Gay Marriage

[Carl.]

maybe you should try it out before you judge it.

Don't forget this:

 

[emad]

I'd rather have sex with Rosanne than be a homosexual.

Hey, that's your choice. I'm sure a lot of homosexuals feel the same way about straight sex. But at least they're tolerant of the straight people around them.

 

[Concept]

Can we take this thread back to topic please?

Your personal opinion on what you would rather do than be gay is totally irrelevant.

Sure thing Dookey. 👍

I don't agree with homosexuality. I do, however, feel that if two homosexuals want to get married, let it be.

 

[Concept]

Hey, that's your choice. I'm sure a lot of homosexuals feel the same way about straight sex. But at least they're tolerant of the straight people around them.

Straight people are normal. It's hard to not tolerate normality. It's totally different when trying to tolerate a flaming man who has his hands in the pockets of another man.

 

[Duke]

So it's better when a studly man has his hands in the pockets of a blonde bombshell?

Is it better when a man has anal sex with a woman?

Frankly I think it's disgusting either way.

 

[Concept]

So it's better when a studly man has his hands in the pockets of a blonde bombshell?

Yes, much better.

Is it better when a man has anal sex with a woman?

Still nasty. I'd rather have anal sex with a women than a man though.

Frankly I think it's disgusting either way.

As do I.

 

[ledhed]

And this has what to do with gay Marriage ?

 

[Concept]

And this has what to do with gay Marriage ?

I don't think it has anything to do with it. I blame it on Dookey for getting me back off topic. Take it up with him.

 

[Ten]

Straight people are normal. It's hard to not tolerate normality. It's totally different when trying to tolerate a flaming man who has his hands in the pockets of another man.

**** you. 👍

 

[Concept]

**** you. 👍

I bet you would.

 

[vladimir]

I'd rather have sex with Rosanne than be a homosexual.

you don't know what you are missing, old carpetmuncher...

 

[Ten]

I bet you would.

As you so quaintly put it, I'd rather bed Roseanne. You've added nothing to the coversation, and appear to have popped up out of nowhere to get a rise out of the resident homosexuals that are here actually supporting their cause. Good job. You got one of them.

 

[Concept]

you don't know what you are missing, old carpetmuncher...

I'd rather be oblivous then.

 

[Concept]

As you so quaintly put it, I'd rather bed Roseanne. Welcome to my ignore list. You've added nothing to the coversation, and appear to have popped up out of nowhere to get a rise out of the resident homosexuals that are here actually supporting their cause. Good job. You got one of them.

I'm on your ignore list? Awesomeness.

Popped up out of nowhere? I've been at these forums since August of 2001.

Anyway, you've added nothing to mankind except another nasty confused man. You must not be to confident in your own homosexuality if you let people like me offend you. Have a happily confused life.

 

[Ten]

I'm on your ignore list? Awesomeness.

Popped up out of nowhere? I've been at these forums since August of 2001.

Anyway, you've added nothing to mankind except another nasty confused man. You must not be to confident in your own homosexuality if you let people like me offend you. Have a happily confused life.

Actually, I edited the post. You aren't on my ignore list. I wish to see how long you last before your obviously provoking behaviour sees you out of here.

 

[Duke]

Enough. Concept, you've made your opinion clear. Unless you intend to discuss rather than insult, leave this thread and don't come back.

 

[Famine]

Which seems like a perfect time to bring this back up again:

Where does God stand (sit, float about ethereally) on the issue of intersex?

Intersex individuals have a mal or female genetic makeup, yet neither or both types of genital. Typically they are castrated soon after birth and given cosmetic surgery to develop a vagina since the penis is almost always absent or microscopic, despite often being genetically male. Individuals may have internalised, undeveloped testicles or undeveloped ovaries. Some, due to chiasma of the Y chromosome, have an XY make up (male), but lack the tdf (testis-determining factor) gene so develop poorly differentiated ovaries and a "pouch" vagina with no uterus. Legend has it that Jamie Lee Curtis is amongst their numbers.

Is it wrong for two genetically male people to marry, despite one of them having had involuntary surgery in their infancy to resemble a female AND BEING REGISTERED on the Birth Certificate as female? Is it wrong for two genetically male people to marry, despite one of them resembling a female due to lack of tdf, or androgen insensitivity syndrome? They both enjoy vaginal intercourse even though the vagina has no physical function whatsoever and both parties are XY.

And let's not even mention full-on trans-sexuals...


IS it only the anus God has something against, or do intersex individuals feel his wrath too?

 

[Ten]

Which seems like a perfect time to bring this back up again:

Always the sly oppurtunist.

 

[Famine]

Don't worry. There's something even better after this...

 

[Ten]

Don't worry. There's something even better after this...

I always look forward to a Famine post.

 

[Concept]

Actually, I edited the post. You aren't on my ignore list. I wish to see how long you last before your obviously provoking behaviour sees you out of here.

Haha. You've got no idea how funny I find that post.


Alright Dookey, I'll stop. I don't want to further offend any homosexuals. I'll leave the thread now.

 

[Pako]

So....case in point, to decide how things 'should be' people should challenge and vote on issues they feel passionate enough about to pursue. Through electoral opinion, homosexuals should not be given the right to marry and should not be given the benefits of heterosexual marriages.

[off topic]
What's sad is that more straight marriages are probably taken for granted (lets try it out, if it doesn't work we'll just divorce) then what I would guess gay marriages would be like.
[/off topic]

So...as long as I can vote, I have a moral obligation to uphold and support the laws that this country was founded on.

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:


"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law . an oligarchy .


the rule of few over many.

 

[Danoff]

Through electoral opinion, homosexuals should not be given the right to marry and should not be given the benefits of heterosexual marriages.

Just because the majority agrees that the minority should be discriminated against doesn't make it right. This is another one of those issues that shouldn't be up for vote - the government should not make laws that discriminate against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, skin color, wealth, religion, eye color, musical preference, etc.

 

[Pako]

Just because the majority agrees that the minority should be discriminated against doesn't make it right. This is another one of those issues that shouldn't be up for vote - the government should not make laws that discriminate against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, skin color, wealth, religion, eye color, musical preference, etc.

So...if we don't put things up to vote, who's going to call the shots? Who ever has the biggest muscles? Who ever has the biggest guns?

Lets just hire a court to make all the decisions without consideration of what the people think or want. You have to have a democracy.

 

[Danoff]

So...if we don't put things up to vote, who's going to call the shots? Who ever has the biggest muscles? Who ever has the biggest guns?

Lets just hire a court to make all the decisions without consideration of what the people think or want. You have to have a democracy.

No. Do you have a democracy when considering free speech? Is it a democracy that gives us the right to bear arms?

The bill of rights guarantees certain inalienable rights. It does so because if it did not, the majority would strip them from the minority. A similar protection is required to prevent laws from discriminating against a part of society.

Example: Devil worshippers may never have a majority in this country - does that mean that we should be able to pass a law that discriminates against them? Devil worshippers shall pay more in taxes? Devil worshippers shall not marry? Devil worshippers shall not be out after 9pm?

Obviously not. In America we are guarnateed the freedom to practice any religion - regardless of how the majority feels (because that's the only way America can be free). Similarly we must be protected against other discriminatory laws (because that's the only way America can be free).


Edit:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

 

[Joey D]

Just because the majority agrees that the minority should be discriminated against doesn't make it right. This is another one of those issues that shouldn't be up for vote - the government should not make laws that discriminate against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, skin color, wealth, religion, eye color, musical preference, etc.

But a vote is truely a fair way to do things, plus this puts no blood on the hands of the politicans because they didn't inact it, the people did. I like leaving it up to the people, that way if something sucks we have to blame ourselves.

On gay marriage though, I used to be really against it, but now I don't think I really care to much. I know that in a few years everything will work itself out and it will be fine, just like inter racial marriage. I just wish people wouldn't fuss so much over it, give it some time and it will work out.

Me personally I have nothing against gays, I just personally think their way of life isn't my thing. I treat them the same as I do anyone else, hell the guy that cuts my hair is gay and it doesn't bother me. The only thing that creeps me out was when I was in high school and a gay guy hit on me, but the older ones typically know whats going on.

I just hate it when I'm talking to someone and it's quite clear I'm Republican when I am talking abotu politics they tell me I'm a "queer hater". That just bugs me.

 

[PS]

I'm on your ignore list? Awesomeness.

Popped up out of nowhere? I've been at these forums since August of 2001.

Anyway, you've added nothing to mankind except another nasty confused man. You must not be to confident in your own homosexuality if you let people like me offend you. Have a happily confused life.

Weren't you that guy who bashed the kid wearing makeup? I remember you.

So...as long as I can vote, I have a moral obligation to uphold and support the laws that this country was founded on.

Which is a contradiction in and of itself to claim America to be free. You can't go back to that "back to our roots", "thats what the country was founded on" bullcrap, it won't work. Women and blacks were never treated equally when the country was founded and yet you argue that you want to keep things the way they were when America became a country (based on Christian principles). Calling America "free" after founding it upon one religion is just ridiculous, especially if you want things to be "equal".

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

...which is just as bad saying "this country wasn't founded by racists, but by Nazi's!"

 

[PS]

But a vote is truely a fair way to do things, plus this puts no blood on the hands of the politicans because they didn't inact it, the people did. I like leaving it up to the people, that way if something sucks we have to blame ourselves.

No it's not. Not with propoganda thrown into the mix either. Just because a bunch of people do something doesn't make it right.

If you're part of a 2000 person lynch mob out to kill someone who didn't do anything, and only 1998 people say don't, does that make the lynch mob right?

 

[Danoff]

But a vote is truely a fair way to do things, plus this puts no blood on the hands of the politicans because they didn't inact it, the people did. I like leaving it up to the people, that way if something sucks we have to blame ourselves.

No, voting isn't necessarily fair. You're saying that if the majority wants slavery the majority should have slavery? I don't think so. I'll repost the Ayn Rand quote.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

 

[Joey D]

Well unless its a dictatorship then voting works fine. You keep a majoirity happy. There is no way to truely keep everyone happy. You will always have someone complaining and what not, but hey you should have tried harded to convince people of the other side was better.

I campaigned for President Bush and I helped him get elected, just as if I would have campaigned for Kerry I could say well I guess I should have tried harder.