Gay Marriage

[Danoff]

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.

Wrong. We do not live in a dictatorship and yet we have rights guaranteed by our constitution. You don't seem to understand how our country works. A strict majority rule (voting on everything) does not work fine, because the majority will ALWAYS violate the rights of the minority. You have to have a basic set of limits on what government can and cannot do and what rights cannot be taken away - that's America!

...and it makes sense.

You're going to have to cope on this one - the government should not be allowed to make laws that can discriminate based on race, gender, wealth, intelligence, attractiveness, height, etc. etc.

...anything else is to allow the majority to do a great deal of injustice to the minority.


(you should try to answer my slavery question)

 

[Joey D]

They are the minority which means there are less of them, they had there chance but didn't suceed. I don't care if someones feels are hurt, the majority will always be incharge. Say the Democrats got into power, I wouldn't like it but I would know that's who the majority of the country wanted.

America works fine and I hate people who complain about it. I know we aren't the best and we have flaws but I'm happy with were I live. If you don't like America then don't live here, it isn't Cuba.

You're going to have to cope on this one - the government should not be allowed to make laws that can discriminate based on race, gender, wealth, intelligence, attractiveness, height, etc. etc.

Government doesn't make these laws, they propose the laws that people vote on. And even if the government makes the laws, it's still on you because you voted for those people and put them in the postiion to make the laws.

Slavery was wrong, but I put myself in a cotton farmer back then and I can see why they wanted to do it. Things change with time, get used to it.

Still I really don't care about the minority, I might not agree with how it happen but majority rules on everything, get used the that to.

 

[Famine]

They are the minority which means there are less of them, they had there chance but didn't suceed. I don't care if someones feels are hurt, the majority will always be incharge.

Say the majority of people have brown eyes. They vote to kill all blue-eyed people.

Are the wishes of the majority right? Should they be enacted simply because they are the majority?

 

[Joey D]

Should they? Well no sense genocide (or something like that) is a world crime and that is what Hitler wanted. You guys are taking a simple thing I said out of proportion. For laws the majority should rule.

Say everyone wants ice cream except for you, you want a healthy fruit snack. Should everyone give in because you want something they don't? No, in fact you more then likely would be thrown from the car.

I'm not talking about killing off people.

 

[Danoff]

Government doesn't make these laws, they propose the laws that people vote on. And even if the government makes the laws, it's still on you because you voted for those people and put them in the postiion to make the laws.

Slavery was wrong, but I put myself in a cotton farmer back then and I can see why they wanted to do it. Things change with time, get used to it.

Still I really don't care about the minority, I might not agree with how it happen but majority rules on everything, get used the that to.

You do not understand your constitution or bill of right - the foundations of the your country.

 

[Joey D]

I understand it fine, I've taking more government classes then I care to. I know that you have to listen to the majority, I'm saying you shouldn't.

 

[Danoff]

I understand it fine, I've taking more government classes then I care to.

The next statement proves the first one false.

I know that you have to listen to the majority, I'm saying you shouldn't.

 

[Joey D]

Ok so maybe I'm not up on government as I think I am, I have been outta high school for a while and they don't teach me that crap in college, well not yet at least. But opinion doesn't really relate here.

 

[PS]

Should they? Well no sense genocide (or something like that) is a world crime and that is what Hitler wanted. You guys are taking a simple thing I said out of proportion. For laws the majority should rule.

Say everyone wants ice cream except for you, you want a healthy fruit snack. Should everyone give in because you want something they don't? No, in fact you more then likely would be thrown from the car.

I'm not talking about killing off people.

What the ****?! The Majority IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. What if the majority of the people were inbred morons who couldn't tie their shoes or add 2+2 and decided that everyone should be allowed to drink pesticides because it makes you see funny colours? Would that make the majority right? Hells no. It would however kill off most of the majority and thus turn them into a minority so that the smart ones can take over, but that's a lucky straw and a poor example.

But think about this logically; why don't you recognise the fact that the majority is not always right and may infringe the rights of others? If everyone is supposed to have equal rights then it means the minority as well, not just what the most people decide to do. If it were that way then chinese, blacks, catholics, jews, gays, and other ethnic cultural moral groups would be at a huge disadvantage and would probably end up rioting.

 

[Joey D]

For God sakes can't you even see that I'm talking about laws, real honest to God laws. Why should the majority of something bow down to the minority of something. The bigger thing always wins.

But how did something about gay marriage get off onto this, sorry I think it's time to get back on the topic at hand.

 

[Danoff]

US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection under the laws.

We're not talking about a law that says this, this is the constitution - the framework of our governemnt - the document that the government is supposed to be subject to... and it says that our laws provide equal protection to all citizens. This clause is used to fight legislators that attempt to pass laws (by a majority vote) that discriminate.

The definition of marriage is (in my humle opinion) in violation of the principles outlined inthe 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

[PS]

For God sakes can't you even see that I'm talking about laws, real honest to God laws. Why should the majority of something bow down to the minority of something. The bigger thing always wins.

But how did something about gay marriage get off onto this, sorry I think it's time to get back on the topic at hand.

Because EVERYONE is to be treated equally (according to laws + constitutions) and if gays can't have the same rights as straits then it your country's declaration or law or whatever would theorhetically be void of any further rules if the gov't itself can't abide by them.

It's pure hypocrisy, just like Christianity and a handfull of other religions. Which is why I don't practice any.

 

[Joey D]

Well that's what sucks about our Constitution, it's not clear cut and there is huge room for interpertation. Hence why our courts get bogged down by stupid cases trying to descided this, they end up taking for ever costing me tax dollars. Not to mention groups like the ACLU trying to make the world PC.

I see where gay marriage could be violated by this Amendment, but then again remember this stuff was written some 200 years ago and they didn't really see things like gay marriage back then.

And like I said gay marriage can happen for all I care.

 

[PS]

if anyone is interested in the gay marriage issue, read this (some parts omitted)



if anyone is interested, http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

And where did you get that information from? An anti gay website. How typical.

 

[Joey D]

It appears to be a Christian website, so of course they will be against it. But that's not really a vaild reason to not pass gay marriage. It beats me on other religion's outlook on gay marriage though.

You would get the opposite from pro gay, so either way it's biased.

 

[PS]

It appears to be a Christian website, so of course they will be against it. But that's not really a vaild reason to not pass gay marriage. It beats me on other religion's outlook on gay marriage though.

You would get the opposite from pro gay, so either way it's biased.

Not necessarily. You can get information, I'm just suggesting that his facts could be somewhat skewed in terms of accuracy and in what context. It could be something stupid like "less than 5% of gays ever have a relationship that lasts longer than 3 years in Cambodia, in 1920, with a pet dog."

 

[Pako]

What the ****?! The Majority IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. What if the majority of the people were inbred morons who couldn't tie their shoes or add 2+2 and decided that everyone should be allowed to drink pesticides because it makes you see funny colours? Would that make the majority right? Hells no. It would however kill off most of the majority and thus turn them into a minority so that the smart ones can take over, but that's a lucky straw and a poor example.

But think about this logically; why don't you recognise the fact that the majority is not always right and may infringe the rights of others? If everyone is supposed to have equal rights then it means the minority as well, not just what the most people decide to do. If it were that way then chinese, blacks, catholics, jews, gays, and other ethnic cultural moral groups would be at a huge disadvantage and would probably end up rioting.

How about you be the ruler of the inbred morons where you can dictate right and wrong for them.

 

[Pako]

Equal protection under the laws.

We're not talking about a law that says this, this is the constitution - the framework of our governemnt - the document that the government is supposed to be subject to... and it says that our laws provide equal protection to all citizens. This clause is used to fight legislators that attempt to pass laws (by a majority vote) that discriminate.

The definition of marriage is (in my humle opinion) in violation of the principles outlined inthe 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

I hear what your saying...but Gays are not being harmed or injured. Their not getting tax brakes and group insurance.

 

[Joey D]

Ya but that would be like a Michael Moore movie on gay marriage. The more I look around the net trying to find a case against gay marriage, it just keeps coming up empty. I can see why I once was against it, but now I feel that gay marriage is fine. Kinda like what ever floats their boats. And as long as all the rules of marriage apply to them, with divorce and what not. There shouldnt' be any special exceptions for them.

 

[194GVan]

Why should the majority of something bow down to the minority of something. The bigger thing always wins.

a little off topic, but it makes me wonder why back in Elementary school we all had to learn about Hanukah (sp?) but talking about Jesus was taboo, and downright wrong because we dont want to "offend" anyone. :censored:ing ridiculous. I didnt even know of any Jewish kids in my school.

and back on topic...

I can see why I once was against it, but now I feel that gay marriage is fine. Kinda like what ever floats their boats. And as long as all the rules of marriage apply to them, with divorce and what not. There shouldnt' be any special exceptions for them.

I know exactly what you mean, and I whole-heartedly agree with what you said there, BUT I also dont think that is the governments place to create laws to make acts such as gay marriages illegal. Majority decision or not, I dont think it should have been brought into question in the first place but once again, here we are trying to please the masses of gutless people that have nothing better to do than whine about other people that dont share the same beliefs....

 

[Famine]

So... Gay marriage anyone?

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?

 

[194GVan]

So... Gay marriage anyone?

well, if you didnt know its a tranny until afterwards, then it doesnt make you gay.

and im pretty sure God's opinion of the anus would be "exit only", but who am I to speak on behalf of God? the definition of God is probably different depending on who you ask.

 

[Famine]

I'm not talking trans-sexuals. Yet. I'm talking about physically female people who were assigned that gender AT BIRTH due to intersex characteristics, who can never be fully one gender or the other due to, essentially, physical deformity and involuntary surgery upon them. Their genotype and phenotype may or may not match.

Jamie Lee Curtis may well be XY - urban legend is unclear on this. IF she is, does this mean her husband is in a gay marriage and doomed to Hell? For that matter does it mean SHE is in a gay marriage and doomed to Hell?


So far we've determined that, according to Swift, God sees homosexual sex and heterosexual anal sex as a "Sin". JLC and her husband, IF she is XY, have genetic homosexual, but penetrative vaginal sex. Is that a "Sin", or is it only the ass?

 

[Pako]

Originally Posted by Famine

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?

Not sure, but it sounds like an interesting situation..... My guess is that's probably not one of lifes mysteries that I will remember to ask God when I see him.

 

[194GVan]

I'm not talking trans-sexuals. Yet. I'm talking about physically female people who were assigned that gender AT BIRTH due to intersex characteristics, who can never be fully one gender or the other due to, essentially, physical deformity and involuntary surgery upon them. Their genotype and phenotype may or may not match.

Jamie Lee Curtis may well be XY - urban legend is unclear on this. IF she is, does this mean her husband is in a gay marriage and doomed to Hell? For that matter does it mean SHE is in a gay marriage and doomed to Hell?


So far we've determined that, according to Swift, God sees homosexual sex and heterosexual anal sex as a "Sin". JLC and her husband, IF she is XY, have genetic homosexual, but penetrative vaginal sex. Is that a "Sin", or is it only the ass?

Thats an interesting situation, and interesting thoughts. Obviously proving that God has a sense of humor But seriously, do you really think that God would hold that against JLC? Its not like she had any control over the situation, much less the decision to allegedly "chop it off" so to speak. Due to the wonders of surgery, its probably safe to say she is now a female, thus making their marriage and private activities acceptable in the eyes of God. Unless of course she does indeed take it up the 🤬

 

[Famine]

She never developed a penis. She, ASSUMING THE LEGEND TO BE CORRECT is an AIS sufferer. At birth her genitals consisted of:

"Pouch" vagina - can be "normal" length, or totally absent. In any case it just terminates.
Internalised "Streak" testes - basically smears of testicle material inside the body. They will never produce sperm OR testosterone.

That's it. No ovaries, no uterus, no penis, no nothing. And genetically XY. So, she has a hole, some nuts which don't work and a Y-chromosome. That's male. Surgery removes the likely-site-of-cancer streak testes and may or may not elongate the vagina - this is done VERY early on.


So, her XY husband is having "normal" sex with an XY person who once had testes and has an artificial vagina. Sin or not? If you fancied her, would you be harbouring homosexual feelings or not?


Nobody answered the question about oral sex either - is THAT sinful?

 

[194GVan]

So, her XY husband is having "normal" sex with an XY person who once had testes and has an artificial vagina. Sin or not? If you fancied her, would you be harbouring homosexual feelings or not?

Nobody answered the question about oral sex either - is THAT sinful?

I still say the JLC situation is not Sin, because no matter how you look at it, its a birth defect, and could not be prevented, only somewhat corrected to the best of the abilities at the time.

Oral sex? If you go by the book (Bible), you are only supposed to be having sex for procreation, not recreation or pleasure. So you can probably argue that it is a Sin. Doesnt mean I have a problem with it. We are all sinners anyways, isnt that why Jesus died for us?

 

[vladimir]

Nobody answered the question about oral sex either - is THAT sinful?

it is sinful for those true christians.

muslims are allowed to have oral sex and use condoms, at least according to one of the largest muslim association in germany. no anal fun for them either though.

I still say the JLC situation is not Sin, because no matter how you look at it, its a birth defect, and could not be prevented, only somewhat corrected to the best of the abilities at the time.

then homosexuals should not be sinners either, because they are not responsible for their sexuality either.

Just out of curiosity (and I'm not trying to make a comparison between the two, so don't get upset, please):

If a drug addict or alcoholic claims they're not addicted to drugs/alcohol, shouldn't that mean that they know whether or not they are addicted?

And no, I'm not claiming homosexuality is a choice. I want to do more research on the subject before I make my final decision.

i would say the drug addict knows very well that he is addicted, but he also knows that drug addiction is not accepted by society and very unhealthy and he does not want to admit that.
of course drug addiction can also come slowly (alcohol/tobacco/canabis), so the drug addict might not know instantly whether he is addicted or not. but there is one easy way to find out by stopping to consume it. if he can do that without problems, there is no addiction, if he can't, there is one.

homosexuals then, often try to have sex with the opposite sex first, because they do not want to be homosexual, but it does not work out and they are forced to accept it. so how can you speak of a choice, when they often do not even want to be gay and have to struggle to be even able to admit to themselves?

if it was a choice, a lot homosexuals would choose to become straight.

That's his opinion on the matter; he's not telling you to believe that it is a choice.

no, he tells me it was a fact, when in fact it is not even anything to discuss about because it is no choice.

the only choice there is, is whether you, as a homosexual, live your life as a homosexual or whether you deny your homosexuality.
but those people who are really homosexual (not bisexual) and who decide to lead a heterosexual life (because they are christians for example) are not happy. it happens occasionally that after 10 years of "happy" marriage a couple breaks up because one of the two is homosexual and can't stand it anymore to live a lie.

Vladmir: In reference to the versus that pertain to homosexuality.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

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

There you go. Now of course, since Jesus has died for our sins, you will not and shouldn't be put to death for it. But that doesn't negate the fact that God sees it as sin.

from my little knowledge about christianity, i would say that these are both from the old testament, right?

now when i discuss such issues with christians, and i present them a few lines from the old testament, they always tell me, that only the new testament is vald nowadays.

so either you take the old one 100% seriously, then all the rules should apply, or you only take the new one seriously and admit that the old one should be read carefully. but then everything in the old one is open for discussion because you definately can't just choose a few parts from the old one that you think should be valid and just ignore the rest, or can you?

what does the new one then say about homosexuality?

 

[Famine]

I still say the JLC situation is not Sin, because no matter how you look at it, its a birth defect, and could not be prevented, only somewhat corrected to the best of the abilities at the time.

Surely God decided what they'd be when they came out of the womb? No?

Moving on, what about trans-sexuals, who believe they have been born into the wrong gender body? Some would say THAT is a birth defect. Some might say homosexuality is a birth defect (although not the words I'd choose)...

I would particularly like to hear Swift's and XVII's views on this.

 

[Danoff]

I hear what your saying...but Gays are not being harmed or injured. Their not getting tax brakes and group insurance.

It's a discriminatory policy and I believe it is at odds with the spirit of our constitution (the 14th amendment specifically) and the spirit of America.