forced to hear about fags pushing this and that, in schools trying to indoctrinate little boys and girls, and pass laws trying to shut normal up, it really pisses me off. It makes me dislike them even more.
I think you misinterpret education for indoctrination. I'm sure that there are a very small number of extreme homos who want to make the whole world a gay orgy, but this number is very small. There are extremists for every dogma and I think your hostility is misdirected. I actually agree with you on this issue. I don't care if homos get unions and all the rights that go with them, in fact I hope that they do get them so that I don't have to hear about the "debate" anymore. But I still don't think you can attempt to control religious marriage without stepping onto some seriously dangerous freedom of religion ground. It's perfectly acceptable to fight against this practice (gay marriage) inside your own religious sect, but there will always be liberal churches that sanctify gay marriage. That you can't control.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 03:55 PM
I think you misinterpret education for indoctrination. I'm sure that there are a very small number of extreme homos who want to make the whole world a gay orgy, but this number is very small. There are extremists for every dogma and I think your hostility is misdirected. I actually agree with you on this issue. I don't care if homos get unions and all the rights that go with them, in fact I hope that they do get them so that I don't have to hear about the "debate" anymore. But I still don't think you can attempt to control religious marriage without stepping onto some seriously dangerous freedom of religion ground. It's perfectly acceptable to fight against this practice (gay marriage) inside your own religious sect, but there will always be liberal churches that sanctify gay marriage. That you can't control.
I don't think queers need to have anything at all to do with the school system. They should just keep out of it completely. I sure the hell wouldn't want somebody telling my young child that homosexuality was normal, without me knowing about it. That's wrong, and it's a lie.
And sure, there's probably going to be some screwy fringe church run by queers that will marry queers, but the state won't recognize it as legal. OCA was posting some links with facts about more and more states that were making it illegal, so there's a trend there.
Roomy
05-02-2007, 03:56 PM
You do all realise OCA posts for laughs and reactions are what he laughs at?
He's a nice guy really, when you reply to him, it's not always him, most times it is the mood he is in that you are talking to.
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 03:58 PM
You do all realise OCA posts for laughs and reactions are what he laughs at?
He's a nice guy really, when you reply to him, it's not always him, most times it is the mood he is in that you are talking to.
I just think of him as a talking sandwich.
Abbey Marie
05-02-2007, 04:14 PM
I don't think queers need to have anything at all to do with the school system. They should just keep out of it completely. I sure the hell wouldn't want somebody telling my young child that homosexuality was normal, without me knowing about it. That's wrong, and it's a lie.
And sure, there's probably going to be some screwy fringe church run by queers that will marry queers, but the state won't recognize it as legal. OCA was posting some links with facts about more and more states that were making it illegal, so there's a trend there.
The bolded part is the gist of it. You can find a "church" and a "minister" to do just about anything these days. But they don't just want a fringe church to marry them, and they don't just want equal rights under the law. They want it recognized as a normal marriage, just like a hetero couple's, by the government and by the general public.
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 04:16 PM
The bolded part is the gist of it. You can find a "church" and a "minister" to do just about anything these days. But they don't just want a fringe church to marry them, and they don't just want equal rights under the law. They want it recognized as a normal marriage, just like a hetero couple's, by the government and by the general public.
Well, by the government more than anything. Basically they want the marriage to be legal.
Abbey Marie
05-02-2007, 04:17 PM
Well, by the government more than anything. Basically they want the marriage to be legal.
If it is only about legality, then why are they not satisfied with a legal civil union with all the same rights as a marriage?
Missileman
05-02-2007, 04:20 PM
If it is only about legality, then why are they not satisfied with a legal civil union with all the same rights as a marriage?
As far as I know, that's not even being offered as an option.
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 04:21 PM
If it is only about legality, then why are they not satisfied with a legal civil union with all the same rights as a marriage?
Who says they aren't? You? Rosie? Rosie isn't the emperor of gay people.
Abbey Marie
05-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Not much of a stretch to assume, given that all the symbolic gay "marriages" and the pushing for legalization of gay marriage.
Do you (plural) know that not to be the case?
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 04:36 PM
Not much of a stretch to assume, given that all the symbolic gay "marriages" and the pushing for legalization of gay marriage.
Do you (plural) know that not to be the case?
Well, did it ever occur to you that all those "symbolic" gay marriages were made into a big deal to try and get the public to see that gay marriage wasn't something to be afraid of rather than the warning indicator for some greater homo-noahide conspiracy to turn the youth of America gay? :tinfoil:
Abbey Marie
05-02-2007, 04:52 PM
Now that we've gotten that out of our system, let's get back to my prior unanswered question:
If it is all about the legality, as you said, then why not be satisified with legal civil unions with all rights?
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 04:54 PM
Now that we've gotten that out of our system, let's get back to my prior unanswered question:
If it is all about the legality, as you said, then why not be satisified with legal civil unions with all rights?
Who says they aren't? You? Rosie? Rosie isn't the emperor of gay people.
Did you miss this post?
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 05:19 PM
Now that we've gotten that out of our system, let's get back to my prior unanswered question:
If it is all about the legality, as you said, then why not be satisified with legal civil unions with all rights?
Go ahead and breath Abbey. I don't think there's an answer coming. (Because we all already know what it is anyway.)
Hagbard Celine
05-02-2007, 05:24 PM
Go ahead and breath Abbey. I don't think there's an answer coming. (Because we all already know what it is anyway.)
I DID answer him. I guessed he was talking about some gay activist like Rosie or somebody. The key is that I had to guess. I want to know what his little cryptic "they" means. Who isn't satisfied with legal civil unions with all rights? As far as I know, this hasn't been an option anyway. Do you know something about this that I don't know?
LMFAO!
Loose was on board this afternoon around 4 or so, read this and no reply.
"the defendant is hereby sentenced to a life of alfalfa and oats in OCA's "owned" stable.:dance:
*oca readies another stall next to Loose's for a new mare named Baron*
Shit Loose is on now, i've got him on hackles and a severe bit because he's been running off lately.
Hey Loose, don't runnnnnnnnnnnnnn!:laugh2:
shattered
05-02-2007, 06:18 PM
There it is OCA. The first liberal insinuating you're a fag. Just as you predicted.
Might just be because all he talks about is fucking people up the ass when he thinks he's beating them in a discussion.. That's something that *only* he does...
Birdzeye
05-02-2007, 06:54 PM
Might just be because all he talks about is fucking people up the ass when he thinks he's beating them in a discussion.. That's something that *only* he does...
Since I'm the one who made the remark, perhaps you could show me where I EVER talked about "fucking people up the ass."
shattered
05-02-2007, 06:56 PM
Since I'm the one who made the remark, perhaps you could show me where I EVER talked about "fucking people up the ass."
If you're following the discussion, you know my response was to Pale Rider, who was responding to OCA re: being gay.
Perhaps you'd care to retract your statement now?
If you're following the discussion, you know my response was to Pale Rider, who was responding to OCA re: being gay.
Perhaps you'd care to retract your statement now?
Considering that life is about 80 years and OCA and Pale spend maybe 24% worrying about homosexuality, that means they spend 20 years of their life fixated on the subject.
20 years, think about it.
They could become excellent fly fisherman, flamenco guitarists, ballerinas, golfers, make millions in the stock market, in less time than that.
But they'd rather obsess on fags.
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:03 PM
Considering that life is about 80 years and OCA and Pale spend maybe 24% worrying about homosexuality, that means they spend 20 years of their life fixated on the subject.
20 years, think about it.
They could become excellent fly fisherman, flamenco guitarists, ballerinas, golfers, make millions in the stock market, in less time than that.
But they'd rather obsess on fags.
Pale merely makes his opinion known in no uncertain terms.. While I don't agree much with the level of vulgarity, he's entitled to that opinion..
OCA, on the other hand, supposedly makes his opinion known on "fags" (which he is ALSO entitled to), but then at the same time, professes to BE one by constantly claiming he's "fucking XX and YY up the ass". (Several times in this particular forum alone) And this is several times a day... Why *wouldn't* "libs" be under the assumption that he's gay? They're only seeing the words he puts on the screen..
I'd like to see married couples who love each other, are faithful to each other, honest, practice what they preach, don't reproduce when it's inappropriate and raise the kids they do have well. If they meet that standard I don't care if they're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual or trisexual.
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:15 PM
I'd like to see married couples who love each other, are faithful to each other, honest, practice what they preach, don't reproduce when it's inappropriate and raise the kids they do have well. If they meet that standard I don't care if they're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual or trisexual.
The problem with that is the adopted children of homosexual children generally grow up to have mental problems.. Fine.. Be a couple.. But don't adopt children - it's not fair TO the children... I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but not enough people take the future in to consideration.
The problem with that is the adopted children of homosexual children generally grow up to have mental problems.. Fine.. Be a couple.. But don't adopt children - it's not fair TO the children... I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but not enough people take the future in to consideration.
I only know one gay couple who have adopted a child and the child appears happy healthy and normal (for now anyway).
On the other hand my straight neighbors adopted two kids. Since then the boy has been imprisoned for rape, at age 12. The girl is an unwed mother with three kids by three different dudes, the mother committed suicide and the father is an alcoholic who rarely leaves the house.
Pale merely makes his opinion known in no uncertain terms.. While I don't agree much with the level of vulgarity, he's entitled to that opinion..
OCA, on the other hand, supposedly makes his opinion known on "fags" (which he is ALSO entitled to), but then at the same time, professes to BE one by constantly claiming he's "fucking XX and YY up the ass". (Several times in this particular forum alone) And this is several times a day... Why *wouldn't* "libs" be under the assumption that he's gay? They're only seeing the words he puts on the screen..
Problem is is you're too literal, you don't know how to read between the lines. There is help for that you know.
BTW, where is your buddy Loose?
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:29 PM
I only know one gay couple who have adopted a child and the child appears happy healthy and normal (for now anyway).
On the other hand my straight neighbors adopted two kids. Since then the boy has been imprisoned for rape, at age 12. The girl is an unwed mother with three kids by three different dudes, the mother committed suicide and the father is an alcoholic who rarely leaves the house.
Has that child hit school age yet, and does he/she have to answer questions about parents?
I know perfectly well there are some fucked up people in the world - gay or straight has nothing to do with it.. But, in the case of gay parents, some of it can easily be avoided just by thinking ahead.
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:30 PM
Problem is is you're too literal, you don't know how to read between the lines. There is help for that you know.
BTW, where is your buddy Loose?
I know perfectly well how to read between the lines - I'm only pointing out that you're getting exactly what you ask for.
(Incidently, just because you have a problem with Loose, doesn't mean I do, so what's the point behind the implied insult?)
Has that child hit school age yet, and does he/she have to answer questions about parents?
I know perfectly well there are some fucked up people in the world - gay or straight has nothing to do with it.. But, in the case of gay parents, some of it can easily be avoided just by thinking ahead.
Well the unfortunate fact is that most adopted children suffer from psychological problems eventually. It's still better that they are adopted (most of the time) than the alternative.
This kid is about 7 and seems normal in every way. And they are in San Francisco so the social problems are minimized as a result. I hope he turns out well. I know who the biological parents are and think they made a mistake giving up the kid, but they are very immature people.
The adoptive gay couple are smart, successful and devoted and seem to have made all the appropriate sacrifices parents of all stripes have to make.
I know perfectly well how to read between the lines - I'm only pointing out that you're getting exactly what you ask for.
Doesn't bother me in the least bit, but this lame tactic from the libs towards anyone who opposes the queer political movement has been going on for years, first one was Bully, he used that over and over and over and I don't ever recall telling him i'm fucking him up the ass.
Its a fall back mechanism they have when backed into a corner.
Where is your bud Loose? Baron?
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:36 PM
Well the unfortunate fact is that most adopted children suffer from psychological problems eventually. It's still better that they are adopted (most of the time) than the alternative.
This kid is about 7 and seems normal in every way. And they are in San Francisco so the social problems are minimized as a result. I hope he turns out well. I know who the biological parents are and think they made a mistake giving up the kid, but they are very immature people.
The adoptive gay couple are smart, successful and devoted and seem to have made all the appropriate sacrifices parents of all stripes have to make.
Hate to say it, but if the biological parents are that immature, then they DIDN'T make a mistake giving up the kid if you know for a fact that child will be well taken care of.. I guess living in SF will ease that burden.. Another thing to consider for the future...
Just saw the edited part, please tell him to not be afraid, he's been logged on twice and posting that I know of since I started this thread and he's read it and.........he no postee(mocking voice).
Really baby it wasn't an insult, just know you talk to him/her periodically, just need you to tell him/her not to be afraid.
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:39 PM
Just saw the edited part, please tell him to not be afraid, he's been logged on twice and posting that I know of since I started this thread and he's read it and.........he no postee(mocking voice).
Really baby it wasn't an insult, just know you talk to him/her periodically, just need you to tell him/her not to be afraid.
If you have a message you wish to get to someone, you can do it in the same manner anyone else does. I'm not anyones secretary.. If you think I spend my time talking about you're you're mistaken.. Besides, anything I would ever say about you, I've said TO you.
Hate to say it, but if the biological parents are that immature, then they DIDN'T make a mistake giving up the kid if you know for a fact that child will be well taken care of.. I guess living in SF will ease that burden.. Another thing to consider for the future...
Yes.
It just seems immature to me that they gave up the child so they didn't have to get married, get good jobs, etc. And this dippy couple is still together 7 years later. I think people should step up to the plate and grow up rather than putting kids for adoption or aborting. Whenever possible.
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:41 PM
Yes.
It just seems immature to me that they gave up the child so they didn't have to get married, get good jobs, etc. And this dippy couple is still together 7 years later. I think people should step up to the plate and grow up rather than putting kids for adoption or aborting. Whenever possible.
I agree.. and if my sister in law had done anything less, I'd have kicked her ass..(She KNEW she wasn't ready for a kid, was on birth control, etc.. He was an "accident".. BUT, HE changed who SHE is, and that's a good thing).
I agree.. and if my sister in law had done anything less, I'd have kicked her ass..(She KNEW she wasn't ready for a kid, was on birth control, etc.. He was an "accident".. BUT, HE changed who SHE is, and that's a good thing).
It's amazing what you can do when you stop living out of fear and start living out of love and positive energy.
If you have a message you wish to get to someone, you can do it in the same manner anyone else does. I'm not anyones secretary.. If you think I spend my time talking about you're you're mistaken.. Besides, anything I would ever say about you, I've said TO you.
Besides all the bullshit if you run into him tell him/her to pass by, ok? I promise a big bouquet of flowers and a big mac next secretaries day.
shattered
05-02-2007, 07:52 PM
Besides all the bullshit if you run into him tell him/her to pass by, ok? I promise a big bouquet of flowers and a big mac next secretaries day.
:fu:
zefrendylia
05-02-2007, 08:19 PM
I have no problem with civil unions. It's having the advantages of a real marriage between a man and a woman that the queers been bitching about. Let 'em have the union.
But marriage, as in a holy union, in the eyes of God, can only be between a man and woman. To think it can be anything else is foolishness.
I'm glad that you think civil unions or domestic partnerships are alright because most gays only want that. You have to understand that gays are people just like us and are as diverse as the rest of us. You have gays of every race, every religion, and every political ideology--in every facet of life. The most important thing that gays want, and I agree with, is equality. I would assume also that someday all gays want to be accepted for who they are and not have to be ashamed (like Cheney's daughter).
I also think name-calling in any form is demeaning and humiliating. You might think it's alright to call somebody a fag, queer, gook, nigger, honky, spic, ****, or bitch--but imagine how you would feel if you were from one of those demographics.
Now, true there are some gay activists who are pushing for "gay marriage" to be legal. While I don't get all bent out of shape over it, it is for the principles of equality in which our nation was founded. Just because your religion believes in only one form of traditional marriage, doesn't give you the right to enforce those tenets on others legal or otherwise. Our forefathers escaped persecution in Europe for that exact purpose.
Just try to remember one thing: gays are people just like you and me. Yeah, I get it, it's uncomfortable when you see 2 guys holding hands and walking down the street. But what if those guys had been together for 20 years? Now that's true love--something even Jesus couldn't deny.:afro:
Loose and Baron don't run this time, lets have at it, fire away!
Wait, i'll start your talking points off since libs are like a broken record of defeated viewpoints on this subject, i'm homophobic or I must be a homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist lol:laugh2:
I don't think you are "homophobic." This word is a late invention by the gay and lesbian lobby. Who happen to be fairly powerful. You know my stance, you know I have family members who are gay (no men, which IMO, is a totally different manner) and you know where I stand.
Homophobic is too easy for people use when countering in a debate. Much like loosy does all the time. I think you don't like gay sex. But if a man were gay and did not commit the act, I don't think you would dislike him as much.
If you do, ok, then I read you wrong.
If I read you wrong, then we can debate. Don't worry, I don't obsess over woodies and asses, nor do I run as much as looosy. :salute:
I don't think you are "homophobic." This word is a late invention by the gay and lesbian lobby. Who happen to be fairly powerful. You know my stance, you know I have family members who are gay (no men, which IMO, is a totally different manner) and you know where I stand.
Homophobic is too easy for people use when countering in a debate. Much like loosy does all the time. I think you don't like gay sex. But if a man were gay and did not commit the act, I don't think you would dislike him as much.
If you do, ok, then I read you wrong.
If I read you wrong, then we can debate. Don't worry, I don't obsess over woodies and asses, nor do I run as much as looosy. :salute:
My official position:I have zero problem with anybody banging whomever they want, if you are queer I don't want to hear about it and its likely we won't be doing any socializing or business of any type whatsoever. I have a problem with the political push by queer rights groups who seek to legitimize their perversion of choice. They do not really want to get married, they just want the legitimization that marriage will bring.
One of my accounts has a full on butch dyke working there, she is cool as hell and she and I have had the "queer discussion" and know where each other stand so she doesn't bring it up and I don't either and everything is fine. My point is again, if queers just really wanted to live the lives they choose as they choose then there would be no need to push farther.
I also oppose the push to say the queer lifestyle is the same as heterosexual lifestyle, its not, its much more dangerous, comes with the territory, the proof of that has been provided hundreds of times.
My official position:I have zero problem with anybody banging whomever they want, if you are queer I don't want to hear about it and its likely we won't be doing any socializing or business of any type whatsoever. I have a problem with the political push by queer rights groups who seek to legitimize their perversion of choice. They do not really want to get married, they just want the legitimization that marriage will bring.
One of my accounts has a full on butch dyke working there, she is cool as hell and she and I have had the "queer discussion" and know where each other stand so she doesn't bring it up and I don't either and everything is fine. My point is again, if queers just really wanted to live the lives they choose as they choose then there would be no need to push farther.
I also oppose the push to say the queer lifestyle is the same as heterosexual lifestyle, its not, its much more dangerous, comes with the territory, the proof of that has been provided hundreds of times.
you suck, you're gay, you can't debate, you ran from my debate.....
:laugh2:
My official position:I have zero problem with anybody banging whomever they want, if you are queer I don't want to hear about it and its likely we won't be doing any socializing or business of any type whatsoever. I have a problem with the political push by queer rights groups who seek to legitimize their perversion of choice. They do not really want to get married, they just want the legitimization that marriage will bring.
One of my accounts has a full on butch dyke working there, she is cool as hell and she and I have had the "queer discussion" and know where each other stand so she doesn't bring it up and I don't either and everything is fine. My point is again, if queers just really wanted to live the lives they choose as they choose then there would be no need to push farther.
I also oppose the push to say the queer lifestyle is the same as heterosexual lifestyle, its not, its much more dangerous, comes with the territory, the proof of that has been provided hundreds of times.
Fair enough. I don't think that any homosexual "union" should be legitimized as "marriage." However, I fully recognize that there are gay people (I speak only of women) who do want to "marry." They actually believe that marriage is different. They only want the "legal" rights.
In reality, this also plays a part in the lives of hetrosexuals who choose not to get married. Divorce rights are different and most importantly, hosital and death rights are different.
IMHO, these "legal" rights (which are entirely statutory and man made) should be freely given to those that also "contract" with the state to form a "union." Afterall, a marriage is simply a contract, by definition of law. We have seen the britneys and whatnot....
Is it not a right for those who don't fit the traditional definition of "marriage" to also have certain "legal" rights, which were created by the state?
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 09:32 PM
Well the unfortunate fact is that most adopted children suffer from psychological problems eventually. It's still better that they are adopted (most of the time) than the alternative.
This kid is about 7 and seems normal in every way. And they are in San Francisco so the social problems are minimized as a result. I hope he turns out well. I know who the biological parents are and think they made a mistake giving up the kid, but they are very immature people.
The adoptive gay couple are smart, successful and devoted and seem to have made all the appropriate sacrifices parents of all stripes have to make.
But Nuc, and no pun intended, I can gaurantee you that that homo couple is teaching that kid that what they do is "normal", and it isn't. That, my friend, is a lie.
But Nuc, and no pun intended, I can gaurantee you that homo couple is teaching that kid that what they is "normal", and it isn't. That, my friend, is a lie.
May I ask what is "normal?"
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 09:44 PM
I'm glad that you think civil unions or domestic partnerships are alright because most gays only want that. You have to understand that gays are people just like us and are as diverse as the rest of us. You have gays of every race, every religion, and every political ideology--in every facet of life. The most important thing that gays want, and I agree with, is equality. I would assume also that someday all gays want to be accepted for who they are and not have to be ashamed (like Cheney's daughter).
Their shame is upon them. It is their own. Not mine. Why should I feel guilty about their sin?
I also think name-calling in any form is demeaning and humiliating. You might think it's alright to call somebody a fag, queer, gook, nigger, honky, spic, ****, or bitch--but imagine how you would feel if you were from one of those demographics.
I never heard the term "gay" until I as about 16 years old, and then I needed to be told what it meant. I always knew queers as fag or homo. The term gay was highjacked by the homos in an attempt to make them sound all warm and fuzzy, nicey, nicey. I don't buy it. They're sick, and I'm not one to sugar coat a turd.
Now, true there are some gay activists who are pushing for "gay marriage" to be legal. While I don't get all bent out of shape over it, it is for the principles of equality in which our nation was founded. Just because your religion believes in only one form of traditional marriage, doesn't give you the right to enforce those tenets on others legal or otherwise. Our forefathers escaped persecution in Europe for that exact purpose.
My religon say's homosexuality is an abomination. I can't do anything about that. I'm a devout Christian. I do by what the Bible says. "Marriage" is between a man and woman, period. It's a holy union in the eyes of God. There can NOT be a holy union between two men or two women in the eyes of God.
Just try to remember one thing: gays are people just like you and me. Yeah, I get it, it's uncomfortable when you see 2 guys holding hands and walking down the street. But what if those guys had been together for 20 years? Now that's true love--something even Jesus couldn't deny.:afro:
You couldn't be more wrong. I am NOT "just like" a homosexual. A homosexual is sick in the mind.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 09:46 PM
I don't think you are "homophobic." This word is a late invention by the gay and lesbian lobby. Who happen to be fairly powerful. You know my stance, you know I have family members who are gay (no men, which IMO, is a totally different manner) and you know where I stand.
Homophobic is too easy for people use when countering in a debate. Much like loosy does all the time. I think you don't like gay sex. But if a man were gay and did not commit the act, I don't think you would dislike him as much.
If you do, ok, then I read you wrong.
If I read you wrong, then we can debate. Don't worry, I don't obsess over woodies and asses, nor do I run as much as looosy. :salute:
I can gaurantee you OCA is NOT a fag. This is a bronk ridin', shit kickin', whiskey drinkin' cowboy. There ain't a fag bone in his body.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 09:48 PM
May I ask what is "normal?"
You can't be serious? You never heard the word heterosexual?
You can't be serious? You never heard the word heterosexual?
So the hetros on jerry springer are "normal?"
And yes, I am serious. What is "normal?"
Your normal?
What about God's normal?
What about God's understanding of our "normal?"
What about pre Jesus normal?
What is your definition of normal?
I can gaurantee you OCA is NOT a fag. This is a bronk ridin', shit kickin', whiskey drinkin' cowboy. There ain't a fag bone in his body.
Uh, never said he was. NEVER.
Ain't no doc, so don't know if thiiiiirs a fag "bone" in his body. Sheet pale, was having a discussion. OCA and I may not always agree, but, he agreed to hear me out in this case. In no way did I EVER saying anything you insinuate in your post.
Yurt
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 10:16 PM
So the hetros on jerry springer are "normal?"
And yes, I am serious. What is "normal?"
Your normal?
What about God's normal?
What about God's understanding of our "normal?"
What about pre Jesus normal?
What is your definition of normal?
I "THOUGHT" we were discussing sexual preference. In which case "heterosexual" would be "normal".
Tell me it's not, and why.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 10:18 PM
Uh, never said he was. NEVER.
Ain't no doc, so don't know if thiiiiirs a fag "bone" in his body. Sheet pale, was having a discussion. OCA and I may not always agree, but, he agreed to hear me out in this case. In no way did I EVER saying anything you insinuate in your post.
Yurt
Sorry. My mistake.
I "THOUGHT" we were discussing sexual preference. In which case "heterosexual" would be "normal".
Tell me it's not, and why.
Let us first define normal.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 11:37 PM
Let us first define normal.
"Sexually", heterosexual is normal. Did you really need to be told that?
zefrendylia
05-02-2007, 11:44 PM
I don't think you are "homophobic." This word is a late invention by the gay and lesbian lobby. Who happen to be fairly powerful. You know my stance, you know I have family members who are gay (no men, which IMO, is a totally different manner) and you know where I stand.
Homophobic is too easy for people use when countering in a debate. Much like loosy does all the time. I think you don't like gay sex. But if a man were gay and did not commit the act, I don't think you would dislike him as much.
If you do, ok, then I read you wrong.
If I read you wrong, then we can debate. Don't worry, I don't obsess over woodies and asses, nor do I run as much as looosy. :salute:
I'm sorry, but who is the "gay and lesbian lobby" and what makes them powerful? The way I see it, the U.S. is probably the least progressive developed democracy when it comes to LGBT rights. If the lobby was so powerful, I would at least expect to see our civil rights on par with Europe (i.e. several countries allow gays to serve openly in the military). I agree that yes, homosexuality is being portrayed more in pop culture i.e. Will and Grace, Queer Eye, and Brokeback Mountain but I think that's just a sign of the changing times. Yes, BBM stirred up controversy and outrage, but nowhere near what it could've been a decade ago. There was also a time when African-Americans were considered sub-human, then second-class citizens, and today recognized as equals at least in the mainstream. Our feelings toward gays will eventually change as well and not just through gay activism but through the understanding, compassion, and acceptance of straight Americans. :fu:
Pale Rider
05-03-2007, 12:01 AM
I'm sorry, but who is the "gay and lesbian lobby" and what makes them powerful? The way I see it, the U.S. is probably the least progressive developed democracy when it comes to LGBT rights. If the lobby was so powerful, I would at least expect to see our civil rights on par with Europe (i.e. several countries allow gays to serve openly in the military). I agree that yes, homosexuality is being portrayed more in pop culture i.e. Will and Grace, Queer Eye, and Brokeback Mountain but I think that's just a sign of the changing times. Yes, BBM stirred up controversy and outrage, but nowhere near what it could've been a decade ago. There was also a time when African-Americans were considered sub-human, then second-class citizens, and today recognized as equals at least in the mainstream. Our feelings toward gays will eventually change as well and not just through gay activism but through the understanding, compassion, and acceptance of straight Americans.
I disagree, and your comparison of blacks with homos has been tried before, only to the ire of blacks.
You can't compare slavery with a preversion. Try again. We've all heard this tripe here before.
zefrendylia
05-03-2007, 01:17 PM
I disagree, and your comparison of blacks with homos has been tried before, only to the ire of blacks.
You can't compare slavery with a preversion. Try again. We've all heard this tripe here before.
Tripe? Damn, that's pretty arrogant. My point is highlighting the principle of injustice by which both blacks and gays have endured. Yeah, blacks weren't considered to be "perverted" just sub-human--totally different. You can think gays or homos if you prefer, are sick perversions, unholy, etc. etc. That's fine. I think it's wrong, but you're entitled to your own beliefs. I also think the prejudice you have against gays, is no different than the prejudice committed against blacks and every minority in this country from its inception.
Prejudice is evil because it is based on fear and ignorance. Fear and ignorance leads to hatred and violence. How can the word of Jesus teach love and acceptance for all God's children, then tell you to despise a group of those children? You're likening gays to murderers, pedophiles, and thieves when that is the farthest thing from the truth. Maybe moral criminals? But the Bible condemns adultery as well. Last I heard Newt Gingrich, an admitted cheater was running for the Republican ticket. Do you condemn him as well?
How many gays do you have as close friends? Perhaps none? Perhaps you don't want to know any because as a young child you were raised through social reinforcement to believe that gays are fags, queers, sick, perverted people to be loathed. What would happen if your best friend confessed to you that he was gay? He tried and tried to be "normal" but he knew since he was a kid that he was "different." He was the same person overall, just attracted to the same sex. Would you kick his ass or sever the friendship? Because you're afraid that if he became attracted to you, that would somehow make you gay? Can't you see he's almost exactly the same friend you've always had?
When I speak about injustice, I'm talking about laws that are enacted to prevent gays or any minority from having equal rights. So you don't want them to disgrace the picture of a holy Christian union by allowing them to marry. I got it. Letting them have equal domestic partnership rights is a positive first step. Let them have the same rights as any other American is entitled to have. That's the only tripe I'm trying to make.
glockmail
05-03-2007, 01:26 PM
Well, you sure do seem obsessed with homosexuality. I wonder why. :coffee: There you go with the "you must be gay" insult.
glockmail
05-03-2007, 01:27 PM
Let us first define normal.
Normal is what most people do.
Hagbard Celine
05-03-2007, 01:29 PM
There you go with the "you must be gay" insult.
Well, what's with the preoccupation? Why the insistence on banning homo marriage and hating on homos if you're not one? Seems like you'd have no reason to meddle with homo affairs if you're straight. If you were closeted and hated yourself for it, I could see why you would lash out against the gay community the way you do. What other explanation is there? Would you rather we call you nazis?
Hagbard Celine
05-03-2007, 01:30 PM
Normal is what most people do.
I don't know. Most people watch reality tv. I don't think that's normal.
Abbey Marie
05-03-2007, 01:36 PM
Well, what's with the preoccupation? Why the insistence on banning homo marriage and hating on homos if you're not one? Seems like you'd have no reason to meddle with homo affairs if you're straight. If you were closeted and hated yourself for it, I could see why you would lash out against the gay community the way you do. What other explanation is there? Would you rather we call you nazis?
John Walsh is arguably preoccupied with catching and punishing killers. Is he a closeted murderer?
glockmail
05-03-2007, 01:39 PM
Well, what's with the preoccupation? Why the insistence on banning homo marriage and hating on homos if you're not one? Seems like you'd have no reason to meddle with homo affairs if you're straight. If you were closeted and hated yourself for it, I could see why you would lash out against the gay community the way you do. What other explanation is there? Would you rather we call you nazis?
If someone was building a trailer park next to your neighborhood full of nice old colonials, would you be concerned, or just let your investment go to the dogs? Now bring that up 50 notches to effect your society.
Hagbard Celine
05-03-2007, 01:40 PM
John Walsh is arguably preoccupied with catching and punishing killers. Is he a closeted murderer?
No, his son was taken from him by a murderer. He's like batman. Please, no more non-sequitors.
Abbey Marie
05-03-2007, 01:46 PM
No, his son was taken from him by a murderer. He's like batman. Please, no more non-sequitors.
It's an apt comparison nonetheless,and hardly a non-sequitur. Either way, there are tons of people who feel strongly about issues that have not personally affected them. Are they all just closet examples of what they are concerned with? Are people who speak out against over-eating and lack of exercise really closet fatties?
You simply cannot make assumptions like that about people who feel strongly about a particular subject, especially when their objections are based on moral beliefs.
glockmail
05-03-2007, 01:50 PM
It's an apt comparison nonetheless,and hardly a non-sequitur. Either way, there are tons of people who feel strongly about issues that have not personally affected them. Are they all just closet examples of what they are concerned with? Are people who speak out against over-eating and lack of exercise really closet fatties?
You simply cannot make assumptions like that about people who feel strongly about a particular subject, especially when their objections are based on moral beliefs. Excellent post.
Hagbard Celine
05-03-2007, 01:52 PM
It's an apt comparison nonetheless,and hardly a non-sequitur. Either way, there are tons of people who feel strongly about issues that have not personally affected them. Are they all just closet examples of what they are concerned with? Are people who speak out against over-eating and lack of exercise really closet fatties?
You simply cannot make assumptions like that about people who feel strongly about a particular subject, especially when their objections are based on moral beliefs.
I wouldn't say moral. I'd say religious. There is a distinct difference. There's nothing moral about discrimination and denying people their right to happiness. I don't think it should be any of your concern if two men or two women love each other enough to get married. And I gave you an out.
Blacks and queers are totally different subjects, one was born that way(Blacks) and the other chooses to live the lifestyle and in life choices have consequences, society has deemed homosexuality to be a vile and perverse lifestyle choice and is completely justified in denying people who CHOOSE to engage in this certain benefits. Now these denied benefits are still available to said people but they would have to change the parameters in which they live their lives to access these benefits.
Loose and Baron Von Douchebag's silence in this thread speaks volumes....I own them.:dance:
Hagbard Celine
05-03-2007, 02:39 PM
Blacks and queers are totally different subjects, one was born that way(Blacks) and the other chooses to live the lifestyle and in life choices have consequences, society has deemed homosexuality to be a vile and perverse lifestyle choice and is completely justified in denying people who CHOOSE to engage in this certain benefits. Now these denied benefits are still available to said people but they would have to change the parameters in which they live their lives to access these benefits.
You don't know that. The only way you could is if you chose to be gay. Is that a choice you can make?
glockmail
05-03-2007, 02:42 PM
I wouldn't say moral. I'd say religious. There is a distinct difference. There's nothing moral about discrimination and denying people their right to happiness. I don't think it should be any of your concern if two men or two women love each other enough to get married. And I gave you an out. A progressive's view of morality. Wrong-o.
Normal is what most people do.
Do "most people" sit around on a message board pissing and moaning about fags for hours a day? :lame2:
You don't know that. The only way you could is if you chose to be gay. Is that a choice you can make?
No evidence that suggests anything other than choice, just being logical.
glockmail
05-03-2007, 02:55 PM
Do "most people" sit around on a message board pissing and moaning about fags for hours a day? :lame2:
Only the ones concerned with The Truth.
Do "most people" sit around on a message board pissing and moaning about fags for hours a day? :lame2:
Do "most people" sit around on a message board pissing and moaning about other people talking about gays for hours a day. :lame2:
darin
05-03-2007, 04:31 PM
When I speak about injustice, I'm talking about laws that are enacted to prevent gays or any minority from having equal rights. So you don't want them to disgrace the picture of a holy Christian union by allowing them to marry. I got it. Letting them have equal domestic partnership rights is a positive first step. Let them have the same rights as any other American is entitled to have. That's the only tripe I'm trying to make.
But, dude....they are asking for SPECIAL Rights - Rights created to specifically give them rights others do not have. That's the problem. Almost EVERY right associated with legal marriage is afforded ANY two people with the proper legal documents.
But, dude....they are asking for SPECIAL Rights - Rights created to specifically give them rights others do not have. That's the problem. Almost EVERY right associated with legal marriage is afforded ANY two people with the proper legal documents.
This is why I believe in "unions." They don't get the same rights, and we aren't playing horseshoes or handgrenades. Marriage has very deep tradition steeped in two people from the opposite gender getting married. Thus, under US law, it is sacrosanct, in other words, since it is tradition, we can allow the "bible" in, eg, congressional prayer.
However, given the man made laws in probate, hospice decisions, etc... people who choose to live together like this cannot currently benefit from these man made laws.
I do not defend on God's laws, but man made laws.
darin
05-03-2007, 05:09 PM
This is why I believe in "unions." They don't get the same rights, and we aren't playing horseshoes or handgrenades. Marriage has very deep tradition steeped in two people from the opposite gender getting married. Thus, under US law, it is sacrosanct, in other words, since it is tradition, we can allow the "bible" in, eg, congressional prayer.
However, given the man made laws in probate, hospice decisions, etc... people who choose to live together like this cannot currently benefit from these man made laws.
I do not defend on God's laws, but man made laws.
Then the unions, and any legal/whatever benefit should be open to heterosexual couples, too. That'd be fair, no? Thing is - any of those hospice/probate, etc, decisions can already be established with wills and other legal documents.
Homosexuals want 'marriage' to force society to add a modicum of legitimacy to their deviant sexual disorders/behaviour.
dmp;51641]Then the unions, and any legal/whatever benefit should be open to heterosexual couples, too.
Absolutely, I never said otherwise.
That'd be fair, no?
Agreed.
Thing is - any of those hospice/probate, etc, decisions can already be established with wills and other legal documents.
No, married people with a "legal marriage license" have more rights, more presumptions, etc...
Homosexuals want 'marriage' to force society to add a modicum of legitimacy to their deviant sexual disorders/behaviour.
That is why I don't think they should get "marriage."
darin
05-03-2007, 05:23 PM
No, married people with a "legal marriage license" have more rights, more presumptions, etc...
I'd bet my wife has no more rights than I could give to anyone with the proper legal documents. Marriage just makes it a bit easier, imo. :)
zefrendylia
05-03-2007, 05:40 PM
But, dude....they are asking for SPECIAL Rights - Rights created to specifically give them rights others do not have. That's the problem. Almost EVERY right associated with legal marriage is afforded ANY two people with the proper legal documents.
Yes! A reply.
What "special" rights are you talking about? The rights associated with civil unions are no different than legal rights associated with marriage or family i.e. inheritance, medical decisions, visitation, etc. I think I may know what you're getting at but I'm still hazy. Are you saying that a legal union between 2 people of the same sex is "special?" If so, then again your going into the realm of legal marriage as only defined as between a man and a woman. That's fine if someone's religion defines "marriage" that way. However, not every religion is the same, not every spiritual belief is the same. Marriage in the legal sense (as opposed to spiritual) is by any definition nothing more than a civil union with certain rules and restrictions for tax purposes, ownership, custody, etc. Atheists and agnostics get married all the time. People get married in Elvis chapels all the time. It has nothing to do with a certain spiritual definition of marriage. Now, of course there's the slippery slope. If we allow gays to get married then a man and a sheep, or a man and a child is next. Well if a guy wants to marry his sheep and will his herd to it when he dies, that's really beyond caring for me. Now when it comes to child-marriage, which was once very common in ancient times, I think the overwhelming majority of American society, if not unanimous, would abhor this practice spiritual or otherwise.
Going back to the issue at hand, a civil union between 2 people of the same sex is becoming a lot more acceptable as gays themselves are becoming more accepted. You still have a ton of bigotry and violence towards gays but given enough time that too will recede. Ultimately the right thing now is to give gays who are no different except for sexual orientation the equal rights that we all enjoy and that includes the legal rights stemming from civil unions.
I'd bet my wife has no more rights than I could give to anyone with the proper legal documents. Marriage just makes it a bit easier, imo. :)
How much is the bet?
And, the "easier" is not a bit.
Think about it, if you don't know the law... It is a good point, and yes, it does go against married people, but where you see it the most is non married couples. It is a fact D. While married people may not "want" to know the law, they at least know:
until death do us part...........
And they know that the promise, will get them certain rights. You can't be questioning that are you? Prenupts?
I can give you BS Spears family law attorney number of you want, I am sure he is much more qualified......
glockmail
05-03-2007, 05:45 PM
.....Going back to the issue at hand, a civil union between 2 people of the same sex is becoming a lot more acceptable as gays themselves are becoming more accepted. ..... Most of us don't care what two queers do to each other. Just don't equate the perverted choice with marriage.
Most of us don't care what two queers do to each other. Just don't equate the perverted choice with marriage.
This is the point. You can "feel", but, what is it that makes you pedophile, whatnot? It is the act. The choice of making the act. If you are a gay man, then, you have a "choice" to abstain.
glockmail
05-03-2007, 05:57 PM
This is the point. You can "feel", but, what is it that makes you pedophile, whatnot? It is the act. The choice of making the act. If you are a gay man, then, you have a "choice" to abstain. Just like I have a choice not to pierce my dick with jewelry.
zefrendylia
05-03-2007, 06:01 PM
Then the unions, and any legal/whatever benefit should be open to heterosexual couples, too. That'd be fair, no? Thing is - any of those hospice/probate, etc, decisions can already be established with wills and other legal documents.
Homosexuals want 'marriage' to force society to add a modicum of legitimacy to their deviant sexual disorders/behaviour.
Actually, no--they cannot be resolved by present means. This why the domestic partnership bill was passed in Washington. It wasn't to make a political statement, it was because they really are barred from the same rights married couples have.
http://www.aclu.org/getequal/rela/california.html
As you can tell, the law comes with the pluses as well as negatives of civil unions. The domestic partnership bill also covers rights for heterosexual couples as well, as more and more long-term partners are waiting to get married or choose not to.
You're right, homosexuals--and straight people too, want to prod society to accept the legitimacy of gays as people and nothing else. You have to remember homosexuality is a lot more than just sex. It also involves that intimate heart-to-heart love and lifelong commitment that straight couples enjoy. Gay marriage like traditional marriage (in a general sense) is only a symbolic event of that shared love.
You judge their "behavior" as "deviant" like its a choice they have. You also equate homosexual sex (taking out any love) with bestiality, orgies, and pedophilia. Homosexuality is not a choice nor is it deviant. They are born like that and any attempt to try and "normalize" their biological feelings leads to a life of shame and torment. Just imagine if you had to live the life of a homosexual for all your life, while denying your heterosexuality and how degrading that would seem.
darin
05-03-2007, 06:05 PM
Yes! A reply.
What "special" rights are you talking about?
As-is, ALL people share the RIGHT to marry with the SAME Provisions: 1) The married couple must be of legal age. 2) the married couple must be of opposite Gender.
Homosexual couples what that changed - specifically based on their preference of mate. They want special treatment.
The rights associated with civil unions are no different than legal rights associated with marriage or family i.e. inheritance, medical decisions, visitation, etc. I think I may know what you're getting at but I'm still hazy. Are you saying that a legal union between 2 people of the same sex is "special?" If so, then again your going into the realm of legal marriage as only defined as between a man and a woman.
You are talking about 'benefits' of the marriage - not the right to marry. I was speaking to the latter.
I'm saying even the benefits of a marriage (or civil union) can currently be obtained by most anyone, with the right legal documents. Off the top of my head, only the federal income tax rules are the benefit which comes from a marriage, which can't be easily replicated.
That's fine if someone's religion defines "marriage" that way. However, not every religion is the same, not every spiritual belief is the same. Marriage in the legal sense (as opposed to spiritual) is by any definition nothing more than a civil union with certain rules and restrictions for tax purposes, ownership, custody, etc. Atheists and agnostics get married all the time. People get married in Elvis chapels all the time. It has nothing to do with a certain spiritual definition of marriage. Now, of course there's the slippery slope. If we allow gays to get married then a man and a sheep, or a man and a child is next. Well if a guy wants to marry his sheep and will his herd to it when he dies, that's really beyond caring for me. Now when it comes to child-marriage, which was once very common in ancient times, I think the overwhelming majority of American society, if not unanimous, would abhor this practice spiritual or otherwise.
You've hit on two things - first the fallacy that "Marriage" is purely a RELIGIOUS institution. Not really. Marriage is an institution which should be promoted and practiced by people of ALL Faiths. Marriage is VITAL - dare I say - ESSENTIAL to a society's health. The afore-mentioned benefits to marriage are in place, in part, because we WANT people to get married and start families. We SHOULD BE encouraging marriages. Of course, with Divorce-upon-demand we've marginalized marriage. That's another thread, I suppose.
The second thing you've touched is the whole slippery-slope argument. You seem to moral relativism, to an extent. "If it's not harming ME, why NOT allow it?" That sorta thing. Moral Relativism, left unchecked will seep into ANY society and bring it down. It's absolutely WRONG for a man to marry an animal, because it's Wrong. Sexual relations between man and beast are Wrong. We make laws all the time for the good of the health of society. Homosexual marriage offers NO benefit to society because homosexuality offers no benefit. Throughout all time, Homosexuals were tolerated - their deviant behaviour acknowledged, but it's been since it was before the Great Flood since homosexuals were Celebrated as they are today. I'm rambling now, though...lost my train of thought...doh...I'll come back to this.
Okay- re: where weddings happen, etc...or whatever.
I'm NOT a believer that a 'church' has ANYTHING to do with what makes a marriage. A pastor isn't required. Nor is a license...but I'll come back to that. :)
going back to the issue at hand, a civil union between 2 people of the same sex is becoming a lot more acceptable as gays themselves are becoming more accepted. You still have a ton of bigotry and violence towards gays but given enough time that too will recede. Ultimately the right thing now is to give gays who are no different except for sexual orientation the equal rights that we all enjoy and that includes the legal rights stemming from civil unions.
Do you support recent laws in Washington State allowing homosexual, non-married couples health benefits, but not allowing heterosexual non-married couples those same benefits? If you wish to make ANY relationship same-same as a MARRIED relationship, you hurt society by removing ANY motivation to marry. Now, people will scream "But - But I know a couple who were never married, but lived together for GENERATIONS!" - but...Non-married couples living together ONLY hurts them, as a whole. Id Est, couples 'living in sin' generally are harming themselves...living shorter lives, more depressed, more wondering, and seeking. Yeah, yeah, you'll want links. But I'm right. I've been there. Anyone who is HONEST with themselves will know there is a deeply buried desire to be with ONE person, forever, in our heart. To have the unconditional acceptance and love that marriage (should [see comments re: rampant divorce]) provide.
Vows, friend.
glockmail
05-03-2007, 06:10 PM
....Homosexuality is not a choice nor is it deviant. They are born like that and any attempt to try and "normalize" their biological feelings leads to a life of shame and torment. Just imagine if you had to live the life of a homosexual for all your life, while denying your heterosexuality and how degrading that would seem.
Wrong-o here. For one, how can you be born gay? From gay parents? Queers can't reproduce.
Mr. P
05-03-2007, 06:10 PM
I think maybe we should consider the issue "benefits of marriage", not rights.
The only two things I can think of gays can't do that married hetros can is legally check the "Married filing Jointly" box on their tax return, or receive ssi if the other passes, everything else, every other issue, can be deal with, with a will or power of attorney or other legal instrument.
Yup I'll go with benefit of marriage.
Just like I have a choice not to pierce my dick with jewelry.
:puke3:
And that help you point how................
As-is, ALL people share the RIGHT to marry with the SAME Provisions: 1) The married couple must be of legal age. 2) the married couple must be of opposite Gender.
Homosexual couples what that changed - specifically based on their preference of mate. They want special treatment.
You are talking about 'benefits' of the marriage - not the right to marry. I was speaking to the latter.
I'm saying even the benefits of a marriage (or civil union) can currently be obtained by most anyone, with the right legal documents. Off the top of my head, only the federal income tax rules are the benefit which comes from a marriage, which can't be easily replicated.
You've hit on two things - first the fallacy that "Marriage" is purely a RELIGIOUS institution. Not really. Marriage is an institution which should be promoted and practiced by people of ALL Faiths. Marriage is VITAL - dare I say - ESSENTIAL to a society's health. The afore-mentioned benefits to marriage are in place, in part, because we WANT people to get married and start families. We SHOULD BE encouraging marriages. Of course, with Divorce-upon-demand we've marginalized marriage. That's another thread, I suppose.
The second thing you've touched is the whole slippery-slope argument. You seem to moral relativism, to an extent. "If it's not harming ME, why NOT allow it?" That sorta thing. Moral Relativism, left unchecked will seep into ANY society and bring it down. It's absolutely WRONG for a man to marry an animal, because it's Wrong. Sexual relations between man and beast are Wrong. We make laws all the time for the good of the health of society. Homosexual marriage offers NO benefit to society because homosexuality offers no benefit. Throughout all time, Homosexuals were tolerated - their deviant behaviour acknowledged, but it's been since it was before the Great Flood since homosexuals were Celebrated as they are today. I'm rambling now, though...lost my train of thought...doh...I'll come back to this.
Okay- re: where weddings happen, etc...or whatever.
I'm NOT a believer that a 'church' has ANYTHING to do with what makes a marriage. A pastor isn't required. Nor is a license...but I'll come back to that. :)
Do you support recent laws in Washington State allowing homosexual, non-married couples health benefits, but not allowing heterosexual non-married couples those same benefits? If you wish to make ANY relationship same-same as a MARRIED relationship, you hurt society by removing ANY motivation to marry. Now, people will scream "But - But I know a couple who were never married, but lived together for GENERATIONS!" - but...Non-married couples living together ONLY hurts them, as a whole. Id Est, couples 'living in sin' generally are harming themselves...living shorter lives, more depressed, more wondering, and seeking. Yeah, yeah, you'll want links. But I'm right. I've been there. Anyone who is HONEST with themselves will know there is a deeply buried desire to be with ONE person, forever, in our heart. To have the unconditional acceptance and love that marriage (should [see comments re: rampant divorce]) provide.
Vows, friend.
Under a secular government, is that fair?
glockmail
05-03-2007, 06:34 PM
:puke3:
And that help you point how................ Some choose to pierce their member, that doesn't mean that they are born that way, are normal, or that its natural. Most normal people find it disgusting, as you just demonstrated. Just like homosexuality.
a civil union between 2 people of the same sex is becoming a lot more acceptable as gays themselves are becoming more accepted.
Are you kidding me? You mean accepted like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state
glockmail
05-03-2007, 06:45 PM
Are you kidding me? You mean accepted like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state
The Gay State looks pretty lonely out there. :laugh2:
Some choose to pierce their member, that doesn't mean that they are born that way, are normal, or that its natural. Most normal people find it disgusting, as you just demonstrated. Just like homosexuality.
Wrong. Don't go down that road. I barfed at you talking about dicks. Get it.
We are talking about legal rights. Not the "right" to pecker your pecker, but real legal rights. Since you have no problem with people being able to spear their pecker, you should have no problem with my POV.
darin
05-03-2007, 06:51 PM
Under a secular government, is that fair?
Why do things have to be fair?
glockmail
05-03-2007, 06:58 PM
Wrong. Don't go down that road. I barfed at you talking about dicks. Get it.
We are talking about legal rights. Not the "right" to pecker your pecker, but real legal rights. Since you have no problem with people being able to spear their pecker, you should have no problem with my POV.
No need to get all prickly about this.
Peckering one's pecker is not normal, and is done at the detriment of the pecked. No one was born wanting to pierce their penis. Just like the choice to turn queer: abnormal and unnatural.
:pee:
zefrendylia
05-03-2007, 07:27 PM
Are you kidding me? You mean accepted like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state
Give it time my friend, things will change. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "an injustice to one is an injustice to all." To not believe that change is coming is to not know the full history of the United States. Though nothing is a guarantee, one day Americans will realize the hypocrisy of a country for equality but only for heterosexuals. Just think, a decade ago--any state with legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships on the books would be unheard of. And though the "legalized form" of acceptance of gays may not be overwhelming for you, the point I'm trying to make is that as people become more enlightened, there is a general tide of social acceptance for gay people.
Why do things have to be fair?
fair enough.
Give it time my friend, things will change. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "an injustice to one is an injustice to all." To not believe that change is coming is to not know the full history of the United States. Though nothing is a guarantee, one day Americans will realize the hypocrisy of a country for equality but only for heterosexuals. Just think, a decade ago--any state with legalized civil unions or domestic partnerships on the books would be unheard of. And though the "legalized form" of acceptance of gays may not be overwhelming for you, the point I'm trying to make is that as people become more enlightened, there is a general tide of social acceptance for gay people.
I hope i'm dead before this happens, queers spread disease, pedophilia etc. etc. at higher rates than everybody else, if this is where America is headed I want no part of it.
But what you fail to realize is the last two election cycles twenty some odd states passed measures banning queer marriage, these laws aren't some old shit on the books, the people of today are saying this.
glockmail
05-03-2007, 09:24 PM
Give it time my friend, things will change. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, .....
There you go again comparing race with a choice. I doesn't work that way. To use your logic we have to give rights for rapists to rape, killers to kill.
gabosaurus
05-03-2007, 10:03 PM
I can read this thread (and others) and detect the outright fear and hatred. Much of coming from lack of understanding and complete absence of intelligence regarding the subject at hand.
None of you can debate this subject without resorting to insults. Therefore, as always, you are ALL
http://www.thecrackshack.com/ro/owned/pwned-edit2.jpg
I can read this thread (and others) and detect the outright fear and hatred. Much of coming from lack of understanding and complete absence of intelligence regarding the subject at hand.
None of you can debate this subject without resorting to insults. Therefore, as always, you are ALL
http://www.thecrackshack.com/ro/owned/pwned-edit2.jpg
Please don't bring loosy into this, he has yet to even grace us with his presence...
If you look real hard, inbetween all the insults, there is actually a really good debate going on..........who'd of thunk?
darin
05-04-2007, 07:33 AM
If you look real hard, inbetween all the insults, there is actually a really good debate going on..........who'd of thunk?
I don't see zefrendylialialialia and I insulting one-another, or anyone else. That's just two ppl. There are others, too. :D
glockmail
05-04-2007, 08:04 AM
If you look real hard, inbetween all the insults, there is actually a really good debate going on..........who'd of thunk? Correct spelling: whouda thunk. Y'all.
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 11:10 AM
As-is, ALL people share the RIGHT to marry with the SAME Provisions: 1) The married couple must be of legal age. 2) the married couple must be of opposite Gender.
Homosexual couples what that changed - specifically based on their preference of mate. They want special treatment.
You are talking about 'benefits' of the marriage - not the right to marry. I was speaking to the latter.
I'm saying even the benefits of a marriage (or civil union) can currently be obtained by most anyone, with the right legal documents. Off the top of my head, only the federal income tax rules are the benefit which comes from a marriage, which can't be easily replicated.
You've hit on two things - first the fallacy that "Marriage" is purely a RELIGIOUS institution. Not really. Marriage is an institution which should be promoted and practiced by people of ALL Faiths. Marriage is VITAL - dare I say - ESSENTIAL to a society's health. The afore-mentioned benefits to marriage are in place, in part, because we WANT people to get married and start families. We SHOULD BE encouraging marriages. Of course, with Divorce-upon-demand we've marginalized marriage. That's another thread, I suppose.
The second thing you've touched is the whole slippery-slope argument. You seem to moral relativism, to an extent. "If it's not harming ME, why NOT allow it?" That sorta thing. Moral Relativism, left unchecked will seep into ANY society and bring it down. It's absolutely WRONG for a man to marry an animal, because it's Wrong. Sexual relations between man and beast are Wrong. We make laws all the time for the good of the health of society. Homosexual marriage offers NO benefit to society because homosexuality offers no benefit. Throughout all time, Homosexuals were tolerated - their deviant behaviour acknowledged, but it's been since it was before the Great Flood since homosexuals were Celebrated as they are today. I'm rambling now, though...lost my train of thought...doh...I'll come back to this.
Okay- re: where weddings happen, etc...or whatever.
I'm NOT a believer that a 'church' has ANYTHING to do with what makes a marriage. A pastor isn't required. Nor is a license...but I'll come back to that. :)
Do you support recent laws in Washington State allowing homosexual, non-married couples health benefits, but not allowing heterosexual non-married couples those same benefits? If you wish to make ANY relationship same-same as a MARRIED relationship, you hurt society by removing ANY motivation to marry. Now, people will scream "But - But I know a couple who were never married, but lived together for GENERATIONS!" - but...Non-married couples living together ONLY hurts them, as a whole. Id Est, couples 'living in sin' generally are harming themselves...living shorter lives, more depressed, more wondering, and seeking. Yeah, yeah, you'll want links. But I'm right. I've been there. Anyone who is HONEST with themselves will know there is a deeply buried desire to be with ONE person, forever, in our heart. To have the unconditional acceptance and love that marriage (should [see comments re: rampant divorce]) provide.
Vows, friend.
Finally! A reply with substance.
I understand what you are saying. Of course, people want companionship--often lifelong companionship for many reasons. I have seen polling data that shows married couples are all-around happier than single ones. But I have not seen reputable polling data showing married couples are happier than unmarried couples who have been together for the same length of time. With due respect, you haven't been there. Unless you've lived, unmarried, with the same partner for a couple of decades and been unhappy you can't make the generalization that unmarried couples are less satisfied. Marriage of course is continually romanticized in our society where often young girls dream about that "perfect" white wedding long before they reach adolesence.
Furthermore, where your argument falls short is that people are happier and in turn affect society, by couples finding each other, loving each other, being intimate, having kids, etc.--in essence, it is the interpersonal relationship that is the factor. The traditional marriage, faith-based or otherwise is simply the icing on the cake, the window-dressing, or as I said before--the symbolic act of that loving commitment. "Church vows" before God are broken all the time, what matters most is what comes from the heart. In a religious conservative society, it is the stigma of being unmarried that forces couples to "officially" marry. In a secular society, it is the legal ramifications.
With WA state domestic partnerships (which also includes heterosexual couples), couples can still have the legal benefits of marriage but without the traditional wedding or marriage certificate. Will traditional marriages decrease? Perhaps, but the point is that happy couples benefit society--not necessarily an arbitrary definition of a "married couple." Do you see the distinction? I know your own personal view point is that a marriage constitutes happiness--but it is simply not reality. Unmarried couples who have been together can be just as happy as a married couple that has been together the same amount of time. I agree with you in that deep in everyone's heart, they do wish to be with that one person for the rest of their life. But often time finding that "soul mate" is easier said than done. For those few old timers you see together for 30+ years, I'll admit that they may indeed be soul mates. But I have to also consider that often times people stay together, even unhappily, because they feel they have no other option.
Going back to gay marriage--the "fallacy" of traditional marriage as being a purely religious institution is just that. Yet, remember I didn't create it--social conservatives trying to block gay marriage did. What I'm saying is gay marriage is not about infringing on anyone's religion or idea of marriage. It's only granting equal rights to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation. Again, it is not marriage that is essential to a society's health--it is the happiness that couples exude--straight or gay. For a society to be truly happy, you can't have homosexuals having to hide who they are and marry into what will ultimately be a tormented heterosexual relationship--a charade. As I'm trying to point out to you, the homosexual relationship is beyond just sex. It is about interpersonal love and happiness which I believe is a benefit to society.
Regarding legal benefits: Read the link I gave you, there's more information but that's just a start. There are legal benefits under the Domestic Partnership Act that cannot come about in under present law. :cheers2:
darin
05-04-2007, 11:32 AM
With WA state domestic partnerships (which also includes heterosexual couples), couples can still have the legal benefits of marriage but without the traditional wedding or marriage certificate.
:bsflag:
There's a lady in Wa having TO SUE to get her living-in-sin boyfriend covered. The law doesn't affect most heterosexual folk - only homos and old people, afaik.
Unmarried couples who have been together can be just as happy as a married couple that has been together the same amount of time.
I agree - hence my "A church, or even license isnt required for two people to commit to one-another. However - The issue is the vows people take, and their willingness to live up to their promises.
I agree with you in that deep in everyone's heart, they do wish to be with that one person for the rest of their life. But often time finding that "soul mate" is easier said than done. For those few old timers you see together for 30+ years, I'll admit that they may indeed be soul mates. But I have to also consider that often times people stay together, even unhappily, because they feel they have no other option.
That's fine. They SHOULD stay together, even if they feel 'unhappy' - because of their vows. Happiness is best decided through the glasses of 'time'. Basic Training wasn't a 'happy time' going through it - but in hindsight, it was one of the GREAT times in my life. :)
It's only granting equal rights to all Americans regardless of sexual orientation. Again, it is not marriage that is essential to a society's health--it is the happiness that couples exude--straight or gay.
Thats the problem with your argument. I contend Homosexual couples provide NO benefit to society. I believe homosexuality in general is akin to drug or alcohol abuse and junk. It's an illness. A compulsion. A disorder which is unhealthy, and should be treated.
Again - Homosexual MARRIAGE is about applying SPECIAL rights to individuals based ONLY upon their behavior. Some may say SPEEDERS are 'born with a speed gene' and should therefore have legislation drafted to allow them to Speed at will. I mean, they can't help their desire to speed? Can they?
;)
For a society to be truly happy, you can't have homosexuals having to hide who they are and marry into what will ultimately be a tormented heterosexual relationship--a charade. As I'm trying to point out to you, the homosexual relationship is beyond just sex. It is about interpersonal love and happiness which I believe is a benefit to society.
Not even close. Homosexuality is ONLY about sex. The SINGLE DEFINING characteristic of a 'homosexual' is the fact they have sex with members of their same gender. That's it. I'd argue homosexuals honestly cannot 'love' - especially in a family situation - because the practice is inherently selfish. Their desire to have kids? Selfish. THEY want to feel NORMAL, so they want the things normal people have. I think that's at the root of the problem.
Regarding legal benefits: Read the link I gave you, there's more information but that's just a start. There are legal benefits under the Domestic Partnership Act that cannot come about in under present law. :cheers2:
I'll check it out. Thanks.
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 11:32 AM
Wrong-o here. For one, how can you be born gay? From gay parents? Queers can't reproduce.
Why don't you ask Dick Cheney? He supports his openly gay daughter and her partner. In a recent interview, she admits she knew at a very young age that she was "different." Is Dick or his wife gay?
If you ever study biochemistry, endocrinology, neurology, and genetics you will come to the understanding that the human body as well as the way traits are passed on to future generations is immensely complex. It's ridiculously easy for a genetic imbalance to create a human being that is out of the ordinary. Also, if you look at hereditary traits as well as diseases you will notice that these are not always passed on from one successive generation to the next. Just like male-pattern baldness, genetic traits or defects can skip a generation.
Furthermore, the gay man or woman leading a "double life" is not uncommon. As you know, throughout history (except maybe ancient Greece)homosexuality has been condemned and stigmatized. Gays, like any persecuted group had to hide their identity or face life-long ridicule, hatred, or death. So what became common is for a gay man or woman to enter into a heterosexual relationship, procreate, and then have affairs on the side. That is why the genetic trait of homosexuality has perpetuated until this day.
Now, what may interest you, rather sadly is that you're absolutely right--obviously gays can't reproduce. If our society ever fully accepted gays and allowed them to marry freely. More and more gays would "come out of the closet" and not live secret lives. This would mean less and less gays would reproduce and eventually there will be less and less homosexuals being born. Now of course, there's always artificial insemination and surrogate mothers but even today those methods are exponentially lower than adoption among gay couples. And to answer what you're thinking, the notion that gay parents turn straight children gay has been scientifically disproven.
glockmail
05-04-2007, 11:48 AM
....So what became common is for a gay man or woman to enter into a heterosexual relationship, procreate, and then have affairs on the side. That is why the genetic trait of homosexuality has perpetuated until this day.
..... .
Then where did the first queer come from? You're answer will be something like "a mutation". If so, there are a lot of mutations that also have a detriment on society, and we are therefore working to eradicate. The why are we not working to eradicate homosexuality? It could easily be done in a single generaton.
glockmail
05-04-2007, 11:49 AM
Why don't you ask Dick Cheney? ..... Haven't you learned from John Kerry's fatal gaffe? Leave the children of your opponent alone.
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 12:14 PM
:bsflag:
There's a lady in Wa having TO SUE to get her living-in-sin boyfriend covered. The law doesn't affect most heterosexual folk - only homos and old people, afaik.
I agree - hence my "A church, or even license isnt required for two people to commit to one-another. However - The issue is the vows people take, and their willingness to live up to their promises.
That's fine. They SHOULD stay together, even if they feel 'unhappy' - because of their vows. Happiness is best decided through the glasses of 'time'. Basic Training wasn't a 'happy time' going through it - but in hindsight, it was one of the GREAT times in my life. :)
Thats the problem with your argument. I contend Homosexual couples provide NO benefit to society. I believe homosexuality in general is akin to drug or alcohol abuse and junk. It's an illness. A compulsion. A disorder which is unhealthy, and should be treated.
Again - Homosexual MARRIAGE is about applying SPECIAL rights to individuals based ONLY upon their behavior. Some may say SPEEDERS are 'born with a speed gene' and should therefore have legislation drafted to allow them to Speed at will. I mean, they can't help their desire to speed? Can they?
;)
Not even close. Homosexuality is ONLY about sex. The SINGLE DEFINING characteristic of a 'homosexual' is the fact they have sex with members of their same gender. That's it. I'd argue homosexuals honestly cannot 'love' - especially in a family situation - because the practice is inherently selfish. Their desire to have kids? Selfish. THEY want to feel NORMAL, so they want the things normal people have. I think that's at the root of the problem.
I'll check it out. Thanks.
First of all, you only define homosexuality by your personal bias or what you have been taught. You cannot ever know what a homosexual truly is unless you are one or have been close friends to one. Homosexuality only being about sex is like saying your heterosexual relationship is only about sex. The relationship I have with my girlfriend is about having fun, sharing good times and bad times, new experiences, intellectual conversations, common interests, common goals, etc. The sexual act is just one part of all that. Homosexual couples are no different, except for one thing. I almost want to put you on that show "30 Days" and force you to live with a mature gay couple so you will realize with you own eyes that it is not all about sex.
You "contend" homosexuals provide no benefit to society yet in the same argument you agree that happy couples do. Homosexual couples ARE happy couples. They would be even happier if society accepted them more freely. Instead, 1 in 8 hate crimes are against gays, which sadly is perpetuated and reinforced by current bias and prejudice. When you have a segment of society that is unhappy or lives in fear, how does that create a benefit for society as a whole?
Okay, so the WA bill only affects old heterosexual couples. Then that doesn't affect your contention that domestic partnerships for heterosexuals will decrease the number of marriages. It should be a win-win situation for you!
Also, your argument that married couples should stay together is a value judgement (and your comparison of basic training to a marriage is shaky). If married couples were ever legally mandated to stay together, you would have either widespread riots or massive adultery. But despite that I agree, couples should really, really decide if marriage and more importantly having kids is something they can do. As you know this rational decision is often trumped by the irrational "in love" decision. I also believe that if couples are miserable together, for the sake of their children and society, they should not stay together. The animosity that is generated often spills over.
You are really reaching with your speeding bill comparison. In no way is that the same as granting equal rights to gays. See, I understand where the problem is. In your eyes--it is the behavior, the sexual act, the choice that makes homosexuals deviant and therefore barred from the same rights we have. But the fact of the matter is, a person's sexual orientation is only one small part of WHO they are. It is not a behavior, it is part of them as much as their arm is a part of them. You cannot rip it out of them, they cannot be cured and if you force them to be something they are not--it will lead to compounded societal problems.
If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, befriend a gay person, preferably an adult who is in a relationship. Don't be judgemental, just talk to them. Learn how they feel; learn who they are. If after a period of time, you still feel the way you do then fine--we can agree to disagree. :wink2:
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 12:25 PM
Then where did the first queer come from? You're answer will be something like "a mutation". If so, there are a lot of mutations that also have a detriment on society, and we are therefore working to eradicate. The why are we not working to eradicate homosexuality? It could easily be done in a single generaton.
Are you proposing genocide? Should we eradicate the Jews too? Hitler believed they were a detriment to German and Aryan society and he wasn't the only one.
As I said in the earlier post, once our society fully accepts homosexuals, the eventual result, very quickly, will be less and less of them being born. Just because you despise gays and believe they are of no worth doesn't mean that every single straight person does.
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 12:30 PM
Haven't you learned from John Kerry's fatal gaffe? Leave the children of your opponent alone.
I'm not running for office. And I would use any other high profile figure as a similar example. I just thought social conservatives would identify more with Dick. Furthermore, that was a legitimate answer to your question. You asked, "how can gays reproduce?" I told you: 1) when the genetic trait skips a successive generations or 2) when one or both parents reproduce and live a dual life. In Dick Cheney's daughter's case, it could be one of those two.
darin
05-04-2007, 01:27 PM
First of all, you only define homosexuality by your personal bias or what you have been taught. You cannot ever know what a homosexual truly is unless you are one or have been close friends to one.
I've been close friends to two, actually.
Homosexuality only being about sex is like saying your heterosexual relationship is only about sex. The relationship I have with my girlfriend is about having fun, sharing good times and bad times, new experiences, intellectual conversations, common interests, common goals, etc. The sexual act is just one part of all that. Homosexual couples are no different, except for one thing. I almost want to put you on that show "30 Days" and force you to live with a mature gay couple so you will realize with you own eyes that it is not all about sex.
Sex is what DEFINES a homosexual. If you and I enjoyed intellectual conversation, common interests, common goals, and good food, would be in a homosexual relationship, because we're both men? Of course not - we'd be friends. We'd not share intimate times or physical, sensual affection. What would, however, make it a homosexual relationship is....you guessed it! Sex.
With people participating in a homosexual lifestyle it's Absolutely about sex. And their wires being crossed. I'm convinced homosexuals are simply unable to separate 'attraction' with 'sexual attraction'. In the example I provided above I listed attributes of a relationship between two men where a homosexual would start associating the feeling of 'friendship' with 'sex'. I'd speculate a number of causes - sexual abuse as a child? Mental abuse/emotional abuse by a parent? to name two.
You "contend" homosexuals provide no benefit to society yet in the same argument you agree that happy couples do. Homosexual couples ARE happy couples.
You ignore evidence of homosexual-couples rates of domestic violence? Suicide? Depression? Physical ailments? Other emotional issues? I don't buy for ONE minute that ANY homosexual would choose NOT to change; not to be free from their addiction/compulsion if they were afforded the proper instruction/counseling.
They would be even happier if society accepted them more freely. Instead, 1 in 8 hate crimes are against gays, which sadly is perpetuated and reinforced by current bias and prejudice. When you have a segment of society that is unhappy or lives in fear, how does that create a benefit for society as a whole?
Hate-Crime. Don't get me started on THAT bullshit agenda...(sigh). That stat, wherever it comes from, is so misleading it's nauseating. Nowhere can anyone REALLY know the motivation of an attacker. You speculate somebody was attacked BECAUSE they were gay, and you assume the person(s) doing the attacking are not gay themselves.
Okay, so the WA bill only affects old heterosexual couples. Then that doesn't affect your contention that domestic partnerships for heterosexuals will decrease the number of marriages. It should be a win-win situation for you!
What I'm contending is, we should be encouraging 'normal' couples to form MONOGAMOUS long-term (read: tell death) relationships centered around becoming and raising a family. Marriage is a means to that end - or ideally, should be.
Also, your argument that married couples should stay together is a value judgement (and your comparison of basic training to a marriage is shaky). If married couples were ever legally mandated to stay together, you would have either widespread riots or massive adultery. But despite that I agree, couples should really, really decide if marriage and more importantly having kids is something they can do. As you know this rational decision is often trumped by the irrational "in love" decision. I also believe that if couples are miserable together, for the sake of their children and society, they should not stay together. The animosity that is generated often spills over.
And your statement that people should split if they are "unhappy" is a value judgment, too. FWIW, I wasn't comparing Basic Training to Marriage - I was giving an illustration where people need to assess their happiness with the benefit of hindsight. I heard an interview of the wife of Rev. Billy Graham. She was reportedly asked "Ma'am, in all your years with Billy gone...on the road...traveling so, and so busy...did you ever consider divorce?" Her answer was something like 'Divorce him, no. Kill him, yes.'
That illustrates what I'm trying to say about Happiness. Thanks to in-effective parenting, and Dr. Spock training methods we've raised a generation of self-centered ninnies who spend more time looking out for #1 than anything else. Happiness is temporary. People shouldn't make life-altering (or destroying) decisions based on a temporary feeling (or lack of feeling) of 'Happiness'.
When people ask ME how long I've been married I say "My wife and I have been happily married for 6 years, but married for nearly 11."
Get what I mean?
You are really reaching with your speeding bill comparison. In no way is that the same as granting equal rights to gays. See, I understand where the problem is. In your eyes--it is the behavior, the sexual act, the choice that makes homosexuals deviant and therefore barred from the same rights we have.
Reaching how? Do you know how I STRUGGLE with my desires - no - compulsions to SPEED? It's more than just speeding or not, it's who I AM, as a man. However, until I actually SPEED, I am NOT a speeder.
Another example - My INTENSE desire to rob a bank. I drive by (fastly!) and see ALL THAT MONEY in the bank. However, I'm not a bank-robber - No MATTER my desire - until I actually or actively rob a bank.
But the fact of the matter is, a person's sexual orientation is only one small part of WHO they are. It is not a behavior, it is part of them as much as their arm is a part of them. You cannot rip it out of them, they cannot be cured and if you force them to be something they are not--it will lead to compounded societal problems.
You are talking now about desire. You are saying the 'desire' to do something makes you a "____-er". Does my DESIRE to be in the army make me a Soldier? What about my Desire to be rich? Am I a closet Millionaire?
You've got it EXACTLY backwards. I want people to STOP being something they are not - destructive and painful-lifestyle Homosexuals. I want to see people get HELP and TREATMENT for their disorder.
If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, befriend a gay person, preferably an adult who is in a relationship. Don't be judgemental, just talk to them. Learn how they feel; learn who they are. If after a period of time, you still feel the way you do then fine--we can agree to disagree. :wink2:
Been there - twice. :)
2 in the Army, while on Active Duty. Roger was a GOOD, CLOSE friend to me. He 'came out' to me after a few months; because he felt he needed me to understand some things about him. I'd have taken a bullet for him w/o thinking. He's a Good man...wherever he is now. Roger told me he was molested for years by a relative. He developed an association he could not break. He didn't like who he'd become, but felt helpless to change. Brian showed me kindness and friendship. I like to think me to him, as well. He's another guy for with whome I would proudly serve.
What made me respect them was them NOT having a need to 'advertise' their addiction/affliction. They were NOT defined by their sexuality.
Going there - twice more.
We have a 'token' set of "Neighborhood Homos" (their words). Homo#1 feels he's chosen his lifestyle - he simply believes it's best for him. #2 feels he was 'born' the way he his. They're coming over next weekend for dinner (we'll be taking our kids to a sitter), as he's on our neighborhood's Architecture Control Committee with me.
You know something - I am NOT heartless. I LOVE people. I hurt when they hurt, generally, unless the hurting person was Nancy Pelosi - then I might giggle a little bit. My stance on homosexuals (in general) is BASED out of my concern for the lives of people.
gabosaurus
05-04-2007, 01:41 PM
dmp, read my above reply. It especially applies to you.
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 02:55 PM
I've been close friends to two, actually.
Sex is what DEFINES a homosexual. If you and I enjoyed intellectual conversation, common interests, common goals, and good food, would be in a homosexual relationship, because we're both men? Of course not - we'd be friends. We'd not share intimate times or physical, sensual affection. What would, however, make it a homosexual relationship is....you guessed it! Sex.
With people participating in a homosexual lifestyle it's Absolutely about sex. And their wires being crossed. I'm convinced homosexuals are simply unable to separate 'attraction' with 'sexual attraction'. In the example I provided above I listed attributes of a relationship between two men where a homosexual would start associating the feeling of 'friendship' with 'sex'. I'd speculate a number of causes - sexual abuse as a child? Mental abuse/emotional abuse by a parent? to name two.
You ignore evidence of homosexual-couples rates of domestic violence? Suicide? Depression? Physical ailments? Other emotional issues? I don't buy for ONE minute that ANY homosexual would choose NOT to change; not to be free from their addiction/compulsion if they were afforded the proper instruction/counseling.
Hate-Crime. Don't get me started on THAT bullshit agenda...(sigh). That stat, wherever it comes from, is so misleading it's nauseating. Nowhere can anyone REALLY know the motivation of an attacker. You speculate somebody was attacked BECAUSE they were gay, and you assume the person(s) doing the attacking are not gay themselves.
What I'm contending is, we should be encouraging 'normal' couples to form MONOGAMOUS long-term (read: tell death) relationships centered around becoming and raising a family. Marriage is a means to that end - or ideally, should be.
And your statement that people should split if they are "unhappy" is a value judgment, too. FWIW, I wasn't comparing Basic Training to Marriage - I was giving an illustration where people need to assess their happiness with the benefit of hindsight. I heard an interview of the wife of Rev. Billy Graham. She was reportedly asked "Ma'am, in all your years with Billy gone...on the road...traveling so, and so busy...did you ever consider divorce?" Her answer was something like 'Divorce him, no. Kill him, yes.'
That illustrates what I'm trying to say about Happiness. Thanks to in-effective parenting, and Dr. Spock training methods we've raised a generation of self-centered ninnies who spend more time looking out for #1 than anything else. Happiness is temporary. People shouldn't make life-altering (or destroying) decisions based on a temporary feeling (or lack of feeling) of 'Happiness'.
When people ask ME how long I've been married I say "My wife and I have been happily married for 6 years, but married for nearly 11."
Get what I mean?
Reaching how? Do you know how I STRUGGLE with my desires - no - compulsions to SPEED? It's more than just speeding or not, it's who I AM, as a man. However, until I actually SPEED, I am NOT a speeder.
Another example - My INTENSE desire to rob a bank. I drive by (fastly!) and see ALL THAT MONEY in the bank. However, I'm not a bank-robber - No MATTER my desire - until I actually or actively rob a bank.
You are talking now about desire. You are saying the 'desire' to do something makes you a "____-er". Does my DESIRE to be in the army make me a Soldier? What about my Desire to be rich? Am I a closet Millionaire?
You've got it EXACTLY backwards. I want people to STOP being something they are not - destructive and painful-lifestyle Homosexuals. I want to see people get HELP and TREATMENT for their disorder.
Been there - twice. :)
2 in the Army, while on Active Duty. Roger was a GOOD, CLOSE friend to me. He 'came out' to me after a few months; because he felt he needed me to understand some things about him. I'd have taken a bullet for him w/o thinking. He's a Good man...wherever he is now. Roger told me he was molested for years by a relative. He developed an association he could not break. He didn't like who he'd become, but felt helpless to change. Brian showed me kindness and friendship. I like to think me to him, as well. He's another guy for with whome I would proudly serve.
What made me respect them was them NOT having a need to 'advertise' their addiction/affliction. They were NOT defined by their sexuality.
Going there - twice more.
We have a 'token' set of "Neighborhood Homos" (their words). Homo#1 feels he's chosen his lifestyle - he simply believes it's best for him. #2 feels he was 'born' the way he his. They're coming over next weekend for dinner (we'll be taking our kids to a sitter), as he's on our neighborhood's Architecture Control Committee with me.
You know something - I am NOT heartless. I LOVE people. I hurt when they hurt, generally, unless the hurting person was Nancy Pelosi - then I might giggle a little bit. My stance on homosexuals (in general) is BASED out of my concern for the lives of people.
I think what you told me is just fascinating and very heartfelt. Sorry for assuming wrong. I too have a close friend who is gay but also does not advertise the fact. He isn't ashamed of who he is, even though his conservative (holy roller) parents don't even want to discuss it. Yet, he doesn't feel the need to be in parades either. I think we have to remember that there are a lot of homosexuals who don't live in the closet, but they don't broadcast their sex life either--like most people. It also pained him greatly that he would never be fully accepted by his parents or get married and have kids. He says that he wishes he could be "normal." And different from your friend Roger he wasn't molested as a child. On the contrary, he grew up in a very loving, conservative, Christian household.
If I may, your friend Roger brings up a good point. Seventy-three percent of the military when polled, would not have a problem serving with another gay service member (the military is generally more conservative). As you attested to, Roger's sexuality had nothing to do with his ability to defend you and vice versa. Much to the chagrin of many people, one day gays will serve openly in the military like they do in some European armies today. Hopefully, we will see that gays serving openly can function just as effectively as gays serving now.
My point, beleagured as it is, is that gays are people. The only difference is who they are attracted to sexually. I see it as innate, you see it as a choice. The fact of the matter is, no single study is conclusive as of yet. There are strong indications that homosexuality is inherited and not learned. But I guess I only want people to be happy, whether people make that choice or they have no choice--who am I to say they don't get the same respect and dignity the rest of us are entitled to.
I greatly admire your attempt to befriend and respect gays in your community. Despite, what you say--hate crimes committed on people strictly based on their sexual orientation is not a myth. Some of the more vitriolic comments on this site can attest to that. But people like you who take the time to get to know gays as people, though you may not agree with their "lifestyle" is a testament of high character. :clap: Ask them what they think about my comments, especially as it comes from a straight person who really has nothing to gain except to see equal rights for all.
BTW homosexual rates of domestic violence are no more than heterosexual rates.
darin
05-04-2007, 04:10 PM
But people like you who take the time to get to know gays as people, though you may not agree with their "lifestyle" is a testament of high character. :clap:
Are you coming onto me? Sicko...
:poke: :poke:
I empathize with your friend. Must be frustrating to be trapped in a way of life. Instead of rebelling against his Christian upbringing, maybe he could Embrace Christ and find delivery?
Have you suggested he at least consider help from some ex-gay groups?
BTW homosexual rates of domestic violence are no more than heterosexual rates.
I disagree.
Also - What I don't get - You mentioned there's no clear evidence to support the 'gay gene' theory; yet you just assume it as fact? Would it not be more-wise to assume there ISN'T a gay gene, until proven otherwise? :)
Hagbard Celine
05-04-2007, 04:15 PM
I disagree.
Also - What I don't get - You mentioned there's no clear evidence to support the 'gay gene' theory; yet you just assume it as fact? Would it not be more-wise to assume there ISN'T a gay gene, until proven otherwise? :)
There's no clear evidence to support your disagreement that gay violence rates are no higher than straight violence rates.
darin
05-04-2007, 04:36 PM
There's no clear evidence to support your disagreement that gay violence rates are no higher than straight violence rates.
If I gave you a link, you'd attack who is hosting the data, and not even care about the source of the data.
(shrug)
Hagbard Celine
05-04-2007, 04:37 PM
If I gave you a link, you'd attack who is hosting the data, and not even care about the source of the data.
(shrug)
That's because you'd either link Michelle Malkin, the Drudge Report or some Family and Christian values organization.
(shrug/stick finger in nose)
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 04:40 PM
Are you coming onto me? Sicko...
:poke: :poke:
I empathize with your friend. Must be frustrating to be trapped in a way of life. Instead of rebelling against his Christian upbringing, maybe he could Embrace Christ and find delivery?
Have you suggested he at least consider help from some ex-gay groups?
I disagree.
Also - What I don't get - You mentioned there's no clear evidence to support the 'gay gene' theory; yet you just assume it as fact? Would it not be more-wise to assume there ISN'T a gay gene, until proven otherwise? :)
I don't know what you mean by "more wise." No, I don't assume it as fact. I believe more than likely that it is true. If evidence shows the contrary, I would have no problem believing otherwise. However, it would not change my mind in how I view and accept gays. In my humble opinion, gay couples do not hurt others, they do not hurt society, and they do not offend my spiritual beliefs. I understand they may offend other people's beliefs, but that's why we live in America where government shall impose no single "way of life" on everyone so long as it does not endanger public safety.
BTW, what if a reputable and proven study came out tomorrow that gave no doubt, homosexuality is an innate trait and in no way "learned?" Would that change your mind any?
And PS I will ask my friend what he thinks about "ex-gay" groups and get back to you on that.:slap:
darin
05-04-2007, 04:42 PM
That's because you'd either link Michelle Malkin, the Drudge Report or some Family and Christian values organization.
(shrug/stick finger in nose)
No - the data is hosted by a Christian organization, but the data wasn't from a particularly biased organization; Even it it WERE, it wouldnt mean the data was wrong.
Missileman
05-04-2007, 04:49 PM
Would it not be more-wise to assume there ISN'T a gay gene, until proven otherwise? :)
Given the lack of evidence either way, why should "choice" be considered more valid than "born that way"? To my thinking, assumption will rarely, if ever, lead to wisdom.
darin
05-04-2007, 04:50 PM
BTW, what if a reputable and proven study came out tomorrow that gave no doubt, homosexuality is an innate trait and in no way "learned?" Would that change your mind any?
If a Christian organization reviewed the study, I'd support/believe it. Then, I'd hope people would strive to find a 'cure' to the defect. :)
And PS I will ask my friend what he thinks about "ex-gay" groups and get back to you on that.:slap:
He's not close-minded to the idea is he? You said he wishes he could be normal. :)
darin
05-04-2007, 04:51 PM
Given the lack of evidence either way, why should "choice" be considered more valid than "born that way"? To my thinking, assumption will rarely, if ever, lead to wisdom.
Because - in part - homosexuality is defined as behavior - not inclination. In the end (no pun, well..SMALL pun intended) people willingly engage in the activity.
:)
Hagbard Celine
05-04-2007, 04:51 PM
Given the lack of evidence either way, why should "choice" be considered more valid than "born that way"? To my thinking, assumption will rarely, if ever, lead to wisdom.
I think the choice argument is weakened by the fact that you or I could not choose a gay lifestyle. Could you? I know I couldn't. To me that supports the "innate inclination" argument.
darin
05-04-2007, 04:57 PM
I think the choice argument is weakened by the fact that you or I could not choose a gay lifestyle. Could you? I know I couldn't. To me that supports the "innate inclination" argument.
of COURSE you could. Just as you ultimately CHOOSE to have sex (when married, I hope) with a woman. We all control what we do w/ our bodies.
Missileman
05-04-2007, 04:59 PM
Because - in part - homosexuality is defined as behavior - not inclination. In the end (no pun, well..SMALL pun intended) people willingly engage in the activity.
:)
The discussion of choice vs. born that way has to be limited to the orientation not the resulting action derived from the orientation. Even in celibacy people are aware of their orientation. Just because you choose to engage in heterosexual sex doesn't mean you chose to be heterosexual.
Missileman
05-04-2007, 05:01 PM
of COURSE you could.
No D, I could never choose to engage in homosexual sex. I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of normal heterosexuals would agree.
Abbey Marie
05-04-2007, 05:10 PM
Heteros choose to engage in gay activity in prison all the time...
Hagbard Celine
05-04-2007, 05:12 PM
Heteros choose to engage in gay activity in prison all the time...
Good point. And soldiers apparently did the same in antiquity. But, are these occurrences consensual or are they instances of smaller straight males being raped by large homosexual men?
gabosaurus
05-04-2007, 05:25 PM
Good point. And soldiers apparently did the same in antiquity. But, are these occurrences consensual or are they instances of smaller straight males being raped by large homosexual men?
What makes you think it was just done in antiquity? Perhaps the rule against gays in the military is there to avoid temptation.
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 05:30 PM
If a Christian organization reviewed the study, I'd support/believe it. Then, I'd hope people would strive to find a 'cure' to the defect. :)
He's not close-minded to the idea is he? You said he wishes he could be normal. :)
It's amazing how far this thread has gone considering its rather confrontational beginnings and title. Kudos, for a rational in-depth discussion!
I don't know what a Christian organization has to do with verifying a scientific study, but shoot I'll go along with it. I hope you realize that there are also many Christians and Christian groups that do support gay rights.
When perusing the Internet(s) for studies on homosexuals its amazing how many of those so-called "family-oriented" sites are discussing the issue (rather negatively I might add). But I did find one interesting article from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
I just thought it was fascinating how 2 boys, twins, could be raised exactly the same and one show clearly feminine tendencies while the other completely opposite. As I said before, nothing definitive and the scientific community isn't really shelling out the big bucks for a study so I guess it isn't that importantto mainstream society. I read a statistic that says over half the Fortune 500 companies offer "domestic partnership benefits." Like I said to that other guy, times are changing.
Is my friend close-minded about receiving therapy? All I can say is that he told me, he knew from a very young age he was gay. Dick Cheney's daughter says the same thing. Now are they all liars or confused? I wouldn't say that of my friend but I guess it's in the realm of possibility no matter how remote that is. You have to understand how complex the human body is. Sexual attraction is not simply a physical or mental "desire." It's an immense reaction between thousands of nerves and hormones. The likelihood of something happening out of the ordinary in the biological developmental stages is very good. If my friend could change to please his parents, I think he would have--but he said he just couldn't. On PBS the other night was a documentary about Mormons. One mormon who is gay, had it all--wife, children, house, reputation--but he said he always knew it was a charade--he was empty inside.
gabosaurus
05-04-2007, 05:33 PM
Try reading my thread about gender identity confusion. The homophobes have not been able to muster the intelligence to do so.
Mr. P
05-04-2007, 05:36 PM
Heteros choose to engage in gay activity in prison all the time...
What makes you think it was just done in antiquity? Perhaps the rule against gays in the military is there to avoid temptation.
Perhaps some former Navy person could tell us what happens while at sea for 6 months.. I've heard some stories.
These things happen under extreme conditions. Once out of jail, off the sea duty, normalcy is returned. I'm not saying 100% participate, but it's not uncommon from what I understand.
Abbey Marie
05-04-2007, 05:52 PM
Perhaps some former Navy person could tell us what happens while at sea for 6 months.. I've heard some stories.
These things happen under extreme conditions. Once out of jail, off the sea duty, normalcy is returned. I'm not saying 100% participate, but it's not uncommon from what I understand.
Hence the saying, "Any port in a storm",
or
"Love the one you're with"
:coffee:
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 05:54 PM
Loose and Baron don't run this time, lets have at it, fire away!
Wait, i'll start your talking points off since libs are like a broken record of defeated viewpoints on this subject, i'm homophobic or I must be a homosexual lifestyle choice perversionist lol:laugh2:
I think gays should be allowed to have civil unions. Marriage is for those that want or need to have God's Blessing for their union. Most gays just want the same things that hetereos get... visitation rights in the hospital, wills, joint ownership, legal matters, not moral ones...
But I'm not afraid of gay people. Are you?
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:10 PM
Well, you sure do seem obsessed with homosexuality. I wonder why. :coffee:
Good point...
why is that, OCA? why are you obsessed with homosexuals? Have you been hit on by one? or are you mad cuz you weren't?
darin
05-04-2007, 06:13 PM
It's amazing how far this thread has gone considering its rather confrontational beginnings and title. Kudos, for a rational in-depth discussion!
:cheers2:
I don't know what a Christian organization has to do with verifying a scientific study, but shoot I'll go along with it. I hope you realize that there are also many Christians and Christian groups that do support gay rights.
Homosexuality is INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity. I mentioned a Christian group because I believe a Christian group could OBJECTIVELY compare and research such claims.
When perusing the Internet(s) for studies on homosexuals its amazing how many of those so-called "family-oriented" sites are discussing the issue (rather negatively I might add). But I did find one interesting article from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
I just thought it was fascinating how 2 boys, twins, could be raised exactly the same and one show clearly feminine tendencies while the other completely opposite.
By some measure I have feminine tendencies. What I see happening is people PUSHING somebody to participate in homosexuality based on a soft, caring, humble, nice, well-groomed personality. That twins article sure speaks against the idea of a gay gene, eh? :)
Is my friend close-minded about receiving therapy? All I can say is that he told me, he knew from a very young age he was gay. Dick Cheney's daughter says the same thing. Now are they all liars or confused?
Absolutely cornfused. They are misguided.
I wouldn't say that of my friend but I guess it's in the realm of possibility no matter how remote that is. You have to understand how complex the human body is. Sexual attraction is not simply a physical or mental "desire." It's an immense reaction between thousands of nerves and hormones.
But dude - you're still talking about DESIRE...not about actions. People with a strong desire to participate SHOULD seek therapy/help. :)
The likelihood of something happening out of the ordinary in the biological developmental stages is very good. If my friend could change to please his parents, I think he would have--but he said he just couldn't.
He 'couldn't' or 'wouldnt'? i vote the latter. Most ppl dont want to think they are lacking - especially in something so personal.
On PBS the other night was a documentary about Mormons. One mormon who is gay, had it all--wife, children, house, reputation--but he said he always knew it was a charade--he was empty inside.
I watched that show! Was VERY informative/interesting. :)
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:15 PM
There it is OCA. The first liberal insinuating you're a fag. Just as you predicted.
Well, PR, you have to admit that he sure talks alot about fucking men in their ass...
now I am a guy... but when I talk with other guys about sex, I don't talk about fucking men... how about you? when you're with your pals, do you make comments about the nice ass on that GUY? or do you talk about women, like most red blooded american men do?
Hagbard Celine
05-04-2007, 06:17 PM
like most red blooded...
I thought you said "red head" when I first read this and I got excited.
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Baptised yes, what I consider to be a practicing hardcore Christian no.
What is mistaken for unhappiness is possibly a mental condition.
in other words, you're a lip service christian... in name only...
and what, if anything, gives you the right to determine what is happiness? You can of course, do it for yourself, but that's it... you don't get to determine everyone's definition.
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:22 PM
No. Not at all. They should have all the rights to go with the union. I just feel marriage is for a man and woman.
I really don't give a ratass what faggots do. It's when they start pushing their agenda in school, trying to pass laws that stiffle opposing opinions, and try and tell people they're normal, that I have a huge problem with them.
They should just keep their shit packing, cock sucking ways behind closed doors out of sight. It's sick and disgusting, and normal poeple don't want to hear or see anything about it. Because like most, the more I'm forced to hear about fags pushing this and that, in schools trying to indoctrinate little boys and girls, and pass laws trying to shut normal up, it really pisses me off. It makes me dislike them even more.
Link?
:link: :link: :link:
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:23 PM
You do all realise OCA posts for laughs and reactions are what he laughs at?
He's a nice guy really, when you reply to him, it's not always him, most times it is the mood he is in that you are talking to.
uh huh... yeah right... back away from the koolaid, roomy...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:26 PM
If it is only about legality, then why are they not satisfied with a legal civil union with all the same rights as a marriage?
I don't know... if they are offered the chance of legal union and refuse it because they want their union to be called a marriage, then they are stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupid... but... I don't think they are even being offered the chance of a civil union... so the point is moot.
do you have a link that says they are?
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:29 PM
LMFAO!
Loose was on board this afternoon around 4 or so, read this and no reply.
"the defendant is hereby sentenced to a life of alfalfa and oats in OCA's "owned" stable.:dance:
*oca readies another stall next to Loose's for a new mare named Baron*
laffs... poah oca... poah ting...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:30 PM
Might just be because all he talks about is fucking people up the ass when he thinks he's beating them in a discussion.. That's something that *only* he does...
good point... but you notice, he ONLY sez that with men...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:32 PM
Might just be because all he talks about is fucking people up the ass when he thinks he's beating them in a discussion.. That's something that *only* he does...
and dammit... I was going to rep you for this but alas, I have to spread it around some more before I can... so I'll give it to you when I see this on the other end of the thread...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:34 PM
Considering that life is about 80 years and OCA and Pale spend maybe 24% worrying about homosexuality, that means they spend 20 years of their life fixated on the subject.
20 years, think about it.
They could become excellent fly fisherman, flamenco guitarists, ballerinas, golfers, make millions in the stock market, in less time than that.
But they'd rather obsess on fags.
:lol: :clap:
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:36 PM
I'd like to see married couples who love each other, are faithful to each other, honest, practice what they preach, don't reproduce when it's inappropriate and raise the kids they do have well. If they meet that standard I don't care if they're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual or trisexual.
A reasonable man...
trisexual???
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:37 PM
The problem with that is the adopted children of homosexual children generally grow up to have mental problems.. Fine.. Be a couple.. But don't adopt children - it's not fair TO the children... I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but not enough people take the future in to consideration.
But the problem with that logic, shattered, is that you imply that children that grow up in hetero families don't have mental problems... they have them too...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:38 PM
I only know one gay couple who have adopted a child and the child appears happy healthy and normal (for now anyway).
On the other hand my straight neighbors adopted two kids. Since then the boy has been imprisoned for rape, at age 12. The girl is an unwed mother with three kids by three different dudes, the mother committed suicide and the father is an alcoholic who rarely leaves the house.
good news and bad...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:49 PM
But Nuc, and no pun intended, I can gaurantee you that that homo couple is teaching that kid that what they do is "normal", and it isn't. That, my friend, is a lie.
What if all they tell the kid is that they are in love. Is love normal? Of course. Then it isn't a lie.
But, uhhh PR? how do you know what goes on in a homosexual household that you can guarantee what is going on in that one?
zefrendylia
05-04-2007, 06:49 PM
:cheers2:
I watched that show! Was VERY informative/interesting. :)
I actually really want to get off this topic. But I just can't leave well enough alone. Where does it say homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity? In the Bible? Old testament or new testament? Isn't the old testament acutally the Jewish Torah? From what I understand, the God in the old testament is an avenging God to fear (Saddom and Gamorra [sic])--while in the new testament, Jesus, who is the embodiment of God (yes I know son of), is a loving, accepting, and tolerant God. From what I remember from the picture Bible, :cool: , Jesus told God to not seek revenge on those who had crucified him--in essence to love and embrace your enemy. It seems a little conflicting but since Christianity is really named after Christ, I would think his teachings would supersede any mandate that we must loath homosexuals. In fact, I would think if Jesus were alive today, he would say, "come my son, I love you for who you are and just the way you are."
I don't think a Christian group could objectively look at scientific results if they already believe homosexuality is a sin. Bias is already pre-determined. It's just human nature. If your point is that religous groups are supposed to be virtuous--well...okay but then we'd have to allow a Buddhist group to review it, Muslim group, Jewish group, etc. But I would never believe Pat Robert's could be objective or that Christian group that protests outside the funerals of fallen service members with signs that say, "this is God's punishment for Fags!"
As for the article, if you read the whole thing--which I didn't because you have to be a BG member--but I read the beginning and end--you will see that the results are still inconclusive. However, showing such strong feminine tendencies (wanting to dress like a princess, only having girls as friends, barbie dolls) at such a young age is a strong indicator that it is innate. Unless, do you play with barbie dolls? :eek:
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:51 PM
My religon say's homosexuality is an abomination. I can't do anything about that. I'm a devout Christian. I do by what the Bible says. "Marriage" is between a man and woman, period. It's a holy union in the eyes of God. There can NOT be a holy union between two men or two women in the eyes of God.
I thought Jesus said it was wrong to judge people... are you reading the same Bible that I am? King James?
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:52 PM
I can gaurantee you OCA is NOT a fag. This is a bronk ridin', shit kickin', whiskey drinkin' cowboy. There ain't a fag bone in his body.
which is why he's so obsessed with fucking men in the ass... uh huh... what ever you say, Pale... but... don't drop the soap...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:57 PM
I don't know. Most people watch reality tv. I don't think that's normal.
Most people in america are overweight... does that mean being fat is normal?
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 06:59 PM
It's an apt comparison nonetheless,and hardly a non-sequitur. Either way, there are tons of people who feel strongly about issues that have not personally affected them. Are they all just closet examples of what they are concerned with? Are people who speak out against over-eating and lack of exercise really closet fatties?
You simply cannot make assumptions like that about people who feel strongly about a particular subject, especially when their objections are based on moral beliefs.
what about when they have an obsession with fucking men up the ass like OCA does... wouldn't you agree that it's strange?
Or normal?
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 07:01 PM
Do "most people" sit around on a message board pissing and moaning about fags for hours a day? :lame2:
laffs... no.
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 07:02 PM
But, dude....they are asking for SPECIAL Rights - Rights created to specifically give them rights others do not have. That's the problem. Almost EVERY right associated with legal marriage is afforded ANY two people with the proper legal documents.
What special rights no one else has?
I don't know... if they are offered the chance of legal union and refuse it because they want their union to be called a marriage, then they are stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupid... but... I don't think they are even being offered the chance of a civil union... so the point is moot.
do you have a link that says they are?
I agree. If they want to be gay they should give up marriage and the other trappings of Christianity (or Islam or whatever) because it's against the religion. Basically it's hypocrisy to insist on participating in a religion that is against your very nature. They are too attached.
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 07:05 PM
1) Then the unions, and any legal/whatever benefit should be open to heterosexual couples, too. That'd be fair, no? Thing is - any of those hospice/probate, etc, decisions can already be established with wills and other legal documents.
2) Homosexuals want 'marriage' to force society to add a modicum of legitimacy to their deviant sexual disorders/behaviour.
1) It is... Heteros can be married by a judge... you don't have to be married IN a church unless you choose to be married in one.
2) Got a link?
glockmail
05-04-2007, 07:06 PM
Are you proposing genocide? Should we eradicate the Jews too? Hitler believed they were a detriment to German and Aryan society and he wasn't the only one.
As I said in the earlier post, once our society fully accepts homosexuals, the eventual result, very quickly, will be less and less of them being born. Just because you despise gays and believe they are of no worth doesn't mean that every single straight person does.
Nice try to demonize me, but the idea of genocide came out of your imagination.
Where did I ever say I despise homosexuals? Perhaps you can search this forum and find where I said that.
glockmail
05-04-2007, 07:09 PM
I'm not running for office. And I would use any other high profile figure as a similar example. I just thought social conservatives would identify more with Dick. Furthermore, that was a legitimate answer to your question. You asked, "how can gays reproduce?" I told you: 1) when the genetic trait skips a successive generations or 2) when one or both parents reproduce and live a dual life. In Dick Cheney's daughter's case, it could be one of those two.
Running for office or not, it still shows a lack of class.
You dodged my earlier question: If they're born gay, then where did the first queer come from?
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 07:12 PM
Correct spelling: whouda thunk. Y'all.
tomahtoes and tomaytoes... they're both fruit...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 07:15 PM
Furthermore, the gay man or woman leading a "double life" is not uncommon. As you know, throughout history (except maybe ancient Greece)homosexuality has been condemned and stigmatized. Gays, like any persecuted group had to hide their identity or face life-long ridicule, hatred, or death. So what became common is for a gay man or woman to enter into a heterosexual relationship, procreate, and then have affairs on the side. That is why the genetic trait of homosexuality has perpetuated until this day.
yes, there have been quite a few of them in congress or in the church, claiming one thing while being the other... Mark Foley comes to mind as well as that preacher fella from Colorado, Haggart, I think was his name...
y'all recall?
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 07:17 PM
Then where did the first queer come from? You're answer will be something like "a mutation". If so, there are a lot of mutations that also have a detriment on society, and we are therefore working to eradicate. The why are we not working to eradicate homosexuality? It could easily be done in a single generaton.
Gee glock, it was in the Bible... did you miss that part in Leviticus? there have been homosexuals for thousands of years... thousands... and you think you can eradicate it...
laffs...
TheStripey1
05-04-2007, 07:18 PM
Haven't you learned from John Kerry's fatal gaffe? Leave the children of your opponent alone.
why? she's gay isn't she? Or is she to be left alone because she's the daughter of a republican? How do you feel about her and her partner wanting to adopt a child?
and obtw, that wasn't Kerry... that was Edwards... but I know facts don't matter to your opinions...
glockmail
05-04-2007, 07:30 PM
why? she's gay isn't she? Or is she to be left alone because she's the daughter of a republican? How do you feel about her and her partner wanting to adopt a child?
and obtw, that wasn't Kerry... that was Edwards... but I know facts don't matter to your opinions...
Although I rarely respond to your posts:
1. Gays should not be allowed to adopt children unless no reliable straight married couples can be found.
2. It was Kerry. If you insist otherwise you will need to prove it with a link.
Missileman
05-04-2007, 07:32 PM
Running for office or not, it still shows a lack of class.
You dodged my earlier question: If they're born gay, then where did the first queer come from?
Are you really that stupid? Gay isn't a species...idiot!
glockmail
05-04-2007, 07:37 PM
Are you really that stupid? Gay isn't a species...idiot! Neither are lefties, Einstein.
darin
05-04-2007, 08:22 PM
I actually really want to get off this topic. But I just can't leave well enough alone. Where does it say homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity? In the Bible? Old testament or new testament? Isn't the old testament acutally the Jewish Torah? From what I understand, the God in the old testament is an avenging God to fear (Saddom and Gamorra [sic])--while in the new testament, Jesus, who is the embodiment of God (yes I know son of), is a loving, accepting, and tolerant God. From what I remember from the picture Bible, :cool: , Jesus told God to not seek revenge on those who had crucified him--in essence to love and embrace your enemy. It seems a little conflicting but since Christianity is really named after Christ, I would think his teachings would supersede any mandate that we must loath homosexuals. In fact, I would think if Jesus were alive today, he would say, "come my son, I love you for who you are and just the way you are."
What you're saying is very common among people who don't understand the faith. The topic of Homosexuality and Christianity has been discussed ad nauseum. Since you're still a F'n Newbie ( :poke: ) I'll link you to a couple very good replies on the subject. I offer apology in advance, as I do NOT mean to Filibuster - but I DO mean for you to have a couple (what I consider) Very clear, and good explanations about Homosexuality (and OTHER sins) and it's relation to those who claim Christ.
I looked up the Strong’s Lexicon/Concordance for 1 Corinthians 6:9
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=6&verse=9&version=KJV#9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=6&verse=9&version=KJV#9)
I did some research into the words “malakoi” using a Greek to English Bible translation
The words of contention are “malakos” and “arsenokoites”
MALAKOS
According to Strong’s Concordance, the definitions for these words are as follows
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
According to Thayer’s Lexicon, the definition is
“Like the Latin “mollis”, metap and in a bad sense: effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness”
ARSENOKITES:
Strong’s concordance
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Thayer’s Lexicon
One who lies with a male as a female, a sodomite
I also used the Strong’s Concordance to look up Leviticus 18:22.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Lev&chapter=18&verse=22&version=KJV#22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Lev&chapter=18&verse=22&version=KJV#22)
The Hebrew goes something like this
Shakab zakar mishkab ishsah tow ebah
Each word translates (again using Strong’s Concordance)
Shakab = (to lie down in a sexual sense)
Zakar = (male)
Mishkab = (lying down as in a sexual sense)
Ishah = (womankind)
Tow ebah = (abomination)
We can approach this differently, by going to another source. Keep in mind that St. Paul was a Jew living in the first century. We also have a work written by another first century Jew, named Josephus.
Josephus lived shortly after St. Paul and wrote a series of histories. One concerned the Jewish History. In it, he describes the account of the overthrow of Sodom (Antiquities of the Jews - Book I, Chapter 11)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-1.htm (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-1.htm)
“1. ABOUT this time the Sodomites grew proud, …. they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it.”
Josephus does not detail what the Sodomitical practices were, but in a later passage from the same chapter, we get a clue:
“…Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer any thing immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodging in his house; and promised that if their inclinations could not be governed, he would expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers; neither thus were they made ashamed.”
I think this gives us a very good indication that Paul, like Josephus, regarded the practice of homosexuality to be a sin.
Certainly, the Gospels do not record Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality, but with St. Paul, we get a good idea of where Christ’s teachings were headed in this area,that is, that homosexuality is not acceptable in the Christian faith.
There are those who contend that, because Jesus' teachings on the subject of homosexuality appear no where in the Gospel, that Christians, especially St. Paul's disciples, added the prohibition against homosexuality to His teachings.
I don't agree with that contention and here's why.
In Christ's Sermon of the Mount, especially Matthew 5:27-32 Christ teaches the following:
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,‘You shall not commit adultery.
28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
31Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
It seems his teachings regarding divorce and adultery go above and beyond the Law of Moses. With this in mind, I have to believe that Christ taught homosexuality was a sin because of His teachings on other areas of sexual behavior.
And THIS Gem:
It's a long one folks, but please try to read it. It's not a copy paste job, but my own thoughts, except for some scripture quotes.Sincerely, Eightballsidepocket
The Apostle Paul clarifies this debate in the book of Romans chapter 1 and 7. Chapter 1 clearly makes specific that homosexuality is sinful both of males and females who participate in this unnatural act. Chapter 7, clearly explains that though a Christian is "saved", and is no longer at enmity with God, he/she still have to deal with the power of sin, that is a tempting, evil force, having access to tempt the Christian via their unredeemed body of flesh.
Though the Christian has received a new ressurrected spirit/nature via the work of God, through Christ's death/burial/ressurrection (Galatians 2:20 & Romans Chapter 6), Paul emphatically states in Romans chapter 7 that we have as Christians a continued battle with sin through the flesh. Though we have this new nature, and not the fallen nature before salvation, we do have the old "programming" in our brains, from before conversion. That must be purged or replaced with new programming that better-suits/conforms to our new identity/nature (Romans chapter 12, verse 2).
Now before I copy paste a couple of the above referred bible verses to support my comments, I want to briefly comment on homosexuality as it's being analyzed in this thread.
Homosexuality is sin, as stealing, murder, coveting, etc.. is. Yet, Christians, yes Christians can commit sin. John the Apostle in one of his Epistles clearly states that if a Christian claims to be without sin, he/she is a liar.
The difference here is that when a Christian received this new uncondemned, justified, nature from God, he/she still can be tempted by sin if he/she so allows or gives-in to it.
In the pre-salvation state, he/she had no choice, as God and even Jesus referred to all who weren't saved as children of the devil. Now this may sound rash and harsh, but Jesus was saying that there is no in-between state of standing in God's eyes as far as humanity is concerned. You're either in the "camp" of the "saved" and belong to God through Jesus's life, or you stand across a vast metaphorically canyon in the camp of those who will be judged and cut-off from God in the end.
Paul describes a triune make-up or model of man...i.e. body, soul, and spirit. The body is the actual physical, fleshly earth-suit so-to-speak that we will shed some day for a new body in heaven. The "body" is also the physical contact with this earthly life The soul comprises mind, emotions/feelings/feeler and will/chooser, and the spirit is the actual "spark" or life giving source of man that separates him from the inorganic in a sense. The spirit was intended to be the "go-between" with God and man, but from the time of the "fall" man's spirit has been dead to God and alive to sin and the world as it's means of seeking identity.
Of these three entities, the old, unredeemable, sin accessible, body will not hitch a ride to heaven with the Christian. A new body thats impervious to the fiery missles of sin/temptation will be the replacement upon our future ressurrection with Christ. (I will not at this time get into whether I'm pre, mid, or post tribulationist in my "take" on this matter.).
In a sense, our bodies as Christians are still an access point, or gate to allow the power of sin or temptation to evil to have access, via the "eye gate", "ear gate", feeler/touch gate, and other gates, as even a Christian who is physically blind and deaf can still be tempted to sin via the bodily gates. If you want to read a great metaphorical explanation that somehow helps many folks, "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyon, is an excellent reading/book.
*******
So, yes we have a new nature.........yet, yes, us Christians do sin, but we have this new nature that is working in concert with the God's indwelling Holy Spirit to convict us of when we do sin, or consider sinning. Yet we still struggle, because outwardly via our unredeemed body, sin still "pounds" away via the work of fallen world, spiritual(demonic) beings, and Satan himself, to convince us that we aren't saved, that there is no God, no salvation, no Jesus, no hope...etc. Satan's main work is to make us Christians ineffectual, so that the Great Commission to go out into all the world and proclaim the good news of Jesus is thwarted. In one short sentence, the enemy does not want God/Jesus Glorified. He/Satan desires the undeserved glory from mankind.
Satan has no other access, but via this body and then onward to our mind, emotions/feelings. Now we are back to that mind. The human mind is a neutral, non-evil organ that's not unlike a hard drive. Our feelings or emotions are also a beautiful enhancement of our species to make our life experiences very special too. Emotions/feelings can either enhance or detract from the truth. Feelings are a secondary reliance, as they can give us false signals of reality. Satan loves to work on us via the feeler. If he can makes us "feel" unsaved or "feel" like losers, he's done his job. He's made us ineffectual. So we must fight "feelings" or "emotions" that contradict what God had emphatically told us is the truth about us as Christians. I.E. We must hold fact to the Word, and not our fluctuating, up and down feelings that sometimes confirm and often deny what is the reality of our true identity. For some folks, it's never been a problem, for other Christians, who have lived a very feelings oriented life before salvation, they will have to fight back and learn to lean on the objective and not so much the subjective in their interpretation of life's realities.
"Garbage in, garbage out.". Now that we have this new nature that isn't comforble with sin anymore, this neutral entity called our mind, must be purged of it's old programming that was acquired before our salvation and receiving God's Holy Spirit, and have new, correct, programming replace the old. That's where God's word, the scriptures or the Truth comes into play. That's why Paul says in Romans 12:2 that the renewing of our minds is essential to living a victorious Christian life. If the Christian doesn't take seriously the process of reading scripture to learn about his/her's new identity in Christ, he/she will not be able to thwart, or resist the temptations of the devil and the power of sin via the only access, the unredeemed body, and it's gates. We metaphorically need strong, smart gate keepers, and without understanding our new justified/righteous standing given to us via the grace of God through Jesus's life, we will live a most miserable life as a Christian. In fact our lives will be undiscernible from those that our lost, or not saved. The war within our soul between the power of sin and the suppressed Holy Spirit will create a most unfortunate being, and a totally ineffectual servant or ambassador of God, as we are supposed to become in our Christian maturing process.
So here comes the scripture:
Romans chapter 1 : 21-27, New American bible translation:
21For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22(AP)Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.
24Therefore (AR)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (AS)dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen.
26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
If that isn't explicit about homosexuality being one of many sins in God's eyes, then I'm a big baffoon and need some help interpretting it the right way.
*****
Romans chapter 7:14-25....This is the struggle with sin, of a godly man named Paul, whom we all know of.
14For we know that the Law is (Z)spiritual, but I am (AA)of flesh, (AB)sold (AC)into bondage to sin.
15For what I am doing, (AD)I do not understand; for I am not practicing (AE)what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with (AF)the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17So now, (AG)no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my (AH)flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19For (AI)the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (AJ)I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21I find then (AK)the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in (AL)the inner man, ( in other words, his redeemed, new nature doesn't want to sin, as it is joined with God's Holy Spirit.).
23but I see (AM)a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the (AN)law of my mind and making me a prisoner of (AO)the law of sin which is in my members.
24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from (AP)the body of this (AQ)death?
25(AR)Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh (AS)the law of sin.
So you see here folks, the Christian is saved, yet has a war on his/her's hand to "choose" between sin and righteousness.
This saved individual isn't evil, but is saved, yet they struggle. This is why the "identity" of the individual means everything. If we think we are "pigs" we will wallow in the mud and root for food and sustenance that way throughout our lives. If we "think" we are children of the King, and royal ambassadors for Him, then our minds are agreeing with the actual true nature that God has given us, and there will be inner peace, and no struggle.
As Paul explained, all of Christians will struggle with the flesh. As we seek to renew our minds with God's truths, we will still have the rearing-up of the old programming that wants to find solace, and meaning in the world, and it's enticements. Satan and sin will always be waiting and watching for a crack in the door or an open window. This is why we must gird ourselves with the spiritual armour of God. We must fill our minds with God's truth.
Now for the unsaved, they can read God's word all their lives and not be saved........sadly, as scripture, or God's word is understood via the work of God's Spirit working in conjunction with the Christians new nature/spirit.
This is why folks can go to church for years and then depart earthly life, and someday, Jesus will frightfully say, "I don't know you!". It isn't by charitable deeds, and loving works that we are Christians. It is by God's hand that we become His. It is via repentance and a contrite, humbled heart that we approach God, and leave all our excuses behind and accept the bold fact that we have nothing of value to offer God, but our naked selves, in a very pitiful state. We are at His mercy as we are a fallen race. It is Jesus who is the propitiation (payment) for our sinful natures that we were born with. It is not God's fault that we sin, or fall into homsexuality, adultry or whatever. We are not victims, we are perpetrators. We are at enmity with God, and Jesus was offered on the cross to end this enmity between us and God. The only thing holding us back is "us". Our pride, which comes in the form of knowledge, intellect, achievements, job status, etc....., all false securities. It is all wood, hay and stubble to God, who created us and everything anyway.
*****
Yes, a person can be saved and still be tempted to fall into homosexuality.........Paul had his thorn in the flesh that kept him very humble.......and folks that have been in the throws of homosexuality for most of their lives and become Christians don't necessarily quit having to struggle with the temptation of homosexuality. In fact it may "dog" them their entire lives after being saved, yet they have the Word of God, their wills, and the renewing of their minds to thwart the lie of homosexuality as being, "ok", and acceptable behaviour before their God.
I'm a worry-wart of a Christian. That's a sin in God's eyes. I'm supposed to be anxious for nothing, but in everything give thanks to God..........Phillipians 4:6-7, yet in so many ways, worry didn't cease when I was saved. I will say that this besetting sin , keeps me in a very humble state, and really smashes pride down to a small "p", as I see how vunerable I am to temptation without relying on God and the Holy Spirit to carry me along each day. I am tempted in many other areas too. Some are very embarrassing. Yet, I can stand tall in the strength of God, not my strength. He is my shield and armour, not "naked" me.
I've personally met and known people that were homosexuals, and were saved, yet still had to fight the temptation, as the old programming was still being purged from their minds via the Word of God( They buried themselves in scripture to learn about their new nature, and identity.). Some have actually married and carry on heterosexual lives, with less and less the temptations of homosexuality rear up. Yet, those temptations keep their lives, in "check" and remind them that they can't fight it on their own.
As Paul said........"When I am weak, He/God is strong".
*******
I don't think a Christian group could objectively look at scientific results if they already believe homosexuality is a sin. Bias is already pre-determined. It's just human nature.
However, bias or not would not mean the data is bad. And, as I said, I'd want Christians to ANALYZE data from a [insert BIG quotey-fingers]"Impartial"[/fingers] group, because I don't believe the Christian group would lie, or otherwise distort the results.
If your point is that religous groups are supposed to be virtuous--well...okay but then we'd have to allow a Buddhist group to review it, Muslim group, Jewish group, etc.
Not necessarily. The word of somebody outside my faith would mean LESS to me because they are believing a lie, by default, anyway. :)
But I would never believe Pat Robert's could be objective or that Christian group that protests outside the funerals of fallen service members with signs that say, "this is God's punishment for Fags!"
Pat Robertson is a guy I do not associate with a Christian group. I don't know his heart; his INTENTIONS may be good...but I suspect he's partially crazy anyway. :) The God Hates Fags group is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO far completely removed from Christ it's sickening.
However, showing such strong feminine tendencies (wanting to dress like a princess, only having girls as friends, barbie dolls) at such a young age is a strong indicator that it is innate. Unless, do you play with barbie dolls? :eek:
None of that means the boy is Gay, or Should be Gay. That means he likes pretty things. (shrug). If the boy HAD some sorta gay-gene, his brother would have it too. The ol' 'Gay happens during DEVELOPMENT!' is just a talking-point Homophiles use to 'assume-away' the very REAL problem of not having substantial evidence to support THEIR preconceptions/free-pass on their behaviour of choice. In MY humble (but right) opinion, of course.
:)
which is why he's so obsessed with fucking men in the ass... uh huh... what ever you say, Pale... but... don't drop the soap...
Is this the only argument you got Stripey? I expected better.
"Fucking a dude's ass", you know the word metaphor? How about the phrase "read between the lines"?
BTW a direct challenge for 3 or 4 days to your buds Loose and Baron to debate this very thread, they ran, do you have any idea where they ran to?
What special rights no one else has?
To break laws.
Although I rarely respond to your posts:
2. It was Kerry. If you insist otherwise you will need to prove it with a link.
It was Edwards during the Cheney/Edwards debate.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president
and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you
can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk
about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace
her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who
love their children, who want their children to be happy.
And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John
Kerry.
I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian
couples in long-term, committed relationships.
But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.
No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's
marriage.
This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.
zefrendylia
05-07-2007, 02:24 AM
Nice try to demonize me, but the idea of genocide came out of your imagination.
Where did I ever say I despise homosexuals? Perhaps you can search this forum and find where I said that.
It sure did come out of my imagination. What other way do you propose to eradicate homosexuals in one generation?
Where did you say you despise homosexuals? "You dodged my earlier question: If they're born gay, then where did the first queer come from?" Are you saying "queer" is an endearing term you use? Where I come from, to call a gay person a "queer" is demeaning. Perhaps, where you come from its perfectly acceptable to use that term in public.
As to your earlier question, it was not doged, it was answered and quite thoroughly. Who knows and who cares? As complex as the human body is, it could have showed up thousands of years ago, or hundreds of years ago. Since it exists even in the animal kingdom, I'd guess it has existed ever since the modern homosapien came into being.
jimnyc
05-07-2007, 07:02 AM
Are you saying "queer" is an endearing term you use? Where I come from, to call a gay person a "queer" is demeaning. Perhaps, where you come from its perfectly acceptable to use that term in public.
Huh?
I believe it's the queers themselves who use the term. "Queer eye for the straight guy"... "We're here, we're queer"...
Try going to any search engine and type in "queer support" and see what you find. Are those queers and their groups, who refer to themselves as queers, demeaning themselves? If so, too bad, it's their own damn fault for choosing to characterize themselves in such a manner.
glockmail
05-07-2007, 07:57 AM
It was Edwards during the Cheney/Edwards debate.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
Doesn't surpised me that stripedy can't resond for himself. Thanks for taking up the slack, Lil.
But apparently it wqs both Kerry and Edwards.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/10/15/mary_cheney/index.html
Both Long Face and Breck Girl lack class.
glockmail
05-07-2007, 08:03 AM
It sure did come out of my imagination. What other way do you propose to eradicate homosexuals in one generation?
Where did you say you despise homosexuals? "You dodged my earlier question: If they're born gay, then where did the first queer come from?" Are you saying "queer" is an endearing term you use? Where I come from, to call a gay person a "queer" is demeaning. Perhaps, where you come from its perfectly acceptable to use that term in public.
As to your earlier question, it was not doged, it was answered and quite thoroughly. Who knows and who cares? As complex as the human body is, it could have showed up thousands of years ago, or hundreds of years ago. Since it exists even in the animal kingdom, I'd guess it has existed ever since the modern homosapien came into being.
1. It certainly was your genocidal imagination, as my post clearly explained that queerness would be bred out in a single generation.
2. Where I come from, queers call themselves queers, preferring this term over “faggot”. It is also in the title of this thread.
3. The question of where the first queer came from is an important part of your argument that queers are born queer. Since you have no idea and don’t care, logic dictates that you are wrong: queers decide to be queer, just like someone decides to drop out of school or commit suicide.
Missileman
05-07-2007, 09:55 AM
1. It certainly was your genocidal imagination, as my post clearly explained that queerness would be bred out in a single generation.
2. Where I come from, queers call themselves queers, preferring this term over “faggot”. It is also in the title of this thread.
3. The question of where the first queer came from is an important part of your argument that queers are born queer. Since you have no idea and don’t care, logic dictates that you are wrong: queers decide to be queer, just like someone decides to drop out of school or commit suicide.
Just like you to take polar opposite positions in the same post. In #1, you argue that queers are born that way and can be bred out of existence. In #3, it's a choice.
Hobbit
05-07-2007, 12:08 PM
Just like you to take polar opposite positions in the same post. In #1, you argue that queers are born that way and can be bred out of existence. In #3, it's a choice.
For the record, I'm not jumping in or taking sides. Everybody knows where I stand on homosexuality, and I feel no need to reiterate here. However, I feel a need to assist in alleviating a misunderstanding.
Missile, if I understand glock correctly, the first point was supposed to be an argument against the idea of a 'gay gene.' What he's saying is that if there were a gay gene, then homosexuality would be bred out in a single generation, as those who are openly gay don't generally reproduce.
However, being the science nerd I am, I'd like to point out that, like red hair and green eyes, a 'gay gene' could be recessive, meaning straight people could carry the gene, but not exhibit the trait. However, their children might possibly exhibit the trait.
Missileman
05-07-2007, 12:45 PM
Missile, if I understand glock correctly, the first point was supposed to be an argument against the idea of a 'gay gene.' What he's saying is that if there were a gay gene, then homosexuality would be bred out in a single generation, as those who are openly gay don't generally reproduce.
He allowed for the possibility that homosexuality is genetic and then queried (pun intended) why we aren't trying to eradicate it.
However, being the science nerd I am, I'd like to point out that, like red hair and green eyes, a 'gay gene' could be recessive, meaning straight people could carry the gene, but not exhibit the trait. However, their children might possibly exhibit the trait.
All the more reason that his statement "It could easily be done in a single generaton." is laughable.
Hobbit
05-07-2007, 01:11 PM
He allowed for the possibility that homosexuality is genetic and then queried (pun intended) why we aren't trying to eradicate it.
It looked to me like he was saying it would breed itself out, not that this elusive 'we' would be intentionally trying to eradicate it.
All the more reason that his statement "It could easily be done in a single generaton." is laughable.
Eh, not everybody paid attention during genetics. It's kinda boring, really, since the first discussion is about peas.
glockmail
05-07-2007, 08:20 PM
Just like you to take polar opposite positions in the same post. In #1, you argue that queers are born that way and can be bred out of existence. In #3, it's a choice. If you bothered to read back before responding to someone else's post you'd see that I was aguing against their "born gay" hypothesis. Just like you to be intellectually lazy.
Doesn't surpised me that stripedy can't resond for himself. Thanks for taking up the slack, Lil.
But apparently it wqs both Kerry and Edwards.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/10/15/mary_cheney/index.html
Both Long Face and Breck Girl lack class.
I completely forgot about that one!
Missileman
05-07-2007, 08:30 PM
If you bothered to read back before responding to someone else's post you'd see that I was aguing against their "born gay" hypothesis. Just like you to be intellectually lazy.
Pretty ineffective way to argue against something by acknowledging it's possibility and then suggesting you have a way fix it. :dance:
glockmail
05-07-2007, 08:33 PM
Pretty ineffective way to argue against something by acknowledging it's possibility and then suggesting you have a way fix it. :dance: Not surprising that this went over your head and now you're dancing to try and put a spin on your stupidity.
glockmail
05-07-2007, 08:33 PM
I completely forgot about that one! Great minds forget alike. I completely forgot about Edward's gaffe. :laugh2:
Missileman
05-07-2007, 08:49 PM
Not surprising that this went over your head and now you're dancing to try and put a spin on your stupidity.
I'm not the one who claimed it would be easy to eliminate a genetic defect from the entire human race with a generation...you're a tool. Tell me, is there any field of knowledge that you don't suck in? You've demonstrated total ineptitude in geology, math, statistics, and now genetics.
manu1959
05-07-2007, 08:56 PM
I'm not the one who claimed it would be easy to eliminate a genetic defect from the entire human race with a generation...you're a tool. Tell me, is there any field of knowledge that you don't suck in? You've demonstrated total ineptitude in geology, math, statistics, and now genetics.
maybe his expertise is that he has none..........
glockmail
05-07-2007, 08:57 PM
I'm not the one who claimed it would be easy to eliminate a genetic defect from the entire human race with a generation...you're a tool. Tell me, is there any field of knowledge that you don't suck in? You've demonstrated total ineptitude in geology, math, statistics, and now genetics. Wow! You just can't see how off base you are. How can you be so dumb?
Missileman
05-07-2007, 09:14 PM
Wow! You just can't see how off base you are. How can you be so dumb?
Oh Boy! The well worn out "Did I say that?" response. :poke:
glockmail
05-07-2007, 09:22 PM
Oh Boy! The well worn out "Did I say that?" response. :poke: Usually follows your accusing me of saying something that I did not, either by your sheer ignorance, laziness, or on purpose. :pee:
Missileman
05-07-2007, 10:09 PM
Usually follows your accusing me of saying something that I did not, either by your sheer ignorance, laziness, or on purpose. :pee:
Was this someone else?
It could easily be done in a single generaton.
Hobbit
05-07-2007, 10:16 PM
Was this someone else?
For the last time, the argument was that the gene would breed itself out, not that it should be intentionally bred out.
Missileman
05-07-2007, 10:31 PM
For the last time, the argument was that the gene would breed itself out, not that it should be intentionally bred out.
No, he was clearly talking about an active campaign to eradicate a mutation, not a passive die out. Read it again.
Then where did the first queer come from? You're answer will be something like "a mutation". If so, there are a lot of mutations that also have a detriment on society, and we are therefore working to eradicate. The why are we not working to eradicate homosexuality? It could easily be done in a single generaton.
I don't know of a single genetic defect that medicine is hoping is just going to go away through breeding it out.
manu1959
05-07-2007, 10:36 PM
No, he was clearly talking about an active campaign to eradicate a mutation, not a passive die out. Read it again.
uh it is a "gay gene" ....it would breed itslef out by default ..... you know...cuz gay people aren't having babies by natural means.....but now that you can have a test tube baby the "gay gene" is here to stay....does make you wonder how the "gay gene" survived several million years of natural breeding though....
Missileman
05-07-2007, 10:59 PM
uh it is a "gay gene" ....it would breed itslef out by default ..... you know...cuz gay people aren't having babies by natural means.....but now that you can have a test tube baby the "gay gene" is here to stay....does make you wonder how the "gay gene" survived several million years of natural breeding though....
I personally don't think homosexuality is caused by a gene. I do however believe it's a mis-wiring of the brain that occurs in-utero. There's a lot of info out there about how men's and women's brains are wired differently. If that process doesn't go correctly during fetal development, who knows?
Abbey Marie
05-07-2007, 11:18 PM
I personally don't think homosexuality is caused by a gene. I do however believe it's a mis-wiring of the brain that occurs in-utero. There's a lot of info out there about how men's and women's brains are wired differently. If that process doesn't go correctly during fetal development, who knows?
That's actually a pretty logical and persuasive conjecture.
glockmail
05-08-2007, 06:17 AM
Was this someone else? Yup. Figger it out boy.
:poke:
Doniston
05-08-2007, 03:32 PM
Faggots shouldn't "marry", as in a "holy union", which is "between a man and woman." They can have civil unions all day long as for as I'm concerned. But "marriage"... no. Marriage is simply another word, and in this case it means a murging or joining. It is only the religious which refuse an alternative definition. A LEGITIMATE alternative. (Check the closest dictionary).
Doniston
05-08-2007, 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by Pale Rider
But Nuc, and no pun intended, I can gaurantee you that that homo couple is teaching that kid that what they do is "normal", and it isn't. That, my friend, is a lie. [/quote]I have to tell you that most of what Homosexual people do is Normal, even Hetros do it. It is not what I would want to do because to me it is gross. But it is still NORMAL. your appropriate word for it would be immoral. Which you may beleive is true.
Hagbard Celine
05-08-2007, 04:01 PM
uh it is a "gay gene" ....it would breed itslef out by default ..... you know...cuz gay people aren't having babies by natural means.....but now that you can have a test tube baby the "gay gene" is here to stay....does make you wonder how the "gay gene" survived several million years of natural breeding though....
Well, if such a gene did exist it's actually quite easy to see how it would have stayed in the mix. For most of human civilization men and women have been expected to marry at a certain age. Consumating with the birth of a child is also expected. It's that easy. I don't buy the "gay gene" theory though. I'm with Missileman. I don't think it's a choice. I think it has something to do with brain or hormonal development. I think it's definately a physical--brain chemistry or hormonal chemistry--and not just a mental difference though.
darin
05-08-2007, 04:06 PM
That's actually a pretty logical and persuasive conjecture.
It doesn't explain behavior. Behavior defines homosexuality - not inclination.
Originally Posted by Pale Rider
But Nuc, and no pun intended, I can gaurantee you that that homo couple is teaching that kid that what they do is "normal", and it isn't. That, my friend, is a lie. I have to tell you that most of what Homosexual people do is Normal, even Hetros do it. It is not what I would want to do because to me it is gross. But it is still NORMAL. your appropriate word for it would be immoral. Which you may beleive is true.[/QUOTE]
Learn how to quote people.
Great, you think two guys fucking each other up the ass is normal, great.
It is normal for MAN AND WOMAN to do it, not two guys or for two chicks to snack on each other. This is unargueable, to argue your point further makes you look foolish and twisted.
5stringJeff
05-08-2007, 06:56 PM
It doesn't explain behavior. Behavior defines homosexuality - not inclination.
Bingo.
glockmail
05-09-2007, 08:13 AM
Marriage is simply another word, and in this case it means a murging or joining. It is only the religious which refuse an alternative definition. A LEGITIMATE alternative. (Check the closest dictionary). Words have meaning. At least they used to. Queers should stay in the closet.
Doniston
05-09-2007, 09:14 PM
Words have meaning. At least they used to. Queers should stay in the closet.-*Three short sentences. three answers.
1. (to sentences one and two.) Of course, that is why I suggested checking the dictionary.
2. (one of two answers to sentence three) A one word question: "WHY"???
3. (Second response.) I have always beleived that those who are so afraid to recognise homosesexuals are also afraid of their own sexuality. For fear that they may be (just a teeny bit) Gay.
-*Three short sentences. three answers.
1. (to sentences one and two.) Of course, that is why I suggested checking the dictionary.
2. (one of two answers to sentence three) A one word question: "WHY"???
3. (Second response.) I have always beleived that those who are so afraid to recognise homosesexuals are also afraid of their own sexuality. For fear that they may be (just a teeny bit) Gay.
As to 3:
So if one does not approve or condone of something, they are afraid? Do you support hetrosexual marriage only? If not, are you a closeted hetro...
glockmail
05-10-2007, 05:54 AM
I have always beleived that those who are so afraid to recognise homosesexuals are also afraid of their own sexuality. For fear that they may be (just a teeny bit) Gay.
I find it so ironic that liberals always use gay as an insult to defend queers. :laugh2:
gabosaurus
05-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Conservative Republicans are quick to hide their inner Foley-isms.
http://www.seancoon.org/wp-content/postimages/gay-marriage-republican.jpg
-:
3. (Second response.) I have always beleived that those who are so afraid to recognise homosesexuals are also afraid of their own sexuality. For fear that they may be (just a teeny bit) Gay.
LMFAO!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
I think almost every single lib has scraped the bottom of the barrel and used that argument even though its a loser time and time again. You guys use it because you can't debate the facts on queers.
Doniston
05-10-2007, 03:50 PM
I have to tell you that most of what Homosexual people do is Normal, even Hetros do it. It is not what I would want to do because to me it is gross. But it is still NORMAL. your appropriate word for it would be immoral. Which you may beleive is true.
Learn how to quote people. interesting that you would say I should learn to quote properly, since the Quote attrinuted to me is Pale Riders quote, and the Quote above is actually mine.
Great, you think two guys fucking each other up the ass is normal, great.
It is normal for MAN AND WOMAN to do it, not two guys or for two chicks to snack on each other. This is unargueable, to argue your point further makes you look foolish and twisted. out of curiosity, by what logic do you determine that a man doing it to a woman is moral, but a man doing it to a man is immoral??? Apparently it isn't the action, (which I find disgusting) but rather who is doing it to who. Now OMHO "THAT'S" twisted.
Doniston
05-10-2007, 04:08 PM
I find it so ironic that liberals always use gay as an insult to defend queers. :laugh2: Why do you think Gay is an insult? I certainly don't.
For your benefit, should I have said, that they were a bit insecure about their own Sexual orientation? Would that have been better??? and more acceptable???
Doniston
05-10-2007, 04:10 PM
LMFAO!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
I think almost every single lib has scraped the bottom of the barrel and used that argument even though its a loser time and time again. You guys use it because you can't debate the facts on queers. it's never been a loser except to those who can't recognize fact when they see it. For further clarification, See Post 235.
interesting that you would say I should learn to quote properly, since the Quote attrinuted to me is Pale Riders quote, and the Quote above is actually mine.
out of curiosity, by what logic do you determine that a man doing it to a woman is moral, but a man doing it to a man is immoral??? Apparently it isn't the action, (which I find disgusting) but rather who is doing it to who. Now OMHO "THAT'S" twisted.
You completely fucked the original quote up so thats on you.
Man and woman, pardner, man and woman is all you need to remember.
glockmail
05-10-2007, 07:04 PM
Why do you think Gay is an insult? I certainly don't.
For your benefit, should I have said, that they were a bit insecure about their own Sexual orientation? Would that have been better??? and more acceptable???
Interesting tactic: why is it an insult? Bullshit, but still interesting.
Its an insult because you know we find it immoral, abnornmal and unnatural. Being an intellectual, compassionalte and sensitive liberal you should have known that. :laugh2:
And for the record, I'm not unsure of the fact that I love women and would rather cut my pecker off than shove it in a guys ass.
it's never been a loser except to those who can't recognize fact when they see it. For further clarification, See Post 235.
Lol its intellectually lazy, it belies the truth, you have no argument.
Conservative Republicans are quick to hide their inner Foley-isms.
http://www.seancoon.org/wp-content/postimages/gay-marriage-republican.jpg
Holy shit! Is he hung or what?
Doniston
05-10-2007, 07:15 PM
You completely fucked the original quote up so thats on you.
Man and woman, pardner, man and woman is all you need to remember. Apparently you are living on Orian because that post is totally out of this world. We speak sensible LOGICAL English here.
Doniston
05-10-2007, 07:36 PM
Lol its intellectually lazy, it belies the truth, you have no argument. That is not an arguement either, but simply a denial of fact.
'Course it "IS" your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
You have every right to be wrong.
Pale Rider
05-10-2007, 09:39 PM
That is not an arguement either, but simply a denial of fact.
'Course it "IS" your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
You have every right to be wrong.
Yes, of course, queer supporter. "Nature" is wrong. "Man and woman" is wrong. The very fabric of life is wrong according to you.
Get a grip. You sound, look and are foolish.
That is not an arguement either, but simply a denial of fact.
'Course it "IS" your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
You have every right to be wrong.
I'm against queer marriage so I must be queer!
Wow, what are they serving in the cafeteria today? P.B. sandwiches?
This place is way over your head.
shattered
05-10-2007, 09:54 PM
I'm against queer marriage so I must be queer!
Wow, what are they serving in the cafeteria today? P.B. sandwiches?
This place is way over your head.
For once, I agree with you.
Apparently you are living on Orian because that post is totally out of this world. We speak sensible LOGICAL English here.
Fuck you pole smoker, you=newbie, me=veteran.
You hacked up the original post I quoted because you are retarded and don't know how to figure out a quote system, therefore everything else is fucked up after that.
BTW your avatar looks familiar, saw you on the mall today, you were wearing some ragged pants that Arnold Palmer wore in the 69' masters and you had pissed yourself from the Night Train.
Now can you please find an intellectual argument on queer marriage or go back to collecting empty bottles to turn in for another 40 oz
gabosaurus
05-10-2007, 11:14 PM
Fuck you pole smoker, you=newbie, me=veteran.
You hacked up the original post I quoted because you are retarded and don't know how to figure out a quote system, therefore everything else is fucked up after that.
BTW your avatar looks familiar, saw you on the mall today, you were wearing some ragged pants that Arnold Palmer wore in the 69' masters and you had pissed yourself from the Night Train.
Now can you please find an intellectual argument on queer marriage or go back to collecting empty bottles to turn in for another 40 oz
That is a pretty queer statement. Are you married? :poke:
Doniston
05-12-2007, 10:38 AM
Yes, of course, queer supporter. "Nature" is wrong. "Man and woman" is wrong. The very fabric of life is wrong according to you.
Get a grip. You sound, look and are foolish.
You are not making the least bit of sense. there is nothing wrong with nature, I support it) there is nothing wrong with man/woman, or Man/man, or woman/woman. that's your hangup,
and apparently someone has ripped up your fabric of life, or you wouldn't be resoprting to dis-engenous and knowingly false statements. (You know better)
Doniston
05-12-2007, 11:22 AM
That is a pretty queer statement. Are you married? :poke:
That post was so far out that I didn't respond except to report it.
That post was so far out that I didn't respond except to report it.
Doniston you are a pussy. You reported a post because it said queer?
Pole Smokers
Faggots
Fudge Packers
Cocksuckers
AIDS infested vermin
Dykes
Rug Munchers
Queens
Mentally Defective faggot human beings
Queers are people who because they are idiots made the CHOICE to suck cocks, they should be ostracized, rounded up and forced to undergo intensive psychotherapy so they cannot endanger the rest of us.
Report that post, see what comes of it you fucking loser.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.