Gays and Lesbians

[Dwhitten]

Alright this is a pretty heated issue in my city and it might be for you also. Keep it clean but don't be afraid to state your opinion just don't let it get out of hand. Moderators make sure to keep this topic on track. I'll tell my opinion later on :D





Topic:

Do you think it should be legal for people of the same sex to get married and have the same benefits as a regular married couple of the opposite sex?

[Jushiko]

I cannot think of a single reason why not. If anal sex is grounds for Disqualification, then over half of straight couples wouldn't be married etc.

[Batman]

i dunno. although im not technically against it, im not for it at all. my big thing is I DONT CARE AND I DONT WANNA KNOW that your buttf*cking some dude. really, you dont see straight people having marches. do w/e you want in your private life, no one else cares or cares to see

[Gummy]

i dunno
but i heard texas its legal

[Jushiko]

Originally posted by GunGrave
i dunno
but i heard texas its legal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're....joking...right?

Sad thing is, I don't know for sure.

[Xantar]

The definition of marriage states clearly that marriage is a social institution that a MAN and WOMAN enter. Therefore, the definition that the government uses has to be altered to give this topic any consideration because, as of right no, gay people can't marry because it is an infeasible idea. There is no word in the english language that defines the "marriage" of a homosexual couple.

[Dwhitten]

Same thing for adoption. Should Homosexual couples be able to adopt children?

[Xantar]

Originally posted by Dwhitten1023
Same thing for adoption. Should Homosexual couples be able to adopt children?

Yes. I mean, why not? I mean, the one value that parent's should instill in their children is love. To say that gay people can't love is a terrible thing to say. Gay couples should be given any right that straight couples have, as long as they don't wave their dongs in my face.

[Adrian]

Originally posted by Xantar
The definition of marriage states clearly that marriage is a social institution that a MAN and WOMAN enter. Therefore, the definition that the government uses has to be altered to give this topic any consideration because, as of right no, gay people can't marry because it is an infeasible idea. There is no word in the english language that defines the "marriage" of a homosexual couple.

Darling, marriage is not something defined by the US government. It does not matter what their definition is because they should have nothing to do with this.

No, gay marraige is not legal in texas, you didn't hear that, what you heard is that sodomy laws were stricken down, which means that it's not illegal for gay men to have sex anymore. (What year is it again? 1761?)
Gay marraige is illegal in all 50 states but it's legal in some parts of Canada.
Aha, and up here, in Cleveland Heights, a very revolutionary civil union law was just pasted, so 3 cheers for that.

Take yr old-fashioned crap out of people's lives, out of who they're gonna marry, etc? Please. Thank you.

[Xantar]

Darling, marriage is not something defined by the US government. It does not matter what their definition is because they should have nothing to do with this.

LOL, where did you go to school?

The US Government does indeed define terms, ideas and institutions. The Government definition is a legal and binding contract willingly entered into by a man and a woman. Not a man and a man and not a woman and a woman. The government holds no definition for an institution entered into by gay couples. To do so, they'd have to redefine their term, which is the job of judges. Where do you get off saying that the US Government hasn't defined marriage? Have you ever taken a Government class?

[Adrian]

Don't tell me what the government "does" define.
It also things that the Patriot Act is constitution. See why it doesn't matter what the government actually SAYS or DOES?
What matters is what is RIGHT, and it's that the government get the fuck out of people's lives.
A contract is private, and the government should have nothing to do with who can enter into one.
The U.S. government does and "can" define marriage, but it has no right to do so and people have let it, which is just one of 1000s of examples of people getted fucked over and pushed beneth the wheel of the machine simply becase they're a minority and "don't matter much," or letting them have the rights they should have never had taken away in the first place would be "too much of a hassel."

[Xantar]

Originally posted by Adrian
Don't tell me what the government "does" define.

I feel a need to when you don't know.

It also things that the Patriot Act is constitution. See why it doesn't matter what the government actually SAYS or DOES?

No I don't see. A law isn't seen as constitutional until it is challenged in the courts. The Patriot Act has been passed, but it has not been challenged in a court yet. The 14th ammendment is also unconstitutional, but it remains because it has never been challenged.

What matters is what is RIGHT, and it's that the government get the fuck out of people's lives.

Oh ok, get the fuck out of peoples lives, huh? Ok, so let's take away government spending on schools, roads, charitable organizations, police officers, firemen, EMTs, etc. I mean, you want the government out of peoples lives right? What you meant to say is get the government out of peoples lives as long as it doesn't inconvenience people.

A contract is private, and the government should have nothing to do with who can enter into one.

False. A contract can only be defended and used when put through the court system, therefore it is necessary for them to have something to do with it.

The U.S. government does and "can" define marriage, but it has no right to do so and people have let it, which is just one of 1000s of examples of people getted fucked over and pushed beneth the wheel of the machine simply becase they're a minority and "don't matter much," or letting them have the rights they should have never had taken away in the first place would be "too much of a hassel."

The government has never taken away the right of gay people to marry. It was never a right of theirs in the first place, given the definition, so how can something that was never possessed be taken away?

[Jesus]

Fuck Gays. I mean I don't won't too but. I want them to fuck off to hell.

[JAY]

Gays are cool. I'd never say this out loud but you gotta have respect for them to be who they are.

I have no problem with gays. Being gay is A-okay!

[Dwhitten]

Originally posted by Doesy
Fuck Gays. I mean I don't won't too but. I want them to fuck off to hell. Comments like that isn't needed....

[Tommy]

Originally posted by Dwhitten1023
Topic:

Do you think it should be legal for people of the same sex to get married and have the same benefits as a regular married couple of the opposite sex?

I don't see any reason why people of the same sex cannot get married. If they love each other, and want to get married then I think it should be legal for them to get married.

If the gays or lesbians are suitable to be parents, then I don't see why they should be treated any different from straight couples looking to adopt.

[d_07]

I dont see a problem in homosexuals getting married,the thing is when it comes to the goverenment regulating things,they use their sense of morals and religion come to their decision...I believe for the safety of not offending people,that's how I see it..do not tell me other-wise

They should allow it in the name of civil rights...who cares,its not like the people who don't like gays marriages are going to be involved in one

[snowboardSPX]

if oyu l.ove someone dont get married. its the stupidest thing in the world. not only does getting married cost money but if you find out you dont like the person you have to pay to get divorced. the only reson there is marriage is so the person can get half of your fucking money. and you can sue their ass if they cheat on you. stupid fucking ppl. im sick of all these fucking faggots prancing around all joyful all the time. so ya give them marriage. give them kids. maybe they will realize kids suck and cost too much fucking money. then maybe they will stop prancing around like they rule the fucking world. stupid faggots. and i want my own fucking parade!!!!
and you can sue their ass if they cheat on you. stupid fucking ppl. im sick of all these fucking faggots prancing around all joyful all the time. so ya give them marriage. give them kids. maybe they will realize kids suck and cost too much fucking money. then maybe they will stop prancing around like they rule the fucking world. stupid faggots. and i want my own fucking parade. assholesassholes and as long as they dont force me to marry a guy i dont give a fuck

[Daniel]

Somebody skipped their nap.

[HiFi]

Why ban gay marriges? Celebrity marriges should be banned, since when have they ever worked out?

[Coren]

The only problem Gays should have in marriage is that marriage is a religious thing...and most religions (though they preach tolerance) do not accept gays into society.

I think that if a Gay couple want to get married and prove that they love each other and adopt kids let them!

They are people just like you and me and they deserve to have the same freedoms that we do, no matter what their sexual preference.

I mean think of it this way, this never happened with bi-racial couples...sure for awhile they were looked down upon, but they were never forbidden to marry.

So I think Gays should be allowed to, it's their lifestyle let them choose it, if they want to be gay and they want to proclaim their love for someone and adopt little children and take care of them, then by all means go for it.

If a gay couple does raise a child, it will be a child equipped with knowledge about gays, and people's rights. Which I believe is a good thing, a child should know everything they can.

So I guess the only thing that I think gays should have standing in their way of marriage, is the religious portion of marriage...and by seperation of Church and State...the government should have nothing to do with it right?

[Karavi]

Whatever floats their boat. Doesn't harm me, nor does it affect me. I'm neutral. Go for it, I won't know about it anyway, and if I do, I really won't care either way.

[Xantar]

Originally posted by snowboardSPX
if oyu l.ove someone dont get married. its the stupidest thing in the world. not only does getting married cost money but if you find out you dont like the person you have to pay to get divorced. the only reson there is marriage is so the person can get half of your fucking money. and you can sue their ass if they cheat on you. stupid fucking ppl. im sick of all these fucking faggots prancing around all joyful all the time. so ya give them marriage. give them kids. maybe they will realize kids suck and cost too much fucking money. then maybe they will stop prancing around like they rule the fucking world. stupid faggots. and i want my own fucking parade!!!!
and you can sue their ass if they cheat on you. stupid fucking ppl. im sick of all these fucking faggots prancing around all joyful all the time. so ya give them marriage. give them kids. maybe they will realize kids suck and cost too much fucking money. then maybe they will stop prancing around like they rule the fucking world. stupid faggots. and i want my own fucking parade. assholesassholes and as long as they dont force me to marry a guy i dont give a fuck

Within this vulgar display of hate, he made some good points about marriage and kids.

[Bryan]

No, actually that vulgar display of hate violates two or three rules. He's lucky I don't work here anymore. Way to go, though! I mean, not only does he look ignorant, but I bet if some terroristic hate group like the KKK saw that, they'd send him a pamphlet. Anyway, my stance on homosexuals goes as follows:

Marriage: There is nothing that the government can do to stop them if they want to keep this whole freedom thing that, if you didn't know, happens to be a sometimes theoretical, but nevertheless fundamental aspect of the United States, which would include its government.

I don't see how any reasonable person can say that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, but then again I'm not a religious zealot, nor am I more inclined more to hate than understanding, unless it comes to people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about, and want to limit the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

Relevant definitions [to this subject] of freedom, or a defining aspect of our country:

Freedom

1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action.

Would I be wrong to say that telling homosexuals that they cannot be married is a restraint? Would it be unreasonable to say, that since homosexuals are people much like heterosexuals (who can marry) that they should be able to marry if they really want to, because it is their decision, or their exercise of free will, or the ability to make a choice, which is another way of defining freedom?

Is it oppressive to limit an ethnic group's rights? If so, how is that different from limiting the rights of a certain sexual orientation? Doing either is ignorant, rude, insulting, and shameful. If anything is an "arbitrary exercise of authority" it would be the banning of homosexuals from being who they are. That's abuse of power by the government, which is a wonderful example of tyranny (hey, Hussein was a tyrant! whoa! Charles Taylor too!) in the United States.

Adoption: Unless some people want to just burn the constitution, there's no good reason to limit this either unless the people who want to adopt cannot provide for a child. There are a lot of heterosexuals that shouldn't be parents because they don't provide, and I'm certain that there are homosexuals that are the same way.. But, I believe that if a person is able to provide what a child needs, they have every right to have one if they so desire.

[Carlos]

I do not condone of a gay marriage....I don't like gays....I don't even want to even THINK about gays....I shiver to have any kind of thoughts about gays....I don't care if you're gay or not, just don't touch me....Just don't kiss in front of me.....I shiver....to think.

Lesbians on the other hand, I condone.....

However, here's what I think: Gays and lesbians should do whatever they want, its their lives, their decision, so therefore, there should be a gay marriage. I don't like the idea of legalized gay marriage, it would destory the purpose of a marriage, and destory the traditional marriage.

Gay marriage will set a new standard in global marriage. Period. We may go as far as a "Tri-Marriage" if this is legalized, what I mean by that, is two men, one woman, three gay men, three lesbians, or two women one man. Catch my drift?

[Bryan]

The "traditional marriage" was destroyed long ago, when 50% of American's got divorces..

[Adrian]

Originally posted by Xantar
]Oh ok, get the fuck out of peoples lives, huh? Ok, so let's take away government spending on schools, roads, charitable organizations, police officers, firemen, EMTs, etc. I mean, you want the government out of peoples lives right? What you meant to say is get the government out of peoples lives as long as it doesn't inconvenience people.

Do not tell me what I "really mean."
ACTUALLY, I dont want the government doing schools or roads or police officers or anything. All that should be private. Hey, at least I'm consistant, eh?
And they CERTAINLY shouldn't be doing charity - charity means because people want it and volenteer it, no government should do that since government always involves force.


[/quote]The government has never taken away the right of gay people to marry. It was never a right of theirs in the first place, given the definition, so how can something that was never possessed be taken away? [/QUOTE]

It's a human birth right, babe. It doesn't matter if the world has always not allowed a certain thing, that doesn't make it ok. It's a right they've had taken away FOREVER - since civilazation, pretty much - that needs to come back, now.

P.S. fuck yr fasicst tradition.

[Coren]

What the hell Adrian? Sure he was a smart ass about it, but he found flaws in your arguement, deal with it.

Just make a new point and get on with it, plus it may just be me but he agrees that gays should be able to marry (correct me if I am wrong)

I don't think that makes him a "fasicst"

Plus, the government provides a lot of things for us, such as protection, and freedoms.

Sure they put limits on us but it is for our protection.

Without a government there wouldn't be anarchy, which is a utopian world without the NEED of a government

See we humans need a set of rules, be they loose or tight, because without them, well, bad shit would happen

So face it, we have a government, we need a government and that's that.

But of course there's always Locke's point of view. The government is supposed to provide the certain rights of the poeple, and if the Government does not satisfy the general will of the people, the people have the RIGHT to replace that government.

Sorry babe, but since humans aren't perfect, we need a set of rules and government to help enforce them.

And don't tell me the Judicial system does that, because it is a part of the government.

[Adrian]

I am sorry, but fuck the entire concept of "preoviding freedoms."

There is no such thing. If if is yr body, it is YOURS, and nobody can "provide" you with freedoms, you already have them. But they CAN take them away. That, dear, is what fasicm is.

PLeaz Read : http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=9977&c=101

This isn't even yr issue, it's not my issue, but you DON'T HAVE A SAY, george bush doesn't have a say, and it's wrong / sad / upsetting / makes me extremely angry that any of these has to be fought over.
It's not yr life, so you simply don't get a vote or a say. You can have an opinion, but it's not relevent. I can't say "Bob and Susan can't marry - I vote NO" because it ISN'T MY JOB OR place.

[Karavi]

It's sad that murder has to be fought over. Sad that rape has to be fought over. Sad that kids get thrown into trash cans. I guess since it's their body then they can do whatever they please, they have their own freedoms, so according to some of what has been, it's right to do all of that! Right?

When someone takes a gun to their own head, blasts their brains out, I guess it goes along the lines of "gay freedom"... A lot of things are sad. Personally, I'd rather fight over the more important issues than over marriage rights for gay couples. Even when there are states that allow it, they can simply take their asses to that state and get married. Have fun. Do whatever. Go on with their rainbows of love.

It's not George Bush's right. It's actually the state's right. Each state is sovereign, therefore holding the power to grant the approval of same-sex marriages. If they don't approve of it - Obviously there's a good reason behind it.

Nothing is perfect. Not even you. So there's going to be different views, on different things, and each has their own right to state them. You can't bash someone for voicing their opinion, so jesus christ, calm down. And that goes for everyone.

[Xantar]

Originally posted by Adrian
Do not tell me what I "really mean."
ACTUALLY, I dont want the government doing schools or roads or police officers or anything. All that should be private. Hey, at least I'm consistant, eh?

Consistant maybe, but I have a feeling your ideas would change if you had to pay for your children to go to school, couldn't collect unemployment, welfare or even social security. Hell, since the government doesn't have a say in your world, there wouldn't be any mandated controls over drugs, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or even food. Farmers would be pumping growth hormones in plants (yes plants can and do recieve growth hormones) that you'd be eating that would slowly kill you. Let's show pron on TV 24/7, drugs, violence, murder, rape, all of that. I mean, since the government doesn't mandate anything in your society, all of this would happen. Consistant, maybe, ridiculous, absolutely.

And they CERTAINLY shouldn't be doing charity - charity means because people want it and volenteer it, no government should do that since government always involves force.

Oh, well, since the government can't have it's hand in volunteer organizations then take away 34% (last years totals) of the funds that was donated to the American Cancer Society. Donated to by the government and government persons.


It's a human birth right, babe. It doesn't matter if the world has always not allowed a certain thing, that doesn't make it ok. It's a right they've had taken away FOREVER - since civilazation, pretty much - that needs to come back, now.

P.S. fuck yr fasicst tradition.

Marriage is not a human birth right. Marriage is a man made institution just like religion is a man made belief (or god made belief, depending on what book your reading). It isn't a right, it's a privelege, just like a drivers license. You can be denied from being married.

And please, this is the second time you've tried to flame me by mispelling a very simple word to spell. You aren't doing anything but making yourself sound stupid. And I fail to draw a correlation between my views and those of Benito Mussolini. I also doubt you'll be seeing my hanging from a gas station anytime soon.

[Bryan]

The idea of no government intervention is a tad fucked, Adrian..

Of course, drug enforcement is just a pointless exercise anyway. I think that if people are going to be gay, they're going to be gay, and they're going to do drugs, they're gonna do drugs. Why drain resources trying to stop these things when we can help out the country in better ways? As Karavi pointed out, there are much more pressing issues, imo..

Issues that require more immediate attention. I don't even see why there IS a debate on this in our country when we're losing more troops overseas in "peace time" in Iraq than during war.. and when we haven't even found Osama bin Laden (hey, that name sounds familiar!).. I would almost bet that issues like gay marriage come up to distract us.

[Coren]

Originally posted by Adrian
I am sorry, but fuck the entire concept of "preoviding freedoms."

There is no such thing. If if is yr body, it is YOURS, and nobody can "provide" you with freedoms, you already have them. But they CAN take them away. That, dear, is what fasicm is.

Oh my fucking god, you sound soooooo idiotic when you say that. Go live in Iraq or some other country where women are beaten to death for being looked at by a man. Then see what I mean by providing freedoms


This isn't even yr issue, it's not my issue, but you DON'T HAVE A SAY, george bush doesn't have a say, and it's wrong / sad / upsetting / makes me extremely angry that any of these has to be fought over.

You're correct I am not gay. But that doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion about it. Because obviously you can. And you are correct it's sad this has to be fought over but when the majority of this nation is Christian and this nation was founded on christian beliefs then it does, because in Christian people's eyes being gay is wrong. It is immoral, and therefore a sin. (I am not religious so correct me if I am wrong) So I would think it has the grounds to be fought over.

It's not yr life, so you simply don't get a vote or a say. You can have an opinion, but it's not relevent. I can't say "Bob and Susan can't marry - I vote NO" because it ISN'T MY JOB OR place.

Actually we do get a vote, not a direct one but we do get one when we are 18 years of age. Besides that I have no fucking clue what you said....

[Nulshock]

Will everyone calm down and stop fighting over government involvment and at least fight over the topic???

- Marriage is more than just two people saying they are loving each other... Marriage holds sway over how much your insurance is (it's cheaper when you are tied with someone), it plays a part in a whole hell of a lot of things, so dont give that BS that marriage is useless
[whoops, that was hypocritical, i went off topic :rolleyes:]

MY* opinions:

- About gay marriage:
Why doesn't the government just start a program that will create "official couple" licenses, instead of marriage licenses? It would clear up a hell of a lot, and everyone could accept the old marriage licenses while issuing out couple licenses to homosexual couples and straight couples. And I said COUPLE for a reason: two people, not ten or 3 or animals or aliens.

* These are my opinions, dont tell me they are wrong because you cant prove opinions wrong. Booyeah, owned.

[Karavi]

No one will be telling anyone anything is wrong. No one will be bashing.

Keep it clean but don't be afraid to state your opinion just don't let it get out of hand.

If I see one more asinine thing posted in this thread bashing or degrading what others have said - I will not hesitate to lock and warn those who did it.

It already has gotten out of hand, if it goes any more, and if people are so immature that they can't handle a simple opinion then obviously there's no need to continue a mature conversation through all of the immaturity.

Got it? Good.

[Bryan]

OMG U CNT BHN ME N LCK THRED!1 XANRT AN ADRIAN R SOOOOO GHEY LOL!!

Why didn't anyone pick apart my post? I feel so ignored.

I like that idea though, Nulliar. An "Official couple" license would certainly carry less religious baggage than marriage, even though there would always be people who see an 'official couple' as a man and a woman.

[GanjaGuy]

Homosexuals are so gay!

[Gummy]

omfg since when!?!?!?!?

-_^

[Bryan]

Spamming fucks! :cry:

If anyone is gay, it'd have to be GunGrave. It even says 'asshole' in his sig.. :shifty:

Marry me. Now.

[Gummy]

shush there u whore


muahahha


and no.....

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../

[Bryan]

You want it. You know you do.

Freak.

[Coren]

I wasn't trying to flame, honestly, it's just some arguements have flaws and I am trying to do what my History teacher was always telling me which was "try to get them thinking"

Plus, it's nice to see how people react when you pick apart their arguement and point out all the flaws...

Really you guys can do it to me too, I halfway expect you to

[Bryan]

I thought someone would do it to me. I'd pick apart yours, but I agree with you, so I don't have the motivation.

I'm so close to starting a flame war with Karavi it isn't even funny.

[Karavi]

I wasn't talking about you, Coren. :) There were people who were blatantly trying to degrade and belittle people throughout the thread.

Bryan - Stop being so gay or I'll have to delay the arrival of that strap-on you requested for your girlfriend.

[Bryan]

Fuck you Mandy. I am so sick of your shit. You're always going on and on about 'strap-ons' and me needing viagra. I'll tell ya what, how about you keep what goes on between you and your butch girlfriend Dwhitten1023 where it belongs: to yourself.

[Karavi]

At least I have something to keep to myself.. If y'know what I mean. :sexy:

Don't be a gay basher.

Homo.

[Dwhitten]

Bryan there's not one thread where you haven't mentioned my name. I think you have some special feelings for me....

[Bryan]

*shudders* I'd ask you to elaborate, but having a stroke because of the images you want to put in my head isn't on the top of my list of priorities for the evening.

Dyke.

I mention your name because I feel sorry for Mandy. Maybe she needs someone that can take better care of her, if ya know what I mean!

[Karavi]

*shudders* I'd ask you to elaborate, but having a stroke because of the images you want to put in my head isn't on the top of my list of priorities for the evening.
Dear god, Bryan. :eek:

[Bryan]

SO I'M REPRESSED! WHAT CAN I SAY?

Really, I think that you just get those thoughts when I'm around.

[Karavi]

You know you love me. Admit it... :shifty:

You homo....

Sapien.

[Bryan]

Yeah, but I don't pick head and stroke out of your posts, you sick fuck.

You're a homosapien too! :(

[Karavi]

You were leaving subliminal messages. Don't get moody at me for finding them.

[Bryan]

No, see, you're just fuckin' paranoid.

[Adrian]

Originally posted by Karavi
It's sad that murder has to be fought over. Sad that rape has to be fought over. Sad that kids get thrown into trash cans. I guess since it's their body then they can do whatever they please, they have their own freedoms, so according to some of what has been, it's right to do all of that! Right?

No... murder involves killing somebody else, it's THEIR body, and you don't have a right to do that. But you DO have a right to kill yrself, if you so desire.

It's not George Bush's right. It's actually the state's right. Each state is sovereign, therefore holding the power to grant the approval of same-sex marriages. If they don't approve of it - Obviously there's a good reason behind it.

It's only the states right because they say so. And what do they get to say what is and isn't? Only because they say so, of course.

[/quote]Nothing is perfect. Not even you. So there's going to be different views, on different things, and each has their own right to state them. You can't bash someone for voicing their opinion, so jesus christ, calm down. And that goes for everyone. [/QUOTE]

Thankyouforclearingthatup, I was under the impression that I was perfect. X.x Jeez, darling, I CAN bash somebody's opinion when I find it disgusting. Because see - bashing somebody's opinion is only stating yr own opinion. You don't seem to see that opinions go all ways and the only way anybody's opinions even matter or are real is if people can and do bash them.
If I said that right.

Consistant maybe, but I have a feeling your ideas would change if you had to pay for your children to go to school, couldn't collect unemployment, welfare or even social security. Hell, since the government doesn't have a say in your world, there wouldn't be any mandated controls over drugs, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or even food. Farmers would be pumping growth hormones in plants (yes plants can and do recieve growth hormones) that you'd be eating that would slowly kill you. Let's show pron on TV 24/7, drugs, violence, murder, rape, all of that. I mean, since the government doesn't mandate anything in your society, all of this would happen. Consistant, maybe, ridiculous, absolutely.

Darling, if half my money didnt go to fucking taxes, I could afford all that. And have no problem with any of that - P.S. I would NEVER take uneployment or welfare as they're morally wrong and discust me. Charity, I would take if I needed it.
P.S. THEY SHOULDN"T HAVE ANY MANATED CONTROL OVER DRUGS OR ALCOHOL OF FIREARMS OR YES, EVEN FOOD. Stop trying to scare me with "let's take it another steps" because I tell you, I am fucking constistant, and my ideas make sense but because they are so incredibly foriegn to you you can't even fathom them.
It's not RIDICULUS to want freedom?
I'm sorry. I'm angry - I'm not meaning to flame or anything. But I'm anrgy at you wanting to MANDATE me.

Oh, well, since the government can't have it's hand in volunteer organizations then take away 34% (last years totals) of the funds that was donated to the American Cancer Society. Donated to by the government and government persons.

I dont know about you, but I would have much more money I'd be willing to donate if I wasn't fucking TAXED so much.

And please, this is the second time you've tried to flame me by mispelling a very simple word to spell.

I am not mispelling "yr" I am spelling it that way becuase Jonah does. And it looks cool. Thanks. I know it's lame. But do I care? Not much.

Issues that require more immediate attention. I don't even see why there IS a debate on this in our country when we're losing more troops overseas in "peace time" in Iraq than during war.. and when we haven't even found Osama bin Laden (hey, that name sounds familiar!).. I would almost bet that issues like gay marriage come up to distract us.

People's lives our not DISTRACTIONS. Fuck. People who's dying partners are in the hospital have been denied access to see them since they aren't a blood relative or "spouse," people's lives are being ripped at the root and the most important thing in the world is that individuals rights AREN'T violated.

That's what they say we're fighting for.

Oh my fucking god, you sound soooooo idiotic when you say that. Go live in Iraq or some other country where women are beaten to death for being looked at by a man. Then see what I mean by providing freedoms


Appreciate 2nd rate because there's worse out there?
:( That's pessimistic and it makes me sad you think we should let our rights be violated just because others have it worse. None of what they go through is justifiable either.

You're correct I am not gay. But that doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion about it. Because obviously you can. And you are correct it's sad this has to be fought over but when the majority of this nation is Christian and this nation was founded on christian beliefs then it does, because in Christian people's eyes being gay is wrong. It is immoral, and therefore a sin. (I am not religious so correct me if I am wrong) So I would think it has the grounds to be fought over.

It doesn't matter who believes what is is a sin, if it's not their ass it's not their choice what kinda sex will be had with it.
Thanksmuch.
Also, Jefferson was a unitarian, and has been quoted as saying this country is NOT a christian nation. And it ISN'T.

Actually we do get a vote, not a direct one but we do get one when we are 18 years of age. Besides that I have no fucking clue what you said....

What I am saying, is that you have no say in others lives. People do not have the right to vote on other people's lives, this is not survivor.

Anyway, not to offend anybody. meh....

[Xantar]

Darling, if half my money didnt go to fucking taxes, I could afford all that. And have no problem with any of that - P.S. I would NEVER take uneployment or welfare as they're morally wrong and discust me. Charity, I would take if I needed it.
P.S. THEY SHOULDN"T HAVE ANY MANATED CONTROL OVER DRUGS OR ALCOHOL OF FIREARMS OR YES, EVEN FOOD. Stop trying to scare me with "let's take it another steps" because I tell you, I am fucking constistant, and my ideas make sense but because they are so incredibly foriegn to you you can't even fathom them.
It's not RIDICULUS to want freedom?

LOL! Half of your money doesn't go to taxes. Not even close. My last paycheck grossed $247 net. The government took away $38, $15 of that I will see when tax returns come around. Now, let's do simple math here. That's, omfg, 10%.

Also, I don't not like your ideas because I can't "fathom" them, it's because they are utterly ridiculous, illogical, impossible and unnatainable. That's like me saying "You know what! I'm going to jump off this 1000000 foot cliff, smack head first in the ground and live! What do you mean I can't! It's my opinion! You just can't fathom my way of thinkin!" Please. Both are impossible feets.


I dont know about you, but I would have much more money I'd be willing to donate if I wasn't fucking TAXED so much.

LOL! You are such a liar. If you kept that 10% they took out of your check, I'm damn sure NONE of that would go into charitable organizations.

Oh, btw, some of the money that gets taken out of your check does go into charitable organizations, so you're already donating.


That's what they say we're fighting for.

Baking vegan dinners every Sunday isn't fighting for anything. Don't put yourself in the same arena as people who are doing things.

What I am saying, is that you have no say in others lives. People do not have the right to vote on other people's lives, this is not survivor.

Yeah, but your solution is to abolish government and let people run wild killing each other, raping each other, stealing from each other and taking advantage of each other (yes that would happen). Get your head out of the sand and start being more logical. There are people who kill each other now for no reason, if there was no government, and no form of punishment, how crazy would it be then?

- About gay marriage:
Why doesn't the government just start a program that will create "official couple" licenses, instead of marriage licenses? It would clear up a hell of a lot, and everyone could accept the old marriage licenses while issuing out couple licenses to homosexual couples and straight couples. And I said COUPLE for a reason: two people, not ten or 3 or animals or aliens.

I like that idea.

[Adrian]

Dear. I am not an ararchist. I am a libertarian, and gosh, we have an entire party - http://www.lp.org - and quite a few members. Including Drew Carey. HAHAHA. Drew Carey is right there with me.

Also, I do donate more than you would know. And taxes going to chariable organizations is NOT donating - that is having yr money stolen and given to groups you made not even agree with. I don't want my money going to pay for abortions, and some of it does.
Also, most people get taxed 30-60% on full time work, and then you have an addition al 7% of everything you buy, and more stuff is taxed as well.

[Xantar]

I don't want my money going to pay for abortions, and some of it does.

The only possible way your money would go to abortions is if the person recieving the abortion was to pay for it via welfare money, which is illegal.

Also, I find it amusing that you sit there and fight for people to be able to do what they want with their body and so forth, yet you are anti-abortion. Isn't that quite contradictory?

Also, most people get taxed 30-60% on full time work, and then you have an addition al 7% of everything you buy, and more stuff is taxed as well. [/B]

I'm going to be blunt; no they don't. Show me one source that quotes a single individual being taxed 60% of their net income (net income includes tax return).

[Adrian]

Dear, I don't think abortion should be outlawed.
I NEVER SAID THAT.
I said I don't want to pay for it.
Difference? YES.
Also, there are programs that help pay for abortions with government money. True story. Look it up.

[Xantar]

Originally posted by Adrian
Dear, I don't think abortion should be outlawed.
I NEVER SAID THAT.
I said I don't want to pay for it.
Difference? YES.

And I didn't say you said that it should be outlawed either.

Also, there are programs that help pay for abortions with government money. True story. Look it up.

I don't believe that's my job. That's your job. In an argument, your job is to prove me wrong. I could just as easily say "last year I ate 10,000 cookies in one sitting. Don't believe me? Look it up!". Arguments don't work that way.

[Adrian]

what the hell? You make the most random, completely inaccurate comparisons.

But that's why I love you.

[Xantar]

Originally posted by Adrian
what the hell? You make the most random, completely inaccurate comparisons.

But that's why I love you.

It was very accurate. Both your and my quotations were stated facts from experiences that may or may not have sources. To disprove such facts or experiences, you'd have to find such a source. It isn't as innacurate as you think. Maybe a little abusrd and irelevant in context, but not innaccurate.

[snowboardSPX]

Originally posted by bryan

Freedom

1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action.

isn't it my right as a human being in the united states of america the ability to speak freely? without the feer of being prosicuted or being punished?
well i did get punished.
i got some of those warning points thing for stateing my opinion.
but thats my point.
any private prginization or club make their own rules and something as
big as the catholic church or any religious group have their own rules
and can refuse to anyone the ability to get married.
just like any restraunt holds the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
i will admit that what i said was vulger and un apropriote.
but i do not take it back. what is done is done.
and nothing can change that.
Though no one can go back and make a brand new start,
any one can start from now and make a brand new ending.

[Jushiko]

Or we could edit your post, but that's not really the point.

[Coren]

Look We are free...

Not completely free but that is because we are protecting ourselves, because if we didn't have a government then of course we wouldn't have taxes and laws and therefore be compeletely free

but we would get raped, murdered, robbed, no one would work because they could steal everything and not be punished for it, etc etc. Sure there would be honest people, very few, and they would probably be killed anyways.

Oh I can see how the world will benefit from no government...it's grand.

What you're thinking is that if we got rid of the government we would live in peace and happiness, well that's not libertarian thinking, that's anarchical thinking, which is a perfect world without the having or need of a government. Go ahead look up Anarchy and see if I am wrong

So therefore unless we're all perfect beings without the metephorical devil on our shoulder than having no government wouldn't work.

And yes Adrian I appreciate our so-called second rate freedoms. Because here You don't die as a heretic if you don't believe in something.
Here we don't have to dress a certain way all the time
Here we are equal if not in each others eyes, than in the courts and that "tyrannical" government's eyes.
Here we can speak up and say we don't like something, it doesn't matter if we're listened to as long as we're allowed to do it without being beaten as a heretic.
Here we (girls) can go to school and become educated and appreciated in our society.
Here we can replace our government if we see fit.

Sure our government isn't perfect, but nothing is, not even communism which was a very good idea, but humans were unwilling to cooperate.

Sorry, off track, our government isn't perfect but I appreciate it because my family comes from a different country and they said that this is the best damn place ever.

They appreciate it just as I do, because I know that we have freedoms and opportunities that are not available in other countries.

Like I said we're not perfect, but we are very well off.

Also, what's up with this it's not your body stuff? Where does that come into play with the government and it's laws????

especially on the real topic homosexual marriages...what's that have to do with the fact that it's not their body.

It's their contract.

ALSO, I never said this was a christian nation, though often it is considered so, I say that it was founded on christian beliefs and the majority of this nation is chrisitian. That's all, never said it was a christian nation.

Which means that more states would have the vision of gay marriage as wrong. I'm not saying their correct, but that's what they would see.

I'm sorry that these views conflict with yours, or should I say "yrs". But, it is the way of the world, and you are in the very very small minority. Sure you can go to congress and fight for what you believe in, but you probably don't have the motiviation.

but that is an assumption.

[Karavi]

snowboard: You were warned for your use in stating your opinion. You said it in a prejudice-fashion, had you said it with a little more respect to others you wouldn't've gotten those warning points.

I don't know if anyone knew this - But for some places it's difficult to hold gay marriages. You have to have a special priest/pastor/minister, whatever the hell you want who can specialize in the gay marriage. Unfortunately, normal priests (I'm just gonna say one this time) will laugh at gay marriages. I've seen it before, they think it's funny as hell, no lie. So, you have to find someone who isn't going to do that, as well as the way the marriage is concieved, because it's different.

The vows, what's said, is also different. It's changed. A lot of places think that's completely and utterly ridiculous because it practically changes that of which is stated in the bible. As Coren said, America was founded on Christian beliefs, while there's religious freedom, people still think it's wrong to decieve and reword what's stated in the bible. Which is, to be honest I think, completely understandable.

Religious freedom, however, wasn't exactly perfect back in the day either. In fact, people who openly admitted their sexuality who were bi, or gay generally got shot. It was something that was totally inhumane to them, something not only did they not understand, but something that went against the bible's word. Back then - That was a big thing. Hell, if you didn't believe in god then, you were hung.

So, personally, I think that this whole "gay" thing has evolved into something much more widely respected than it was. I think that we should be happy that it has evolved into what it has, and that it's become more respected and appreciated. Instead of arguing over gay marriages being illegalized in different states (by the way, Clinton was the one who passed that law) be happy for what has been achieved. I can guaran-god-damn-tee that no state 100 years back would've ever allowed a gay marriage in any way.

And Adrian: It's quite simple to not bash someone while stating your opinion on what someone else has said. There's a big difference between 'stating your opinion' and 'bashing'.

[snowboardSPX]

i think anybody can get married in las vegas. why dont they just get married there?

[Bryan]

You weren't persecuted for stating your opinion, you were punished because you were saying fuck every other word and using a bunch of other slurs. I simply disagreed with your position, and condemned the way you showed us what it was.

Please don't try to make a huge deal out of something that isn't. You do have limits on speech in a place like this because it isn't public.. it's good that you know that, because many don't. Probably in the same way that some don't think of a huge mall as being private, since anyone can access it unless they cause problems.

That would be the legality of banishment from a forum, or a store, etc.

And if 'marriage' wasn't used, who says that we would need to be using any church, much less the Catholic?

I believe that the 'its your body stuff' comes into play with many laws controlling what we do with ourselves that the government gets involved in and prevents.. Stuff like drugs, gambling, etc.

[D3adcell]

Just so some people shut the fuck up about "the goverment should stay out of peoples lives". If their was no govmnt to set rules/laws, I would probably be out killing people right now. Why becuase i could and there are a ton of stupid fucks who think that the govmnt shouldnt do anything to stop those people.

Also bryan said something to karavi about keeping her and david to herself. I was just thinking, maybe thats what people want gays to do. Instead of going around parading and wearing pants with the ass cut out (if they did this in a non public place then its different). The thing is with queers, gays, lesbians whatever you want to call them. They arent trying to be equal to everyone else, they think they are superior then everyone else. They think they deserve special treatment. You know what, there are other people who have to deal with alot of shit from other's too. Also gay marriages are legal in like vermont or new hampshiere. A kid i know's mom is a dyke and i'm pretty sure she is married to.

Another complaint i have about queers is why do they always have to have things like "gays and lesbians club", some colleges have them. Why can't they just be the same as everyone else like they say they want to. Yet they need all these things showing that they are gay and it seems to me like they just want to rub it in peoples faces that they are gay. Things like gay pride parades and gay pride day and gay disney world day. It wouldn't be so bad if queers kept to themselves and didnt try and "represent".

[Jushiko]

That post will make things damned interesting.

[Bryan]

That is a good point. It is a tad hypocritical for a group to bitch about being treated differently when they themselves bring about at least some of that different treatment.

But that doesn't mean they deserve less rights than anyone else does.

[Darth_Faction]

Gay marriage, under the eyes of every functional, moral institution on the planet, should, as it has for a long time, remain restrained, unendorsed and eventually dissolved. There has never once been a good reason to allow gay marriages, much less to give them special attention. . Gay couples should not be given the right to adopt a child, as it has clearly been identified that a large percentage of gays are suffering from the same psychological ailments of --say-- Adrian, who has a freakish impulse to "stand out." I don't think people like that should be given confidence by the government to carry out any effective method of raising children, and moreover, that they have an effective method to raise themselves.

[Bryan]

I was under the impression that one of the main principles of the United States was to "stand out". Just because you don't choose to doesn't mean others can't. That's something many conservatives can never quite understand. I'm sure that there are cases where people are homosexual for extra attention, but the fact of the matter is that many lead lives that keep their sexual preference mostly hidden. I don't know a lot of gay guys, but none of them wear women's clothing or make-up, you know?

So how is it that they're trying to get attention?

And how are gay couples that want the legal benefits of marriage just asking for attention? I don't think we're talking about a gay pride parade, William.

[Undead Fred]

I don't think this is as much about gays wanting the right to get married as gays wanting the government to recognize the marriage so they can get all the benefits of the marriage. That I have no problem with, let the gays get their health benefits!

[Satan]

I created Gays lesbians and all matter of natures freaks.

[Darth_Faction]

Originally posted by bryan
I was under the impression that one of the main principles of the United States was to "stand out". Just because you don't choose to doesn't mean others can't. That's something many conservatives can never quite understand. I'm sure that there are cases where people are homosexual for extra attention, but the fact of the matter is that many lead lives that keep their sexual preference mostly hidden. I don't know a lot of gay guys, but none of them wear women's clothing or make-up, you know?

So how is it that they're trying to get attention?

And how are gay couples that want the legal benefits of marriage just asking for attention? I don't think we're talking about a gay pride parade, William.

It's important to stand out when you have something legitimate to say; when there is something to be gained. Some people stand out for (self)destructive reasons that have no real purpose but to do just that. I love how so many people confuse the American vision as intentionally trying to be an asshole or to rub against the grain without cause.

An exactly; gay couples want marriage, as you have stated, not for the sanctity of the bonds forged in marriage, but for the legal benefits; how the government views a couple that is married under law. Gay couples want tax benefits, but why do they deserve them when to give them those tax benefits would be a contradiction to the whole purpose of marriage. .

[Bryan]

Because there is no traditional view of marriage to begin with minus this bullshit about gays not being able to marry if they want to. It doesn't bother me if they wanna be together, so why can't they get married? I was just illustrating how they're being fucked out of the tax benefits and so on. The emotional connection doesn't suffer, this is true, but it isn't too fair to say a heterosexual couple who loves eachother can be married, but a homosexual couple can't, even if they have those same feelings for eachother as the heterosexuals.

I know it's a jumbled mess, but I'm sure you can make sense of my last statement.

[Generic Wheaties]

I don't support gay marriages mainly because its against my religion. I'm a homophob to gays anyway. (but not to lesbians lol weird)

[Spatula]

i was watching Da Ali G Show, i think the one on was politics..im not quite sure..but, anyway, its when the german guy goes to the gayest place in the united states (alabama!) and goes to a pro-america rally.

the guy he interviews is the stereotypical asshole out of a comic by kurt cobain (if you wish i can directly quote the comic). so he says"america to me is freedom from everything to say and do what you wish, free from the jewish hand in your pocket" and then later its hinted that hes very against homosexuals.

im not really for gays or lesbians, but i dont have a problem with them. we live in america, where we're supposed to be free to do and act and say what we want to, and part of being free is sexual freedom.

thats just my ignorant mind's thoughts.

so, fuck you, alabama, fuck you and your deranged thoughts on freedom.

[Darth_Faction]

That privacy of your own home clause that's been all the talk since the sodomy ruling in Texas brings to light the very dangerous concept that people can be having sex with children, animals, or anything else of their choosing under the guise of "right to privacy."

As you should well know, the United States constitution was established with the intent of preserving the state of the union; the state of a society. When the actions of an individual come to threaten that prosperity, then actions must be taken to restrict that concept. This is not to say that homosexuality is itself an endangerment, but it is to say that some of the issues that are tid to homosexuality, such as privace within property, is. With that being said, there are moral confines that would fail at the expense of the masses in order to provide support and enthusiasm for a very small group of people.

This also isn't to say that I am against personal freedoms, because being a conservative, I'm all for having equal opportunity, granting liberties and what not, but at some junctures you have to put a price tag on what is it you want to get accomplished versus the pillars of tradition that stand behind you. People in modern day America are very impatient, they are used to being agreed with, they are used to whining, and they are used to being indulged. No one has any respect for institutions that have been established in the past--Adrian for instance--, and hardly any have the respect to actually discover what those traditions are, what they truly mean.

When America reinstitutes the draft, this country will be a better place.


When America requires a mandatory service in the armed forces, it will be a better place.



When the idea of political correctness, affirmative action, welfare, unfair support and consideration are thrown out of the window and the minorities and "radical thinkers" are finally brought face to face with reality, this country will be a better place.

[Spatula]

Originally posted by Darth_Faction
When America reinstitutes the draft, this country will be a better place.


When America requires a mandatory service in the armed forces, it will be a better place.



When the idea of political correctness, affirmative action, welfare, unfair support and consideration are thrown out of the window and the minorities and "radical thinkers" are finally brought face to face with reality, this country will be a better place.

agreed to the fullest extent.

[RavenProphet]

I'm not against gay people, but I'm not obsessed. I really don't see what's so different about them other than their sexual preferences. I don't really think they only want to legalize marriage simply for tax benefits, but maybe it's just because I wear my rose tinted glasses and try to believe that the world isn't as greedy and corrupted as everyone pictures it to be. Well, most of the time...I'm normally pessimistic.
I think they should get marriages, just like everyone else does, or maybe we're the ones being greedy about tax benefits because we're denying them the same rights that we ourselves have.
So let them put on their rainbow rings and tie the knot! lol
:thumbsup:

[Asarien]

Oh jeez. Wether 2 people get married or not, regardless their sex, is their damn business.

[D3adcell]

When the idea of political correctness, affirmative action, welfare, unfair support and consideration are thrown out of the window and the minorities and "radical thinkers" are finally brought face to face with reality, this country will be a better place.

awesome!

[Bryan]

That privacy of your own home clause that's been all the talk since the sodomy ruling in Texas brings to light the very dangerous concept that people can be having sex with children, animals, or anything else of their choosing under the guise of "right to privacy."

No, see, that wouldn't be under the right to privacy because that interferes with the rights of others. People of age engaging in consensual sex should be able to do what they want, but children and animals lack the mental capability to make a choice and accept the consequences of that choice. Try again.

As you should well know, the United States constitution was established with the intent of preserving the state of the union; the state of a society. When the actions of an individual come to threaten that prosperity, then actions must be taken to restrict that concept. This is not to say that homosexuality is itself an endangerment, but it is to say that some of the issues that are tid to homosexuality, such as privace within property, is. With that being said, there are moral confines that would fail at the expense of the masses in order to provide support and enthusiasm for a very small group of people.

Meaning that you don't condone individuality? If we all thought alike, this wouldn't be a democracy. If we were all the same in every aspect, this country would be filled with pathetic excuses for life who do nothing but eat, sleep, and work. The sheep would follow the shepard, and there would be nothing alive about it. I refuse to accept the notion that this country was established in the hope of surpressing it's inhabitants.

This also isn't to say that I am against personal freedoms, because being a conservative, I'm all for having equal opportunity, granting liberties and what not, but at some junctures you have to put a price tag on what is it you want to get accomplished versus the pillars of tradition that stand behind you.... No one has any respect for institutions that have been established in the past, and hardly any have the respect to actually discover what those traditions are, what they truly mean.

So what you're saying is that someone who can't pay for their meals because they got laid off by their boss because of, let's say, George Bush's economic 'policy' of "let's spend a shitload of money on the military and cut taxes while leaving the lower classes to rot" doesn't deserve some government support? It isn't their fault they don't have a job, so should they not have a place to live, not be able to put food on the table every night, and go horribly into debt? We're talking about people, William. People like you, people like me. People of different races, sexual orientations, economic backgrounds, and political ideologies. That's what makes the United States of America the best country in the world. Do you think that by surpressing the beliefs of the minority we will in turn improve this country? That seems like a rather... interesting... premise. One that violates the very crumbling foundation of the United States.

When we forsake our own people, that's when the downward spiral goes into overdrive. As long as our government doesn't provide jobs for every American who needs one, we need programs to help them live. It isn't about getting a free ride from the government in a majority of cases with, for example, welfare. It's more about: "I need help or I won't have heat this month". Of course there's abuse, but the people who really need money to survive shouldn't be left out because of that small amount that abuses the money they're given.

When America reinstitutes the draft, this country will be a better place.

When America requires a mandatory service in the armed forces, it will be a better place.

I actually wouldn't mind some sort of national service, but making it only in the armed forces would be pretty moronic. There are too many of us "radicals" that don't like to use force, much less using a double standard to figure out whether to use it or not. You kids thought Iraq was bad? Take a look at Saudi Arabia (with $1 trillion invested in the American stock market. Wonder why we didn't bomb them, huh?) or.. Africa: the Mecca of war crime. How about Iran? Yeah, that place where we kicked out the democratically elected leader and put in the Shah as a dictator? How many of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi? And they were the enemy? Har, har, har, GOP. Not that Saddam was a good guy, and that he needed to be in power, but even talking about the human rights violations isn't enough to dissuade that we were lied to. They couldn't care less about poor people in America, much less in foreign countries that can't give us anything back.

This is why I would never go for mandatory service in the military. I'd sooner go to prison. If we could get a president with balls, who could stand by one thing and not apply it differently to every country by how much oil or money they possess, this will be a better country. It's probably been too long with these wishy-washy candidates who agree on 70% of everything. The Gore/Bush debates, for example, were ridiculous.

When the idea of political correctness, affirmative action, welfare, unfair support and consideration are thrown out of the window and the minorities and "radical thinkers" are finally brought face to face with reality, this country will be a better place.

By the way you say that, Herr William, I'd think that you were talking about reality as if it were the barrel of a gun.

[Darth_Faction]

No, see, that wouldn't be under the right to privacy because that interferes with the rights of others. People of age engaging in consensual sex should be able to do what they want, but children and animals lack the mental capability to make a choice and accept the consequences of that choice. Try again.

. . Uh, Bryan, I don't know what you're reading, but that's the reality of the jurisdiction. People are free to do what they want within their own homes, and that, as you said, creates a threat outside of those homes.

Meaning that you don't condone individuality? If we all thought alike, this wouldn't be a democracy. If we were all the same in every aspect, this country would be filled with pathetic excuses for life who do nothing but eat, sleep, and work. The sheep would follow the shepard, and there would be nothing alive about it. I refuse to accept the notion that this country was established in the hope of surpressing it's inhabitants.

No, I condone individuality, but I don't condone it at the expense of the majority, when the majority is what was intended to run the government. Decisions are made based on the number of people who approve or disapprove. . That's what a Democracy is. We are required to listen to the argument of the "under populated," but by no means do we have a responsibility to grant them explicit rights without major approval. You can refuse to believe whatever you want; in fact, you can refuse to believe that there are laws outlawing the use and possession of illicit substances. Be ignorant, be unrealistic, smoke Marijuana, I don't care. No one else does either.


So what you're saying is that someone who can't pay for their meals because they got laid off by their boss because of, let's say, George Bush's economic 'policy' of "let's spend a shitload of money on the military and cut taxes while leaving the lower classes to rot" doesn't deserve some government support? It isn't their fault they don't have a job, so should they not have a place to live, not be able to put food on the table every night, and go horribly into debt? We're talking about people, William. People like you, people like me. People of different races, sexual orientations, economic backgrounds, and political ideologies. That's what makes the United States of America the best country in the world. Do you think that by surpressing the beliefs of the minority we will in turn improve this country? That seems like a rather... interesting... premise. One that violates the very crumbling foundation of the United States.

The United States is crumbling because it insists on destroying its own culture and history in order to bring in, financially support and admire the cultures of others. Go back 80 years to when China decided to Communize and its culture was destroyed. And Bryan. . it's a harsh world, and there are a good deal of harsh people running it. America has done as well as it has in the face of illegal immigrants, faulty spending plans and economic disasters because it is a capitalist society. The governing principal of capitalism is laissez faire, the survival of the fittest. When you lose you're job, that's your problem. You find a new job, or you learn the skills in order to make you a valuable asset to a company so that you can be employed. It's not the government's job to hand you money, or hand you employment, but rather to give you the opportunity to find a job by yourself. Communist/Liberals like you are the very reason why people in this country can't take responsibility for their own problems. That's why people have excuses for everything that goes wrong instead of taking appropriate measures in curing their ailments. If people die in the process, or if they starve, then they have starved for a good cause, and they died giving something to a nation that won't last another 50 years the way it's going.

When we forsake our own people, that's when the downward spiral goes into overdrive. As long as our government doesn't provide jobs for every American who needs one, we need programs to help them live. It isn't about getting a free ride from the government in a majority of cases with, for example, welfare. It's more about_: "I need help or I won't have heat this month". Of course there's abuse, but the people who really need money to survive shouldn't be left out because of that small amount that abuses the money they're given.

More people abuse welfare than benefit from it; with that in mind you can look at the numbers for who this money is being spent on. With 8 million Mexican immigrants in the United States, 4 million of them are illegal. . I don't think you could imagine how many of those people are on welfare, spending money from social security, stealing money from people who work for it. If we took the several thousand dollars that you spend a year on social security and put it into the bank, you would have more than enough to retire comfortably with, but because so many people are so intent on communizing, immigrants who deserve nothing more than a plane ticket out of this country are taking that money you say they "need."


I actually wouldn't mind some sort of national service, but making it only in the armed forces would be pretty moronic. There are too many of us "radicals" that don't like to use force, much less using a double standard to figure out whether to use it or not. You kids thought Iraq was bad? Take a look at Saudi Arabia (with $1 trillion invested in the American stock market. Wonder why we didn't bomb them, huh?) or.. Africa: the Mecca of war crime. How about Iran? Yeah, that place where we kicked out the democratically elected leader and put in the Shah as a dictator? How many of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi? And they were the enemy? Har, har, har, GOP. Not that Saddam was a good guy, and that he needed to be in power, but even talking about the human rights violations isn't enough to dissuade that we were lied to. They couldn't care less about poor people in America, much less in foreign countries that can't give us anything back.

Military service is needed because of its harshly regimented discipline. That is what people no longer have. Talk to your granparents, if they weren't pussy draft dodgers or physically disabled, about what they think of discipline in America today, about how people are treated. Ask them about crime rates and what happened back in the day when you lost a job (Hint: They didn't give your stupid ass money, to be sure) Secondly, we tried to go into Africa. Your prince Bill Clinton can be credited with that, and you see the results when you walk into a Blockbuster. And when you find a Saudi Monarch or Iranian leader who's killing half of his people, you let me, and more importantly Bush know, and we'll do something about it. Poor people are not what we are, or should be, worried about. Oppressed and threatened people are.

This is why I would never go for mandatory service in the military. I'd sooner go to prison. If we could get a president with balls, who could stand by one thing and not apply it differently to every country by how much oil or money they possess, this will be a better country. It's probably been too long with these wishy-washy candidates who agree on 70% of everything. The Gore/Bush debates, for example, were ridiculous.

That doesn't merit a response.


By the way you say that, Herr William, I'd think that you were talking about reality as if it were the barrel of a gun.

For most of the Liberals in this country, it is. Or at least it ought to be. We could do without them.

[D3adcell]

I vote Darth Faction for president lol.

Oh except for the thing you said about social security. If you got rid of social security you think people would actually put that money into the bank? Maybe some would, but alot would just spend it becuae they have it.

[Bryan]

Clinton was damn close to being as much of a moron as Bush has always been and continues to be, and it isn't because he [Clinton] had an affair. I couldn't care less about that personal bullshit that has nothing to do with government, but I didn't like Clinton's foreign policy in the least. I think Bush has a better idea, he just needs to apply it equally to all of the cultures he deals with on a regular basis. Let's just cover that now to avoid any further confusion, sorry I didn't make that abundantly clear from the start of going on about foreign affairs. As I said though, we haven't had a good president in a very long time, and I meant both republicans and democrats. I don't typically like to fall into the two-party system bullshit, because who I agree with will be who I vote for. I couldn't speak for you though.

1. No, people are not allowed to commit serial murder in their homes, so they aren't allowed to rape children in their homes. Consensual homosexuality between adults is a lot different from raping a six year old. Believe what you will, but I myself believe that there is a difference between the two. Anyone who disagrees, be sure to chime in. And also, how is allowing gays to get married doing anything at the expense of the majority? There are gay people, so we should let them get married. Hell, if it's such a big deal to call it the sacred word 'marriage', let's call it something else but give them the same benefits. I'm willing to comprimise with the zealots, so there it is.

Reasonable, or no?

2. Not a lot of people are hiring because of the economy, man. You can be experienced, but if nobody is hiring because it'll cost too much money, that isn't your fault. It'd be unfair to toss people out on the street because we refuse to look after our own people, who are alive, in case you didn't think of that. But really, how can you honestly say that anyone who loses their job because they got laid off deserves to die in the streets? Sounds rather ridiculous.

Ah, but those Hispanics have children who are American citizens. Since most of them are Catholic, they don't use birth control, and they have kids. It'd be a bit fucked to kick out the parents and throw the kids into foster homes, but that isn't nearly as fucked as deporting the American children because their parents are from Mexico, either. This is a very tough situation, and I know that without really reading between the lines, it's hard to understand why the government would just support them. Of course, even those illegal immigrants are an important part of the economy in my area, because their labor is cheaper and the farmers can make more money.

First we're throwing Americans out onto the street, and now we need to deport Hispanic-American children born to alien parents? Yikes.

3. I don't support drug use, but I also don't understand why we would continue to fund a failing war on drugs. I say legalize the less potent drugs, which will in turn give us a hell of a lot more money to improve our country with (because rehabilitation programs cost a fuck of a lot less than enforcement) and shut down a lot of violent gangs in our inner cities, and stop the flow of a shitload of cash to drug cartels and other terrorist groups around the world in the process. The government could also tax marijuana, like they do cigarettes and alcohol, and make more money for perhaps.. our public school systems. That combined with American corporations distributing it could have a nice economic impact. And also, we could focus more on cocaine and heroin, which are actually much more dangerous than marijuana. I don't support drugs, but I don't support spending tax dollars to stop marijauna, either.. because it isn't more of a big deal than alcohol. So do me a favor and stop trying to discredit me by calling me a stoner. Believing that we should take care of the people who need it doesn't make me a stoner, it makes me slightly socialist. I mean, shit, Canada has a higher unemployment rate than we do, but they have virtually no problem with people being able to live. They have a higher tax rate, but they also have more services, like health care for every citizen, support for the poor, and so on. How is that system bad, if it's worked so well with Canada? They're a smaller country, granted, but their success with that system along with.. I won't even guess how many other countries who have something similar, has to show something for that system. Communism is a good idea, but it won't work. You need a center of power, but not one that oppresses his/her people, and that's what always happens. Communism always turns into a dictatorship because power is a hard thing to get rid of. I'd wager it's more addictive than any of the evil drugs you can name off the top of your head.

4. Clinton's bullshit in Africa was what I was referring to previously. He didn't give troops there enough support.. We certainly didn't try as hard there as in Iraq the first or second time.. or as hard as we tried in Korea and Vietnam. And the Shah, a dictator that we put into power after getting rid of the democratically elected leader -- oh nevermind, what's the point? You'll just call me ignorant because I have a different opinion than yours.

But maybe oppression for me is a different thing than for you. I find that Saudi arabia, which has a parliament.. kinda.. doesn't support people speaking their minds if it isn't what their government believes they should be thinking. That kind of fascist shit might be your kind of place, but not mine. Not that we need to invade them, but being as involved with them on a positive basis isn't warranted given how they treat the minorities that they silence, much like you would do if you were the leader of a country, it would seem.

I had a grandfather who was drafted into World War 2 (which is a war I would have fought in) and my other enlisted into Korea. I also have two uncles who were in Vietnam. So no, none of them were "pussy draft dodgers" as you put it so eloquently, and neither would I be if there was something worth fighting for in the war I was to be drafted in. I support the military, but not all of the things they're used for.

By the way, that comment about liberals shows how you don't support individuality. Nice.

[snowboardSPX]

this thread prooves my reasoning of hating politics. ALL THEY DO IS ARGUE!!!!

[Bryan]

I know. Politics can be evil, but it isn't like Faction and myself hate eachother, we just disagree heavily. He's still cool, and I'd assume that he doesn't want to shoot me.... yet.

[Darth_Faction]

Clinton was damn close to being as much of a moron as Bush has always been and continues to be, and it isn't because he [Clinton] had an affair. I couldn't care less about that personal bullshit that has nothing to do with government, but I didn't like Clinton's foreign policy in the least. I think Bush has a better idea, he just needs to apply it equally to all of the cultures he deals with on a regular basis. Let's just cover that now to avoid any further confusion, sorry I didn't make that abundantly clear from the start of going on about foreign affairs. As I said though, we haven't had a good president in a very long time, and I meant both republicans and democrats. I don't typically like to fall into the two-party system bullshit, because who I agree with will be who I vote for. I couldn't speak for you though.

There's a lot more to a presidency than what you seen on CNN. I didn't expect you to know that, though. :rolleyes:

1. No, people are not allowed to commit serial murder in their homes, so they aren't allowed to rape children in their homes. Consensual homosexuality between adults is a lot different from raping a six year old. Believe what you will, but I myself believe that there is a difference between the two. Anyone who disagrees, be sure to chime in. And also, how is allowing gays to get married doing anything at the expense of the majority? There are gay people, so we should let them get married. Hell, if it's such a big deal to call it the sacred word 'marriage', let's call it something else but give them the same benefits. I'm willing to comprimise with the zealots, so there it is.

Reasonable, or no?

People aren't allowed to commit serial murder, but according to the legislation in Texas, it is quite possible that people can expect to participate in any "sexually taboo" acts that they deem fit. Now, in discussing gay marriage, I want to go back to a point that I addressed earlier; the Liberal Inability to come face to face with reality. If you are going to address marriage licenses to two people of the same sex, you are ignoring reality. You are pretending that those people can be a mother and a father, given that the purpose of marriage is to strengthen the emotional--and in their minds "spiritual"--bonds between two people, and to promote procreation. To ignore this would be to ignore the reality of the fact, homosexuals cannot reproduce. To allow them to adopt kids would be a further travesty, as not only is it proven that two parents of opposite sexes optimally raise a child, but how is it socially correct to allow two individuals of the same sex to raise a child according to their ways of life, their (possibly) pro-gay biases, when homosexuality is a "genetic" irregularity. Of course, you can make that argument that homosexuality is "normal," but only normal in the same sense that a retarded child is normal. There is nothing socially approvable in the nature of a homosexual marriage, if their only function would be to boost the self-esteem of homosexuals and to give them tax benefits. In my mind, that defiles the premise of marriage, a premise that was established by the founding fathers, who, in the Federalist Papers, endorsed and supported the Bible in the establishment of the Constitution.

2. Not a lot of people are hiring because of the economy, man. You can be experienced, but if nobody is hiring because it'll cost too much money, that isn't your fault. It'd be unfair to toss people out on the street because we refuse to look after our own people, who are alive, in case you didn't think of that. But really, how can you honestly say that anyone who loses their job because they got laid off deserves to die in the streets? Sounds rather ridiculous.

Life isn't fair, Bryan. You should have learned to deal with, or at least accept, that by now. Americans become more and more lazy with each passing year the more they realize, "Oh, I'm okay if I screw up because I'll have billions of dollars worth of Communist governmental agencies to pad my fall."

Ah, but those Hispanics have children who are American citizens. Since most of them are Catholic, they don't use birth control, and they have kids. It'd be a bit fucked to kick out the parents and throw the kids into foster homes, but that isn't nearly as fucked as deporting the American children because their parents are from Mexico, either. This is a very tough situation, and I know that without really reading between the lines, it's hard to understand why the government would just support them. Of course, even those illegal immigrants are an important part of the economy in my area, because their labor is cheaper and the farmers can make more money.


Keyword : Illegal

I promise you that immigrants cost this country more money than they earn for it. With that in mind, you were the one complaining about people are being laid off, so had immigrants not abused the virtually nonexistant border between American and Mexico, we wouldn't be wasting money on people who aren't citizens and we wouldn't have as many people out of the job.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

First we're throwing Americans out onto the street, and now we need to deport Hispanic-American children born to alien parents? Yikes.

I volunteer to deport you.

3. I don't support drug use, but I also don't understand why we would continue to fund a failing war on drugs. I say legalize the less potent drugs, which will in turn give us a hell of a lot more money to improve our country with (because rehabilitation programs cost a fuck of a lot less than enforcement) and shut down a lot of violent gangs in our inner cities, and stop the flow of a shitload of cash to drug cartels and other terrorist groups around the world in the process. The government could also tax marijuana, like they do cigarettes and alcohol, and make more money for perhaps.. our public school systems. That combined with American corporations distributing it could have a nice economic impact. And also, we could focus more on cocaine and heroin, which are actually much more dangerous than marijuana. I don't support drugs, but I don't support spending tax dollars to stop marijauna, either.. because it isn't more of a big deal than alcohol. So do me a favor and stop trying to discredit me by calling me a stoner. Believing that we should take care of the people who need it doesn't make me a stoner, it makes me slightly socialist. I mean, shit, Canada has a higher unemployment rate than we do, but they have virtually no problem with people being able to live. They have a higher tax rate, but they also have more services, like health care for every citizen, support for the poor, and so on. How is that system bad, if it's worked so well with Canada? They're a smaller country, granted, but their success with that system along with.. I won't even guess how many other countries who have something similar, has to show something for that system. Communism is a good idea, but it won't work. You need a center of power, but not one that oppresses his/her people, and that's what always happens. Communism always turns into a dictatorship because power is a hard thing to get rid of. I'd wager it's more addictive than any of the evil drugs you can name off the top of your head.

First, this is a capitalism, not a socialism
The difference between Canada and America is that America is the most powerful country in the world with the most effective economy, while Canada is a trifling country with no real importance.

104 Million Americans use Alcohol
64 Million Americans use Tobacco
14 Million Americans use Illicit Substances

100,000 Alcohol Related Deaths a year
430,000 Tobacco Related Deaths a year
52,000 Illict Substance related Deaths a year

Let's do the math, Bryan. Math, you know that subject, right?

64 mill / 14 mill = 4.64

52,000 * 4.64 = 301,785 Deaths

104 mill / 14 mill = 7.42

52,000 * 7.42 = 386,285 Deaths

That last number easily dwarfs the number of alcohol related deaths given the number of people who use alcohol, and sizeably compares to the number of Tobacco related deaths (Tobacco related deaths include lung diseases and cancer).

You, who, paragraphs ago, were telling us how we should spend our billions of dollars to save the lives of those people are being fired and "thrown into the streets," and then turn around, suggest that the war against drugs should be stopped, and illicit substances legalized, without even taking into consideration the number of people you will kill that way. Good job, Bryan, way to be an informed hypocrite.

Anti-prohibition legislation was created how many years ago? It looks to me like the mafia is still around despite their efforts to disseminate it by legalizing alcohol.

4. Clinton's bullshit in Africa was what I was referring to previously. He didn't give troops there enough support.. We certainly didn't try as hard there as in Iraq the first or second time.. or as hard as we tried in Korea and Vietnam. And the Shah, a dictator that we put into power after getting rid of the democratically elected leader -- oh nevermind, what's the point? You'll just call me ignorant because I have a different opinion than yours.

Way to convince me. :thumbsup:

But maybe oppression for me is a different thing than for you. I find that Saudi arabia, which has a parliament.. kinda.. doesn't support people speaking their minds if it isn't what their government believes they should be thinking. That kind of fascist shit might be your kind of place, but not mine. Not that we need to invade them, but being as involved with them on a positive basis isn't warranted given how they treat the minorities that they silence, much like you would do if you were the leader of a country, it would seem.

. . Saudi Arabia took under their wing 400,000 refugees during Desert Storm. Saudi Arabia is not killing hundreds of thousands of it's people. Saudi Arabia is also a religious, monarchial state. Given their rigorous muslim beliefs, some things are accepted and some things are not. We did not invade Iraq because they are Muslim, nor did we invade Afghanistan because they were predominantly Muslim. We invaded because those countries posed a serious threat the not only our national, but international security.

I had a grandfather who was drafted into World War 2 (which is a war I would have fought in) and my other enlisted into Korea. I also have two uncles who were in Vietnam. So no, none of them were "pussy draft dodgers" as you put it so eloquently, and neither would I be if there was something worth fighting for in the war I was to be drafted in. I support the military, but not all of the things they're used for.

You have, or at least you should have, a duty and responsibility to your country to serve in it's armed forces despite the agenda of political leaders, despite the engagements that you are put into, despite what form of employment you undertake. If you are not willing to fight for your country, no matter the cause, then clearly you are not willing to undertake the responsibility of making the United States a better place.

By the way, that comment about liberals shows how you don't support individuality. Nice.

Because I support individuality I therefore have to like those people who use it in stupid ways? I think not, Bryan. . Unless you would take it seriously when I suggest that they'll all be killed. I love how how Liberals-- or do you call yourself a Socialist? -- support diversity and divergent opinions only when those opinions are ones that they agree with. . . Good job, Bryan. Good job.

[Bryan]

Wow. You completely failed to say much of anything new. Sorry I irritate you so much, but if this is too hard for you, feel free to run. But if you last post was any indication, I may end this so neither one of us get banned. :)

1. Anyway, besides you trying to start an actual fight (likely out of desperation), there isn't a lot to that last one besides your drug deaths, which many could be accounted for because many people who do crack, for example, are also impoverished, and are afraid to go to a rehab center because of the fear of arrest. Interesting. And oh do I wonder why tobacco is legal.. or actually, the additives that are put into factory made cigarettes. FDA approved! Of course, more poor people or minorities than any other class also smoke which all works out very well, I suppose. Might I quote an executive from a tobacco company that said when asked why he and his associates don't smoke: "We leave smoking to the poor, the black, and the stupid".

If marijuna is so dangerous, why is it that I hear much more about people dying in alcohol-related crashes, or even accidents in general, than ones with marijuana? Not to say that the latter doesn't occur (because I'm sure that it does) but how is it that I hear of only a fraction of accidents having to do with marijauna as compared to alcohol? To tell you the truth, I rarely hear of it.. Also quite interesting, as things always are. Maybe if drugs weren't illegal, more people would go to rehab and not be on drugs so then they could be more profitable members of your masses? I suppose such things are hard to tell, though.

So I fail to see how I'm saying kill a bunch of people who will maybe just help themselves by going into rehab, but again, I am "ignorant" and "radical" says you. And that's okay, you can say that. It's your perogative.

Also, the Mafia is far from as strong now as they were during Prohibition. I don't see them controlling metropolitan police forces, the director of the FBI, and other people in power anymore. Now they do drug trafficking, prostitution, extortion, illegal gambling and money laundering. Organized crime will just get stronger with those lucrative means. Legalizing prostitution (prostitution would be safer if they could get monthly check-ups from physicians, instead of being turned in if they ask to be. Prostitution, like drugs, also has an extremely high repeat offender rate, which makes me question how well enforcement does..), at least some drugs, and so on would weaken them and other terrorists much more. And yes, I did call the Mafia terrorists, the people who we inadvertantly supply with a nice cash flow.

2. In Afghanistan there was an actual threat to US national security, but regrettably, in Iraq there was not. Osama bin Laden (Sept. 11th dude), that shady character that so many Americans forgot about until the recent attacks in Iraq on 'coalition' forces, was based in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. His terrorists also came from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.. The Taliban supported bin Laden's terrorist group, probably financially as well as the simply thing of: just not arresting them. This is the same group that we armed and trained to kill Soviets when they were trying to take over Afghanistan.. which is.. again, interesting. The Cold War thing always seems to bite us on the ass. But, in fact, to this day, we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in post-Saddam Iraq. Would you call me misinformed for saying that, or do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?

It's embarassing when shit like that happens. I'm sorry man, but it really is. The rest of the world does, in fact, matter and not a whole hell of a lot of it supports our actions. No evidence. *shrugs* Either Saddam is a genius, or he just didn't have anything besides some AK's and maybe a couple grenades.. MIG 21's.. maybe. But you'd have to have one hell of an arm to throw a grenade into Washington from Baghdad.. or even to Hamburg, or London. So how was that a threat to international, or American security?

3. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't support you for speaking your mind. Anyone that doesn't support your right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe is no friend of mine. Just because I challenge what you say doesn't mean I challenge your right to say it, so stop with the bullshit.

Anyone that thinks I was shunning him for that in any way should definitely show me where, and I'll apologize for it. Until then, nice.. try again to piss me off. :D

4. Canada isn't as important, but people still live there, and live well. I guess you could say I'm wrong, but.. why?

PS: I don't agree with your military stance. Show me a real threat, and I'll enlist. Promise.

[Darth_Faction]

Wow. You completely failed to say much of anything new. Sorry I irritate you so much, but if this is too hard for you, feel free to run. But if you last post was any indication, I may end this so neither one of us get banned. :)

Refer to this post's quoted material to become further accomodated to "not saying anything new."

1. Anyway, besides you trying to start an actual fight (likely out of desperation), there isn't a lot to that last one besides your drug deaths, which many could be accounted for because many people who do crack, for example, are also impoverished, and are afraid to go to a rehab center because of the fear of arrest. Interesting. And oh do I wonder why tobacco is legal.. or actually, the additives that are put into factory made cigarettes. FDA approved! Of course, more poor people or minorities than any other class also smoke which all works out very well, I suppose. Might I quote an executive from a tobacco company that said when asked why he and his associates don't smoke: "We leave smoking to the poor, the black, and the stupid".

I'm sorry that you feel threatened, Bryan. That's a shame.

Everything outside of that first sentence has absolutely no relevance. Not to mention that you entirely ignore the schpeel about gay marriages, which not only clarifies but expounds on my view of homosexual marriage. You might want to try harder at pretending like I haven't said anything. :thumbsup:

If marijuna is so dangerous, why is it that I hear much more about people dying in alcohol-related crashes, or even accidents in general, than ones with marijuana? Not to say that the latter doesn't occur (because I'm sure that it does) but how is it that I hear of only a fraction of accidents having to do with marijauna as compared to alcohol? To tell you the truth, I rarely hear of it.. Also quite interesting, as things always are. Maybe if drugs weren't illegal, more people would go to rehab and not be on drugs so then they could be more profitable members of your masses? I suppose such things are hard to tell, though.

The more I read of this, the more I think that you didn't look at anything I had to say in the previous posts. I guarantee you that the number of cigarette and alcohol users(abusers) is much higher than if tobacco and alcohol were illegal. The more people who use something, the more people who die, and if Marijuana were made illegal, you would probably see an easily comparable amount of Marijuana related deaths to Alcohol related deaths. I guess math isn't your subject, though.

So I fail to see how I'm saying kill a bunch of people who will maybe just help themselves by going into rehab, but again, I am "ignorant" and "radical" says you. And that's okay, you can say that. It's your perogative.

Just like the millions upon millions who go to AA, or who check into rehab for alcohol abuse. But a moment ago, you said that you hear a lot more about alcohol related deaths than marijuana related deaths. Are you done contradicting yourself?

Also, the Mafia is far from as strong now as they were during Prohibition. I don't see them controlling metropolitan police forces, the director of the FBI, and other people in power anymore. Now they do drug trafficking, prostitution, extortion, illegal gambling and money laundering. Organized crime will just get stronger with those lucrative means. Legalizing prostitution (prostitution would be safer if they could get monthly check-ups from physicians, instead of being turned in if they ask to be. Prostitution, like drugs, also has an extremely high repeat offender rate, which makes me question how well enforcement does..), at least some drugs, and so on would weaken them and other terrorists much more. And yes, I did call the Mafia terrorists, the people who we inadvertantly supply with a nice cash flow.

Is the Mafia still around? Do they still kill people? Are they still functioning illegally?

2. In Afghanistan there was an actual threat to US national security, but regrettably, in Iraq there was not. Osama bin Laden (Sept. 11th dude), that shady character that so many Americans forgot about until the recent attacks in Iraq on 'coalition' forces, was based in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. His terrorists also came from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.. The Taliban supported bin Laden's terrorist group, probably financially as well as the simply thing of: just not arresting them. This is the same group that we armed and trained to kill Soviets when they were trying to take over Afghanistan.. which is.. again, interesting. The Cold War thing always seems to bite us on the ass. But, in fact, to this day, we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in post-Saddam Iraq. Would you call me misinformed for saying that, or do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?

I'll use numbers this time, since you seem to like those so much.

1. How many dead bodies did we find in Iraq. If you would like to think that dead bodies don't merit a regime change, then Pol Pot should still be in power.

2. Saddam Hussein has been linked to Al Qaeda financially

3. I don't see how training Afghani troops has any relevancy.

4. We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, but at the same time, they did have quite a large window in which to hide/destroy them.

It's embarassing when shit like that happens. I'm sorry man, but it really is. The rest of the world does, in fact, matter and not a whole hell of a lot of it supports our actions. No evidence. *shrugs* Either Saddam is a genius, or he just didn't have anything besides some AK's and maybe a couple grenades.. MIG 21's.. maybe. But you'd have to have one hell of an arm to throw a grenade into Washington from Baghdad.. or even to Hamburg, or London. So how was that a threat to international, or American security?

I don't really see why this is here. . .

3. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't support you for speaking your mind. Anyone that doesn't support your right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe is no friend of mine. Just because I challenge what you say doesn't mean I challenge your right to say it, so stop with the bullshit.

. . . And yet, you were accusing me of being "anti-individualistic" in your last post. . That's pretty ironic.

Anyone that thinks I was shunning him for that in any way should definitely show me where, and I'll apologize for it. Until then, nice.. try again to piss me off. :D

4. Canada isn't as important, but people still live there, and live well. I guess you could say I'm wrong, but.. why?

. . . . Okay? Where does the argument part come in?

PS: I don't agree with your military stance. Show me a real threat, and I'll enlist. Promise.

Once again. Way to convince me, Bryan. :thumbsup:



Next time you might not want to accuse me of conducting a trifling argument, with no additional information or conjecture when your posts don't have enough of anything to even respond to. It's a shame, because I remember that the younger, smarter Bryan was capable of admitting it when he was thoroughly humbled.


P.S. When you're trying hard to "put an end to an argument," you might want to try and stay on topic, there, mate. :no:

[Gummy]

tons of opinions to read here

hmm

i might learn something here

meh why waste time muahahah

[Bryan]

I already ended the argument, Darth. Keep talking.

[Karavi]

Settle down.

Next time I close the thread, mmkay? :D

[Bryan]

Shit, it's the posting pigs. BREAK!

[Darth_Faction]

I already ended the argument, Darth. Keep talking.


You tap out then? Cool beans.

[Bryan]

I'm just not interested anymore. I really have more interesting things to do, anyway. Or rather.. school work.. Good game, though. I still love you. :dog:

[Karavi]

I think someone needs to reread the constitution. I'm not mentioning any names, either. You can decipher that for yourself. It's just funny reading someone completely rework the entire constitution to their own liking, acting like they've memorized it, and actually posting it.

Perhaps though, in your state, crimes of such degree are considered normal, seeing as it has the highest percentage of inmates though I'm not surprised. Obviously, they didn't know the constitution well enough either.

I end it there. No flaming. No bashing. I figured since everyone else stated their opinion, I mean what would 2 little paragraphs do. If I'm flamed, I'm just going to see it as hypocritical.

[Bryan]

:ha:

Damn.

[Spatula]

allow me to post the constitution on this same thread tomorrow.

[Karavi]

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html <-- Bill of Rights
http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html <-- Constitution

[Darth_Faction]

I think someone needs to reread the constitution. I'm not mentioning any names, either. You can decipher that for yourself. It's just funny reading someone completely rework the entire constitution to their own liking, acting like they've memorized it, and actually posting it.

Perhaps though, in your state, crimes of such degree are considered normal, seeing as it has the highest percentage of inmates though I'm not surprised. Obviously, they didn't know the constitution well enough either.

I end it there. No flaming. No bashing. I figured since everyone else stated their opinion, I mean what would 2 little paragraphs do. If I'm flamed, I'm just going to see it as hypocritical.

I'm not really sure if that statistic "highest percentage of inmates" means anything, but if you're talking about incarceration rate, you probably mean Texas.

Non-State = District of Columbia. .

[Karavi]

I meant in the United States, because we were regarding the works of the United States (Bill of Rights & the Constitution), so I figured it would be obvious as to what I meant.

And I did mean Texas. Which is where you live, right? Or at least implied to live in...

[Darth_Faction]

I meant in the United States, because we were regarding the works of the United States (Bill of Rights & the Constitution), so I figured it would be obvious as to what I meant.

And I did mean Texas. Which is where you live, right? Or at least implied to live in...


Way to know absolutely nothing. :thumbsup:


I live in North Carolina and I come from Ohio (which has one of the lowest crime rates in the U.S., by the way)


P.S. you're probably speculating on the Fact that the constitution was created with the Christian Moral Doctrine in mind. If you have trouble believing me, feel free to refer to Federalist #10.


P.P.S. I only brought up Texas because of the sodomy law that was upheld there a few months ago, although no one told me that being aware of current legislation(*gasp* nationwide at that!) would be "implying" that you're from that area.

[Bryan]

That's why I stopped trying to talk to him, Karavi. He acts like a child. I really didn't want to waste anymore of my life on it.

[Karavi]

Did I say you actually lived there? No. I said coming from what I read it seemed as if you did. You're taking it a little too far. Way to know absolutely nothing? Well, coming from your profile, it states you live in Dublin, Ireland.

Thread closed. More than one rule has been broken in here and continued even though I gave a warning and said it was supposed to be stopped. The disrespect to other members is also asinine and won't be tolerated. Now it's going to end.

[Karavi]

I'm reopening this thread. If ANYONE as so much seems to get out of hand I will not hesitate to close it again and hand out individual warnings.

[pipe_radeau]

First off, SHEEEEWW!! This is the most flaming thread I have seen and ever hope to see! I acutally became very angry just from reading parts of this thread. Why cant people just state their oppinions without being so...INSULTING?

As for my oppinion on the TOPIC, I am for gay marriages. If a gay couple love one another and want to show their love, they should be able to get married as straight couples can. As for adoption, if a gay couple can provide and show love toward a child, they should be allowed to adopt b/c there is no REAL reason to not let them. I do have a few other reasons for my views, but I am afraid to post them b/c I am sure that someone will bash them as much as possible :p .

[Batman]

go for it pipe, whether we agree or not, i can assure you that I atleast , will not bash you.

[pipe_radeau]

Actually, I dont really care if my oppinions get bashed...that was more or less to make a point.

Reasons for Marriage
1. To be allowed the same right as a heterosexual. Why cant they prove their love?
2. It has to be marriage b/c a Civil Union is a seperate but equal institution which is a form segregation.
3. The marriage benefits. Why cant gays get the same benefits as straight couples for loving one another?

Adoption
1. Since gay couples are not going to result in children, they can take care of children who have been abandoned.
2. They can care and provide for a child just like any hetero couple can.

Thats all I feel like saying for now...

[Budd]

I don't think it's right, but I don't see why Gays shouldn't be able to get married.

Although I feel a pair of gay parents is unhealthy for a child growing up.

[pipe_radeau]

Why do you think it is unhealthy Zach?

[Pats]

Darth_Faction, much earlier you said that gays are incapable of raising a child, how the hell would you know this? Have you witnessed this? Do you know what you're talking about? My father is gay, and I'm pretty sure he raised me just fine, but maybe you could tell me otherwise, since you would probably know more about it than i would wouldn't you? You act like homosexuality is some sort of disease that a gay couple would pass on to their children. Express how you feel, but do not speak with authority on something you have no knowledge of.

As for gay marriage, I don't really care if gay people want to get married or not. If they have reasons enough for it, let them do it, as for myself, I can't say that I know enough on the topic to express my opinion like I would like to. I wish some other people in this thread could have owned up and realized this about themselves before spewing incoherent, uneducated ramble that doesn't get us anywhere. I'm looking at you Snowboarder.

[D3adcell]

Karavi the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is the same thing, the Bill of Rights is just the first 10 ammendmants. Also you were saying how some states dont know the constitution very well or something. Well like the 9th ammendment (somewhere around there) it says that states have hte power to set their own rules/laws.

[Wimbien]

I believe that every person should live their life as they see fit. In the preamble to the Us constitiution the US is supposed to grant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If these people will be happy if they get married then so be it. Also in the constitution it says seperation of church and state but yet we are controlled by the church in this decission since bush is a follower of the church. Since he and his other church goers believe its against god or whatever to be happy then that means all those millions of people who believe differently must go unhappy. The government cant say you cant marry someone for a reason just because church feels it to be wrong.

[Spatula]

one of my friends earlier said that allowing gays and lesbians to have gay and lesbian parades and not letting them get married is like allowing people to have shoot the pope parades and not letting them shoot the pope.

something to think about.

[Klittlet]

religion aside which i do belive the bible But aside from that Homosexuallity is unnatural only a women and a man can have children without help from machines or doctors. Men were made with penises and women with vaginas to be put togther for male and female relations and reproduction. I dont believe for a second anyone was born this way. Now their are people have sex with animals.Soon they will argueing the same as gays that they were born that way and they can't help it. Same as child molesters. They are all just sick perverted people that can't or in my opinion won't try to curve their sick perverted thoughts and actions. I sick of hearing other peoples sexaul preferance you don't see strait people meeting people by saying their name and sexual preferance. Gay people don't you dare tell me you dont do this cause I have met many gays in college and every one of them interduced themselves with name and sex preferance. So to answer the question no I don't think they should allow gay marrage

[Klittlet]

Actually, I dont really care if my oppinions get bashed...that was more or less to make a point.

Reasons for Marriage
1. To be allowed the same right as a heterosexual. Why cant they prove their love?
2. It has to be marriage b/c a Civil Union is a seperate but equal institution which is a form segregation.
3. The marriage benefits. Why cant gays get the same benefits as straight couples for loving one another?

Adoption
1. Since gay couples are not going to result in children, they can take care of children who have been abandoned.
2. They can care and provide for a child just like any hetero couple can.

Thats all I feel like saying for now...
People get love and sex messed up you can love someone without haveing sex with them so yes you can love someone of the same sex but sex is just wrong

[Klittlet]

Actually, I dont really care if my oppinions get bashed...that was more or less to make a point.

Reasons for Marriage
1. To be allowed the same right as a heterosexual. Why cant they prove their love?
2. It has to be marriage b/c a Civil Union is a seperate but equal institution which is a form segregation.
3. The marriage benefits. Why cant gays get the same benefits as straight couples for loving one another?

Adoption
1. Since gay couples are not going to result in children, they can take care of children who have been abandoned.
2. They can care and provide for a child just like any hetero couple can.

Thats all I feel like saying for now...

Sex and love is two different thing and this were the gays are messed up you can love someone of the same sex without have sex with them people get the two confused

[Moroccan_1]

Now they are talking about the right to get married and shit, and they forget that the issue itself is disgusting...come guys or should i say girls give us a brake and keep your pants up for god sakes and stay in the closet

[Klittlet]

Gays are cool. I'd never say this out loud but you gotta have respect for them to be who they are.

I have no problem with gays. Being gay is A-okay!


Everybody thinks everything is O.K. now what ever happened to morals soon sex with animal and children will be O.K. Its starting out the same at first it's wrong then a few perverts say its O.K. then it just builds their are actually groups out there now saying its O.K. to have sex with little boy man on boy love the problem is people get love and sex confused.

[milkman_ofdeath]

Homosexuality is sickening, im toataly against it and find it repulsive.
As for gay rights, too hell with that, they have just as much rights as every one else except the marrage rights. and no they shouldnt be allowed to adopt. Even though I feel this way I dont feel I need to be one of those cowards that have to attack and beat or kill gays, those people really suck and are most likley gay and scared to admit it. :punchnutz

[Teuvil]

They dont have as much rights as us "normal" people, idiot. They cant get married and we can. They are also discriminated (sp?). Lemme tell you a story on how it is.

I was sitting at lunch, i have a gay friend named Chris. I do NOT have a problem with that. I sit next to him every other day (I have it on B days). He shows me pictures of his boyfriend and tells me stories, which im cool with. One day, some fuck head carrot top came over. Before he could ask "are you gay", Chris already answered "yes". "Why dont you like girls, whats wrong with you?" He asked. "Because i was born that way." The carrot top walked away 5 steps, turned around and said "FAG" really loud so the WHOLE lunch room could hear. He came back and said it again right in his face while chris was sitting down. So i stood up and stuck out my chest and told him to piss off.

See what they have to go through? I cant believe you dick wads dont want them to have rights and just let them be. They ARE human no matter what you see. You wannna know why they are scared to admit to being gay? Cause fuckers like you verbally abuse them. And if you're christian, who you gonna blame this on? God? Yes, you have to blame it on God. So it MUST be all right with God for there to be lesbians and gays. So all those signs that say "God doesnt allow it!" Well fuck you! God Must like hot lesbians having sex.

[BombermanX]

My neighbors across the street are gay. I swear, we're all human, aren't we?

[Klittlet]

They dont have as much rights as us "normal" people, idiot. They cant get married and we can. They are also discriminated (sp?). Lemme tell you a story on how it is.

I was sitting at lunch, i have a gay friend named Chris. I do NOT have a problem with that. I sit next to him every other day (I have it on B days). He shows me pictures of his boyfriend and tells me stories, which im cool with. One day, some fuck head carrot top came over. Before he could ask "are you gay", Chris already answered "yes". "Why dont you like girls, whats wrong with you?" He asked. "Because i was born that way." The carrot top walked away 5 steps, turned around and said "FAG" really loud so the WHOLE lunch room could hear. He came back and said it again right in his face while chris was sitting down. So i stood up and stuck out my chest and told him to piss off.

See what they have to go through? I cant believe you dick wads dont want them to have rights and just let them be. They ARE human no matter what you see. You wannna know why they are scared to admit to being gay? Cause fuckers like you verbally abuse them. And if you're christian, who you gonna blame this on? God? Yes, you have to blame it on God. So it MUST be all right with God for there to be lesbians and gays. So all those signs that say "God doesnt allow it!" Well fuck you! God Must like hot lesbians having sex.

You are full of it these people are not born gay. It is a choice in the bible the lord says that god finds it detestiable for a man to sleep with anouther man I don't pick on gays nor do I dissagree that they are human. But they are doing wrong men have male part and females have female parts for a reason and their is also a reason why men and women can only conceive a child without the help of doctors I really hate to burst your bubble but really!!!!!

P.S. The lord don't make mistakes but us humans do

[BombermanX]

Ok, so what you are saying, it is wrong to be yourself? OK! Then I guess I should go join everyone and drink alcohol and smoke weed. Do drugs is the cool way because everyone does it! (sarcasm). You need to realize that people act their own way. I keep thinking why my brother acts like a gothic persom when he isn't, and wonder why he makes up a fake language thinking it will be famous, but it really doesn't matter anymore BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY HE IS. And you know, whenever someone brings up the bible and saying that gays are doing something WRONG for being gay, it just makes me so mad. Well I have one thing to say to you, fuck God. I don't really give a damn if he/she think's you should do this or that, just do what you want, it doesn't matter. And if it gives you consequences, then here's another thing- EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, you do will have consequences. Some good, some bad, it doesn't matter. Live life out and don't let people keep you from being yourself. That's why there are Athiests and Religious people. People can be who they want to be. Gays and lesbians get the 'hots' for the same sex. You guys (males) know what I mean when a blonde bombshell walks by, you just go MMM MMM ;).. or some of us do that... I know that though, we all have a naughty side ;). ANYWAYS back on topic, everyone can be themselves, and just because someone says you're doing something wrong for being who you are, ignore them if it makes you feel really that bad. It will just weigh you down. Keep doing what you're doing until you get in trouble by the police- THEN YOU CAN GOTO CANADA :D. *cough* (I think all of that was opinionated, and if it was, then let that be it :) )

[Klittlet]

Ok, so what you are saying, it is wrong to be yourself? OK! Then I guess I should go join everyone and drink alcohol and smoke weed. Do drugs is the cool way because everyone does it! (sarcasm). You need to realize that people act their own way. I keep thinking why my brother acts like a gothic persom when he isn't, and wonder why he makes up a fake language thinking it will be famous, but it really doesn't matter anymore BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY HE IS. And you know, whenever someone brings up the bible and saying that gays are doing something WRONG for being gay, it just makes me so mad. Well I have one thing to say to you, fuck God. I don't really give a damn if he/she think's you should do this or that, just do what you want, it doesn't matter. And if it gives you consequences, then here's another thing- EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING, you do will have consequences. Some good, some bad, it doesn't matter. Live life out and don't let people keep you from being yourself. That's why there are Athiests and Religious people. People can be who they want to be. Gays and lesbians get the 'hots' for the same sex. You guys (males) know what I mean when a blonde bombshell walks by, you just go MMM MMM ;).. or some of us do that... I know that though, we all have a naughty side ;). ANYWAYS back on topic, everyone can be themselves, and just because someone says you're doing something wrong for being who you are, ignore them if it makes you feel really that bad. It will just weigh you down. Keep doing what you're doing until you get in trouble by the police- THEN YOU CAN GOTO CANADA :D. *cough* (I think all of that was opinionated, and if it was, then let that be it :) )

Thats fine if thats how you feel I really don't care how you or your gay friend live your life but you and I both know there is a reason why only men and women can have children and are shaped to be together you can't reject that and as far as what you said about god you and him can talk that out when your time comes!!!

[gookian]

Klittlet, stop using that "oh it's unnatural to be gay because males need to have sex with females to give birth" You make it sound like whole purpose of being human is to give birth. You can't really say its WRONG to be gay, because you are practically saying its wrong to be who you really are...I guess...It's like saying its wrong to be "insert way of life" because you can't make babies...

[SkYLiNe[GtR]]

klittlet is just pointing out something called "breeding"

[Bryan]

In the words of my hero DarkLinkXxX:

"If you think homosexuality is unnatural, I guess you've never seen a guy dog drill another guy dog in the ass"

And that's all I have to say.

[gookian]

^HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH best quote yet

[Wimbien]

Same thing for adoption. Should Homosexual couples be able to adopt children?
No. The child will grow up thinking that it is normal to be with someone of the same sex because that is what she has known all her life.

[Wimbien]

[QUOTE=Jesus]Fuck Gays. I mean I don't won't too but. I want them to fuck off to hell.[/QUOTE=Deoveon] You sound like you are very young. Maybe you are having such a hard time excepting it because you don't understand it.

[Wimbien]

[QUOTE=Wimbien][QUOTE=Jesus]Fuck Gays. I mean I don't won't too but. I want them to fuck off to hell.[/QUOTE=Deoveon] You sound like you are very young. Maybe you are having such a hard time excepting the simple fact tat there are homosexuals in the world because you don't understand it. I am not a homo but I have a cousin who is and she is no different the anyonelse. She loves her family the same way you love yours.

[Wimbien]

[QUOTE=Jesus]Fuck Gays. I mean I don't won't too but. I want them to fuck off to hell.

[Pats]

Fuck Gays. I mean I don't won't too but. I want them to fuck off to hell.
Well said, real good point, you sure showed everyone. I love the part when you said, "I don't won't too but." That was awesome, it really taught me something. I wish everybody were as smart as you are.

P.S. You are a fucking dolt.

[gookian]

^ PWHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAH God that was funny.Praise MrPat

[Bryan]

Cool, not only is Wimbien a spammer, but he's an ignorant fascist to boot! Fuckin' yeah!

[Pats]

Wimbien was trying to quote what Jesus said. The ignorant comment belonged to Jesus. Wimbien just really sucks at using the quote button, and the edit button.

[Cats]

I think it is unusual, in reguards to nature and the whole breeding concept.
But I do not think that there is anything wrong or bad with homosexuality.
At least gay people aren't trying to force their way of life onto straight people, like some straight people try to force heterosexuality onto homosexuals.
There isn't much difference between a man and a woman in love, and two men in love.
Not in this day and age anyway.

I can't wait for humanity to grow up and learn tolerance.


I am reminded, in a not very relevant kind of manner, of a conversation I overheard at school one day.
Two girls were talking about the show Queer As Folk (which is excellent,) and they were saying something to the effect of, "It's good because they aren't all stereotypes of gay guys."
And soon enough they were talking about how it would be cool to have a gay friend so that he could help them pick out shoes.
And they were completely serious.

[Bryan]

Sorry Wimbien. I was confused.

The user Jesus, however, is a card carrying member of the Nazi Party.

[HPK]

I could care less if gay people are allowed to get married. I'm not gay, so it's nothing for me to worry about (and I find marriage to be a little silly anyway). So, whatever happens, happens. But if they actually pass an amendment banning gay marriage, I will laugh my ass off for a long time.

[OffCenter]

I think my thread was better but anyways i'll post in this one. Gay marriage shouldn't be banned just because society has gone gay bashing. Even tho most gay people are ugly (at least the ones i know) doesn't mean they should be able to express their love.

[Pats]

The user Jesus, however, is a card carrying member of the Nazi Party.
He wishes.

[Bryan]

The sick bastard.

[agr]

Please go to agr.50webs.com - new rights protecting organization!!

[Expo'86]

I love how the thread is named.

Overt and to the point.

[Gummy]

Did agr just advertised?

[rachealbug]

I was wondering if there were any posts stating the opinions of an actual gay man or lesbian?

Being a lesbian myself, I feel very strongly about this issue. I also feel hurt by some of the posts in this thread. However, EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.

I am for gay marraige. (Maybe that goes without saying.) I am for it for many reasons that go way beyond my own sexual affiliation. No one should be made into a "second class citizen" by the government. In my opinion, denying certain rights to homosexuals is the same as denying them to people of different races. To not allow gay marraige would be a step in the wrong direction. It goes against the ideals of progress and growth that I thought this country valued.

I am only stating my opinion and do not wish to get into a debate over this issue with anyone. Thank you.

[Ihsiin]

Why is it so important for there to be gay marriages? Marriage only has any real relevance in religion; apart from that it's just a legality; a technicality. As most religions are against homosexuality, gays and lesbians must not be religious (at least, not the main world religions, anyway), so where's the big deal?

[Expo'86]

Fuck Gays. I mean I don't won't too but. I want them to fuck off to hell.

It's people like you that make me ashamed to be a human being.

[Moses]

It's people like you that make me ashamed to be a human being.

Likewise. :nutshot:

[Cocoa Christ]

Rofl @ doesy.

[rachealbug]

Why is it so important for there to be gay marriages? Marriage only has any real relevance in religion; apart from that it's just a legality; a technicality. As most religions are against homosexuality, gays and lesbians must not be religious (at least, not the main world religions, anyway), so where's the big deal?
I just want to point out that not only am I a lesbian, but I am also a Christian.

[Ihsiin]

So how do you deal with the anti-homosexual views held by the church?

[Cats]

Correct me if I'm wrong (please,) but aren't those anti-homosexual views only held by the church and not the religion itself?
I'm sure that anyone can twist the words of the Bible around to suit any purpose, but was it originally intended to label homosexuality as wrong?

[Ihsiin]

I was under the impression that the Church and the religion were one and the same. Oh well, I suppose that explains quite a lot.

[D3adcell]

I am against gay marriage. I may be drunk but i'm against it. Ok hear me out. Marriage has been something between a man and a woman for so long know its tradition. Changing it and saying a man and a man or a women and a women can be wed is like saying murder is legal. It may not be the same effect but they are both illegal and have been for some time. To change it know would make no sense at all. Queers can still be queers they dont have to be married. If they just want the tax break why dont a lesbian marry a queer and then just not be 'married'. Plus if you have seen that new simpsons it raises an interesting point. After gay marriage whats next, animal marriages? There will be something after gay marriages and you know it.

Im out passsod out good night.

[Cats]

I am against gay marriage. I may be drunk but i'm against it. Ok hear me out. Marriage has been something between a man and a woman for so long know its tradition. Changing it and saying a man and a man or a women and a women can be wed is like saying murder is legal. It may not be the same effect but they are both illegal and have been for some time.

Slavery used to be legal for quite a long time too, but that doesn't mean that it was good.
Just as homosexual marriage may have been illegal for a long time, but it doesn't mean that it is bad.
Just as most people thought that the world was flat for a long time, but it doesn't mean that they were right.
Just as 'Snake Whacking Day' in that episode of The Simpsons had been a long-running tradition, but that didn't mean that it was a morally right.

People have been wrong about a lot of things, and some traditions may be founded on bad reasons.

Times change, people change, society changes.
So why shouldn't the law change to suit the time, people, and society?


Queers can still be queers they dont have to be married.

Straight people don't have to be married either, but at least we have the option.

Marriage is obviously a very important and meaningfull thing to many straight people, and homosexuals want to get married for the same reasons as any straight person.
They love their partners just as much as any heterosexuals do.



On what basis can anyone deem homosexual marriage illegal?

[JW]

That marriage is a sacred institution. A lot of people wouldn't mind a civil union between homosexuals, just as long as they didn't call it a marriage. That's my understanding of it at least.

When I saw this thread in the forum index, your name was under "Gays and Lesbians" so at first glance it looked like "Gay Cats and Lesbians"

[Mauler]

Anyone who thinks marriage is a sacred thing between man and a woman is pretty much just Bible infected looney.

[JW]

Yeah well, a good chunk of American government is made up of them, so gays are just between a rock and a hard place on this one.

[Mauler]

Yep. And they call that democracy and freedom. :D

[Ihsiin]

Anyone who thinks marriage is a sacred thing between man and a woman is pretty much just Bible infected looney.

What is marriage then? A contract between two people? An agreement? In the modern world, marriage seems to mean nothing. It's just an agreement that can easily be broken through a divorce. That's why there are so many divorces nowadays. I know, when I get married, I'm not going to register it with the government.

[Mauler]

Exactly. Marriage does mean nothing. I can't even see why people are stupid enough to get married. There is no need to prove love with a stupid way like that.

[Ihsiin]

Ok Mauler, set aside your skepticism and your burning hate for all religion for just a few minutes. It won't take long, I swear. Stop thinking of religion as the biggest lie since the last one, and start thinking of it as a personal belief. Just for this post. Please. Thank you.
If a person, owing to his personal beliefs, his religion, must get married, then it becomes an important thing, if only to him. But, this marriage is unlikely to need to be a legally registered marriage, and all legal registration of marriage is pretty pointless. There for, this is what I propose. That the government does away with marriage all together. This means that the only form of marriage left is the marriage within religion, which as stated before is the only one with any significance. Then, if a couple wish to get married, they would only want to do so if they were religious people, and in doing so would find someone empowered by their religion to declare marriage to wed them. So, if a gay or lesbian couple want to get married and are religious, let them go find a priest (or whatever religion it is they follow) who is willing to wed them. If they are not religious, then they don't need a marriage, just like all the straight people. This seems pretty even, I think.

[Mauler]

I could not cares less, to be honest. It's not my hate against religions, I just dislike the concept of marriage. But if someone wants to get married, it's none of my business what they want to do. I am only talking about my own views, they are not ultimate truths, just views. But anyway, if someone wants to get married, wheter it's a guy and guy or a girl and girl couple, they should be able to do it. Without any close-minded fucks pointing at them and having marches against it. There is so much more important issues to worry about. I just can't reach that mentality that it would destroy the world. People are tripping over the most hilarious things in life, seriously. And this is one of them. It's a curb one inch high you need to climb to understand there is nothing wrong with gay/lesbian marriages. But ah well.

[rachealbug]

So how do you deal with the anti-homosexual views held by the church?
I attend an MCC church.

MCC = Metropolitan Community Church

http://www.mccchurch.org (http://www.mccchurch.org)

[D3adcell]

but is it an actual religion?

[rachealbug]

Correct me if I'm wrong (please,) but aren't those anti-homosexual views only held by the church and not the religion itself?
I'm sure that anyone can twist the words of the Bible around to suit any purpose, but was it originally intended to label homosexuality as wrong?
Romans 1:26 - 27 is a passage often cited to candemn homosexuality:
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchange natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men..." (Revised Standard version)

Does this passage actually condemn people who are "naturally" homosexual? It says you should not indulge in sexual behavior that is unnatural for you. It specifically says heterosexuals should not try to become homosexuals. But what of the men and women who have always felt bent toward the same gender? Who have never been genuinely attracted to the opposite gender? Whose only reason for attempting heterosexual relationships, if ever, were due to society pressures and fear of condemnation or even being disowned by loved ones. Those people who were so ostracized and misguided by those who pledged to care for them that they even contemplated or committed suicide. "I know I am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean." (Romans 14:14) RSV

In making these observations, we are not attempting to downgrade the Bible, or to deny the authority of its inspiration or its importance in Christian life. On the contrary, we affirm that the Bible had much to say to us, but we must hear and learn what it does say, not what someone tells us it says - namely, the people who have translated it, and people who have misinterpreted it.

[rachealbug]

but is it an actual religion?
MCC itself is not a religion but a Christian church that does not jugde. It is a place where ANYONE is accepted and can go to worship. It is a place where my partner and I can go and feel accepted.

[Bryan]

Okay guys, come on now. We all know that anything that would promote stability in homosexual relationships is inherently a bad thing.

It's also completely obvious that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, because - then they are "special rights!"

[Savant]

Won't somebody please think of the children?

[Bryan]

We are, by ensuring that homosexuals cannot marry.

[Savant]

Hopefully our fear of God and things that are different will be passed on to them.

[Moses]

Let them go to hell for all I care.

[Savant]

Play that funky music, white boy.

[rachealbug]

Okay guys, come on now. We all know that anything that would promote stability in homosexual relationships is inherently a bad thing.

It's also completely obvious that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, because - then they are "special rights!"
Why is it a bad thing?
Why would they be "special rights?"
If homosexuals and heterosexuals had the same rights, wouldn't they just be gereral rights because EVERYONE would have them? How can it be considered "special" if everyone is entitled to it?

Won't somebody please think of the children?
Children of homosexual couples will grow up learning to appreciate tolerance. How is that wrong?

We are, by ensuring that homosexuals cannot marry.
Homosexuals do not need to marry to have children so how does this theory hold up?

[Ihsiin]

Children of homoseual couples will have the piss ripped out of them at school.

[Pats]

Children of homoseual couples will have the piss ripped out of them at school.
Not if Homosexuality becomes accepted as normal.

I'm not saying allowing Gay marriage will make Homosexuality completely normal in our society immediately. I am saying that denying equal rights to Homosexuals makes normalcy impossible.

There was a time when black kids would've had the "piss ripped out of them in school". So what should we have done? Kept them segregated, and avoided the problem? No, we granted them equal fucking rights, and today it is normal for black and white kids to go to school together.




P.S. I just owned your face into the ground.

P.P.S. I don't know what that means.

[Savant]

Why is it a bad thing?
Why would they be "special rights?"
If homosexuals and heterosexuals had the same rights, wouldn't they just be gereral rights because EVERYONE would have them? How can it be considered "special" if everyone is entitled to it?


Children of homosexual couples will grow up learning to appreciate tolerance. How is that wrong?


Homosexuals do not need to marry to have children so how does this theory hold up?

Don't worry about it, we were reciprocating in a sarcastic manner.

[Haver]

If the kids who get picked on due to having same-sex parents didn't have same-sex parents, they'd undoubtedly be picked on for having a hairy butt, or for tripping over or something. I dunno.

Everyone gets bullied nowadays. It's just so fucking mainstream.

As for my views on gay marriage, let them do what they want. If you're freaked out by two dudes kissing in front of you you're not going to have much fun in the real world. So what if some religions arn't for it? This world isn't purely for christians, or whatever. They'd argue it is, but hey, fuck them. It doesn't really effect us.

Although this guy started telling about his gay exploits the other day. And I was like, WOAH. Bryan. Stop.

[Wes]

I don't think anyone should read all these quotes from the Bible because it was so heavily edited that it doesn't even have the first big lie in tact. Instead you have a collection of changes made to the first big lie.

Anyway, I couldn't really be bothered who did what when it comes to marriage really. I'm not bothered about anything with gay rights or what have you.

"I refuse to recognize the terms hetero-, bi-, and homo-sexual. Everybody has exactly the same sexual needs. People are just sexual, the prefix is immaterial."

[Eternalspirit]

OK, few things to say. I haven't read this entire thread yet, so just bear with me.

I don't see any reason why people of the same sex cannot get married. If they love each other, and want to get married then I think it should be legal for them to get married.

If the gays or lesbians are suitable to be parents, then I don't see why they should be treated any different from straight couples looking to adopt.

One problem here. Marriage is, has been, and always will be, a religious and spiritual contract between a MAN and a WOMAN. The Bible explicitly forbids homosexuality. If you want an argument about the validity of the Bible, we can get into that as well if you want. The only legal implications of marriage are those involving taxes, surname, etc. The United States claims to be a Christian country (excuse me if my assumption is wrong). Therefore, this implies that the States should be creating laws with the Bible in mind as well. My problem with the constitution is that the Bible makes far more sense to act as a constitution rather than what we, as humans, feel is appropriate. There is obviously some stuff in it that needs to be put into context and not considered in this regard, but everything required to create a working constitution is in the Bible. Now, going by this, homosexual marriages should not be legal, as I stated before, more or less because the Bible says it is wrong, and I have given my justification for why.

As far as children go, it is my steadfast belief that any child requires the care of both a MOTHER and a FATHER. A mother and a father each provide different things that a child needs to grow up as a responsible and mature person. Therefore, I truly feel that a child will not gain everything they need to be raised properly in a homosexual environment. If you want to talk further about this, I will gladly answer any questions.

I do not condone of a gay marriage....I don't like gays....I don't even want to even THINK about gays....I shiver to have any kind of thoughts about gays....I don't care if you're gay or not, just don't touch me....Just don't kiss in front of me.....I shiver....to think.

Lesbians on the other hand, I condone.....

So you're going to condemn one because you're obviously homophobic to gays, but treat the other as ok because of other obvious reasons? That's what I'm understanding here. This, my friend, makes you to be a very immature, not to mention perverted person.

[Moses]

Welcome to RF!

[Eternalspirit]

Welcome to RF!

Thanks. XP

[D3adcell]

Any guy, homophobe or not, likes lesbians.

[Eternalspirit]

Any guy, homophobe or not, likes lesbians.

Well then, I guess I'm the odd one out.

[D3adcell]

You can honestly say you would not get a hard on from two hot lesbians in a porn?

[Eternalspirit]

You can honestly say you would not get a hard on from two hot lesbians in a porn?

No, because I wouldn't be there to see it. I have something called morals. >_>

[D3adcell]

I have morals too but I still need whack off material.

[Eternalspirit]

I have morals too but I still need whack off material.

That's not a good moral attitude then is it? At least, not from a Christian perspective. :)

[thermo]

I have many gay friends. They are really nice people, no different from anyone else. Other than they take a fancy to men, instead of women. My best mate, is gay, 2/4 my flat mates are gay.Its the 21st century, get over it.

[WTF]

OK, few things to say. I haven't read this entire thread yet, so just bear with me.



One problem here. Marriage is, has been, and always will be, a religious and spiritual contract between a MAN and a WOMAN. The Bible explicitly forbids homosexuality. If you want an argument about the validity of the Bible, we can get into that as well if you want. The only legal implications of marriage are those involving taxes, surname, etc. The United States claims to be a Christian country (excuse me if my assumption is wrong). Therefore, this implies that the States should be creating laws with the Bible in mind as well. My problem with the constitution is that the Bible makes far more sense to act as a constitution rather than what we, as humans, feel is appropriate. There is obviously some stuff in it that needs to be put into context and not considered in this regard, but everything required to create a working constitution is in the Bible. Now, going by this, homosexual marriages should not be legal, as I stated before, more or less because the Bible says it is wrong, and I have given my justification for why.

As far as children go, it is my steadfast belief that any child requires the care of both a MOTHER and a FATHER. A mother and a father each provide different things that a child needs to grow up as a responsible and mature person. Therefore, I truly feel that a child will not gain everything they need to be raised properly in a homosexual environment. If you want to talk further about this, I will gladly answer any questions.



So you're going to condemn one because you're obviously homophobic to gays, but treat the other as ok because of other obvious reasons? That's what I'm understanding here. This, my friend, makes you to be a very immature, not to mention perverted person.
My beliefs lean towards this. Personally, I don't like to come into close contact with the :gay:. Lesbians, too, unless they're hot and kissing each other. :drool:

[Eternalspirit]

I have many gay friends. They are really nice people, no different from anyone else. Other than they take a fancy to men, instead of women. My best mate, is gay, 2/4 my flat mates are gay.Its the 21st century, get over it.

The fact that it's the 21st century does not make the Bible and the teachings of Christianity any less relevent. On the contrary, I feel that we should do a better job of keeping up the attitudes and ideals of Christianity now more than ever before, given how corrupt and immoral society is these days.

[D3adcell]

Well if were going to keep with the teachings of christianity. Why not bring back lost religions of ancient civilizations such as the myans or aztecs? They are religions the same as christianity, neither has more reason to be believed. In fact, belief is the only thing keeping christianity alive, I guess the same goes for Big foot, the loch ness monster, and other mythical beasts.

[Eternalspirit]

Well if were going to keep with the teachings of christianity. Why not bring back lost religions of ancient civilizations such as the myans or aztecs? They are religions the same as christianity, neither has more reason to be believed. In fact, belief is the only thing keeping christianity alive, I guess the same goes for Big foot, the loch ness monster, and other mythical beasts.

There is a difference between Christianity and those other religions. Christianity is still alive today because it has a very large group of people that believe, and many of these people are so firmly intent on following Jesus Christ that none of them will ever believe something else (I am one of these people). Also, try reading up on theology, there is tons of proof out there regarding the validity of Christianity. I honestly can't take you seriously when you make nonsensical statements like "the only thing keeping Christianity alive is belief".

[Ihsiin]

The only thing that keeps anything alive is belief. Without belief you wouldn't do anything, as you believe in nothing, and so there is nothing for you to deal with. It is belief in your senses that allows you to interact with the world, and you never question your senses, you just believe in them blindly.

[Eternalspirit]

The only thing that keeps anything alive is belief. Without belief you wouldn't do anything, as you believe in nothing, and so there is nothing for you to deal with. It is belief in your senses that allows you to interact with the world, and you never question your senses, you just believe in them blindly.

By this logic, if we stop believing in gravity, it will go away. I think you can see the obvious problem here. As far as Christianity goes, no one who truly believes in it believes in it blindly. There are MANY reasons, logical reasons, for someone to believe in Christianity. Just delve deep into the world of theology and you'll find these reasons.

[D3adcell]

Gravity is factual there. There is no denying its existance. I guess you can deny it, but it's still there. With christianity, there is no proof to it. From were the bible is coming (middle east), it seems kinda....meh. Opium is still smoked alot over there, just imagine it back then all the opium dens. Seems like alot of this stuff was from a guy that was really tripping out. I have no reason to believe in christianity. I was born into a catholic family and forced to go to church and a catholic school. I havent been to church in about 2 years. I have discovered there is really no difference between christianity and a cult. Of course there is a bible for christianity, but have you heard of the mormons? Right now the mormon religion seems so ridicuolous but in the future, it may turn into the christianity of today.

[JW]

They haven't proven gravity, though, it's just a theory.

Edit: Seriously.

[Ihsiin]

You seem to be missing the point.

I believe in gravity, that it exists. But, someone could just refuse to believe in gravity, and even though it still exists (or so I think), he wouldn't heed, and would probably meet his death in a fall. Me, you and pretty much everyone else believe in gravity, and it's this belief that allows us to take heed of gravity.
No one can give absolute proof of anything. The only evidence you have in this world are your own thoughts, and all perception of external things could or could not be a hallucination of some sort. I choose to believe they are not, and it's my blind belief in my perceptions that allows me to interact with the world that I perceive. How do I know I'm not some madman, tapping away at a table, just thinking that I'm typing on a keyboard? I don't, but I choose to believe that I am typing on a keyboard.
The same principle can be applied to God. I choose to believe in a God, you might choose not to, but just because it is belief doesn't mean it's all rubbish. You may find it farfetched or bullshit; I don't, and that's the difference in our choices to believe in what we think is right, but it doesn't make the other persons beliefs any less relevant than your own.

[WTF]

I have many gay friends. They are really nice people, no different from anyone else. Other than they take a fancy to men, instead of women. My best mate, is gay, 2/4 my flat mates are gay.Its the 21st century, get over it.
Keep an eye on your flatmates, buddy :sexy: :ass:

[Eternalspirit]

Gravity is factual there. There is no denying its existance. I guess you can deny it, but it's still there. With christianity, there is no proof to it. From were the bible is coming (middle east), it seems kinda....meh. Opium is still smoked alot over there, just imagine it back then all the opium dens. Seems like alot of this stuff was from a guy that was really tripping out. I have no reason to believe in christianity. I was born into a catholic family and forced to go to church and a catholic school. I havent been to church in about 2 years. I have discovered there is really no difference between christianity and a cult. Of course there is a bible for christianity, but have you heard of the mormons? Right now the mormon religion seems so ridicuolous but in the future, it may turn into the christianity of today.

As I said before, there is plenty of proof for Christianity. Go out and look for it.

[Eternalspirit]

You seem to be missing the point.

I believe in gravity, that it exists. But, someone could just refuse to believe in gravity, and even though it still exists (or so I think), he wouldn't heed, and would probably meet his death in a fall. Me, you and pretty much everyone else believe in gravity, and it's this belief that allows us to take heed of gravity.
No one can give absolute proof of anything. The only evidence you have in this world are your own thoughts, and all perception of external things could or could not be a hallucination of some sort. I choose to believe they are not, and it's my blind belief in my perceptions that allows me to interact with the world that I perceive. How do I know I'm not some madman, tapping away at a table, just thinking that I'm typing on a keyboard? I don't, but I choose to believe that I am typing on a keyboard.
The same principle can be applied to God. I choose to believe in a God, you might choose not to, but just because it is belief doesn't mean it's all rubbish. You may find it farfetched or bullshit; I don't, and that's the difference in our choices to believe in what we think is right, but it doesn't make the other persons beliefs any less relevant than your own.

If you break it down that way, I can see your point. Still, I feel like my belief in God isn't "blind". :)

[thermo]

Theres not a huge difference between relgion and society. They have to merge, its the only way forward. Intergration. Homosexuality is one of the things religious will have to take a laid back approach too. Its not socially acceptable to be gay/ End of.

[Eternalspirit]

Theres not a huge difference between relgion and society. They have to merge, its the only way forward. Intergration. Homosexuality is one of the things religious will have to take a laid back approach too. Its not socially acceptable to be gay/ End of.

Christians follow the Bible. Whatever is not ok with the Bible will never be ok with Christians. That is a stance that we'll never break away from. If everyone lived by the Bible, this world would be at complete peace and there would be no corruption. Why is this ideal not acceptable to integrate into society?

[Negativity]

Well, sorry to burst your perfection bubble, but not everyone gives a shit about following rules. I mean, just look at half the retards who join RF for a day, and end up getting banned.

[frwl]

Well since someone brought up the Bible in this subject, I'll give you what the Bible says about it.
Note that the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible was translated before the word "homosexual" was around, but it's plainly obvious that the subject of it was, and it is addressed in the Bible.

Leviticus 18:22 ~ Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

As one can plainly see, homosexuality was a pretty bad thing back in the time that Levitical law was placed over the Israelites.

Romans 1...
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I Cor. 6:...
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I Tim. 1:...
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

So here we see the NT's view on it. It is considered just as vile a thing as it was in the Old Testament. When the question arises whether or not the Bible is for or against homosexuality, the answer is simple: Yes it is against homosexuality and it can be proven by looking at many points.

[Teuvil]

Fuck religions


Let people decide what they want to be. If some old fart that wrote a book that billions of people read doesnt like it, then sucks for him. For all you know, Jesus could have been Gay!

A religion should not dertermine the quality of a persons life.

On another note, i was in Fenual (sp?) hall in Boston... buncha markets and shit like that... some guys said to me, " want to go to heaven?" And then quickly handed me a flyer. I responded, "Na, im taking the bus to hell." And gave the flyer back. :groovy:

[Negativity]

Christians follow the Bible. Whatever is not ok with the Bible will never be ok with Christians.

Except for the open minded ones. And honestly, you can't compare the bible with gravity. The bible was created by man, whereas gravity was not, well, the theory was, but anyway.

[Cats]

I used to think it was wierd that Christians and other religious groups would prevent many people from living happy lives by imposing their personal way of life.
Now I just think it's somewhat arrogant.
Surely it is more important to live a good life and not stand in the way of other people's happiness (if they aren't hurting anyone,) than to do what a book tells you to.

Many people aren't Christian, and they shouldn't be forced to live like one.
I'm sure Christians wouldn't want to be forced to live like Atheists.


edit::


Leviticus 18:22 ~ Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

A homosexual man would not lieth a woman in an intimate way.
Also, God would judge a person after they are dead.
Therefore, let me explain:

"If a man (who is homosexual) also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman (ie. non-intimately,) both of them have [gona against their own personality in a way that is unnatural to them]: they shall surely be put to death (by man, in this society); ."

So what I am able to understand from this passage is that because a homosexual man would not have sex with a woman, he would not be lieing with a man as he would a woman.
In other words,
"Either have sex with women and not with men, or have sex with men and not with women."

Leaving that this passage is only condeming [i]Bisexuals.

[nbakyfan15]

Is it just homosexuality has been looked down upon for the history of the Earth (by most groups that is) or does it seem that there are more gay people today? People call it natural and that animals can be gay, but if you take any animal, you will see that there are more humans (percent wise) that are gay compared to them. Isn't the whole purpose of being married is to unite and have a family? Guys have dicks and like girls because they have vaginas, its natural and the reason why is so the human population doesn't die out. However, if you are one of those who fear "critical mass" (humans overpopulating the Earth to the point where there isn't enough resources or living space) (I think that's Bullshit anyways) but maybe homosexuality is on the rise to save the human race from reproducing too fast. Also it seems to be a fad, homosexuality is. This guy I know goes to this liberal arts school, use to go to a regular school, and all of his friends are gay, which have seemed to turn him gay as well. Its sad (maybe not for some) but true.

Oh and like Amu said, kids who parents are gay will get the shit beat out of them. Alot of people dont except homosexuality and walk into any school and within the first minute some kid will be called gay. It'll never go away.

[Teuvil]

Well, they need to deal with being gay.

Homosexuality should have nothing to do with human population or even the fact that "men have dicks and women have vagina's". Let a person do what ever they want. It's called freedom. The catholics can bitch and moan all the want over Gays and Lesbians, but deep down inside, God shouldnt care either. To sum up what the bible says, "God wont interfere with humans." If he's all-knowning... shouldnt he have known that gays were going to come around? All-knowing my ass. If he's up there, he's learning just like us and accepting it just like everyone else.

[Eternalspirit]

Except for the open minded ones. And honestly, you can't compare the bible with gravity. The bible was created by man, whereas gravity was not, well, the theory was, but anyway.

Wrong. The Bible was created by God THROUGH men. Before you people start ignorantly making statements about the Bible or any other aspect of religion, why don't you read up on it yourselves first. Also, any open-minded person that calls themself a Christian will follow the Bible first. You cannot call yourself a Christian but have your own ideas about how things should be done. Being a Christian means being a follower of Christ. If you would do or think something that goes against this, then you cannot call yourself Christian, at least, not if you think your way is right.

[Eternalspirit]

I used to think it was wierd that Christians and other religious groups would prevent many people from living happy lives by imposing their personal way of life.
Now I just think it's somewhat arrogant.
Surely it is more important to live a good life and not stand in the way of other people's happiness (if they aren't hurting anyone,) than to do what a book tells you to.

Many people aren't Christian, and they shouldn't be forced to live like one.
I'm sure Christians wouldn't want to be forced to live like Atheists.


edit::




A homosexual man would not lieth a woman in an intimate way.
Also, God would judge a person after they are dead.
Therefore, let me explain:

"If a man (who is homosexual) also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman (ie. non-intimately,) both of them have [gona against their own personality in a way that is unnatural to them]: they shall surely be put to death (by man, in this society); ."

So what I am able to understand from this passage is that because a homosexual man would not have sex with a woman, he would not be lieing with a man as he would a woman.
In other words,
"Either have sex with women and not with men, or have sex with men and not with women."

Leaving that this passage is only condeming [i]Bisexuals.

The fact of the matter is, living a Christian life IS living a good life. Look at ANYONE that is a Christian and isn't using it as a label. In my experience, these people seem to be more mature, responsible, and respectful than those who do not follow Christ. We also do not force people to live as Christians, we merely encourage it because in our hearts, we KNOW it's the right thing to do.

Also, your interpretation of the passage you broke down seems to be quite wrong. The meaning is very plain. "If a man lies with another man as he does with a woman, he shall surely be put to death" is the rough translation to modern English. You have gone and made some assumptions about the passage with no justification whatsoever. o_O

[Eternalspirit]

Well, they need to deal with being gay.

Homosexuality should have nothing to do with human population or even the fact that "men have dicks and women have vagina's". Let a person do what ever they want. It's called freedom. The catholics can bitch and moan all the want over Gays and Lesbians, but deep down inside, God shouldnt care either. To sum up what the bible says, "God wont interfere with humans." If he's all-knowning... shouldnt he have known that gays were going to come around? All-knowing my ass. If he's up there, he's learning just like us and accepting it just like everyone else.

Where did you get this "God won't interfere with humans"? He will if asked to. There is a reason He gave humans the freedom of choice. You can choose to follow him or not. Homosexuality is a choice to not follow him. Plain and simple.

[D3adcell]

The fact of the matter is, living a Christian life IS living a good life. Look at ANYONE that is a Christian and isn't using it as a label. In my experience, these people seem to be more mature, responsible, and respectful than those who do not follow Christ. We also do not force people to live as Christians, we merely encourage it because in our hearts, we KNOW it's the right thing to do.


lets say;
Deep down in my heart I KNOW that bhudism is the right religion to follow. Does it make it so? No, and neither does the christianity bs. Just because your raised and pretty much forced into thinking one way doesnt mean its correct. You can say that there is evidence making the bible true all you want. There is no hard evidence. So they found a big ass canyon and it just so happens to have a sandbar or bridge type thing and they say "this is were moses seperated the water, they walked across on this piece of land". You can twist anything into support for your argument/belief.

You need to go to the death camp of tollerance. (south park episode)

[Teuvil]

Where did you get this "God won't interfere with humans"? He will if asked to. There is a reason He gave humans the freedom of choice. You can choose to follow him or not. Homosexuality is a choice to not follow him. Plain and simple.

First of all... the GOVERNMENT gave humans freedom of choice, not God. Look at Russia during the Cold War for christ sakes.

Have you ever seen a person that has 3 months to live because of cancer? Dont tell me that is destiny. That person will pray every night to his or her God. Does he/she get better? NO, he/she fucking dies. Dont tell me God will interfere if asked to. He gets prayed to billions of times a day and nothing happens.

If homosexuality is not a choice to follow him, why are Gods "followers" condemning gays and lesbians? Shouldnt people RESPECT others peoples believes? Or is it that the majority of christians/catholics/ what ever are ignorant bastards who think you have to be "pure" (which means not gay) to live life? Thats the message im receiving.

He gave humans the freedom of choice.

Then 'his' 'followers' should respect the right that 'he' gave humans. Gays should be able to live life with out Christianity shoving shit down their throat because it doesnt follow 'gods' rules. As far as im concerned, God does not exist and if i see any catholic bullshit against gays, i will smack that person.

/rant

[Cocoa Christ]

The fact of the matter is, living a Christian life IS living a good life. Look at ANYONE that is a Christian and isn't using it as a label. In my experience, these people seem to be more mature, responsible, and respectful than those who do not follow Christ. We also do not force people to live as Christians, we merely encourage it because in our hearts, we KNOW it's the right thing to do.
Actually, for the most part, I usually view devoted Christians as elitist slugs who put themselves above others because they have God on their side. Open-minded Christians are hardly Christians at all because open-mindedness is almost a direct violation of the many senseless rules and laws of the Religion. Also, in a number of your posts, while referring to God, you fail to capitalize 'Him.'

Many of the statements you make point in the conservative direction that homosexuals cannot follow Christianity. This is unfair. This is extremely unfair. Is it really in your mind that your God is that shallow and that he will flat out REJECT a homosexual despite his / her set of moral values? This is why Christianity shouldn't even tie in with this conversation.

[Cats]

The fact of the matter is, living a Christian life IS living a good life. Look at ANYONE that is a Christian and isn't using it as a label. In my experience, these people seem to be more mature, responsible, and respectful than those who do not follow Christ.

That is an unfair generalization.
I do agree that Christians tend to live very good lives.
But to say that people who aren't Christians lead bad lives for that reason alone is highly innaccurate.
I am not a Christian (as you may have guessed) and I lead what I believe to be a good life.
I don't hurt other people, I am kind to people and animals, I will occasionally go out of my way to make other people's lives better in any way I can, I don't break (big important) laws, I am mature (unless I willingly choose not to be for the sake of humor,) I am responsible, and I am respectful.
I live my life as I see fit, and that just happens to fall under what seems to be a "good" life.
And I'm sure there are many other non-Christian besides me who lead good lives too.
So what I'm saying is that Christians aren't the only good people in the world.
And I'm sorry for my blatant lack of modesty.


We also do not force people to live as Christians, we merely encourage it because in our hearts, we KNOW it's the right thing to do.

While I respect that, I must say that by passing laws that restrict non-Christian activities such as homosexual marriages, you are forcing people to live (in part) as Christian.


Also, your interpretation of the passage you broke down seems to be quite wrong. The meaning is very plain. "If a man lies with another man as he does with a woman, he shall surely be put to death" is the rough translation to modern English. You have gone and made some assumptions about the passage with no justification whatsoever. o_O

I do understand what the passage is intended to mean.
My point was that anyone can manipulate the words of the Bible into meaning almost anything.

What I said was not based on assumptions at all, but I could have explained it better.
What I meant to interpret was that it is bad for 'M' to treat 'Y' as he does 'X'.
So if '(hetero)M' treats 'Y' as he does 'X' (ie. sexually), it is bad.
So (het)M mustn't treat Y sexually.
But if '(homo)M' treats 'Y' as he does 'X' (ie. non-sexually), it is bad.
So (hom)M mustn't treat Y non-sexually.
Or, (hom)M must treat Y sexually.
Because a homosexual man does not lie with a man (sexually) in the same way he lies with a woman (non-sexually).
As long as the two treatments of the two sexes are kept different, it's ok.

But as for the "he shall surely be put to death" part.
Society used to put people to death for a lot of things back then.
This line says nothing about judgment in the eyes of God, or indeed anyone.
Just that man would punish them for breaking what could be considered 'law' at the time.
I mean, as a Christian who does not force other people to live as a Christian, would you put someone to death for living differently?
So being that that was written a long time ago, it does not hold the same specific punishment.
It has aged to the point that in relation to today's society, it just means that a lot of people are intolerant of people who are different.

They did a lot of stuff in the past that isn't acceptible today.
That is why the Bible has to be considered in today's context to maintain it's relevance.

[JW]

That's a really long post, Cats. I mean, just look at it.

[Cats]

*Looks at it*

You're right.
I'd better paraphrase it.


"I'm right, and you're Christian.
Just so you know."

I wonder if that'll help any.

[Teuvil]

I like what CC said.

Because you wont let gays and lesbians marry, you are MAKING them follow your religion. Marriage isnt only to the christian religion either. Hindu's marry, Islamic people marry, Jewish people marry. Gays and Lesbians should marry. They are no different than the people blowing themselves up or the "respectful, better than anyone else cause they have god on their side" christians.

[Savant]

God does not give humans the freedom of choice. May I quote the bible frwl-style.

(Eph 1:11)
He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy

[frwl]

uh...

Eph 1:11 ~ In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: ...

I think you misquoted. Either that or you use some crap translation (a subject that I won't go into here cause it would bore the shit out of a secular forum)

[Cats]

Is it just me that finds that God has given people free-will, to be similar to a trick question?

If you choose to use your free will to follow God, then you might as well have never had free-will to begin with.
If you choose not to use free-will at all, and just follow God blindly, you are taking for granted, and wasting one of God's gifts.
If you choose to use your free-will against God's will, you will be punished for it.

It seems to me that while God has given us free-will, he looks most favorably on those who use it in the way that he wants.
It's quite like passive aggressiveness.


Also, did God (who is infallibe) actually have any input whatsoever into the Bible, or was it all just written by man (who has a long history of being very, very fallible)?

[frwl]

guess it's kinda like a drivers licence, eh? Use it well and everything works out well; use it wrong gets you punished.

as for the second question, they don't call it the Word of God for nothing. God had men write it, telling them exactly what to write in it.

anyways, being back on topic would be good. If homosexuality isn't such a weird thing, then why don't we have a "straight pride day?"

[JW]

Because that wouild be like having a White History Month

[JBalla]

And what would be wrong with that?

[JW]

Whites and heterosexuals are the majority, and haven't been looked down upon and discriminated against like gays and blacks have.

[JBalla]

Discrimination is discrimination, up or down.

[JW]

A white guy won't have trouble finding a job just because he's white, though.

[Savant]

I found that shit somewhere. I'm getting a different quote for Eph. 1:11 every time.

At any rate, it's the 2nd point of Calvinism.

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

[Tommy]

Gays should die. Lesbians under the age of 30 should stay alive. End.

[Rather]

Amen.

[D3adcell]

A white guy won't have trouble finding a job just because he's white, though.

A black man won't have trouble finding work becuase of his color either. The person most suitable for the job gets it. If no blacks apply at a certain job then of course non will be hired.

Also, whites are fast becoming the minority in the US. I think I read somewhere that in texas whites already are the minority or will be in a few years. All this giving special benefits to minorities shit makes me sick. Did you know that most universities are getting rid of 'white' arts and culture to put all minority art and culture? So their sorta gradually eliminating the white mans way of life. I'm not racist but if their trying to promote equality they should be equal to whites aswell.

[Cats]

I can't wait 'till the day all of the '[specialized] parades' just become 'parades'.

[JW]

A black man won't have trouble finding work becuase of his color either. The person most suitable for the job gets it. If no blacks apply at a certain job then of course non will be hired.

Don't be naive, discrimination still exists.

And you're completely missing my point, I was disagreeing with frwls statement about having a straight pride parade, and you guys decided to be smartasses about my analogy. Unlike blacks and homosexuals, whites and heteros have never been looked down upon because of the way they were born. And don't even try to argue that, the only white and heteros that are looked down upon are disabled people, Jews, and other minorities not having to do with ethinicity or sexual preference.

And whites in America as a whole won't be the minority any time soon. Of course Texas is going to have more ethnics, it takes up like half of the Mexican border.

I don't agree with the losing white art and culture in the Universities, however, and I *am* against reverse discrimination.

My point is that a "straight pride parade" wouldn't be necessary because straights have never had to hide their sexuality in fear of what others might think. I don't see anything wrong with a parade promoting a less backwards society.

[cubist]

Gay, Straight, Black, White, Christian, Muslim, Republican, Democrat . . . It's just another excuse to hate each other. Reverse discrimination exists because we'll never have a balance, we'll never have a non-discriminatory society. Maybe we need to feel we are against something, so we can feel a part of something. Maybe the need to judge others based on broad-ranging genericisms - colour, creed, whatever - is just so we can feel better about ourselves, so we can elevate ourselves to some sort of higher place where we're better than a vast amount of people.

As for the original topic, I think gay marriage should be fine and legal. Marriage in our society isn't defined by it's religious origins, it's a binding legal document entitling both parties to certain rights and such. It's a formal declaration of commitment, and laws shouldn't be there to stop people from doing that.

[mark b. monkey]

boostah, coconut = testicules... I'M GH3 YY!!!

[cubist]

I'm geigh for you too, arbee.

[frwl]

End.

[cubist]

fwrl?
wow, everyone's here. Let's all get married to each other

[Cats]

I wonder which group of people will be the first to protest digital relationships...

[Wes]

as for the second question, they don't call it the Word of God for nothing. God had men write it, telling them exactly what to write in it.

Did God also tell them what to write when it got editted a few thousand times?

[frwl]

The Bible hasn't been edited. Mormon doctrine I know has been edited for errors hundreds of times, but that's because it was written by Joseph Smith, a diviner who was convicted of witchcraft, not to mention many of his prophecies obviously did not come to pass.
The Bible has been translated into many languages, if that's what you mean. In English we have many different "versions." Of these, the King James Version holds to the orriginal (non-corrupted) manuscripts. There have been several editions of the KJV, most recently the 1769 edition, which is in common use today. Such editions corrected pinter errors or updated grammar. These editions were not to introduce "new" textual evidence to alter renderings or omit entire verses. The first attempted revision of the KJV was the English Revised Version in the late 1800s, which was so thoroughly corrupted by the scholarship of Westcott and Hort, that it can not even be considered a revision, let alone edition, of the KJV.

[PeterC]

I only know one gay person, but its pretty uncomfortable speaking to him. Or being near him. But yeah, what Tommy said really. It pisses me off that homosexuals should get rights to children, as in they rely off donors fo eggs/sperm. And as for people who disagree, who would like to be taken the piss out of for their whole childhood, for having two male or female parents?