Gay marriage

[Snorri1234]

But really, most (not all, of course) would be happy to have the state call it a civil union as long as it had similar rights to marriage.

I think the argument vtmarik (I think) made that "seperate but equal" is a bad thing. If you give it the same rights, you cannot justify calling it anything else than marriage.


(Not that I would oppose legalising 'civil unions', it's just that I feel you might as well call it marriage.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, they're welcome to unionize in however many numbers of whatever sex they want, with their siblings and farmyard pets for all I care, but I don't want my community giving them the stamp of approval under "marriage".

But...the community approves.

Kinda like you wouldn't give a man and a woman who for no reason want it the title of "joint corporate venture" or whatever, but would that of "marriage".

Well I really wouldn't want to give a man and a woman who don't want it the title of marriage...

Neither would I, they'd have to request the marriage, you bizarre little man.

[bradleybadly]

you are so dense. it's not a truly free and open society if gays can't get married and be subject to the same tax benefits of marriage.

That would depend on the definition of free and open society. Liberty does not mean that people have the right to just do anything they want. Desire does not justify changing a law.

i'm just gonna go back to making as much fun of you and your conservative cronies as i can.

This is why you tolerance and open & free society people are so full of crap. Your tolerance ends when people speak opinions that you disagree with.

[Nataki Yiro]

I totally got out of this stupid argument and got away with it.

I'm going to side with the fact it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex. Beat that! I'm on the side of the law...

[Neoteny]

I totally got out of this stupid argument and got away with it.

I'm going to side with the fact it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex. Beat that! I'm on the side of the law...

Wasn't there once a legal situation that prevented women and blacks the right to vote?

[bradleybadly]

I totally got out of this stupid argument and got away with it.

I'm going to side with the fact it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex. Beat that! I'm on the side of the law...

Wasn't there once a legal situation that prevented women and blacks the right to vote?

Women are born women. Blacks are born black. Homosexuals are not born homosexual. No matter how many times proof is asked for a gay gene the people on your side never provide it. Yet you keep saying they were born that way.

[dewey316]

No, they're welcome to unionize in however many numbers of whatever sex they want, with their siblings and farmyard pets for all I care, but I don't want my community giving them the stamp of approval under "marriage".

But...the community approves.

[/quote]

Does it? What happened when this issue came up for a vote in the ohhh so liberal home state of mine, Oregon. The community voted AGAINST it. This argument that "Everyone" thinks its ok, is not correct. When the issue has gone to the people, the numbers say that the MAJORITY does not give it the stamp of approval.

Now, I am not afraid to state my beleifs, and say that I am Christian. But, I am also not a fan of trying to legalize or restrict morality. It could very easily be my religious freedom that comes under attack next. So don't take my arguement the wrong way. Just don't try to play your position off as the majority, when the issue has gone to vote in several states, and your position has actualy shown to be the minority view.

[Dancing Mustard]

No matter how many times proof is asked for a gay gene the people on your side never provide it. Yet you keep saying they were born that way.

Actually that's not the case... it's just that whenever the evidence is brought up you ignore it; because you know full well that if you bury your cowboy-hat donning head in the sand and refuse to examine the proof, then you'll get to holler the same bollocks about 'gays making a choice' the next time this is debated.

Sorry to burst your ignorance-flavoured bubble there Brad. But it's like that, and that's the way it is.

Huh!!!

To clarify: You're an idiot, and there's plenty of proof that gays are born gay (or predisposed to be gay). Also, you're an idiot... and there's plenty of proof of that too. Now go on, do your little retard dance for me again, tell me how evil liberals are and how all they want to do is laugh at you for having a stupid opinion, just like all the kids used to laugh at you for being a lardass in gym-class. Your stupidity never ceases to amuse me.

Beat that! I'm on the side of the law...

The same side that used to make it legal for a man to rape his wife, that used to permit ducking witches, and that once authorised slavery? Beat that indeed...

What you appear to be saying is "If something is legal then it is automatically right", so presumably the moment that gay marriage is made legal, then you'll agree with it. Also, would it be correct for us to assume that you simply accept law without questioning it, regarding legislation as automatically justifying whatever it is that it dictates. If so, then it would logically follow that we could safely presume that you are an idiot.

Also, in the UK it is legal for homosexuals to 'marry'. Are you saying that this argument's parameters somehow shift depending upon the jurisdiction it is conducted in, and that you'd happily support homosexual marriage in England? After all, you'd be on the side of law... and you can't beat that, right?

In other news, both of the posters I have quoted appear to be imbeciles. Don't get me wrong, Nappy may be wrong and all, but at least he isn't a complete fucking retard, and he's the only one making even a half-decent stab at fighting your corner.
Dear Santa, for Christmas please can I have some more conservatives to argue with who arent' drooling loons, I have been a very good boy, and I am so sick of listening to idiots that it is beggining to hurt.
Much Love,
Terry Tibbs.

Good Day bitches.

[Iliad]

you are so dense. it's not a truly free and open society if gays can't get married and be subject to the same tax benefits of marriage.

That would depend on the definition of free and open society. Liberty does not mean that people have the right to just do anything they want. Desire does not justify changing a law.

i'm just gonna go back to making as much fun of you and your conservative cronies as i can.

This is why you tolerance and open & free society people are so full of crap. Your tolerance ends when people speak opinions that you disagree with.

Well it wouldn't if you actually looked at the evidence, stopped tring to argue against the facts and reason using a book written 2000 years ago. NEWSFLASH: some morals may have changed since then. Like stances on rape, rights of women, slavery, etc.

[Nataki Yiro]

But I'm right AND on the side of the law...

[Nataki Yiro]

Did the idiot above me say that our stance on rape has changed? and then bunched it with slavery and women's rights?

Lulz...

[Neoteny]

I totally got out of this stupid argument and got away with it.

I'm going to side with the fact it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex. Beat that! I'm on the side of the law...

Wasn't there once a legal situation that prevented women and blacks the right to vote?

Women are born women. Blacks are born black. Homosexuals are not born homosexual. No matter how many times proof is asked for a gay gene the people on your side never provide it. Yet you keep saying they were born that way.

#1 I didn't say anything about genes.
#2 Genes aren't responsible for explaining every developmental situation and result
#3 DM responded to you much more humorously than I did.

[PLAYER57832]

This is why you tolerance and open & free society people are so full of crap. Your tolerance ends when people speak opinions that you disagree with.

Sorry, wrong. The ACLU is full of folks who truly believe in freedom -- whether they agree with the idea or not. BUT, the point is tolerance for free speech is one thing ACTIONS are something else. When you refuse to allow homosexuals to marry, because YOU believe it is wrong -- that is action, not ideas.

You are absolutely free to think homosexuality is wrong, evil, etc. BUT when you wish to push your ideas into actions that the rest of the country, or your state or community must follow, you cross the line of freedom. You are no more justified in saying homosexuals don't have the right to live their lives, work and have families than you would be in saying that an atheist or someone who worships another God hasn't that right.

Bottom line -- when people can have different ideas about right and wrong, when they can READ the BIBLE and see different things, it is clear there is a debate. You don't have to like that. You can rail against all the "idiots" in the world who don't see things as "clearly" as you, but you do NOT have the right to insist that the rest of us follow your narrow ideas.

When there is a debate, it is the job of the state to ensure that ALL reasonable choices are allowed. This is called freedom. TRUE freedom. The same freedom that protects your right to pass on whatever narrow minded views you wish to your children. The same right that allows you to DISCUSS/argue these issues, the same right that even allows you the right to protest, PEACEFULLY if you feel that is what you need to do to try and convince others.

YOu claim that homosexuals are asking for "extra" rights. Strange, but I am old enough to remember (sadly still hear) that very argument levied for why blacks should not be afforded the same rights as the whites. "THEY won't stop at equality" the argument went " their REAL goal is to take over all us whites". You know what? The truth is there are and were some idiot black folk who did and do think that way ... just like there are some idiot whites who think they have some sort of superior right to dominate others.... And there are some idiot English who think the French are scum, Irish who hate the English, etc, etc, etc. ... (and THOSE individuals even have some partially legitimate reasons -- like the way their great grandparents might have been treated). If we wish to live our lives limited by these folk's hatred, then we have already lost the freedoms we cherish.

Those against homosexual marriage here have yet to really and truly give one concrete way that homosexual unions will HARM the rest of us. You give examples of how it is wrong, of how much you dislike the idea ... and point to some vague idea of how homosexual unions will somehow "demean" and "degrade" families. You ignore evidence that refutes your claim. You ignore the FACT that the homosexuality was removed from the realm of mental illnesses a long time ago .. BECAUSE it is not an illness! AND you ignore the "inconvenient" portions of the New Testament and choose instead to hold up Leviticus, though, as has been pointed out -- ONLY when it comes to these sexual matters.

You IGNORE the fact that whether this is or is not approved by the Bible is IRRELEVANT. You know what? BUDDHISM and HINDUISM are certainly not accepted by the Bible! Years ago, SOME folks even used the Bible to justify persecuting Jews! Others decide it is OK to persecute Catholics .. or Protestants. The list goes on and on.

BUT, sinc eyou bring it up, I will address the Bible issue. Do I know if homosexuality is "acceptable" under God? That is the wrong question. These people are not asking you to LIKE their way of life, to adopt it or to teach your children to live that way. They are simply asking that you let THEM lead THEIR lives they way THEY wish. What I DO know is that we are taught to love one another, to treat each other as best we can. What I DO know is that the sword is not a very good conversion technique. What I DO know is that the harm that comes from suppressing and limiting folks from living lifestyles that are not my own is FAR FAR FAR more harmful to US than simply letting them be.

Do I LIKE homosexuality? Honestly, "no". BUT, when I saw people offering anyone EXCEPT a homosexual couple a ride, offering snacks to everyone EXCEPT the homosexuals, when I see children being teased and rejected because their PARENTS are living a "different" lifestyle,... there is nothing at all Christian aboutt those actions. I cannot as a CHRISTIAN stand by and that be the representation of Christ that stands. When Disney offered health care benefits to its same-sex couples, the Southern Baptist church asked folks to boycott Disney and Disney products. A BOYCOTT because a company dared to offer HEALTH COVERAGE. Disney's response was classic "since when did DENYING folks health coverage become a Christian value." I am honest. If someone asks, I DON'T say that I think homosexuality is OK, but I DO say that I am taught to treat EVERY human being, EVERY sinner (we are ALL sinners, after all) with the SAME kindness and love.

You can call me hypocritical if you like. I am certainly no saint. But that is the point. NONE of us, except Christ every have been. You quote the Bible, to Leviticus .. Paul said that even the least sin is enough to take us from God. None of us is pure enough to judge other humans. None of us has such a clear and true and perfect line on the truth that we can FORCE others to think as we do. AND that was not what Christ OR his disciples did. Interesting isn't it? The WORST thing that Christ told his disciples to do was to "shake the dust off the feet" of places where not one person followed him. In this case, many of the folks actually DO follow Christ and DO follow the Bible, in their opinion.

Perhaps it is that which REALLY makes you angry ... that they are disputing your view of the Bible. That I am disputing your view?

[PLAYER57832]

Did the idiot above me say that our stance on rape has changed?

It has.

and then bunched it with slavery and women's rights?
Lulz...

And if you deny that these have been lumped within the church historically, then you have simply not studied history.

[Snorri1234]

Kinda like you wouldn't give a man and a woman who for no reason want it the title of "joint corporate venture" or whatever, but would that of "marriage".

Well I really wouldn't want to give a man and a woman who don't want it the title of marriage...

Neither would I, they'd have to request the marriage, you bizarre little man.

Well then why did you say it?

[Nataki Yiro]

I took 4 years of college history and aced them all. I even considered majoring in history.

Rape has always been frowned down on, with the exception of in backwards civilizations which were corrupted and shortly there after destroyed. This is not the case for Sexism or Racism.

In fact, the acceptance of homosexuality is a common factor in the ending of powerful civilizations. (ex. Assyrians and Romans)

[MeDeFe]

I <3 PLAYER57832


And @ Nataki, Does that include rape within marriage? Yes, such things exist.

[Snorri1234]

I took 4 years of college history and aced them all. I even considered majoring in history.

I don't believe you for a second. How old are you?

Rape has always been frowned down on, with the exception of in backwards civilizations which were corrupted and shortly there after destroyed.

Or when destroying backwards civilizations and taking their women and stuff like that.

I honestly don't...holy crap. You just can't be serious can you? Are you sitting there with a straight face saying rape was never okay?

In fact, the acceptance of homosexuality is a common factor in the ending of powerful civilizations. (ex. Assyrians and Romans)

??????

???
???


Was that history-class at Backwards Hillbilly University?

[Dancing Mustard]

I took 4 years of college history and aced them all. I even considered majoring in history.

A: Who gives a f*ck?
B: Apparently you never strayed into the Law Faculty

Rape has always been frowned down on, with the exception of in backwards civilizations which were corrupted and shortly there after destroyed. This is not the case for Sexism or Racism.

Yeah, but society didn't use to consider marital rape as 'rape' (just a husband taking what was rightfully his) and as such it wasn't frowned down upon.

Congratulations, you have proven yourself to be ignorant of the very thing you're boasting about. You also lose. Again.

In fact, the acceptance of homosexuality is a common factor in the ending of powerful civilizations. (ex. Assyrians and Romans)

Prove it history boy. Sounds like horseshit to me.

[MeDeFe]

Does anyone know how to contact Guiscard? It'd be fun to watch him tear into this.

[Dancing Mustard]

Who needs him when 'Nataki' is so willing to tear himself apart without any outside help?

I really do feel sorry for the intelligent conservaties out there that get hamstrung by having idiots like himself bunglingly attempt to represent their cause.

[Neoteny]

"College history?" Is that a course? Sounds like something I could sleep through...

"Harvard law school was founded in... z z z..."

[Nataki Yiro]

No, it is out of "The West in the World, 2nd Edition, Volumes I and II" by Sherman and Salisbury. It was published by McGraw-Hill. Oh and don't think you can just blow this off. It is an excellent piece of historical literature written by someone who wasn't a Christian. Can you believe it? It's also a highly recommended book by our college education system...

Don't you look like an idiot...

To add upon you misfortunes I'm going to point out that a single or low occurrence of a event does not make an entire group of people or nation guilty of that crime. There will always be criminals or those who brake the law. It would be stupid to characterize a large group of people by a minority.

@ Dancing mustard
Now you're hurting my feelings with all this lying ='('''' Who is more trustworthy, the smart liar or the idiot who speaks the truth?

[Dancing Mustard]

Now you're hurting my feelings with all this lying ='('''' Who is more trustworthy, the smart liar or the idiot who speaks the truth?

What 'lying' you weirdo?

And to answer your question, I think the more trustworthy party is the smart man who speaks the truth (Let's call him Dancing Mustard for the sake of argument), and not the idiot liar (who we'll call 'Nataki Yiro' for ease of reference).


Also, the rest of your post didn't actually appear to be answering anything that anybody else said. It just appeared to be you rambling into thin air.

Good luck with that in the future.

[tzor]

"College history?" Is that a course? Sounds like something I could sleep through...

"Harvard law school was founded in... z z z..."

Harvard perhaps, but Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute is an exciting thriller.