10 reasons Gay Marriage is wrong

[ElHombre]

i was alerted to this by a friend.


10 reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[priccobe]

huh? I don't get it.....

[sir-chimp]

Do you have a link for this?

[Bugalugs]

thats very good.

[GatorRaider]

You know what's sad? Those are about as valid as the real reasons people give...

[sp2c]

You know what's sad? Those are about as valid as the real reasons people give...

lol!

that thing is awesome :D

[MBG]

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.


Too late for this

Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.
In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin.

[Greek soldier]

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

No. Gay male "parents" raise girls (!!!) and lesbian "parents" boys. Ironic isn't it? I am still trying to get an answer why they make such a selection.

And about their children, actually I've heard the opposite! That they have a straight marriage.

[andyrew_21]

its pretty sad that politicians like the Canadian government will choose, as they call it, "human rights" over moral order. Marriage was never meant to be, and never should be for homo******s, no matter how much society wants to bend the rules. Some things in life are just wrong and need to stay that way.

[Weasel]

its pretty sad that politicians like the Canadian government will choose, as they call it, "human rights" over moral order. Marriage was never meant to be, and never should be for homo******s, no matter how much society wants to bend the rules. Some things in life are just wrong and need to stay that way.
Says who?

12345

[Bugalugs]

says him

1234567890

[-stk-]

Says who?

12345

God ....... ever read the bible Weasel?

[sp2c]

yes it says, love your neighbour

[Vivelamorte]

God ....... ever read the bible Weasel?

God? Who's that? Same thing as Allah or Jehovah?

BTW, ever read Darwins Origin of Species?

[Weasel]

God ....... ever read the bible Weasel?

Not the whole one but I know that God didn´t write the bible. ;)

[JoaMei]

Says who?

12345

Actually the Bible says in the old testament that gays should be executed instantly.

"Und ein Mann der einen Mann beschläft, wie man bei der Frau liegt, ein Greuel haben sie getan, beide. Des Todes sollen sie sterben, ihr Blut über sie". (Lev. 20.13)

"Und bei einem Mann liege nicht wie bei einer Frau. Das ist ein Greuel". (Lev. 18.22)

This is not my opinion, but the Book is pretty clear about that.

[Weasel]

Actually the Bible says in the old testament that gays should be executed instantly.

"Und ein Mann der einen Mann beschläft, wie man bei der Frau liegt, ein Greuel haben sie getan, beide. Des Todes sollen sie sterben, ihr Blut über sie". (Lev. 20.13)

"Und bei einem Mann liege nicht wie bei einer Frau. Das ist ein Greuel". (Lev. 18.22)

This is not my opinion, but the Book is pretty clear about that.

We live in the 21st Century, not 2000 years before. In old Greece homo******ity was absolutely usual.

[Saranof]

The Bible also says,

"Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it is an abomination unto the Lord." Deuteronomy 22:5

If people are gonna make jugdements based on a book, go by it all the way, don't just pick parts that you happen to like.

I say we enforce the True Biblical Law (tm) and force women to follow gods will (tm).

...oh, sorry, I was reading about the Taliban, got a bit carried away..

[Saranof]

its pretty sad that politicians like the Canadian government will choose, as they call it, "human rights" over moral order. Marriage was never meant to be, and never should be for homo******s, no matter how much society wants to bend the rules. Some things in life are just wrong and need to stay that way.


Things are "wrong" because, let me guess, you happen to dislike them?
It's strange, whenever people go on about "moral values" it's always their OWN moral values they talk about.

As someone just pointed out, homo******ity was the norm in ancient Greece. It wasn't seen as "wrong" until the loving word of the Lord came along and lovingly told them that they would recive everlasting agony because they liked the same *** people.

[Conga]

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1012.html

[Greek soldier]

Things are "wrong" because, let me guess, you happen to dislike them?
It's strange, whenever people go on about "moral values" it's always their OWN moral values they talk about.

As someone just pointed out, homo******ity was the norm in ancient Greece. It wasn't seen as "wrong" until the loving word of the Lord came along and lovingly told them that they would recive everlasting agony because they liked the same *** people.

Homo******ity in ancient Greece equaled to execution. Plus, a homo****** wasn't able to participate in the army, in politics, almost everywhere. There was indeed a large number of homo******s back then.

http://www.grecoreport.com/debunking_the_myth_of_homo******ity_in_ancient_greece.htm



Athens had the strictest laws pertaining to homo******ity of any democracy that has ever existed


And don't conuse the Erastis-Eromenos affair with the modern English meaning. Back then it meant sth else.

[Saranof]

Well then, all of my lectors at Uni must have been wrong..

Forgive me, I could be wrong, but that book looks like a typical "popular history" work.

[martinexsquaddie]

so because a book wriiten in hebrew then transaltedt into aramaic greek then latin then 17th centuary english tells you something its true?

[Greek soldier]

I have this book, but unfortunately is in Greek. And it dpesn't seem as "popular" history. A professor who knows Ancient Greek will tell you that homo******ity back then in a strick and ultra-conservative society was a crime.

All modern lecturers base their claims on the "Erastis". Indeed today it means "lover", but back then meant "mentor".

It is like the word "idiot". Idiot back then was the private citizen (idiotis), but today means "stupid".

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I say we enforce the True Biblical Law (tm) and force women to follow gods will (tm).



Get farked

I do not need some child molester to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

[Thor]

Homophilia, pedophilia and other perversions should not be supported by the society. I'd say it should be the other way around.

[Weasel]

Homophilia, pedophilia and other perversions should not be supported by the society. I'd say it should be the other way around.

What is homophilia? :)

[Greek soldier]

Homophilophilia = Homo******ity. :) :) :)

In Greek Ομοφυλοφιλία

[Weasel]

Homophilophilia = Homo******ity. :) :) :)

In Greek Ομοφυλοφιλία

Also this word doesn´t exist. I can´t find it. :)

[GatorRaider]

I knew someone was going to whip out Leviticus. It is, as far as I know, the only clear unambiguous reference to homo******ity. But here's the thing: Leviticus was nuts. He also said that slavery was morally acceptable, and that it was ok to stone unruly children to death. As far as I'm concerned, nothing from Leviticus is acceptable.

As for the Greeks, I hate to burst people's bubbles, but homo******ity was not frowned upon or a cause for execution. In fact, there was a whole Spartan unit (whose name escapes me at the moment) made up not only of homo******s, but of gay couples. They were one of the most feared units in Greece.

As for homo******ity being "unnatural," I'm afraid it's bubble-bursting time again. Many animals, primates in particular, practice homo******ity regularly. Bonobos, for example, not only practice it, but "couples" actually form. So, yeah, it's in the natural world, so it must be natural. Or are they sinning against God too?

[sp2c]

I have to wonder how all those bible fanatics that take the homo******ity quote that serious feel about *** before marriage.

had any?

maybe you should, it'll make you happier :D

[Conga]

Homophilia, pedophilia and other perversions should not be supported by the society. I'd say it should be the other way around.

oh god, you seem to have some post traumatic childhood experience with homo******ity, don't you :roll:

[NewsMan]

#11.. hairy butts!

[sp2c]

#12... another Will & Grace season

[Thor]

It's simply a matter of right or wrong. People that don't have a moral compass I just pitty.


Also this word doesn´t exist. I can´t find it. :)
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Homophilia


oh god, you seem to have some post traumatic childhood experience with homo******ity, don't you :roll:
Only from mp.net

[LaoSexMachine]

If they want to be as miserable as straight people I say let them, who am I to judge another person's ****** preference. If religion was meant to be a force of good then why the discrimination?

[Redguy]

WOW I had no idea so many of the people on this site are gay......
And if you’re not gay why stick up for gays?
Oh and I need at least 1 piece of evidence that says Darwin was correct, at least in his theory of Macroevolution.

[Drako]

Homo******ity isn't unnatural. But it isn't anything good. Not that I say it's bad but each living creature's purpose of life is to reproduce, to keep its species from distinction. If we were to look at it from nature's point of view, homo******s are useless. Most species doesn't tolerate homo******ity, homo****** individuals are usually removed from the herd or killed. And please don't tell me that bible BS because in most pre-christian cultures homo******s were sentenced to death if caught. If it was completely ok why the heck in so many places, in so many cultures and even in animal world homo******ity wasn't accepted? But the topic is about the marriage, not homo******ity in overall.

Accepting gay marriage for one may be sick, for others it may be wrong because of their religion but what's more important - accepting them is turning back from our culture. Marriage is to be a lawful relationship between two loving people in order to breed children and continue the growth of the society. Gays can't breed children. You'll say thet there's an adoption. But I say - it's wrong from all points of view. Is it moral, legal (will get to it), cultural, religious or medical point of view. If children were to be risen by two individuals of the same *** and it'd be ok and a perfect solution, why the hell nature doesn't work that way? Why it requires two people of different *** to have children and become parents? But what is most important - you say gays have "the right" to adopt children. But I say that children have THE RIGHT to have father and mother as it's meant to be. And I think that NOONE has the right to take that right away from them in order to give another right to gays.

I'm not against gays. I met some and I think that they have the right to live in peace and they can do whatever they want with whoever they want, because it's not my business. They were born like that and it isn't their fault. But if it comes to marriage and adopting children I'm all against it.

[ed316]

WOW I had no idea so many of the people on this site are gay......
And if you’re not gay why stick up for gays?
Oh and I need at least 1 piece of evidence that says Darwin was correct, at least in his theory of Macroevolution.

It's about sticking up for gays, but not discriminating against someone who is different from you.

[sp2c]

Homo******ity isn't unnatural. But it isn't anything good. Not that I say it's bad but each living creature's purpose of life is to reproduce, to keep its species from distinction. If we were to look at it from nature's point of view, homo******s are useless. Most species doesn't tolerate homo******ity, homo****** individuals are usually removed from the herd or killed. And please don't tell me that bible BS because in most pre-christian cultures homo******s were sentenced to death if caught. If it was completely ok why the heck in so many places, in so many cultures and even in animal world homo******ity wasn't accepted? But the topic is about the marriage, not homo******ity in overall.

Accepting gay marriage for one may be sick, for others it may be wrong because of their religion but what's more important - accepting them is turning back from our culture. Marriage is to be a lawful relationship between two loving people in order to breed children and continue the growth of the society. Gays can't breed children. You'll say thet there's an adoption. But I say - it's wrong from all points of view. Is it moral, legal (will get to it), cultural, religious or medical point of view. If children were to be risen by two individuals of the same *** and it'd be ok and a perfect solution, why the hell nature doesn't work that way? Why it requires two people of different *** to have children and become parents? But what is most important - you say gays have "the right" to adopt children. But I say that children have THE RIGHT to have father and mother as it's meant to be. And I think that NOONE has the right to take that right away from them in order to give another right to gays.

I'm not against gays. I met some and I think that they have the right to live in peace and they can do whatever they want with whoever they want, because it's not my business. They were born like that and it isn't their fault. But if it comes to marriage and adopting children I'm all against it.

in that case a marriage where one or both of the parents can't have children for some (medical) reason should be illegal as well

what about couples that simply don't want children ... should they be allowed to get married?

[Durandal]

i was alerted to this by a friend.


Funny $hit and all too true.

[Atlantic Friend]

Actually the Bible says in the old testament that gays should be executed instantly.

"Und ein Mann der einen Mann beschläft, wie man bei der Frau liegt, ein Greuel haben sie getan, beide. Des Todes sollen sie sterben, ihr Blut über sie". (Lev. 20.13)

"Und bei einem Mann liege nicht wie bei einer Frau. Das ist ein Greuel". (Lev. 18.22)

This is not my opinion, but the Book is pretty clear about that.

It's also pretty clear that if a husbands sees his wife while she's menstruating, he has to cleanse himself because he's become impure. Same thing if he sleeps with her when she is "impure".

Bad things are also supposed to happen to farmers sowing different grains in adjacent fields, and to people wearing clothes made of different fabric, too. And while we are at it, the Bible is also very clear of what must happen to unruly children : they are to be brought to the gates of the city to be stoned to death by the elders.

Is this how we are supposed to live ?

[JoaMei]

WOW I had no idea so many of the people on this site are gay......
And if you’re not gay why stick up for gays?
Oh and I need at least 1 piece of evidence that says Darwin was correct, at least in his theory of Macroevolution.

Well, someone who sticks up for gays is not neccesary gay. But actually a lot of people who are always picking on gays are closet Homo******s.
I actually dont have a problem with them but their "Gay pride" Parades sometimes give me a negative opinion. Why cant they simply be gay and dont be fags?

[Weasel]

It's simply a matter of right or wrong. People that don't have a moral compass I just pitty.


http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Homophilia

Link doesn´t work for me but of course I know what you mean. It´s very stupid to compare homo******s with pedophils.

Homo******ity can´t be wrong just because others say so. Where´s the logic?

[Atlantic Friend]

WOW I had no idea so many of the people on this site are gay......
And if you’re not gay why stick up for gays?
Oh and I need at least 1 piece of evidence that says Darwin was correct, at least in his theory of Macroevolution.

Are you "starting to be funny" ?

[Weasel]

I actually dont have a problem with them but their "Gay pride" Parades sometimes give me a negative opinion. Why cant they simply be gay and dont be fags?
Same here. But how many gay parades do we have? 1, 2, 3 per year? We don´t have to watch these parades. :)

[Drako]

in that case a marriage where one or both of the parents can't have children for some (medical) reason should be illegal as well

what about couples that simply don't want children ... should they be allowed to get married?

If they can't have children they can adopt them and my point remains valid. if someone doesn't want children I don't see a reason for that kind of marriage.

[sp2c]

gay couples can adopt a child as well, then there's other options (one requires a simple trip to a sperm bank in case of females)

[martinexsquaddie]

As my section commander would say its legal now
although our platoon t-shirt was "brighton death from behind" was banned.
somebody gays wants to get married get on with not my problem.
thought for a long while gay parents were a bit wrong but having seen what so called "normal parents" are capable of (child protection issues trust me the reports make clips of people being beheaded look like comedys)
can't really see the problem anymore

[Thor]

Link doesn´t work for me but of course I know what you mean. It´s very stupid to compare homo******s with pedophils.

Homo******ity can´t be wrong just because others say so. Where´s the logic?
Perversions of any kind should not be supported by the society.

Acts of ****** perversions are closely linked.

[Drako]

gay couples can adopt a child as well, then there's other options (one requires a simple trip to a sperm bank in case of females)

Read carefully what i wrote about gays adopting children in my post on the previous page.

[Weasel]

Perversions of any kind should not be supported by the society.

Acts of ****** perversions are closely linked.
What is perversion? Who defines it?

Pedophilia is a crime, homo******ity isn´t because homo******ity concerns two people who have the choice of choosing their ****** preferences. A child doesn´t have the choice if having *** with a pervert or not. Do you see the difference?

[Thor]

What is perversion? Who defines it?
A disturbed type of ****** behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion

I guess people like you is the explanation why all the really perverted **** comes out of Germany.

Piss-Bukkake-Weasel

[Weasel]

A disturbed type of ****** behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion
Who defines what "disturbed" is?


I guess people like you is the explanation why all the really perverted **** comes out of Germany.

Piss-Bukkake-Weasel
No arguments anymore? :petting:

[Thor]

Who defines what "disturbed" is?
So if someone defecates in your face, you would not consider that disturbed?


No arguments anymore? :petting:
Why, because I gave a perfect example of your reasoning?

[Weasel]

So if someone defecates in your face, you would not consider that disturbed?


Why, because I gave a perfect example of your reasoning?
Don´t expect a serious answer anymore. You are too disturbed.

[Thor]

Don´t expect a serious answer anymore. You are too disturbed.
You can't handle your own arguing.

[Roids]

You can't handle your own arguing.

http://static.flickr.com/14/17985675_f69cf32a52_m.jpg

Couldnt resist

[Apathy]

The only thing that bothers me about gays is the fact that some of them act/dress wierd. If gays just dressed normally and stopped acting gay to straight guys, then I would have no problem with them.

[RGRBOX]

its pretty sad that politicians like the Canadian government will choose, as they call it, "human rights" over moral order. Marriage was never meant to be, and never should be for homo******s, no matter how much society wants to bend the rules. Some things in life are just wrong and need to stay that way.

21 on your name, is that the age you are, or the age you hope to become in 5 years.... I'm not gay, but I think people have the right to fvck, marry or love anyone else, who is of the right age, and willing to do the same... if it's not against the law in the first place to be gay, then it should be agaisnt the law for two homo****** me or lesbian women to love, and marry one another...

[Apathy]

21 on your name, is that the age you are, or the age you hope to become in 5 years.... I'm not gay, but I think people have the right to fvck, marry or love anyone else, who is of the right age, and willing to do the same... if it's not against the law in the first place to be gay, then it should be agaisnt the law for two homo****** me or lesbian women to love, and marry one another...

Hey they can love each other as much they please. Just don't do it in front of me.

[sp2c]

Read carefully what i wrote about gays adopting children in my post on the previous page.
I did, you said I could say they can adopt children but you think it's wrong, why is it wrong for gays and right for people who can't have children for a medical reason?

I mean why the hell nature doesn't work that way? If god wanted them to have children, he would not have made them the way they are.

it's a stupid argument, nowhere in the marriage contract does it say or has it ever said (afaik) that you have to have children

[Turhapuro]

Marriage is just juridical contract, nothing more. So why all this hassle?

[Thor]

Marriage is just juridical contract, nothing more. So why all this hassle?
Finns are so gay.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

what exactly is...the "gay"?

[Apathy]

what exactly is...the "gay"?

It's when one boy sticks his phallus into another boy's pooper.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

...for two homo****** ME or lesbian women to love, and marry one another... ;)

"me"...huh?

[Drako]

I did, you said I could say they can adopt children but you think it's wrong, why is it wrong for gays and right for people who can't have children for a medical reason?

I mean why the hell nature doesn't work that way? If god wanted them to have children, he would not have made them the way they are.

it's a stupid argument, nowhere in the marriage contract does it say or has it ever said (afaik) that you have to have children

"you say gays have "the right" to adopt children. But I say that children have THE RIGHT to have father and mother as it's meant to be. And I think that NOONE has the right to take that right away from them in order to give another right to gays." That's the most important part I wanted you to read. My concern about mental safety of children being risen by gay couples is another thing. I doubt you imagine what those children will probably go through in school. Tell me how the kid risen in such a family will be able to learn living in straight relationship if he/she didn't have any model at home?

As to the marriage contract - no, it doesn't say that. But hell, the institution of marriage was created and gives you the right to pay lower taxes etc for some reason. And children are that reason. You can't expect that government will check all couples if they can have and if they want children. By default two people of different *** living together have a chance to have children and gays have no chance.

[Weasel]

"me"...huh?
Provides a "n" to save mikebox´s ass.

[sp2c]

as a reply to this



Tell me how the kid risen in such a family will be able to learn living in straight relationship if he/she didn't have any model at home?



if they can learn from just a single mother they can learn from two, I even explained that in my post but you only read what you want to read

[Weasel]

"you say gays have "the right" to adopt children. But I say that children have THE RIGHT to have father and mother as it's meant to be. And I think that NOONE has the right to take that right away from them in order to give another right to gays." That's the most important part I wanted you to read. My concern about mental safety of children being risen by gay couples is another thing. I doubt you imagine what those children will probably go through in school. Tell me how the kid risen in such a family will be able to learn living in straight relationship if he/she didn't have any model at home?

As to the marriage contract - no, it doesn't say that. But hell, the institution of marriage was created and gives you the right to pay lower taxes etc for some reason. And children are that reason. You can't expect that government will check all couples if they can have and if they want children. By default two people of different *** living together have a chance to have children and gays have no chance.
According to your argumentation divorces also have to be forbidden.

[Atlantic Friend]

According to your argumentation divorces also have to be forbidden.

And many adoptions, because I'm pretty sure kids have the right to be raised by their real parents, after all.

[Weasel]

And many adoptions, because I'm pretty sure kids have the right to be raised by their real parents, after all.
True.

And I think that a lot of children would rather grow up at a home with two fathers instead of being beaten by father and mother.

[Omaha]

The only thing that bothers me about gays is the fact that some of them act/dress wierd. If gays just dressed normally and stopped acting gay to straight guys, then I would have no problem with them.


EXACTLY. What do you expect when you see things like gay pride parades and gay days at ****en amusement parks. When nothing but scum of the earth (not because they are gay..) asshats strut around like everyone wants to see them.



How can you expect anything BUT hostility when you have this running around?

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Gay+pride+parade

If you want to be gay, that is fine. Keep it to your God damn self and stop throwing it in everyone's face every chance you get.

[Thor]

True.

And I think that a lot of children would rather grow up at a home with two fathers instead of being beaten by father and mother.
You want the kid to be beaten by two fathers? That's sick.

[Esszett]

Accepting gay marriage for one may be sick, for others it may be wrong because of their religion but what's more important - accepting them is turning back from our culture. Marriage is to be a lawful relationship between two loving people in order to breed children and continue the growth of the society. Gays can't breed children. You'll say thet there's an adoption. But I say - it's wrong from all points of view. Is it moral, legal (will get to it), cultural, religious or medical point of view. If children were to be risen by two individuals of the same *** and it'd be ok and a perfect solution, why the hell nature doesn't work that way? Why it requires two people of different *** to have children and become parents? But what is most important - you say gays have "the right" to adopt children. But I say that children have THE RIGHT to have father and mother as it's meant to be. And I think that NOONE has the right to take that right away from them in order to give another right to gays.

I'm not against gays. I met some and I think that they have the right to live in peace and they can do whatever they want with whoever they want, because it's not my business. They were born like that and it isn't their fault. But if it comes to marriage and adopting children I'm all against it.
X 2.
Very well said.
All religion and moral discussions aside:

I don't know how it is in the rest of the world but here in Germany the protection of marriage is a constitutional duty of the state (Art. 6 GG).
Married couples enjoy many advantages, especially tax-wise.
And there is actually a logical reason for this.
Marriage is so to say an encouragement for a couple to stay together and to breed children. Such behavior shall be awarded by the state as it is what secures the future.
It is known for a fact by now (sorry don't have any links, but I've heard this many times) that children brought up in an "intact" family are not only overall more likely to be successfull in life (in general; note: there may be exceptions) but they also tend to follow the rolemodel lived by their parents and to found a family themselves and to have children more than children brought up by single parents.

Religion aside, the only reason for someone to marry is to enjoy the benefits the state grants for married couples. The state grants these benefits to married couples because it is benefitial for the state to have married couples. Simple.
Homo****** couples fall out of this model. They don't provide a "balanced picture of authority" (sorry don't know how to say it better in English) like a "normal" couple does.
For me, this is the reason why there is a BIG difference between a couple that can't have own children and a homo****** couple when it comes to adopting children (and marrying).
Children take their parents as examples and archetypes. IMO it is extremely important to have a caring and loving mother as well as a more strict and overall "manly" father.
I think especially boys (don't know about girls) need the loving care of a mother as well as the strict "masculinity" of a father, especially from a certain age on.
That said I don't think that homo****** couples are able to provide such a "balanced picture of authority".
As Drako very well said: any child should have the right to have a mother and a father.
And be honest: If you'd have been brought up by a gay/lesbian couple would you've liked it? Especially in the age of puberty?
I can say for myself that I am happy I had a mother as well as a father in this time of my life who both cared for me, both in their own ways.

[sp2c]

EXACTLY. What do you expect when you see things like gay pride parades and gay days at ****en amusement parks. When nothing but scum of the earth (not because they are gay..) asshats strut around like everyone wants to see them.



How can you expect anything BUT hostility when you have this running around?

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Gay+pride+parade

If you want to be gay, that is fine. Keep it to your God damn self and stop throwing it in everyone's face every chance you get.

indeed, I don't really care about gays and I'm all for equal rights but I don't need a bunch of naked guys with feathers up their ass driving through the streets on a float.

[Weasel]

indeed, I don't really care about gays and I'm all for equal rights but I don't need a bunch of naked guys with feathers up their ass driving through the streets on a float.
Better don´t watch any techno parade. :)

[Drako]

Thx Esszett. I don't know why Weasel and sp2c posts are like "give children to gays or leave them in sick families where they are beaten". That's not the case. The case is if children should go to good (meaning without any pathologies) straight family or to good (in the same meaning) gay family. I'd be grateful if you responded with some real arguments not some bad examples which have nothing to do with the topic.

[Thor]

Thx Esszett. I don't know why Weasel and sp2c posts are like "give children to gays or leave them in sick families where they are beaten". That's not the case. The case is if children should go to good (meaning without any pathologies) straight family or to good (in the same meaning) gay family. I'd be grateful if you responded with some real arguments not some bad examples which have nothing to do with the topic.
Good post .

[Tielir999]

Main Entry: mar·riage
****unciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite *** as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also

"opposite ***" not same ***

[Weasel]

Esszett, I respectfully disagree.


Marriage is so to say an encouragement for a couple to stay together and to breed children. Such behavior shall be awarded by the state as it is what secures the future.
Every third marriage fails. Nothing more to say.


It is known for a fact by now (sorry don't have any links, but I've heard this many times) that children brought up in an "intact" family are not only overall more likely to be successfull in life (in general; note: there may be exceptions) but they also tend to follow the rolemodel lived by their parents and to found a family themselves and to have children more than children brought up by single parents.
Intact family is important for every child, no matter if the family consists of father and mother or two fathers. I doubt and never read that (adopted) children from gay people follow the rolemodel and become gay, too.


Religion aside, the only reason for someone to marry is to enjoy the benefits the state grants for married couples. The state grants these benefits to married couples because it is benefitial for the state to have married couples. Simple.
A state needs tax-payers, nothing more. The state doesn´t benefit from having married couples. The opposide: If more couples would have children without being married the state would benefit ever more: tax-payers for the future, more taxes in the present.


Homo****** couples fall out of this model. They don't provide a "balanced picture of authority" (sorry don't know how to say it better in English) like a "normal" couple does.
Two fathers or two mothers can´t be authorities? Children aren´t stupid. They will learn very quick that their situation is different to the situation of children with father and mother. So they will learn both rolemodels and they will still love their psychological parents.


Children take their parents as examples and archetypes. If I have a alcohol problem, my child will have it, too? If I beat my wife, my child will do it too in the future? If I am lazy and unemployed my child will be, too? I don´t think so.

[Greek soldier]

There isn't such thing a "gay marriage". Where is Åke Green??

[Weasel]

Thx Esszett. I don't know why Weasel and sp2c posts are like "give children to gays or leave them in sick families where they are beaten". That's not the case. The case is if children should go to good (meaning without any pathologies) straight family or to good (in the same meaning) gay family. I'd be grateful if you responded with some real arguments not some bad examples which have nothing to do with the topic.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant: what is better for a child? A family consisting of two loving persons of the same ***? Or a traditionaly family in which the child gets beaten or is the vitim of a divore?

[Thor]

You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant: what is better for a child? A family consisting of two loving persons of the same ***? Or a traditionaly family in which the child gets beaten or is the vitim of a divore?
Just like Drako said the "dysfunctional familly" argument isn't an option. The choice is between a normal family and having two disturbed homo******s acting as "parents".

[sp2c]

Thx Esszett. I don't know why Weasel and sp2c posts are like "give children to gays or leave them in sick families where they are beaten". That's not the case. The case is if children should go to good (meaning without any pathologies) straight family or to good (in the same meaning) gay family. I'd be grateful if you responded with some real arguments not some bad examples which have nothing to do with the topic.
I never said anything like that, try actually reading my posts before commenting on it you smartass.

[Drako]

You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant: what is better for a child? A family consisting of two loving persons of the same ***? Or a traditionaly family in which the child gets beaten or is the vitim of a divore?

I understood it well. We could have such a discussion if gays could have children and then we could talk about such situation. But we're talking about adoption and adopted children don't go to bad families. We're talking about what's a better for a child - A family consisting of two loving persons of the same ***? Or a family consisting of two loving persons of the opposite ***?


I never said anything like that, try actually reading my posts before commenting on it you smartass.

Well, maybe your post about your friends wasn't exactly like that but it had similar meaning. That children can be risen in a family without a father/mother and be good people doesn't mean that father/father isn't needed.

[Uninen]

Women for babies, men for love.. rofl
Hey, for all i care you can all turn gay and get married, leaves more chicks for me. p-)

[Esszett]

Esszett, I respectfully disagree.
Ok, and I respectfully disagree to your opinion.p-)


Every third marriage fails. Nothing more to say.
That may be right. Never the less do two thirds "succeed" and what laws are about is to either encourage people to so something or to encourage them NOT to do it.
What happens then in reality is out of control and dependant to many factors. Never the less is it important to have certain principles which are worthy to be protected and which represent the majority (even though two thirds is no great majority).


Intact family is important for every child, no matter if the family consists of father and mother or two fathers. I doubt and never read that (adopted) children from gay people follow the rolemodel and become gay, too.
Ok, it may be better to grow up in an "intact" homo****** environment than to grow up in completely f*cked up environment.
It is also very unlikely that adopted children of gay people become gay too since homo******ity seems to be a biological issue and not a "social conditioning" one.
BUT if these children will be as "balanced" and happy as children who were brought up in "happy traditional families" is very doubtable IMO. There are no studies about this so far (as far as I know), but I'm pretty sure about that just from my personal "feeling".


A state needs tax-payers, nothing more. The state doesn´t benefit from having married couples. The opposide: If more couples would have children without being married the state would benefit ever more: tax-payers for the future, more taxes in the present.
That's where I disagree really.
The state grants tax-advantages to married couples because married couples provide a MUCH higher advantage than what the difference is in between what unmarried people and what married people pay in taxes.
Don't get me started to explain this cause it would take ages but it is the way it is. There was actually some (means much) thinking behind this from the fathers and mothers of the German constitution.


Two fathers or two mothers can´t be authorities? Children aren´t stupid. They will learn very quick that their situation is different to the situation of children with father and mother. So they will learn both rolemodels and they will still love their psychological parents.
I fear children are not that smart when it comes to rolemodels. Sorry, but I think children especially need an emtional "bind" when it comes to something as clever as this.
I fear that children who are brought up in homo****** relationships will be "missing" something.
Honestly I'm not too sure about it but I would'nt want to be the one who makes them the guinea pigs on this matter.
We know that traditional families work very good. Nooene knows what kind of problems would arise when children -as a mass phenomenon- would be raised by (married) gay couples.
What can be said is that it definately is aginst the natural way (how it's "used to be").


If I have a alcohol problem, my child will have it, too? If I beat my wife, my child will do it too in the future? If I am lazy and unemployed my child will be, too? I don´t think so.
Sorry, but I think you really can't compare this.
You can fail in life/ have serious problems for many reasons. This doesn't automatically mean that you don't give your children what they need.
And you have to admit that a "normal" married couple will not have these problems (and by that I mean that the vast majority of "normal" parents do not have alcohol problems or are disturbed in another extreme way).
What we have to consider here is the optimum or at least the average constellation possible. And after that neither mother nor father will have an alcohol problem nor any other serious "problem" in a traditional marriage.
So it is unlikely in an "average" family that there are any serious problems.

Hope my logic is somewhat understandable. Still have some problems to make myself clear in English.

[sp2c]

Well, maybe your post about your friends wasn't exactly like that but it had similar meaning. That children can be risen in a family without a father/mother and be good people doesn't mean that father/father isn't needed.

it did not have a meaning even remotely like that and you know it.

All I meant to say was that children do not have to have the father/mother combo to grow up as good people, that's all which is what you seemed to imply here




As to the marriage contract - no, it doesn't say that. But hell, the institution of marriage was created and gives you the right to pay lower taxes etc for some reason. And children are that reason. You can't expect that government will check all couples if they can have and if they want children. By default two people of different *** living together have a chance to have children and gays have no chance.

if you can learn how to be a good person from a single mother then you should sure as hell be able to learn it from two, that's all I was saying but you only read what you want to read.

[Firetxmi]

It's simply a matter of right or wrong. People that don't have a moral compass I just pitty.


Must be nice to put yourself on such a pedastal. Then again, it probably helps you get up on your high horse.

Who is the judge of morals? who says what is right and wrong? Who has the final authority on that? In some countries they still stone people to death and that is in-line with their moral beliefs. Explain to me how you can say that everyone should have the exact same concept of right and wrong that you do.

[Durandal]

Ok, here we go.

I have a sister that is a lesbian.

I have a fiancee that is a practicing Children's Metal Health councilor.

Between these two very personal relationships in my life I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is against gay marriage is simply doing so out of religious bigotry, non-religious bigotry, or hatred (usually because of a complete misunderstanding as a result of stereotypes).

I have met many gay people through friends and my sister, all, but maybe a few, you would be hard pressed to know they are gay. They do not flaunt their lifestyle any more than we flaunt our hetero****** lifestyle, unless you call holding hands or flirting with each other occasionally (like most straight couples) in public flaunting (and I will call that absolutely absurd).

My fiancee and I will be marrying in October and soon after entering into the involved process of adoption. We love kids we want our own, but are unable to have them and cannot afford or want someone else to carry our children to term, so we chose the least costly, though just as complex route of adoption.

I find any talk of "they are not able to have children" as an insult to anyone unable to do so, regardless of the reason. There are plenty of children in this world that need good, supporting parents, that will take a proactive part in their development.

I have seen plenty of horrible hetero****** couples married, or not, that raise children. To me they are proof that if a gay couple can raise 'em better then more power to them! Gay couples usually tend to be both smart and well educated and they also have, usually a good, solid, income. Anyone that claims that homo****** couples are not as loving as hetero-couples is a fool.

Finally, let me say that MOST homo******s are NOT the flamboyant types that you see parading around San Francisco. They represent about 10% of the population. Most are normal people, with normal jobs, struggling with life like the rest of us. I find it troubling that, in this day and age, we so easily find it in ourselves to treat people different than us with such hatred (because that is what it is...hate) and disgust. These are people, not bent on the destruction of our society (like say Islamic radicals), but people wishing, simply, to live the American dream.

To deny them that, deliberately, seems to me just a tad bit un-American and quite sad.

[Durandal]

Main Entry: mar·riage
****unciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite *** as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also

"opposite ***" not same ***

From Merriam - Webster's

Main Entry: mar·riage
****unciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite *** as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same *** in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-*** marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

definitions are like scripture and statistics. We use them to suit our purposes but never truly prove anything.

[sp2c]

congratulations on your marriage :)

[Durandal]

congratulations on your marriage :)

She rocks. :)

[Thor]

I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is against gay marriage is simply doing so out of religious bigotry, non-religious bigotry, or hatred (usually because of a complete misunderstanding as a result of stereotypes).
You, Sir, is a very narrow-minded person. Moral virtue is not hate, it's care.

[Firetxmi]

You, Sir, is a very narrow-minded person. Moral virtue is not hate, it's care.

hahaha..This coming from the guy who previously said that basically if you dont agree with his moral "virtues" then you do not have a "moral compass." Interesting.

[Esszett]

Sorry Durandal, even though I understand your personal concerning, my statements stand.

Please don't think that I am homophobic or something. I just think (or at least that's what I believe) that my opinion is "right".

But feel free to convince me otherwise. I try to be open-minded towards other opinions.
But I find your argument that



I find any talk of "they are not able to have children" as an insult to anyone unable to do so, regardless of the reason. There are plenty of children in this world that need good, supporting parents, that will take a proactive part in their development.

not very convincing.
I think: "Normal", married (hetero******) couples first and then all the others.
This differentiation doesn't sound wrong to me.

Best regards

[Omaha]

This is how I see it, at least here in America. This isn't ideologically driven, I am simply looking at the rules and how they MUST apply to EVERYONE or no one at all.

When a man and a women legally wed, they receive certain tax benefits. To deny that to any other person is in fact discrimination. Matter of fact you have an argument to say that legal marriage is unconstitutional.

And if you open the door for a man and a woman to wed, you must open it to any two persons, regardless of ***.

But then that allows for multiple people to be married. And so forth. You can't open the door half way I guess anymore.



Now personally, I don't agree with a damn thing above, but that doesn't matter. Those are the facts.

[Thor]

hahaha..This coming from the guy who previously said that basically if you dont agree with his moral "virtues" then you do not have a "moral compass." Interesting.
In terms of disagreeing I'm very liberal; everyone has the right to make up their own mind on how to live their lives. What I'm saying though is that the society should be a defender of moral virtues and support family values.

[EvanL]

I have nothing against gays or lesbians, and would support if they want to get married. But i am unsure about if it should be considered marriage or not.

[sp2c]

I have nothing against gays or lesbians, and would support if they want to get married. But i am unsure about if it should be considered marriage or not.
I like lesbians :D

[Firetxmi]

In terms of disagreeing I'm very liberal; everyone has the right to make up their own mind on how to live their lives. What I'm saying though is that the society should be a defender of moral virtues and support family values.

And exactly how is said society able to come to a consensus on moral issues? I believe that there are generally agreed upon morals (not killing, raping, etc) but what about the ambiguous ones? On those how are we supposed to come about a general agreement? Or does one group just get f***ed?

[sp2c]

yes but that's allright because their moral compass is screwed up

or something like that ...

[Field_Gunner]

the reason that it is legal in canada for homo******s to get married is that to bar them from that would be against the canadian human rights code also canada has the whole separation of church from state thing down better than the americans.I also find it of iterest when people keep bringing up quotes from the bible when every year the ammount of priests and ministers being cought molesting children and even coming out of the closet keep raising.

one of the guys I worked with a few summers ago was gay, you couldnt tell by looking at him and after a few people saw him kissing his boyfriend (on base) the guys went ape**** treating him like an alien avoiding him calling him names and so-on. me I couldnt care less, he did his job better than most people could do and thats all that matters in my books.

to say its moraly wrong or that you dont agree with it is fine, you have a choice of political parties that agree 100% with you. but to say because god says so or its not lawfull is complete bull****!.... well....in canada it is.

[Durandal]

You, Sir, is a very narrow-minded person. Moral virtue is not hate, it's care.

Ah, my mistake...

Yeah, I am narrow minded.

I have absolutely use for people that think their version of morality should be used as a litmus test for us all.

Last time I checked there was nothing immoral about two adults loving each other in a healthy relationship.

[Durandal]

What I'm saying though is that the society should be a defender of moral virtues and support family values.

And just what might be those moral virtues and family values?

We always hear people talk about them but they are never truly defined.

So go ahead and list them...

[sp2c]

She rocks. :)

I was making no assumptions dude ... just happy for ya

I love it when people get married, they're so happy at that point :D
sure people get divorced but that doesn't (shouldn't) ruin that happy moment and all that.

mah I've had to much too drink, don't think I'm making too much sense right now

[gaz]

Ok, here we go.

I have a sister that is a lesbian.

I have a fiancee that is a practicing Children's Metal Health councilor.

Between these two very personal relationships in my life I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is against gay marriage is simply doing so out of religious bigotry, non-religious bigotry, or hatred (usually because of a complete misunderstanding as a result of stereotypes).

I have met many gay people through friends and my sister, all, but maybe a few, you would be hard pressed to know they are gay. They do not flaunt their lifestyle any more than we flaunt our hetero****** lifestyle, unless you call holding hands or flirting with each other occasionally (like most straight couples) in public flaunting (and I will call that absolutely absurd).

My fiancee and I will be marrying in October and soon after entering into the involved process of adoption. We love kids we want our own, but are unable to have them and cannot afford or want someone else to carry our children to term, so we chose the least costly, though just as complex route of adoption.

I find any talk of "they are not able to have children" as an insult to anyone unable to do so, regardless of the reason. There are plenty of children in this world that need good, supporting parents, that will take a proactive part in their development.

I have seen plenty of horrible hetero****** couples married, or not, that raise children. To me they are proof that if a gay couple can raise 'em better then more power to them! Gay couples usually tend to be both smart and well educated and they also have, usually a good, solid, income. Anyone that claims that homo****** couples are not as loving as hetero-couples is a fool.

Finally, let me say that MOST homo******s are NOT the flamboyant types that you see parading around San Francisco. They represent about 10% of the population. Most are normal people, with normal jobs, struggling with life like the rest of us. I find it troubling that, in this day and age, we so easily find it in ourselves to treat people different than us with such hatred (because that is what it is...hate) and disgust. These are people, not bent on the destruction of our society (like say Islamic radicals), but people wishing, simply, to live the American dream.

To deny them that, deliberately, seems to me just a tad bit un-American and quite sad.

That's a truly outstanding post.

[EvanL]

Durandal you should be one of thsoe guys that goes to schools and yells at the kids for being idiots. You truly are an outstanding speaker. You're like the unevil version of 2sheds. ;)

[Redguy]

Are you "starting to be funny" ?


no, but can i keep my balls?

[andyrew_21]

I knew someone was going to whip out Leviticus. It is, as far as I know, the only clear unambiguous reference to homo******ity. But here's the thing: Leviticus was nuts. He also said that slavery was morally acceptable, and that it was ok to stone unruly children to death. As far as I'm concerned, nothing from Leviticus is acceptable.

As for the Greeks, I hate to burst people's bubbles, but homo******ity was not frowned upon or a cause for execution. In fact, there was a whole Spartan unit (whose name escapes me at the moment) made up not only of homo******s, but of gay couples. They were one of the most feared units in Greece.

As for homo******ity being "unnatural," I'm afraid it's bubble-bursting time again. Many animals, primates in particular, practice homo******ity regularly. Bonobos, for example, not only practice it, but "couples" actually form. So, yeah, it's in the natural world, so it must be natural. Or are they sinning against God too?

Yeah, they are sinning against God, you'll find that out one day.

[andyrew_21]

It's also pretty clear that if a husbands sees his wife while she's menstruating, he has to cleanse himself because he's become impure. Same thing if he sleeps with her when she is "impure".

Bad things are also supposed to happen to farmers sowing different grains in adjacent fields, and to people wearing clothes made of different fabric, too. And while we are at it, the Bible is also very clear of what must happen to unruly children : they are to be brought to the gates of the city to be stoned to death by the elders.

Is this how we are supposed to live ?

No because this is scripture from the Old testement. When God sacrificed his son on the cross, those who followed him didnt have to live like this. Yours is a common argument used to attempt to discredit the Bible but unfortunately you should know the facts of Christianity before you argue it.

[ElHombre]

i seem to have hit upon a lively topic of discussion.

good. :lol:


EXACTLY. What do you expect when you see things like gay pride parades and gay days at ****en amusement parks. When nothing but scum of the earth (not because they are gay..) asshats strut around like everyone wants to see them.

in many ways i agree with you, but i would broaden the definition of people whose public behavior i find annoying. one could make the same arguement about the kinds of people most opposed to gays. y'all have no idea how many times i want to slap people who wear their religion on their sleeve. i just want to shout, 'you're not impressing anybody! why don't you go find a closet like jesus told you to do!'. :lol:

if i want to know about you, i'll watch how you behave. that will tell anybody all you need to know about them.

[andyrew_21]

21 on your name, is that the age you are, or the age you hope to become in 5 years.... I'm not gay, but I think people have the right to fvck, marry or love anyone else, who is of the right age, and willing to do the same... if it's not against the law in the first place to be gay, then it should be agaisnt the law for two homo****** me or lesbian women to love, and marry one another...

Marriage was founded, is, and always will be a religious institution. The government has no buisness dipping their paws into the traditions of marriage. Let gays have rings, let them have ceremonies, let them be civily unified, but dont call it marriage, and keep it out of the Church. If religion has no place in government, than keep government out of religion.

[ElHombre]

Marriage was founded, is, and always will be a religious institution. The government has no buisness dipping their paws into the traditions of marriage. Let gays have rings, let them have ceremonies, let them be civily unified, but dont call it marriage, and keep it out of the Church. If religion has no place in government, than keep government out of religion.

would you have any problems with people forming their own religion? one whose main difference being the allowance of gay marriages?

[andyrew_21]

would you have any problems with people forming their own religion? one whose main difference being the allowance of gay marriages?

Know the ten commandments? "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." I could care less what you do in your spare time, but God does. And your "religion" never founded marriage. God did.

[Weasel]

ElHombre, you are from Texas? You are a steer. p-)

Sorry, couldn´t resist.

[Weasel]

Esszett, I accept your opinion but I have a different one. I think we both agree that children should be grow up in a healthy and lucky environment. :hug:

[Atlantic Friend]

No because this is scripture from the Old testement. When God sacrificed his son on the cross, those who followed him didnt have to live like this. Yours is a common argument used to attempt to discredit the Bible but unfortunately you should know the facts of Christianity before you argue it.

The Old testament is, last time I checked, a part of the Bible. The Leviticus, IIRC, is where it is said that homo******ity is an abomination before God, and that is generally the part that is quoted by religiously-minded homophobes... So my point is, if we have to follow the Leviticus, then let's do it completely.

And if quoting the Bible is an attempt to discredit it, I have some news for you : dangerous people discredit the Bible by quoting it at great lengths every sunday, Andy, and I'm pretty sure they even have infiltrated your neighborhood...

[Atlantic Friend]

no, but can i keep my balls?

Only if you can Count them !

[Secret Squirrel]

Know the ten commandments? "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." I could care less what you do in your spare time, but God does. And your "religion" never founded marriage. God did.

Actually I'm sure you meant to refer to Ancient Egypt, which had marriages and more than one god. ;)

[Zvucni Efekti]

Religious arguments aside...

I'm all for gay marriages. There is, apparently, something biologically wrong with homo****** people (I'm not saying they're bad people, but it's biologically incorrect to be uninterested in the opposite ***, and, thus, the act of reproduction). If they aren't forced into living the life of a straight person through cultural pressure, they are not likely to reproduce, thus the biological quirk which makes them homo****** will not be passed on to another generation.

Evolution at work. woot

P.S. I know that some may argue that it is not 'biologically incorrect' for homo****** tendencies to show. However, when monkeys commit sodomy it is because they *are* interested in reproduction, to the point that since they are unable to find a female to mate with they make due with the next best thing. In humans, homo******ity is more of a case of disinterest in the opposite *** than a case of desperation for ****** pleasure.

Just my two cents.

[Firetxmi]

in many ways i agree with you, but i would broaden the definition of people whose public behavior i find annoying. one could make the same arguement about the kinds of people most opposed to gays. y'all have no idea how many times i want to slap people who wear their religion on their sleeve. i just want to shout, 'you're not impressing anybody!

Thank you. It is amazing how hypocritical people can be. As long as we are along the lines of quoting scripture, I will back up what you are saying about wearing their religion on their sleeve.

Matthew 5: 5-15
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11Give us this day our daily bread.

12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

[Firetxmi]

Oh and another thing. The Bible talks about how bad usury is, that is the lending of money for interest. You say no? I say look at:

In the Book of Exodus God says “if you lend money to my people, to the poor among you. you shall not exact interest from them” (22: 25). The fifteenth Psalm says that those who lend at interest may not abide in the Lord's tent or dwell on his holy hill (1-5). Ezekiel compares usury to adultery, robbery, idolatry, and bribery, and asks whether he who “takes advanced or accrued interest; shall he then live? He shall not. He. shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.” (18: 10-13; see also Deut. 23:19, Lev. 25: 35-37, Neh. 5: 7-10, Jer. 15:10, Ezek. 22: 12, and Luke 6:35)


Better stop paying the mortgage, credit cards, car loan, etc. if we are going to start criticizing people on their Biblical determination.

[Roids]

I believe in god and the like but can we please defer from using the bible as a reference. The book itself has been heavily edited and full of contridictions.

Im aware that this will lead everyone to base everything on their own personal set of morals....but thats what this is all about anyways.

[Esszett]

Esszett, I accept your opinion but I have a different one. I think we both agree that children should be grow up in a healthy and lucky environment. :hug:

That's definately right.

Should've earned you some good rep but unfortunately:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Weasel again.

So let's save that for another occasion.

[Durandal]

Marriage was founded, is, and always will be a religious institution. The government has no buisness dipping their paws into the traditions of marriage. Let gays have rings, let them have ceremonies, let them be civily unified, but dont call it marriage, and keep it out of the Church. If religion has no place in government, than keep government out of religion.

With the exception of the absurd notion that marriage is purely religious institution and founded as such, I'll agree with you here.

So' I'll meet you half way and provide a solution to the problem that will make everyone happy.

Remove marriages from the government. Because that is the crux of the problem. Marriage, as an institution, is a government issue currently. ONLY the government can recognize a marriage, even if witnessed in a church. True, ministers and priests, are given power, by the state
to recognize such unions, as agents of the state.

So, let's make marriage a ceremonial title only. The State ONLY recognizes unions. For purposes of legal establishment, taxation, and any other benefit civil unions will replace "marriage". Marriage will simply be a religious ceremony recognized, by term, within the couple's church or place of worship and those members of the same organization.

In turn, the State will not recognize marriages until they apply for a civil union license, thus granting them the same rights currently received. Till they are recognized by the state, they have no real status save the recognition found within their place of worship and those that attend. Thus having no legal status until a state recognized civil union be accompanied with it.

Problem solved.

I mean, let's be honest here. My fiancee and I are getting married the same place we are holding our reception, in a small country club with kick ass Frank Loyd Wright architecture. We are having a biology professor from U.C. recognized by the State of Ohio to grant marriage licenses. In these terms, she will be our minister. Our ceremony is not a religious one, though God will be mentioned in the ceremony purely because of her belief and mine in the existence of god. Our marriage is a union of love and friendship. The ceremony is the celebration of the coming together of two families and friends.

I find it repugnant that someone out there has the balls to tell me that my marriage is NOT a marriage unless it is a religious ceremony ordained by a true minister in a Church.

And THAT is the difference between you and me. You make requirements of me...I could care less what YOU do.

[Durandal]

...they are not likely to reproduce, thus the biological quirk which makes them homo****** will not be passed on to another generation.

Evolution at work. woot


I find your joy disturbing.

Unfortunately for you, homo******ity is not passed through JUST gay people...or rather not.

Sort of like preventing all blue eyed people from procreating, the blue eyed gene is still latent in a people without blue eyes only waiting for the right sequence to reappear on down the line.

Nice try though.

[Esszett]

So, let's make marriage a ceremonial title only. The State ONLY recognizes unions. For purposes of legal establishment, taxation, and any other benefit civil unions will replace "marriage". Marriage will simply be a religious ceremony recognized, by term, within the couple's church or place of worship and those members of the same organization.

In turn, the State will not recognize marriages until they apply for a civil union license, thus granting them the same rights currently received. Till they are recognized by the state, they have no real status save the recognition found within their place of worship and those that attend. Thus having no legal status until a state recognized civil union be accompanied with it.

I'm a little surprised now. Because that's exactly the way how it is handled in Germany. I thought it was the same in the US.
Here you have to marry "two times". Normally a couple first goes to the "Standesamt" ,which are bureaus of the state which exist in every town, and gets "officially" married.
The "Standesamtliche Trauung" makes the marriage legal in front of the state. From this day on the couple is considered as married in all administrative issues (taxes, family of the partner considered from now on as relatives, etc.).
One could say it is just an administrative matter. The two partners show up with some witnesses, sign the wedding document and that's it.

Mostly after that there is the religious or whatever ceremony you wish which is just for the "show" and the acceptance in the community or something but which doesn't have any legal importance.

So in the US you have to find some kind of certified wedder (or how you call it) in order to get legally married? Didn't know that.

[khukuri]

Ok, here we go.

I have a sister that is a lesbian.

I have a fiancee that is a practicing Children's Metal Health councilor.

Between these two very personal relationships in my life I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is against gay marriage is simply doing so out of religious bigotry, non-religious bigotry, or hatred (usually because of a complete misunderstanding as a result of stereotypes).

I have met many gay people through friends and my sister, all, but maybe a few, you would be hard pressed to know they are gay. They do not flaunt their lifestyle any more than we flaunt our hetero****** lifestyle, unless you call holding hands or flirting with each other occasionally (like most straight couples) in public flaunting (and I will call that absolutely absurd).

My fiancee and I will be marrying in October and soon after entering into the involved process of adoption. We love kids we want our own, but are unable to have them and cannot afford or want someone else to carry our children to term, so we chose the least costly, though just as complex route of adoption.

I find any talk of "they are not able to have children" as an insult to anyone unable to do so, regardless of the reason. There are plenty of children in this world that need good, supporting parents, that will take a proactive part in their development.

I have seen plenty of horrible hetero****** couples married, or not, that raise children. To me they are proof that if a gay couple can raise 'em better then more power to them! Gay couples usually tend to be both smart and well educated and they also have, usually a good, solid, income. Anyone that claims that homo****** couples are not as loving as hetero-couples is a fool.

Finally, let me say that MOST homo******s are NOT the flamboyant types that you see parading around San Francisco. They represent about 10% of the population. Most are normal people, with normal jobs, struggling with life like the rest of us. I find it troubling that, in this day and age, we so easily find it in ourselves to treat people different than us with such hatred (because that is what it is...hate) and disgust. These are people, not bent on the destruction of our society (like say Islamic radicals), but people wishing, simply, to live the American dream.

To deny them that, deliberately, seems to me just a tad bit un-American and quite sad.


was going to write something similar. Once upon a time I used to be not only against gay marriages but gays themselves. But when I grew up, got to know a few I and thought about it I realized being against gays is just ridicilous. I cant find a single valid argument that isnt something in line with "its just wrong" with no further explanation than moral and religion. Well It used to be unmoral for a woman to work not long ago, shouldve have stayed in our "moral" ways of life?

Nah me thinks that most of the guys who are against the thing are unsure of theyr own ******ity:), feel threatened in some cind of way ( and that was just some flame bait:D)

[Turhapuro]

Marriage was founded, is, and always will be a religious institution.
Bull****. When I am going to marry my girlfriend, it will not be religious institution, but juridical contract.

Anfd btw marriage is not christian invention.

[Field_Gunner]

I'm going to say this one more time to all you god people. why bring up quotes from the bible when priests and ministers are being cought molesting for the most part boys when the church itself keeps them from being jailed even though it says in the bible its wrong to do so, also their vows of selibacy are also being broken and they are not being kicked out for it.

so to say god doesnt like gay people....the RC church does!

[Durandal]

So in the US you have to find some kind of certified wedder (or how you call it) in order to get legally married? Didn't know that.

Sorry, what I was writing was intended for Americans. I did not mean to add to the confusion.

There are actually several processes to get married. You can simply go to the courts and get married. A lot of couples do both. Depends on what you want, what you can afford, and what you feel comfortable with.

My friend just got hitched...in front of a judge. That's it. Regardless of the process though, you still fill out a marriage document (speaking in as general of a term as possible here) which is then signed by a judge, or priest, minister, etc...a person recognized by the State as witness and legal signer.

Hope that clears it up.

[Esszett]

Hope that clears it up.

Ah, yes, thanks very much.

[farmgirl]

Ok, here we go.

I have a sister that is a lesbian.

I have a fiancee that is a practicing Children's Metal Health councilor.

Between these two very personal relationships in my life I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is against gay marriage is simply doing so out of religious bigotry, non-religious bigotry, or hatred (usually because of a complete misunderstanding as a result of stereotypes).

I have met many gay people through friends and my sister, all, but maybe a few, you would be hard pressed to know they are gay. They do not flaunt their lifestyle any more than we flaunt our hetero****** lifestyle, unless you call holding hands or flirting with each other occasionally (like most straight couples) in public flaunting (and I will call that absolutely absurd).

My fiancee and I will be marrying in October and soon after entering into the involved process of adoption. We love kids we want our own, but are unable to have them and cannot afford or want someone else to carry our children to term, so we chose the least costly, though just as complex route of adoption.

I find any talk of "they are not able to have children" as an insult to anyone unable to do so, regardless of the reason. There are plenty of children in this world that need good, supporting parents, that will take a proactive part in their development.

I have seen plenty of horrible hetero****** couples married, or not, that raise children. To me they are proof that if a gay couple can raise 'em better then more power to them! Gay couples usually tend to be both smart and well educated and they also have, usually a good, solid, income. Anyone that claims that homo****** couples are not as loving as hetero-couples is a fool.

Finally, let me say that MOST homo******s are NOT the flamboyant types that you see parading around San Francisco. They represent about 10% of the population. Most are normal people, with normal jobs, struggling with life like the rest of us. I find it troubling that, in this day and age, we so easily find it in ourselves to treat people different than us with such hatred (because that is what it is...hate) and disgust. These are people, not bent on the destruction of our society (like say Islamic radicals), but people wishing, simply, to live the American dream.

To deny them that, deliberately, seems to me just a tad bit un-American and quite sad.


AWESOME post, D!! woot

Congrats on your upcoming marriage and parenthood. I'm so happy for you (and your woman... from what I know she's a lucky gal.) :hug:

MD

[Durandal]

What gets me about all of this is the willingness to deprive someone else the JOY of doing what most of us can do. I am looking forward to my marriage. The only reason I am glad its 10 months away still is because of the planning.

I know a lot of people that sit on both sides of this subject. Hell sit on both sides in regards to religion in general (which is what this boils down to ultimately). We all get along though. Take Geezah and me for example. We have known each other for a couple years now, meeting first, in here. He has met my fiancee and the very first time they were discussing abortion in the truck ride down to the Knobcreek machinegun festival. They were two sides of the coin but neither thought to step across the boundary of simple disagreement to tell the other that their choice was wrong or immoral. Afterwards, both had nothing but great things to say about the other.

And, hopefully, he and his wife will be at the wedding come October (you'll get your invite later this year brother!).

We are different people in many ways...he is a Mormon and I am an Agnostic. We love guns and politics even if we do not always agree. We are both Americans and that is our bond.

And I think that is what America is about. Tolerance. Not in the politically correct way we think of it, but peaceful coexistence even when something as fundamentally different as religion, ethnicity, race, AND ******ity do their best to set us at odds.

I think that is what separates us from regions that you see mass chaos and death where one religious or ethnic group sets on another simply because of centuries of hate where the cause is long forgotten. Its what sets us apart from, say, Serbia, or Rwanda, or Indonesia.

Tolerance...is the answer.

[farmgirl]

What gets me about all of this is the willingness to deprive someone else the JOY of doing what most of us can do. I am looking forward to my marriage. The only reason I am glad its 10 months away still is because of the planning.

I know a lot of people that sit on both sides of this subject. Hell sit on both sides in regards to religion in general (which is what this boils down to ultimately). We all get along though. Take Geezah and me for example. We have known each other for a couple years now, meeting first, in here. He has met my fiancee and the very first time they were discussing abortion in the truck ride down to the Knobcreek machinegun festival. They were two sides of the coin but neither thought to step across the boundary of simple disagreement to tell the other that their choice was wrong or immoral. Afterwards, both had nothing but great things to say about the other.

And, hopefully, he and his wife will be at the wedding come October (you'll get your invite later this year brother!).

We are different people in many ways...he is a Mormon and I am an Agnostic. We love guns and politics even if we do not always agree. We are both Americans and that is our bond.

And I think that is what America is about. Tolerance. Not in the politically correct way we think of it, but peaceful coexistence even when something as fundamentally different as religion, ethnicity, race, AND ******ity do their best to set us at odds.

I think that is what separates us from regions that you see mass chaos and death where one religious or ethnic group sets on another simply because of centuries of hate where the cause is long forgotten. Its what sets us apart from, say, Serbia, or Rwanda, or Indonesia.

Tolerance...is the answer.


Another great post. I couldn't have said it better myself. Tolerance is key.... If more people embraced that way of thinking... the world would be a far better place.

[Firetxmi]

What gets me about all of this is the willingness to deprive someone else the JOY of doing what most of us can do. I am looking forward to my marriage. The only reason I am glad its 10 months away still is because of the planning.

I know a lot of people that sit on both sides of this subject. Hell sit on both sides in regards to religion in general (which is what this boils down to ultimately). We all get along though. Take Geezah and me for example. We have known each other for a couple years now, meeting first, in here. He has met my fiancee and the very first time they were discussing abortion in the truck ride down to the Knobcreek machinegun festival. They were two sides of the coin but neither thought to step across the boundary of simple disagreement to tell the other that their choice was wrong or immoral. Afterwards, both had nothing but great things to say about the other.

And, hopefully, he and his wife will be at the wedding come October (you'll get your invite later this year brother!).

We are different people in many ways...he is a Mormon and I am an Agnostic. We love guns and politics even if we do not always agree. We are both Americans and that is our bond.

And I think that is what America is about. Tolerance. Not in the politically correct way we think of it, but peaceful coexistence even when something as fundamentally different as religion, ethnicity, race, AND ******ity do their best to set us at odds.

I think that is what separates us from regions that you see mass chaos and death where one religious or ethnic group sets on another simply because of centuries of hate where the cause is long forgotten. Its what sets us apart from, say, Serbia, or Rwanda, or Indonesia.

Tolerance...is the answer.

As was said before a great post. You put it so eloquently. My favorite line: "We are both Americans and that is our bond."

I can always count on you for a well thought out, well formulated post! Good job as usual.

[Durandal]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif10 reasons Gay Marriage... 01-15-2006 05:22 AM -American Family Association

Proving that American Family Association is neither for American Values, or the family. p-)

Now back to renovating the fiancee's office so I can sell my place and move in...before marriage and live in sin! :)

[farmgirl]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif10 reasons Gay Marriage... 01-15-2006 05:22 AM -American Family Association

Proving that American Family Association is neither for American Values, or the family. p-)

Now back to renovating the fiancee's office so I can sell my place and move in...before marriage and live in sin! :)



That made me smile.....I just got a lecture from my mother the other night regarding "the appearance of evil".... referring to the fact that WB stays at my house when he comes to town....

*looking for jobs in Virginia* :D

[farmgirl]

Actually the Bible says in the old testament that gays should be executed instantly.

"Und ein Mann der einen Mann beschläft, wie man bei der Frau liegt, ein Greuel haben sie getan, beide. Des Todes sollen sie sterben, ihr Blut über sie". (Lev. 20.13)

"Und bei einem Mann liege nicht wie bei einer Frau. Das ist ein Greuel". (Lev. 18.22)

This is not my opinion, but the Book is pretty clear about that.



The Bible also reads.... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...."

Perhaps people should keep that in mind....

[Durandal]

That made me smile.....I just got a lecture from my mother the other night regarding "the appearance of evil".... referring to the fact that WB stays at my house when he comes to town....

*gasp*


*looking for jobs in Virginia* :D

Rock on.

[Thor]

I got insane amounts of bad rep for this thread.. Just shows how strong the pro-gay movement is on mp.net. p-)

[martinexsquaddie]

don't think its so much a pro gay feeling more an anti bigot one.

[gaz]

I got insane amounts of bad rep for this thread.. Just shows how strong the pro-gay movement is on mp.net. p-)

Really? I got some off a homophobic piece of sh*t who didn't have the balls to sign his name simply for saying that I thought Durandal's post was a good one.

[nagant_m44]

Homo******ity isn't unnatural. But it isn't anything good. Not that I say it's bad but each living creature's purpose of life is to reproduce, to keep its species from distinction. If we were to look at it from nature's point of view, homo******s are useless. Most species doesn't tolerate homo******ity, homo****** individuals are usually removed from the herd or killed. And please don't tell me that bible BS because in most pre-christian cultures homo******s were sentenced to death if caught. If it was completely ok why the heck in so many places, in so many cultures and even in animal world homo******ity wasn't accepted? But the topic is about the marriage, not homo******ity in overall.

Accepting gay marriage for one may be sick, for others it may be wrong because of their religion but what's more important - accepting them is turning back from our culture. Marriage is to be a lawful relationship between two loving people in order to breed children and continue the growth of the society. Gays can't breed children. You'll say thet there's an adoption. But I say - it's wrong from all points of view. Is it moral, legal (will get to it), cultural, religious or medical point of view. If children were to be risen by two individuals of the same *** and it'd be ok and a perfect solution, why the hell nature doesn't work that way? Why it requires two people of different *** to have children and become parents? But what is most important - you say gays have "the right" to adopt children. But I say that children have THE RIGHT to have father and mother as it's meant to be. And I think that NOONE has the right to take that right away from them in order to give another right to gays.

I'm not against gays. I met some and I think that they have the right to live in peace and they can do whatever they want with whoever they want, because it's not my business. They were born like that and it isn't their fault. But if it comes to marriage and adopting children I'm all against it.

well said11111111

[Thor]

Really? I got some off a homophobic piece of sh*t who didn't have the balls to sign his name simply for saying that I thought Durandal's post was a good one.
So you're saying it was you who gave that bad ass bad rep to me...

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/1091/ewew7et.jpg

Good to know it was just one person.

[gaz]

So you're saying was you who gave that bad ass bad rep to me...

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/1091/ewew7et.jpg

Nothing to do with me, I've never left rep for anyone - good or bad. If I have something to say I say it on the board.

[farmgirl]

So you're saying it was you who gave that bad ass bad rep to me...

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/1091/ewew7et.jpg



Where do you get that? Gaz said he got bad rep from someone... he didn't say he gave any out.... can you say the same?

[Thor]

It's a conspiracy.

I won't argue with a mod..

[farmgirl]

It's a conspiracy.

I won't argue with a mod..


That's a good policy.... ;)

[gaz]

It's a conspiracy.

It must be because it's making me all paranoid.... I call an unknown poster a "homophobic piece of sh*t" and then you get all defensive.... It's enough to make me wonder....

[Firetxmi]

It's a conspiracy.


Just like how 50 percent of America is out to undermine Bush, and they all hate our troops. :D

[Apathy]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/apathy18/1130609550258.jpg

[Thor]

It must be because it's making me all paranoid.... I call an unknown poster a "homophobic piece of sh*t" and then you get all defensive.... It's enough to make me wonder....
You quoted me just like I quote you right now.

As for bad rep

Via Dolorosa

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/images/via_dolorosa.jpg

[Bulabash]

i dont think people should impose their beliefs on others, everyone has the right to his own beliefs and his own way of life, as long as your actions do not hurt, harm others. I for one do not believe in God, I do believe in live and let live. i try to understand the other people around me, talk to them, which isnt the same as trying to convince them regarding beliefs, that is impossible.

If people are gay and they want to live together for the rest of their lives, that gives them an obligation to one another, so why shouldnt they have the same benefits as other couples. I live together with my Girlfriend, we do not plan to get married nor do we want children as our vision of the future is pretty grim, there are already to many people on this bloody planet as it is, and it cannot sustain it. There is no equality nor is there honesty, it is also very hard to ever really know the truth about anything .

[gaz]

You quoted me just like I quote you right now.

I quoted you because I'd also gotten bad rep albeit for an opposing view.

[Durandal]

Just shows how strong the pro-gay movement is on mp.net. p-)

I wouldn't call it pro-gay so much as simple human decency.

[gaz]

I wouldn't call it pro-gay so much as simple human decency.

You're politer than me, I call it non-retarded.

[Durandal]

You're politer than me, I call it non-retarded.
rofl rofl rofl

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

My thoughts.

It should be up to the individual religion as to wether a person is entitled to a "religious ceremony"

There should be a non-religious (civil) ceremoney that is open to all races, *** and ****** orientation.

In so far as benifits go. The same rules and regulation that apply for male/female marriages should apply for same *** marriages.

There was a recent case out here in Australia. A ww2 vet who was homo****** passed away. His lifetime partner lost all entitlements that a war widow is entitled to. Simply because they were in a same *** relationship. (They were not married) yet if the vets partner had of been female they would not have lost benifits.

Is this fair?

[oldsoak]

Not on the face of it. Gay marriages are down to those involved - their hair, they wear it anyway they like - just keep it out of my soup.

[toki]

My thoughts.

It should be up to the individual religion as to wether a person is entitled to a "religious ceremony"

There should be a non-religious (civil) ceremoney that is open to all races, *** and ****** orientation.

In so far as benifits go. The same rules and regulation that apply for male/female marriages should apply for same *** marriages.

There was a recent case out here in Australia. A ww2 vet who was homo****** passed away. His lifetime partner lost all entitlements that a war widow is entitled to. Simply because they were in a same *** relationship. (They were not married) yet if the vets partner had of been female they would not have lost benifits.

Is this fair?

Another even simpler example: When you have an accident and you're in hospital - let's say unconcious, only relatives can visit you directly and receive any information. Friends/Boyfriends/Girlfriends don't have that right. A formal wedding ("notarized partnership" if you want) will avoid those legal issues, when you're homo****** and you're sharing goods with the partner in a way married couples do.

A secular society should have measures for these cases.

[Thor]

I wouldn't call it pro-gay so much as simple human decency.
Yeah, right..

What I thought was a movement (sarcasm intended for those who didn't understand) turned out to be some single individual. p-)

Like I said: in terms of disagreeing I'm very liberal; everyone has the right to make up their own mind on how to live their lives. I do however think that the society should provide a moral compass.

Anyway, as for the US and with the recent development in the Supreme Court in mind, I can't see any real change coming for the next 30-40 years.

[JoaMei]

I have seen plenty of horrible hetero****** couples married, or not, that raise children. To me they are proof that if a gay couple can raise 'em better then more power to them! Gay couples usually tend to be both smart and well educated and they also have, usually a good, solid, income. Anyone that claims that homo****** couples are not as loving as hetero-couples is a fool.


I have to disagree with that, but not with your Message in general:

Stating that gay couples are usually smart and well educated with a good solid income is a Stereotype. The percentage of stupid, poor and antisocial gay couples who should not be trusted to raise Children is exactely as high as in straight couples. But you didnt see them so far because there are none at the moment.

Your point of view could have something to do with the people you hang around usually which are, straight or gay, with good education and jobs?

[sp2c]

true, straight couples are also usually smart educated etc. the percentage of bad parents is very low indeed afaik but then again, nobody is saying straight couples should't have children

maybe he should've said that gay couples are usually just as smart, educated etc. as straight couples?

[Thor]

true, straight couples are also usually smart educated etc. the percentage of bad parents is very low indeed afaik but then again, nobody is saying straight couples should't have children

maybe he should've said that gay couples are usually just as smart, educated etc. as straight couples?
It's the perversion that's the problem, not the money.

I'm sure many poor kids would be better off living with Michael Jackson at Neverland, but would you really recommend that?

[Inquisitor]

my 2 cents.

NO discrimination EVER against homos,in fact I am pro a legalised marriageBut NEVER EVER let them raise children. Homo******ity is not right for Humanity. It is like a mutation that someone has.No discrimination against him,everyone must accept him for what he is. But it's not like we can pretend that is "natural" for human beings. Homo******ity is not a valour that has to be teached as "natural" because it isn't simple as that.

[sp2c]

It's the perversion that's the problem, not the money.

then don't use the whole taxes argument (dunno if you did but somebody sure did)


I'm sure many poor kids would be better off living with Michael Jackson at Neverland, but would you really recommend that?

extremes make poor arguments

[Thor]

then don't use the whole taxes argument (dunno if you did but somebody sure did)
Why not?

The society should promote the right thing but the key issue isn't money.


extremes make poor arguments
I actually don't think Jackson is that extreme at all compared to most perverts.

[Drako]

Oh well, I've just recieved some negative reputation because I'm "soo closed minded". For the one who has given it to me - you could've at least put your name under your statement.

Putting things like "gays have the right" doesn't explain anything. People are not given rights which give them some priviledges over others (in this case single people who can't adopt children and pay higher taxes) without a reason and I've pointed it out in my previous posts. And please leave the Bible and religion aside since gays take only civil weddings afaik and it shouldn't be a religious concern.

[Thor]

Man, the more you bleed in this thread, the more righteous you are.

[Durandal]

I'm sure many poor kids would be better off living with Michael Jackson at Neverland, but would you really recommend that?

Not at all.

Not because Michael Jackson is gay, bi-******, or straight, but because he is irresponsible, and possibly (at least in my mind) a child molester.

What GOOD parent would ever let their child simply hang out with an adult for days at a time?

[Durandal]

I have to disagree with that, but not with your Message in general:

Stating that gay couples are usually smart and well educated with a good solid income is a Stereotype. The percentage of stupid, poor and antisocial gay couples who should not be trusted to raise Children is exactely as high as in straight couples. But you didnt see them so far because there are none at the moment.

Your point of view could have something to do with the people you hang around usually which are, straight or gay, with good education and jobs?

I admit, I tend to hang around two groups of people:

Gun Owners and/or Intellectuals

Sometimes when I throw a party its like throwing gas onto a fire, but rarely. And yeah, there are homo******s in both those groups. Last time I went shooting up at Miller's before Thanksgiving we had a member down from the "Pink Pistols".

Yeah, I did generalize in that reply JoaMei, and I apologize for that. In my defense though, I did not say ALL gay couples are X, Y, and Z. Not that it changes the fact that I did generalize. :)

[farmgirl]

I admit, I tend to hang around two groups of people:

Gun Owners and/or Intellectuals

Sometimes when I throw a party its like throwing gas onto a fire, but rarely. And yeah, there are homo******s in both those groups. Last time I went shooting up at Miller's before Thanksgiving we had a member down from the "Pink Pistols".

Yeah, I did generalize in that reply JoaMei, and I apologize for that. In my defense though, I did not say ALL gay couples are X, Y, and Z. Not that it changes the fact that I did generalize. :)



I want a pink pistol.... I have the perfect outfit for it.... ;)

[Durandal]

I want a pink pistol.... I have the perfect outfit for it.... ;)

Back in October last year, I went down to the NRA range development conference in Atlanta.

One of the retailers (it was a mixed group of LE, retail, Gun Club, and Range owners) claimed he would have both a ladies night and "gay" night at his range/retail shop. They were his two most successful sales days each month. He would get crazy custom made products, like leopard skin .45 holsters, and pink Glocks...they would sell like hot cakes.

Completely unrelated to the topic, but I thought I would share.

[farmgirl]

Back in October last year, I went down to the NRA range development conference in Atlanta.

One of the retailers (it was a mixed group of LE, retail, Gun Club, and Range owners) claimed he would have both a ladies night and "gay" night at his range/retail shop. They were his two most successful sales days each month. He would get crazy custom made products, like leopard skin .45 holsters, and pink Glocks...they would sell like hot cakes.

Completely unrelated to the topic, but I thought I would share.



talking about fashion is never unrelated.... I'm soooo getting a leopard skin holster.... ;)

[Drako]

I admit, I tend to hang around two groups of people:

Gun Owners and/or Intellectuals

Sometimes when I throw a party its like throwing gas onto a fire, but rarely. And yeah, there are homo******s in both those groups. Last time I went shooting up at Miller's before Thanksgiving we had a member down from the "Pink Pistols".

Yeah, I did generalize in that reply JoaMei, and I apologize for that. In my defense though, I did not say ALL gay couples are X, Y, and Z. Not that it changes the fact that I did generalize. :)

I've met a gay who is a teacher on a medical academy. I drank beer with him and had a nice chat. I think is a nice guy and I had no problem with his orientation. But it doesn't change my point of view. People who want to adopt children are usually well educated and in good financial condition no matter if they are hetero or homo******. The only difference between those couples is their orientation and the fact that one family has a mother and father and the other doesn't. And in my opinion kid should go to the first family where could treat those people as if they were kid's real parents.

[hughdotoh]

I'm for biologically correct stuff. If you aren't built for it, don't even try to pull it off.

So flame me.

[Seraphim]

Farmgirl, I have the perfect pistol for you...just dont let Geezah see you with it. ;)

http://www.peonyland.com/JenUSP2.jpg

[Durandal]

Farmgirl, I have the perfect pistol for you...just dont let Geezah see you with it. ;)

http://www.peonyland.com/JenUSP2.jpg

Its ok, that's a USP. Now if it were a SiG, look out. p-)

[Seraphim]

Yeah, I was thinking that he would tell her to get a Sig instead. But then it would be blasphemy to paint a Sig like that...err any pistol for the matter.

[farmgirl]

Yeah, I was thinking that he would tell her to get a Sig instead. But then it would be blasphemy to paint a Sig like that...err any pistol for the matter.



sweet!!! Thanks ;)

[martinexsquaddie]

what's the big problem its not gay's will be expecting presents off you or something?
just because its wrong in the bible er there are jews muslims pagans and athesits etc in the USA so where do there morals come form.
a far as I aware most hindu' are not murderous theives and they hav'nt read the bible?
i've justs realized gayness is catching save your self don't read this thread its too late for me.
pink M$ will go well with my leapordskin BDU's simply fabuolu's darling

[Thor]

Do you need to have read a bible to know the difference between right and wrong?

I actually don't think so, these are universal and eternal values.

[Firetxmi]

Do you need to have read a bible to know the difference between right and wrong?

I actually don't think so, these are universal and eternal values.

So how do you explain then that some (me included) do not believe that being gay, or gay marriage for that matter, is wrong? Is this not a universal or eternal value?

[Saranof]

The very word "values" inplies that it isn't universal.

I've had millions of these debates, I'm just waiting for someone to say something about "but it's not natural, animals don't do the gay thing!!"

[Thor]

So how do you explain then that some (me included) do not believe that being gay, or gay marriage for that matter, is wrong? Is this not a universal or eternal value?
What is there to explain? You and the rest of the gay-mafia (p-)) is depraved.



I've had millions of these debates, I'm just waiting for someone to say something about "but it's not natural, animals don't do the gay thing!!"
No, is not normal in nature. However you will find disturbed behavior both among humans and among animals. I still don't like that comparison since we as humans have moral and values and therefor are above the animals.

[RGRBOX]

What is there to explain? You and the rest of the gay-mafia (p-)) is depraved.


No, is not normal in nature. However you will find disturbed behavior both among humans and among animals. I still don't like that comparison since we as humans have moral and values and therefor are above the animals.

Thor... the problem with this debate, is that Nature set one standard, and we humans set another. I myself am not gay, I'm a lesbian in a man's body... but I have nothing againt gay men... leaves more women for the rest of us.... I was somewhere once, where the % of women over men was 7 to 1... that's call heaven.... I wish I could remember where it was though.... I'm getting old.

[Durandal]

I actually don't think so, these are universal and eternal values.


*chuckle*

I forgot Thor, could you show me WHERE exactly, if one does not read religious texts, where it says homo******ity is a universal immorality?

Could you also list a couple UNiversal Immoralities so I can get an idea of what you mean?

[Thor]

I forgot Thor, could you show me WHERE exactly, if one does not read religious texts, where it says homo******ity is universal immorality?
You mean that ****** perversions are part of some universal morality?


Do not have *** with children.
You know, that's a good one. How about animals? Seen any cute squirrels?

This seems to be one of those answer-with-a-"?" debates.

[Durandal]

You mean that ****** perversions are part of some universal morality?

I ask you where we are taught this.

Again, I ask you, please give some examples of Universal Immoralities.

Its a simple question with, I would assume a simple answer.

So far we have:

Gay = Immoral

So what else is?

Maybe a half dozen? Maybe 2 dozen?

[Thor]

So what else is?
F*cking squirrels?

[Durandal]

F*cking squirrels?

Why are you asking me?

You are the one with a list of Universal good things or bad things.

So what are some of them?

I know I won't get an answer, but I'll still be civil about it.

Give me some sort of list.

[Thor]

Why are you asking me?
Because I wonder what ****** perversions you are ok with? Is f*cking squirrels ok? If so, is there any legal age to take in consideration?

[JoaMei]

Because I wonder what ****** perversions you are ok with? Is f*cking squirrels ok? If so, is there any legal age to take in consideration?

You seem to have an obsession with squirrels...

[Durandal]

Because I wonder what ****** perversions you are ok with? Is f*cking squirrels ok? If so, is there any legal age to take in consideration?

I am not too sure what my opinion in regards to having *** with a Callosciurusp has to do with your morality.

But let's look at it anyways...

Having *** with a squirrel is bizarre and to me a bad thing.

I would question anyone's actually romantic tendencies toward ANY animal.

However, if some dude got paid 25 MILLION to ƒuck one, I can understand why he did it.

So, where is the list of Universal immoralities? Thou shall not kill? Steal? Look at Catholic School Girls?

What are they?

[Thor]

Having *** with a squirrel is bizarre and to me a bad thing.

So, where is the list of Universal immoralities?
I'd say it's the same list as the one where you found that f*cking squirrels is a bad and bizarre thing.

[Durandal]

I'd say it's the same list as the one where you found that f*cking squirrels is a bad and bizarre thing.

Proof that once again, when you back and absolute moralist into a corner they cry like babies.

On one hand they easily announce that not only are we all ruled by a black and white value set of rules where X is wrong and Y is ok, but it is universal or...worst absolute.

When they are asked what these absolutes are, they are unwilling to list these absolutes they are so willing to condemn others with.

Now, do you want to play this came "Thor" or would you like to simply stop responding and go hide in a hole because everyone knows you are a ƒucking moron that simply spouts rhetoric and cannot think beyond is own "universal morals" as dictated by some of other equal stupid hill jack.

[Durandal]

See gaz, I can be an ass too. rofl

[Thor]

they cry like babies.
If you say so..


When they are asked what these absolutes are, they are unwilling to list these absolutes they are so willing to condemn others with.
The reluctance comes from the fact that this goes under asked and answered. Even so I tried to show you how silly it would be to start listing perversions by giving an example.

You claimed that moral doesn't exist and wanted to see "the list of universal immoralities". I simply told you that it's the same list as the one where you found that ******ly assaulting little animals is a disturbed thing to do; it's often referred to as decency.


because everyone knows you are a ƒucking moron
Sir, I thank you for your contribution in this debate. I would have hoped to be able to introduce the concept of agreeing on disagreeing, maybe next time.

Good Night

[Durandal]

You claimed that moral doesn't exist and wanted to see

Actually, I never said morals...or morality does not exist.

Keep with the program, I know its hard.