Gays insulting Straight People

[Metallixs Girl]

[color=mediumpurple]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060720/...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

I just thought this was strange because gays used "breeders" and "Babymakers" as insults... Isn't that just a tiny bit...insane? I mean...uhhh... it is the reason they're alive after all...and...I dunno, it's just kinda twisted...

Anyway, any thoughts?

[Bulbasaur4]

[color=royalblue]
The link doesn't work for me.

Anyways, at the thought of that... well, I'd see it as a rarity. I know plenty of homosexual people and I've never heard them use those terms and their personalities would never cover them saying those things as insults. I'm guessing it is a rarity.

[Ghost]

Your link to Yahoo wasn't working but... Yes, I think that is strange. I know a few names for gays to call back, but then again, I don't think those are so approiate for TPM :P.

Also, I doubt that very many homosexual people would do that.

[God of Death]

Ummm...thats just plain weird...And the link doestn work...

[Shizo]

This is the part when I shake my head and say, "Can't we all just get along?"

Seriously, why is everyone so obsessed about who has sex with who?

[Metallixs Girl]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060720/us_nm/rights_gays_dc;_ylt=AjM_dFl4BSraMNm4kzpX8eGs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

[color=mediumpurple]There it is, sorry about that...^^

[Shizo]

"If I see someone nervous like a big butch guy, and you can just tell he's a redneck, I'll grab my partner and I'll kiss him. It's not being mean, but 'hello you're in our town'."

Yeah...way to make them feel welcome.

Also, the whole 'publishing the petition thing' isn't helping matters. Attacking people in any way isn't going to change minds.

[Dark-San]

[b][size=3] Dumb and pure dumbness. Even if I am straight or homosexual, I would definitely not go around kissing my partner in public. So humiliating and shameful >,<.

Besides where has the freedom of speech in the states went to? Can those anti- gays ever walk down the streets of that town again without ever being assaulted just because their names got published? Both parties have their own faults.

[Bulbasaur4]

[b][size=3] Even if I am straight or homosexual, I would definitely not go around kissing my partner in public. So humiliating and shameful >,<.



[color=royalblue]What is so humiliating and shameful about kissing your partner in public? Yeah... maybe don't lay on the smackdown upon their lips, but simple kissing isn't shameful.

[Andrew]

Oh, so they're still getting discriminated against in an unofficial "Gay area" and they say they're going to make out with someone just to piss off a redneck.. Hee!

I personally feel if I'm around someone I like, I'll kiss them whenever, whether it be at the bus stop, at a night club, in the park. But, there is ettique, kissine ettique. Really, you don't generally full on pash someone in a group situation. AWKWARD. But the reverse discrimination, lols...

[Arnen]

That's pretty bad... I'm straight, but I have no problem with gay people. To assume that every heterosexual person is against homosexuality is a bit narrow-minded...

[Razola]

You can't really get anywhere being discriminatory as the minority...you just end you looking stupid and "rationalizing" hatred.

[RedStarWarrior]

I hope that homosexuals in other communities don't follow their example. Many people would be easily swayed against them in reaction to their behavoir.

[Lady Vulpix]

This isn't the first thread you've posted about discrimination. I think discrimination is stupid in any of its forms. I don't think I'll ever understand why it exists.

As for kissing your partner in public, I think it's ok if it's an expression of love, but not if you're doing it to make a statement.

[Magmar]

provincetown isn't far from where I live... I didn't realize it was THAT gay. I should bring my boyfriend!

Well, seriously I know so many gays and never even *heard* of that terminology... so that's just a very select few that do it, then.

...Why does *ONE* incident of gays bashing straight people make news, yet... I get insulted constantly and I never get in the news o_O;

[Lady Vulpix]

I guess it's because only uncommon things are considered news. Keep in mind that being 'news' doesn't make it more important.

[Zak]

provincetown isn't far from where I live... I didn't realize it was THAT gay. I should bring my boyfriend!

Well, seriously I know so many gays and never even *heard* of that terminology... so that's just a very select few that do it, then.

...Why does *ONE* incident of gays bashing straight people make news, yet... I get insulted constantly and I never get in the news o_O;


The reason it makes news is that it's totally unusual and absurd.

And you've never been to Provincetown? :O

You'd love it.

[Metallixs Girl]

This isn't the first thread you've posted about discrimination..


Are you guys ever gonna let me forget that? A few years ago, I had a cyst and happened to need a birth control shot for six months (one every three months) to shrink it and I had a really bad reaction to it. I was very very sick physically and emotionally, and I posted quite a few mean threads during that time, making a ton of people really mad at me, but I wasn't thinking clearly and it was very much like when people get drunk and make jibberish posts. I said I was sorry, and I still am, but I've been back to normal for a long long time and have not posted anything like that since. I just posted this because I thought the insults were goofy. Now that I'm mature, and schooldays are though, I don't hate anyone. ^_^

[firepokemon]

Gays have always been fucking idiots. Trust me. I'm gay and most of them really are fucking faggots.

[Heald]

Are you guys ever gonna let me forget that? A few years ago, I had a cyst on my ovary so I was on a birth control shot for six months (one every three months) to shrink it and I had a really bad reaction to it. I was very very sick physically and emotionally, and I posted quite a few mean threads during that time, making a ton of people really mad at me, but I wasn't thinking clearly and it was very much like when people get drunk and make jibberish posts. I said I was sorry, and I still am, but I've been back to normal for a long long time and have not posted anything like that since. I just posted this because I thought the insults were goofy. Now that I'm mature, and schooldays are though, I don't hate anyone. ^_^TMI. Seriously.

Gays have always been fucking idiots. Trust me. I'm gay and most of them really are fucking faggots.Well duh.

But seriously:

1) Whatever people's opinions on same-sex marriage, people shouldn't be chastised because of those opinions. People who give out sensitive information to people who are likely to react physically and violently are effectly condoning injury towards their fellow man, which is not cool in any case.

2) Gays voting for same-sex marriage is more or less the same as turkeys voting against Thanksgiving. They both want something just to further their own agendas; they really couldn't give two shits that other people might people that marriage should be preserved as a heterosexual union on religious or moral grounds. I'm not one of those people, but they shouldn't really be reacting so violently just because someone has a different opinion to them. Abd by the way, I'm not encompassing all gays in this generalisation, just the stupid ones.

[Metallixs Girl]

TMI. Seriously.


Sorry about that, I edited it some, but I just hate to be reminded of my shameful posts and I was just giving the reason for them, again. :(

[Everoy]

I hate to be cliche, but if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all.



That's pretty bad... I'm straight, but I have no problem with gay people. To assume that every heterosexual person is against homosexuality is a bit narrow-minded...


Seconded.

[SmearGal]

I personally think that's hilarious. I have many gay friends, and a lot of them jokingly call me and my friends 'babymakers' when we start saying something silly. ("Those shoes are so ga--.. uhm." "You're such a babymaker.")

I'm bi, so I have no problem with straight or gay people. In fact, I believe it's silly to think people fall into strictly those categories.

But anyway, I think this is just a case of the extremes. Like.. I could say that Christians are just out trying to convert other people to their religion. That might be true for a handful of people, but the majority aren't like that at all. Same with gays bashing straights and straights bashing gays, it's just that small handful of people that are too close-minded to accept that everyone is a human being, no matter what their preference of love.
(Have you noticed that every time someone is trying to explain why gays are bad it sounds uncannily like racism if you replace 'gays' with a race of people? I think it's funny in a sad, unfunny way.)

Oh, and about the public kissing.. I completely hate it when a couple is just completely snogging each other's faces off in public. If it's something quick, a peck on the cheek, a quick kiss on the lips, that's fine and dandy, but if you get your hands and tongue going you've gone too far.

D: Doesn't help that I'm a lifeguard and have to break up the stupid people trying to make out in the kid pool.

~Smear

[Magmar]

I think we can come up with a better insult than "babymakers", you think?

Ohh firepokemon, I happen to know that some of the kids at the elementary school day camp I work at peek at this message board -_-; lay off a bit with the swearing, will ya?

[Blademaster]

Yeah, firepokemon, stop ****ing swearing so God**** much. :D

[Heald]

There is a swearfilter - not line anyone uses it, but if you don't wanna see swearing then use it.

[Zak]

This isn't the first thread you've posted about discrimination. I think discrimination is stupid in any of its forms. I don't think I'll ever understand why it exists.


Don't lie... everyone in the world discriminates to a certain extent.

I don't mind gays kissing in public, except for the times when it's so obvious they're doing it for attention. But then again same goes for straight people.



~Zak

[Lady Vulpix]

I'm not lying, Zak. Maybe you do, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

What's that about pursuing their own agendas? I think that, if turkeys were smart enough to protest against the turkey killings, they shouldn't be ignored. And going to more realistic scenarios, people have a right to stand up for themselves. It makes no sense to say a group of people don't have the right to claim for something that would make their lives better because it would make their lives better.

And saying all straight people hate gays is just like saying all gay people hate the straight. I think that's underestimating humanity a bit too much.

[Heald]

What's that about pursuing their own agendas? I think that, if turkeys were smart enough to protest against the turkey killings, they shouldn't be ignored. And going to more realistic scenarios, people have a right to stand up for themselves. It makes no sense to say a group of people don't have the right to claim for something that would make their lives better because it would make their lives better.I'm not saying they shouldn't, but they're only looking at it from one point of view. What about people who believe the sanctity of marriage should be preserved for heterosexual couples only? To be honest, marriage has served traditionally as a religious ceremony in which a man and a woman are expected to procreate. Obviously times have changed since then but it is still viewed as quite a special thing, even between atheist couples. If you start having same-sex marriages left, right and center and then whole sanctity of it is diluted. There are also many people who, although they tolerate same-sex relationships, do not want to encourage it, and same-sex marriages only advocate homosexuality.

Another reason why homosexuals want same-sex marriages is to gain the statuatory benefits one earns from marriage. I guess that is fair enough, but I think that all civil unions should warrant the same benefits. However, as soon as you call a same-sex civil union a marriage and that is when it falls apart. I'm not homophobic in the slightest, I'm just giving the main (rational) arguments against same-sex marriages, leaving out stupid crap like DEM QUEERS CAN'T GET MARRYD.

[RedStarWarrior]

And saying all straight people hate gays is just like saying all gay people hate the straight. I think that's underestimating humanity a bit too much.

I agree. If the previous thoughts were actually true, then where would the bisexuals fit in?

[Asilynne]

Thats not all that strange to me, after all, what everyone keeps saying is that Gay and Straight people are equal, and besides the fact that one likes the same gender and one doesnt, theyre both the same. Straight people insult others who are different, why should it be strange that gay people do? There as cruel or as kind as the rest of us, them being gay doesnt automatically make them better or worse than anyone else.
Though the names they chose to insult straight people with---thats strange lol Insulting us for procreation, and hows that for steriotyping? Not all straight people have kids, can have kids or even want to have kids.

This kind of thing hit me when I was going to school, we had a club called the Gay-Straight alliance and some of the kids that I knew that were in it went around one day and started writing bad things and tearing down the signs for the Edge Club, a christian club. They didnt get in trouble for it even though there were many witnesses because the principal didnt want to deal with a possible "You just hate Gay people" outcry. If we re supposed to treat everyone as equals they shouldve gotten what any christian wouldve gotten if they had done that to the gay-straight clubs signs----a lot of trouble.

[Everoy]

My high-school has a Gay-Straight Alliance, too. One thing that they did was partaking in the national Day of Silence. I participated, and everyone knew if you were participating because you'd wear a rainbow ribbon. I swear I had about ten people say, "Dude, are you gay?"

[Lady Vulpix]

Heald, you call those arguments rational. Would you please explain where in the process that led to them was reason applied? I can't find it. Can't homosexual people consider their unions special too? Why shouldn't they want the same things others want to share with their mates? Please don't use religion as an answer, unless you can provide a rational motive for it.

Now the word 'Christian' has been used. I can't participate in a discussion based on christianity because I'm not Christian. I base my views on the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are people, and the only thing that makes them different is which sex they feel attracted to.

In any case, I don't think allowing gay marriage can promote homosexuality. People don't choose who they feel attracted to. At most, bisexuals who want to fit in can try to ignore their feelings for people on the same sex and wait for someone of the opposite sex to show up, but you can't force them to do that; and homosexuals don't even have that choice. Nor do heterosexuals; just because people are allowed to marry someone of their own sex that won't cause a heterosexual to become gay.

[Dark Dragonite]

I have some gay friends, they're cool, nothing against them...but if this whole marriage issue is so against it...which is based off a book that was translated into every language, rewritten millions of times...some books were left out, not to mention written by man...who even the book itself says is flawed...why not just call it something else, but have a similar procedure, and the same amenities to it...more than 75% of those objecting to same-sex marriage won't object...different name...sad...but true...
for those who do not wish to "encourage" same sex couples...y'know, I like females, I do not want more females to be lesbians, because I like them...but I'm not going to go up to an attractive lesbian and tell her she has to be with me over someone she feels something for...

[Heald]

Heald, you call those arguments rational. Would you please explain where in the process that led to them was reason applied? I can't find it. Can't homosexual people consider their unions special too? Why shouldn't they want the same things others want to share with their mates? Please don't use religion as an answer, unless you can provide a rational motive for it.Yes, they can view it as special, but some people will have a problem with them calling it a marriage. Some people view that marriage is the matrimony between a man and a woman and believe it or not, heterosexual marriages came first. Half of the problem is some homosexuals insisting on calling it a marriage. As I said before, modern times have diluted the traditional purposes of marriage but even to this day one of the key purposes of marriage is to bear legitimate children. I know, yadayadayada, not everyone wants kids etc but since same-sex marriages cannot bear children and adoption agencies are loathe to let same-sex couples adopt then there is really no need for it to be called a marriage. The terminology that comes in marriage is also thrown out, although this is a slightly minor issue, e.g. who is the bride, the groom, etc.
Now the word 'Christian' has been used. I can't participate in a discussion based on christianity because I'm not Christian. I base my views on the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are people, and the only thing that makes them different is which sex they feel attracted to.What determines that attraction though? I'm not saying homosexuals are any less people than heterosexuals but it still has no been determinied whether homosexuality is biological or merely a state of mind. In the former, not much can be done about their feelings but in the latter their feelings are due to their own experiences. Hell, it can even be a bit of both i.e. some people are more prone to turn out gay than others but are not necessarily going to be gay. In any case, as natural as homosexual tendencies are, it is still less natural than heterosexual tendencies. After all, humans are only one of a handful of mammals that have exhibited examples of homosexuality.
In any case, I don't think allowing gay marriage can promote homosexuality. People don't choose who they feel attracted to. At most, bisexuals who want to fit in can try to ignore their feelings for people on the same sex and wait for someone of the opposite sex to show up, but you can't force them to do that; and homosexuals don't even have that choice. Nor do heterosexuals; just because people are allowed to marry someone of their own sex that won't cause a heterosexual to become gay.By condoning gay marriage you are essentially condoning homosexuality. If it is true that some people are more prone to being homosexual but aren't actually gay yet, if you allow gay marriage, you are only reassuring them that their homosexual tendencies are perfectly natural, and it has still not been determined how natural, if at all, homosexuality is. I refuse to believe that people are 'born gay'. Therefore, someone who was unsure of their sexuality who may have been swayed towards heterosexuality because gay marriage is outlawed may now sway toward homosexuality because gay marriage is lawful.

[Dark Dragonite]

who has the right to say what is natural, and correct, or not?
Is the pope, or Bush God?
This country was suppossed to be to be free...where is my freedom?
I have the right to drink myself stupid, as long as I don't hurt anyone else in the process...I am fine with this, but what about drugs, or if someone wanted to be gay? we have the constitutional right to pursue happiness...fuck anyone for repealing this natural, God-given right

[Heald]

I have no problem with people being gay but homosexuality is not natural to the extent the heterosexuality is, from both a scientific persective and according to certain ethical perspectives.

[Blademaster]

Damn it all, I told myself I'd stay out of debates like this...


After all, humans are only one of a handful of mammals that have exhibited examples of homosexuality.


I have no problem with people being gay but homosexuality is not natural to the extent the heterosexuality is, from both a scientific persective and according to certain ethical perspectives.

...OK, I'm confused.

[Magmar]

To build off what Blademaster said, if other animals display those characteristics, then one would think that qualifies it to be natural, since animals are not born with an amount of free will similar to humans.

What's wrong with condoning homosexuality anyway? Why is it even such a big deal? Seriously, what's the problem with it? What is wrong about it? It's just loving someone of the same gender... it's still love.

I'd love to get a whole setup to be married in a church with my boyfriend and dress like a bride and all... then at the end of the ceremony be like SURPRISE! Look ma, no boobs! I bet they'd write a news article about me, anyway...

[Heald]

Damn it all, I told myself I'd stay out of debates like this...


...OK, I'm confused.
Those two quotes are perfectly compatible. What the first quote was saying was, only humans and something like a tree panda and the mexican jumping monkey have ever shown examples of homosexuality. Considering this makes up less than 1% of the mammalia of the planet, homosexuality should appear unnatural.

Condoning homosexuality appears wrong to some people because they consider it unnatural. Until we can scientifically deduce that you cannot control which gender you are attracted to, homosexuality will always appear as unnatural. On the other hand, there is evidence to the contrary - human bodies are not biologically built for homosexual sexual intercourse of either gender.

[Blademaster]

human bodies are not biologically built for homosexual sexual intercourse of either gender.

...Neither are the bodies of pandas and monkeys (or dogs, fireflies, sheep, bonobos, penguins, lizards, etc.)... :-/

[Magmar]

Heterosexual people participate in non-vaginal sex too, you know. :P

[Razola]

Homosexuality can be percieved as an illness, disease, disability, or defect.

I know that sounds horrible to PC freaks, but it's from a purely scientific point of view. And having the flu isn't a legitimate reason to beat the crap out of a person, either. Just to put it in context.

[Magmar]

People who think like that need to be smacked silly. You can't "catch the gay"... if you could, I'd run around spreading it!

Hey, I'm helping solve the world's overpopulation problem by being gay. Yous can let us get married in exchange ;)

[Blademaster]

LOL...

Go Rude Boy.

The one thing I wanna know, thoyugh, is this: Why do gay people want to get married? I know at least 14 guys who wanna get out of marriage, but gays wanna get into it...

Heh, don't say you weren't warned. :lol:

[Lady Vulpix]

Well, some people want to get married, some others don't. Not everyone even has the same concept of what marriage is.

I found the 'heterosexual marriage came first' comment quite humorous. Then why use cars if horses came first? Or why even use horses if walking on foot came first? Why build houses if caves came first? And before marriage existed people still had sex and children were born, so why have marriage at all? If we only stuck to the things that came first, we'd be in the stone age forever. I'm not saying we should do the opposite either, some old things are good. I think heterosexual marriage is good and I hope I get to have it someday, but I wouldn't say it's the only option just because it came before homosexual marriage.

[Dark Dragonite]

Well, here's a question to all responding...

For those who are homosexual...would you mind having a ceremony much like a marriage, but with a different name?

For those straight people...would you mind if homosexuals had a ceremony you probably wouldn't take the time to realize is like a marriage with a different name?

If no to both...halleluah I've just solved a major fucking issue...

[Arnen]

I'm sure that every person who is homosexual some day decided, "You know what? I'm going to be gay now, just to piss people off."

Seriously, what the hell? The world is overpopulated anyway; having couples out there not creating more people is a good thing.

Really, I'm surprised no one's used the "If we let people marry the same gender, they'll be wanting to marry animals next" argument.

[Everoy]

For those straight people...would you mind if homosexuals had a ceremony you probably wouldn't take the time to realize is like a marriage with a different name?


No.

[Crazy]

I harbor no ill feelings to homosexuals (heck, I have a member in my family who is gay) but to call it natural is absurd. First of all, as far as procreation goes, we are NOT designed for it. If we did not procreate our species would die out, so to assume that homesexuality is as natural as heterosexuality is ridiculous at best. Make all the arguments you wish, but at least keep them sensible.

[Magmar]

You know, I could argue all day, but what it all boils down to is anyone who tells me I'm not natural, which makes me somewhat less of a human being, deserves a good whack in the face. :)

So if I'm not natural, am I... supernatural or something? I'd enjoy that. Because I know I'm not *unnatural*, seeing as how I was born to two human parents, the last time I checked.

You know what I'm going to do... something I almost never do.

I'm going to brag about my life, and you're going to listen to it.

Hah, I've got a 148 IQ, scored top in my town on the SAT's, make the dean's list every semester at college in an honors program and I don't have to pay a dime, I'm an awesome athlete, I'm in love, I have tons of friends, I work a full-time job teaching kids and have never had a problem with a child disrespecting me, I vote, I generally obey traffic laws, I don't steal, I don't lie... and I just so happen to be gay. Is something unnatural about me? Something different where I don't deserve the same rights as a straight person? Am I doing something wrong here? Last time I checked, I was making a *positive* contribution to society, you know, the whole going out there and making a difference in this world thing that they fed us throughout school. At least let me have the right to be married, or call it something different I don't care, but I want to get the same rights as a male-female marriage. Oh and I'd like to be able to give blood and NOT have to lie about my damn sexuality! (But I haven't participated in anal sex, so it doesn't matter at this point.)

[Lady Vulpix]

For those straight people...would you mind if homosexuals had a ceremony you probably wouldn't take the time to realize is like a marriage with a different name?
I feel insulted that you think we wouldn't notice it's the same. In spite of that, no, I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind if you called it marriage either.



I'm going to brag about my life, and you're going to listen to it.
Never say that. It's one of the easiest ways to stop people from listening.

And for those who speak about what's natural and what isn't (even though several animals have been found to have intercourses with others of the same sex, not just the two you mention), can I assume you don't use nor condone the use of any methods to prevent pregnancy? Because you know... they're unnatural. Sex is naturally meant for reproduction, so having sex while actively preventing conception is technically against nature.

Note: don't read the previous paragraph wrong, I'm in favor of preventing unwanted pregnancies, I'm just pointing out that it's not any more natural than marrying someone of the same sex. And marriage itself isn't a natural thing anyway, it's a human invention. You won't find any other animal performing a ceremony to join another, even those that do choose a mate for life just make the choice and get together and that's it.

[Crazy]

Now Rude Boy, when did I say you were less than human? One thing I can't stand is people putting words in my mouth. You're as much as a human being as I. I'm just saying that it is not "natural" for the majority of animals on the planet. All that means is that it deviates from the norm, nothing more nothing less. If I were to assume that being unnatural was a negative thing, I'd look down on myself. My eyes green and brown as in one eye is one color and the other is another color, which is UNNATURAL, the statistics on that are 1 in 10,000. So believe me when I say that I mean no ill will to you. On a side note: 1) Bragging about your life is always a mistake. 2) To Lady Vulpix, I have no plans on sex before marriage and should I fail them I intend to take responsibility.

[Asilynne]

who has the right to say what is natural, and correct, or not?
Is the pope, or Bush God?
This country was suppossed to be to be free...where is my freedom?
I have the right to drink myself stupid, as long as I don't hurt anyone else in the process...I am fine with this, but what about drugs, or if someone wanted to be gay? we have the constitutional right to pursue happiness...**** anyone for repealing this natural, God-given right


Sure, a gay couple may not be hurting anyone but think about this: They get married, and adopt a kid, or two lesbians artificially inseminate and have a kid. Look at how many kids out there are missing a parent. Say its a boy with 2 moms, he ll never really learn how to be a man because no matter how mannish a woman is, she cannot think like a man. Same with if a boy had two dads, he wouldnt have a woman in his life so hed never have a basis on what a woman is like, or hed learn that he should be gay. Either way the kid will have something missing. Now it would be silly for me to say that all kids will turn out like this, but I know from experience that having a missing parent does more harm than good. I have a very loving dad but my mom was never really there, so I missed out on all the things a girl should learn from her mom. I never really had a strong female influence, so because of that I feel like I missed out on something.
Time and again many people have said that a strong family has both a mother and a father, kids with both grow up socially healthier than those without one or the other. So while a gay couple is happy with the lifestyle theyve chosen, they are shoving the choice on a child when they adopt/have one.

I know there are straight people who are horrible parents and Im including them in this. Gay or straight people need to think unselfishly, just because they want a child doesnt mean it should be placed or born into an unhealthy social environment (and I know someone is going to take that wrong because people just love to be hostle, Im not playing that politically correct game.)

And about the fact that some animals have displayed homosexual behaivior, are we compairing gay people to animals now? Saying "Well, an animal kills its own kind and eats them, maybe its ok for us"?
Ive seen a gang of young male camels gang up on a mother camel with a child on National Geographic. One proceeded to rape her while the others circled the child and kicked it almost to death as they waited their turn. Humans do that too, but is it right? Should we do it just because an animal does? That argument is stupid, if everyone ran around doing things and saying well the animals do it, there would be chaos and well damn, try to imagine that. Yes we are animals but we have what they dont, the power to reason and to know what is right and what is wrong.

And now we come to everyones favorite subject: Religion. Marriage was originally a religioius ceremony, why not leave it one? Ive seen a lot of gay people come forth and say, "Let us have our rights! You have to accept us cause were a minority!" What ever happened to accepting the beliefs of others? Gay people want the right to be gay? Make merry and be gay as long as I dont have to see it. But you must also respect christians, unless your a hypocrite and believe that anyone different than you cant have rights. Christians should have the right to keep marriage holy and pure, its important to us, just as being with your gay lovers is important to you. Im suprised no one mentioned civil unions yet (or maybe someone has) athiest do it, they are joined legally but not in matrimony, and isnt that what you want anyway? Stop trying to mess up other peoples beliefs just because you feel like making a political statement.

[Arnen]

Sure, a gay couple may not be hurting anyone but think about this: They get married, and adopt a kid, or two lesbians artificially inseminate and have a kid. Look at how many kids out there are missing a parent. Say its a boy with 2 moms, he ll never really learn how to be a man because no matter how mannish a woman is, she cannot think like a man. Same with if a boy had two dads, he wouldnt have a woman in his life so hed never have a basis on what a woman is like, or hed learn that he should be gay. Either way the kid will have something missing. Now it would be silly for me to say that all kids will turn out like this, but I know from experience that having a missing parent does more harm than good. I have a very loving dad but my mom was never really there, so I missed out on all the things a girl should learn from her mom. I never really had a strong female influence, so because of that I feel like I missed out on something.
Time and again many people have said that a strong family has both a mother and a father, kids with both grow up socially healthier than those without one or the other. So while a gay couple is happy with the lifestyle theyve chosen, they are shoving the choice on a child when they adopt/have one.

I know there are straight people who are horrible parents and Im including them in this. Gay or straight people need to think unselfishly, just because they want a child doesnt mean it should be placed or born into an unhealthy social environment (and I know someone is going to take that wrong because people just love to be hostle, Im not playing that politically correct game.)

And about the fact that some animals have displayed homosexual behaivior, are we compairing gay people to animals now? Saying "Well, an animal kills its own kind and eats them, maybe its ok for us"?
Ive seen a gang of young male camels gang up on a mother camel with a child on National Geographic. One proceeded to rape her while the others circled the child and kicked it almost to death as they waited their turn. Humans do that too, but is it right? Should we do it just because an animal does? That argument is stupid, if everyone ran around doing things and saying well the animals do it, there would be chaos and well damn, try to imagine that. Yes we are animals but we have what they dont, the power to reason and to know what is right and what is wrong.

And now we come to everyones favorite subject: Religion. Marriage was originally a religioius ceremony, why not leave it one? Ive seen a lot of gay people come forth and say, "Let us have our rights! You have to accept us cause were a minority!" What ever happened to accepting the beliefs of others? Gay people want the right to be gay? Make merry and be gay as long as I dont have to see it. But you must also respect christians, unless your a hypocrite and believe that anyone different than you cant have rights. Christians should have the right to keep marriage holy and pure, its important to us, just as being with your gay lovers is important to you. Im suprised no one mentioned civil unions yet (or maybe someone has) athiest do it, they are joined legally but not in matrimony, and isnt that what you want anyway? Stop trying to mess up other peoples beliefs just because you feel like making a political statement.

So what I'm getting here is:

It's not ok to "force" homosexuality on your kids, even though plenty of people shove their religions and beliefs down their kids throats.

It's wrong to be gay, and those who are are not thinking rationally when they "choose" to be gay.

Gay people are dirty and impure, and God hates them.

...

Yep, just about that whole post offends me. I'm not trying to be hostile, just stating my opinion, but seriously...

[Asilynne]

So what I'm getting here is:

It's not ok to "force" homosexuality on your kids, even though plenty of people shove their religions and beliefs down their kids throats.

It's wrong to be gay, and those who are are not thinking rationally when they "choose" to be gay.

Gay people are dirty and impure, and God hates them.

...

Yep, just about that whole post offends me. I'm not trying to be hostile, just stating my opinion, but seriously...

Gimmie a break, its like I mention religion and suddenly Im condemning everyone to hell.
Stop being so damned biased and open your eyes. I think its HORRIBLY wrong for people to force religion down ANYONES throat. People that do that make me sick because if they even bothered to read the bible it says to lead by example, not by shouting to people that they will burn in hell unless their a christian. So, please, dont even begin to apply your steriotypes to me.

Second, Im not God, I cant decide whether its wrong or right to be gay, Im just saying that using the argument "animals do it so we can hrhrhr" is the dumbest thing ever.

And the third thing you just pulled right out of your ass cause I cant find anything I said that even implied that. See how much this sucks? You hate me now because you think Im a streriotypical bible beating christian who thinks people have to listen to them or burn in hell. And you complain that people try to steriotype gay people. All Im saying is have an open mind, about all things. People dont just have to have an open mind about gay people but the other side as well, because I dont believe either side is truely 'evil'. The only evil is the evil that is allowed to grow by misinterpreting things and misjudging things.

[Arnen]

I did not pull that statement out of my ass, as you so nicely put it.



Christians should have the right to keep marriage holy and pure, its important to us, just as being with your gay lovers is important to you.

That, to me, seems to imply that allowing gays to marry would make marriage unholy and impure. One of my best friends is gay, and also religious. I'm sure once he meets the right guy he'd want to get married in a church and all that, regardless of how "holy and pure" some people think he is or is not.

And I don't know you well enough to hate you - I just strongly disagree with you.

[Asilynne]

I did not pull that statement out of my ass, as you so nicely put it.

That, to me, seems to imply that allowing gays to marry would make marriage unholy and impure. One of my best friends is gay, and also religious. I'm sure once he meets the right guy he'd want to get married in a church and all that, regardless of how "holy and pure" some people think he is.

And I don't know you well enough to hate you - I just strongly disagree with you.

x.x I was referring to the definition of marriage as being a man and a woman joining in holy matrimony. I was saying that its important to christians for it to be that way. If someone came up to a gay guy and told him to change the fact that he was gay would he be offended? Hell yeah, so Im offended when people mess with my religion and try to change it to suit them. Anyone would be offended if someone told them they had to change something that was important to them, wouldnt they?
I dont really know what to do about someone who is both religious and gay though. He could always go to Massechusettes (sp? lol) since they allow it there. To be honest I havent really seen any gay people that were also religious, most of the people in my school that were gay bashed religion at every turn. So that is very interesting, Id like to see his thoughts on everything.

But yeah what I was TRYING to say was Im sick of everyone saying that gay people should have the right to practice their beliefs and yet if a christian has a problem with it enchroaching on their beliefs, they are told to stop being a homophobe and go to hell. As long as my beliefs are respected as well, I generally leave other people alone ^v^

[Arnen]

x.x I was referring to the definition of marriage as being a man and a woman joining in holy matrimony. I was saying that its important to christians for it to be that way. If someone came up to a gay guy and told him to change the fact that he was gay would he be offended? Hell yeah, so Im offended when people mess with my religion and try to change it to suit them. Anyone would be offended if someone told them they had to change something that was important to them, wouldnt they?
I dont really know what to do about someone who is both religious and gay though. He could always go to Massechusettes (sp? lol) since they allow it there. To be honest I havent really seen any gay people that were also religious, most of the people in my school that were gay bashed religion at every turn. So that is very interesting, Id like to see his thoughts on everything.

But yeah what I was TRYING to say was Im sick of everyone saying that gay people should have the right to practice their beliefs and yet if a christian has a problem with it enchroaching on their beliefs, they are told to stop being a homophobe and go to hell. As long as my beliefs are respected as well, I generally leave other people alone ^v^

Well, because of his religious beliefs, he thinks it's his fault in some way that he likes guys and that he's going to Hell because of it.

And what about Christian beliefs encroaching on gay peoples' right to live a happy life with the person they love? There's a big difference between offending someone because you're doing something they don't like, and interfering with peoples' personal lives. If you're supposed to live by example, just don't be gay if you think it's wrong, but not allowing others to do so seems more like forcing people to be a certain way.

[Asilynne]

Well, because of his religious beliefs, he thinks it's his fault in some way that he likes guys and that he's going to Hell because of it.

And what about Christian beliefs encroaching on gay peoples' right to live a happy life with the person they love? There's a big difference between offending someone because you're doing something they don't like, and interfering with peoples' personal lives. If you're supposed to live by example, just don't be gay if you think it's wrong, but not allowing others to do so seems more like forcing people to be a certain way.

My problem isnt them being gay, like I said before. Its not taking a damn compromise like civil unions. They can be together and love each other sure, so why not keep marriage for the christians and everyone can be happy. They can live their lives with each other and no one has to be offended. Everyone is respected. But alas there will always be people who have to push the line and do things to offend people.

[Arnen]

My problem isnt them being gay, like I said before. Its not taking a damn compromise like civil unions. They can be together and love each other sure, so why not keep marriage for the christians and everyone can be happy. They can live their lives with each other and no one has to be offended. Everyone is respected. But alas there will always be people who have to push the line and do things to offend people.

Well, other religions have marriages too. And as said before, what about religious gays? Anyway, I think it's more about their right to get married like everyone else. Giving them a substitute for marriage is kind of like saying they're not fully people.

[Dark Dragonite]

Religion is flawed...plain and simple...written, and changed by man...duh...God says to love everyone as you would yourself...God does not put conditions on what is ok, and what isn't...The old testament is useless if you believe in Jesus being a savior, he died so we could all live...ALL...

**** this "God loves me more than you cause you're gay"

If Marriage is meant to be religious...why is it so heavily involved with the Government? Isn't there suppossed to be "separation of church and state" ?

If I wanted to put the effort in, you could probably find statistics showing more gay and lesbian couples raise better kids...hey, in the USA don't 69% of all marriages end in divorce? The kid usually ends up with the mom... IE : missing 1 parent...right?

How many people have affairs, separations, divorces...have heterosexuals shown any sanctity of marriage?
It's a fucking joke in this country...they even had a game show about people metting and marrying...

[Blademaster]

I gotta go with DD on this one.

Sanctity is a boat, and marriage got pushed overboard a long time ago... :-/

[Hatake Kakashi]

My problem isnt them being gay, like I said before. Its not taking a damn compromise like civil unions. They can be together and love each other sure, so why not keep marriage for the christians and everyone can be happy. They can live their lives with each other and no one has to be offended. Everyone is respected. But alas there will always be people who have to push the line and do things to offend people.


Yeah! And why couldn't black people just accept their seperate but equal bathrooms for colored folk only? And schools. And resturaunts.

Gee, the similarities are pretty creepy, huh?

[SmearGal]

If Marriage is meant to be religious...why is it so heavily involved with the Government? Isn't there suppossed to be "separation of church and state" ?
Hah.. hahaha! I laugh in your general direction. In this country, church will never ever be seperated from state.
When the state is made to govern the people, the people must be put into consideration.
When the people are highly religious, and society has its roots in religion as well,
The state will always have something religious inside it.

And I agree with DD's 'religion is flawed' points.

The Bible was thrown together with accounts from many different people, all by the Pagan Roman leader Constantine, many many years after Jesus was dead. These were accounts, opinions of men, on how they decided to interpret the teachings of Christ. For people to sit down nowadays and claim every word in the Old or New Testament is straight from God is about the most crap I've ever seen, so therefore, their argument that 'God hates gay people' is hilariously ignorant, as what have they based it on but the words of their fellow men?

Now, from an atheist's point of view, this entire situation is a bunch of festering crap, and a prime example of the church kama sutra'd with the state.

To say that marriage would be ruined by allowing homosexuals to marry is a terrible, terrible blindness on the part of the speaker, for marriage has been ruined by the inability of heteros to keep to their vows. What happened to 'Till death do us part', for one? There are plenty of other examples, such as celebrity marriages have to be the biggest mar on the face of this 'sanctified act' to ever exist in this world.

Now, to a realistic standpoint, to make an equivalent of marriage available to gays and lesbians would probably be the most realistic answer to this growing problem. However, to not call it marriage is a horribly demeaning thing. "Oh, you don't fit the standards of marriage, you have to go for the other option."

Why not have 'holy marriage' and then the all-encompassing 'marriage'? Both would be the exact same thing, but the 'holy marriage' would be for hardcore, uber religious, close-minded individuals that can't accept the 'love thy neighbor' bit and rewrite it as 'love thy neighbor unless he sleeps with thy fellow man.'

And a note on civil unions, yes, that's what a LOT of homosexuals turn to. But there are, of course, savvy ones that know what happens once gay marriage is banned.. civil unions get screwed over, too.

~Smear

[Razola]

People who think like that need to be smacked silly. You can't "catch the gay"... if you could, I'd run around spreading it!

Hey, I'm helping solve the world's overpopulation problem by being gay. Yous can let us get married in exchange ;)
Have you heard of genetic defects? You can't catch Autism, Dwarfism, and other such ailments either.

Your natural goal in life is to reproduce. Anything that hinders it is a defect. Yes, humans are incredibly good at reproducing, but that's still a goal. And yes, being attracted to a gender that can't produce offspring with you is a disadvantage. But we don't discriminate people with AIDS or cancer, so it's really not an excuse to rationlize homophobic behavior.

And since you have the internet, you are likely reducing the population than increasing it. It is poorer countries, where sex is the ONLY entertainment really available, that overpopulation occurs. Most families have what, two kids? That's just keeping the population stagnant.

EDIT: Religion has nothing to do with the gay marrirage debate. Oh, people TRY, but they are usually shortsighted.

[Magmar]

So now I have a *Genetic Defect*?

Hahaha.

Oh and sorry about my other post. I was pissed and was all like... I DO THIS AND THIS AND THAT AND IM NOT A FULL HUMAN?? Ahhhh!

Oh well, I have things to do. My defected, unnatural boyfriend gets off work at 1.

[Lady Vulpix]

I agree that this shouldn't be a religious discussion. Here in Argentina, marriage is not seen as a religious thing. You can have a ceremony at a church, sinagogue, mosque or whatever, but the only marriages that count for all legal affairs are the ones concreted at the civil registry, so some people have only that and consider themselves married, while others do that and a religious ceremony.

On other notes, believe it or not, NOT EVRYONE IS CHRISTIAN, so will you please stop mixing marriage with Chtistianism? The rest of us have as much of a right to get married as you do. If you really want to state that I shouldn't be able to get married because I'm Jewish, please PM me your reasons. I'm sure it would be quite amusing reading material.

[Roy Karrde]

I wouldnt call it a Genetic Defect, more like a abnormality. What causes homosexuality is still up in the air, but it is abnormal, you could admit that. Just like Autism and Dislexia. But I would also say that homosexuality isnt the only Sexual Abnormality. The same could be said about Pedophillia, Beastiality, and a ride range of other abnormal sexual traits.

[Dark-San]

What causes homosexuality is still up in the air, ...


[b] There you answered it yourself. Unless scientifically proven, I don't think it is considered abnormality. The fact is basically simple not touching onto the religious issues. Humans are given a choice and it is up to them to make good use of it since it is their life and their responsibility. It would be rude to call gays or even lesbians abnormal. Even you can't stand them, just tolerant. It would not hurt you right?

*Note: I'm straight btw.

[Dark Dragonite]

I wouldn't consider homosexuality a defect...being blind, or born missing a limb, or Downs syndrome...those are genetic defects...you're born not being able to do something due to genetic code...to my knowledge, they finished mapping the human genome...and there is no gene for sexuality...and usually, homosexuals don't know they are when they're born, every one I know has tried dating the other gender, and found no appeal...

Now, onto the religion... I was born-again Christian...have been to many roman catholic churches, and have also studied up on Judaism, and have pretty much accepted it as my way of life...but, I am anti organized religion...I take the bible, and other religious items a certain way... Maybe there isn't a forced ceremony, and religion doesn't make a marriage recognized by the government...

On to the government and why marriage is a farce...Why in the hell do you have to pay the government to be seen as most people who sign and hand out the paper(justices of the peace) "in the eyes of God" as a couple?
This bothers me to no end...to be honest, I'd rather marriage be a religious thing now that I think of it...another way to get money out of you for a piece of paper that entitles the one who dies last to have the other person's stuff, including any life insurance...is that something we should have any right to hold back from homosexuals...

[Leon-IH]

I love homosexuals who give me a real reason to punch them, honestly.

[Lady Vulpix]

I think the whole 'abnormality' issue boils down to what your definition of 'normal' is. If 'normal' is what the majority does, then yes, it's not normal. But there's nothing wrong with not being normal by that definition. It would be a very dull world if everyone was the same.

[Heald]

I found the 'heterosexual marriage came first' comment quite humorous. Then why use cars if horses came first? Or why even use horses if walking on foot came first? Why build houses if caves came first? And before marriage existed people still had sex and children were born, so why have marriage at all? If we only stuck to the things that came first, we'd be in the stone age forever. I'm not saying we should do the opposite either, some old things are good. I think heterosexual marriage is good and I hope I get to have it someday, but I wouldn't say it's the only option just because it came before homosexual marriage.This line of logic is completely flawed. You are saying that heterosexual-only marriage is more primitive than letting everyone regardless get married. You can start liberalising it to suit minorities but where does it stop? Some people like to get married to people under age, if they start making pressure groups, having pro-pedo marches, should we cave in to them as well? Then after that, people that want to marry trees, buildings, animals, corpses? You could say 'BUT WE SHOULD ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALITY!' well 50 years ago homosexual intercourse was banned and homosexuality in general was incredibly frowned upon, as pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are today. I was recently talking to some 90 year olds who, thanks to their dated attitudes, thought gays were just as bad as pedophiles. I of course don't share their attitudes, but that is probably because I've been raised to accept homosexuality. Using your line of logic, gay marriage is ok because:

Foot -> Horse -> Horse & Carriage -> Motorcar -> Modern Car

Heterosexual Marriage -> Marriage regardless of gender -> Marriage regardless of age -> Marriage regardless of species -> Marriage regardless of pulse

Reductio ad absurdum

Before I continue I would like to stress that I in no way share the belief that homosexuality is wrong whatsoever and I am in no way condoning pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia, which are all abhorrent - I am merely playing Devil's advocate.

What I was actually trying to say is that the ceremony known as marriage is reserved for heterosexual marriages only. The very definition of a marriage is the joining of a man and a woman in matrimony. Changing its meaning or definition isn't evolution at all, which is what you're trying to say. Homosexual pressure groups are trying to get marriage changed to mean the joining of two people regardless of gender in matrimony. I could try and get marriage changed to mean a giant loaf of bread. Obviously their meaning of marriage is a lot closer to the original meaning than mine is, but the same line of logic still follows. I could try and change it to mean the joining of two aubergines in matrimony, which is pretty close, but not at close as two people. Marriage means a lot to some people and these people fear that by allowing marriage to happen between anyone of any gender will dilute that meaning. To be married is a status symbol. Think of it like a rare and expensive car - say two people have a rare and expensive car, people will think highly of that. If then these cars become cheap and abundant, the status that they had will be lost. Some people who already are married and like to think of their marriage as special and unique are very against these 2-minute wedding shacks or drive-thru wedding places that let just two drunk people who just met in a casino or a bar get married for a small nominal fee and then divorce days later (much like Britney Spears did) since it is disrespectful to the institution of marriage. That is why people are so against homosexual marriage.

[Blademaster]

You can start liberalising it to suit minorities but where does it stop? Some people like to get married to people under age, if they start making pressure groups, having pro-pedo marches, should we cave in to them as well? Then after that, people that want to marry trees, buildings, animals, corpses? You could say 'BUT WE SHOULD ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALITY!' well 50 years ago homosexual intercourse was banned and homosexuality in general was incredibly frowned upon, as pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are today.

...

The difference being of course that two gay people who want to marry are in love with each other, whereas an adult and a child/animal/corpse are obviously not. That's the difference; comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, necrophelia, and bestiality is just wrong - in more ways than one.

-Blade

(P.S. In case anyone's wondering, I'm not gay.

But I am pro-gay. :cool:)

[Dark Dragonite]

I agree Blade...but I will say...in different countries, and states, there are different age limits on marriage, hell, in some countries, marriage is prearranged before you hit puberty...this is different, this is about 2 human beings in love, whether they are the same gender or not...of age, consenting, some are even lucky enough to have their family back them in their pusuit of happiness...

Now, for Heald, and the few against homosexual marriage...based in America...do we not have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness. Are these unalienable rights in the US Constitution? Yes, they are so any ban is unconstitutional...

"conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" Thanks Mr. Lincoln...I don't think this statement was just for heterosexuals...

Jefferson stated the principle of this when he said that the legitimate powers of government extend only to such act, or actions, that are injurious to others. "But it does me no injury," he wrote, "for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Writing fifty years later, in the last letter he is known to have written, Jefferson said this of the Declaration of Independence and its statement concerning the rights of man:

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government . . . All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."


Homosexuality is not a disease you can catch, it doesn't break your legs, or pick your pockets, so let them live or stop calling this a free country...

[Magmar]

I'm not even worried about the marriage thing, it's the benefits and stuff. Being married is a symbol of status, to quote like everyone else, and just because I prefer men doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to have the same status. If my boyfriend was dying in the hospital I'd be there to hold his hand just like any of you would for your significant other, provided they aren't a bitch like my ex is. I love him, and just because it isn't heterosexual, doesn't make it any less of love.

[Heald]

The difference being of course that two gay people who want to marry are in love with each other, whereas an adult and a child/animal/corpse are obviously not. That's the difference; comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, necrophelia, and bestiality is just wrong - in more ways than one.Wake up call...in England, most girls are sluts by the time they're 10. I have personally known dozens of girls who believe they have 'fallen in love' with men twice their age (when they were below the age of consent). By your logic, because they believe they are in love (two people, albeit a girl of 14 and a man of 32) they should be allowed to marry; it is their inalienable right. Likewise, what if in the near future a man loves his dog and he can empirically prove his dog loves him and that they both want to marry - should that be allowed? I'm not talking about a guy saying his dog wants to marry him, I'm talking about some scientists make a machine that can translate dogs' thoughts/brainwaves into human speech and vice versa and that allows them to consent to marrying one another? I am not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality on the same moral level, but 50 years ago, homosexuality was abhorred much like pedophilia and bestiality was. Hell, two hundred or so years ago, it was abhorred if people of different colour married each other. Society changes and our views on things change - as homosexuality grew and gained more support, it became more acceptable. If pedophiles and bestiality advocates followed the same channels they too could have their 'inalienable rights' bestowed upon them.

The thing is, you might think it is stupid to compare gays to pedophiles, but then again, before homosexuality became acceptable, homosexuality was viewed as just as bad as pedophilia. In one hundred years time, the age of consent may be lowered to ten thanks to pressure group action. You might view this as unacceptable because of the way you were brought up. Guess what sunshine - this is how (some) people above the age of 45 of so feels about homosexuality. Right now, if we were to debate about ten year olds getting married, there would be a unanimous opposition to it, yet our grandchildren in 100 years time may be raised to accept ten years old as the acceptable age of getting married. Whether you like it or not, 'love' is completely subjective, and there is no universal authority to decide whether the boundaries of love are decided by colour, race, species or age. Your view of love is decided by your upbringing and that's the truth.


I agree Blade...but I will say...in different countries, and states, there are different age limits on marriage, hell, in some countries, marriage is prearranged before you hit puberty...this is different, this is about 2 human beings in love, whether they are the same gender or not...of age, consenting, some are even lucky enough to have their family back them in their pusuit of happiness...

Now, for Heald, and the few against homosexual marriage...based in America...do we not have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness. Are these unalienable rights in the US Constitution? Yes, they are so any ban is unconstitutional...1) The US Constitution does not bind the rest of the world to it and considering the US denies so many prisoners and others even basic human rights e.g. Guantanamo, let alone 'unalienable rights' it has no right to talk about rights whatsoever.

2) 'The Pursuit of Happiness' is the most ambiguous statement ever. If two men get married, a lot of (heterosexual and anti-gay marriage) people will be unhappy. Surely this is infringing on their right to happiness also? If my pursuit to happiness was to shoot birds, an animal-rights advocate would have their right to the pursuit of happiness infringed if I was allowed to continue shooting birds.


"conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" Thanks Mr. Lincoln...I don't think this statement was just for heterosexuals...Oh, so everything some guy with a beard and a hat said must be taken as gospel? Great. Just for the record, it is illegal for all men, regardless of sexuality (except in some areas) to marry other men, likewise it is illegal for all women, regardless of sexuality (except in some areas) to marry other women. This is equal to all men or women. No all men or women want to marry a member of the opposite sex, but that will always be the case. Likewise, it is illegal for anyone to steal. Kleptomaniacs (those with an impulse to steal) may not like this law but they are in the minority . Likewise, homosexuals are in the minority. To steal something will harm those who are against stealing; to allow gays to marry will harm those who are against gay marriage. As Lincoln said, all men are equal - all men are not allowed to steal, and all men are not allowed to marry other men.


Jefferson stated the principle of this when he said that the legitimate powers of government extend only to such act, or actions, that are injurious to others. "But it does me no injury," he wrote, "for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Writing fifty years later, in the last letter he is known to have written, Jefferson said this of the Declaration of Independence and its statement concerning the rights of man:

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government . . . All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

Homosexuality is not a disease you can catch, it doesn't break your legs, or pick your pockets, so let them live or stop calling this a free country...If a 40 year old man and a 10 year old girl believe they love each other and marry, they are not hurting anyone, right? Except those who believe it is wrong and should be outlawed. Likewise, a homosexual marriage will hurt those who believe it is wrong and should be outlawed. As I said before, we only believe pedophilia is wrong yet homosexuality is acceptable because of the way we have been raised; 50 years ago, both homosexuality and pedophilia were wrong and unacceptable and in 50 years time both homosexuality and pedophilia may be perfectly acceptable.

I would like to close by saying that I am still playing Devil's advocate - I do not agree that homosexuality is wrong and I definitely do not condone pedophilia or bestiality. Eventually the anti-gay marriage group will thin out and lose support and more states and countries will allow homosexual marriage. There will be more gay marriages and who knows? Maybe the divorce rate will fall, as opposed to what anti-gay marriage groups predict. The situation could get better or worse - only time will tell. And no, I do not believe the next step will be allowing children or animals to marry. However, the one problem with the whole gay marriage situation is that there is no universal authority of what love is or what marriage means, and until we find that universal authority, I guess we're going to have to let the Republicans decide what's best for the rest of the world. As usual. Rude Boy put it the best:


If my boyfriend was dying in the hospital I'd be there to hold his hand just like any of you would for your significant other

[Blademaster]

Don't call me sunshine... :sweat:


By your logic, because they believe they are in love (two people, albeit a girl of 14 and a man of 32) they should be allowed to marry.

Well, actually, yes. If they're really and truly in love, than why not? And if they aren't really in love, then let them waste time and money together and eventually get a divorce and lose half their stuff; maybe they'll learn something.


I guess we're going to have to let the Republicans decide what's best for the rest of the world.

Apparently so, but that doesn't mean I have to like it... (counts the days until 2008) :rolleyes:

-Blade

[lordsalamence]

im straight,but i got 2 hand it 2 lesbians.they make the internet fun to watch.

[Magmar]

you should be 18 before you look at things like that.

...*abuses a salamence*

Anyways! Honestly, Heald, your argument is strong, yet it just doesn't make sense when it all boils down to that any person above the age of 18 is allowed to vote, play lottery and purchase cancer sticks. Why can't they marry each other if they choose, regardless of gender? Beastiality and pedophelia almost always involve minors or non-citizen animals.

[Heald]

Anyways! Honestly, Heald, your argument is strong, yet it just doesn't make sense when it all boils down to that any person above the age of 18 is allowed to vote, play lottery and purchase cancer sticks. Why can't they marry each other if they choose, regardless of gender? Beastiality and pedophelia almost always involve minors or non-citizen animals.I completely agree, I'm just pointing out that the issue of gay marriage is not as simple as black and white.

[Lady Vulpix]

Using your line of logic, gay marriage is ok because:

Foot -> Horse -> Horse & Carriage -> Motorcar -> Modern Car

Heterosexual Marriage -> Marriage regardless of gender -> Marriage regardless of age -> Marriage regardless of species -> Marriage regardless of pulse

Reductio ad absurdum
Actually, your logic is flawed. The flaw lies in assuming that any of the steps in any of your chains is a logical successor of the previous ones. They aren't. And as it has been pointed out, the last steps of your second chain leave out something important: for 2 people to get married they should both understand what marriage means and choose it willingly. I doubt a child would be willing to get married and fully understand the implications, and a dog certainly wouldn't, let alone a corpse.

That, and different cultures come up with different means of transport. Technological development is not a logical succession, but the result of different minds' solutions to the problems they have encountered.

[Zak]

A little late here, but...



I'm not lying, Zak. Maybe you do, but that doesn't mean everyone does.



I wasn't saying that because I do. Maybe you don't know this, but prejudice is part of human nature, unfortunately. Saying someone doesn't discriminate is like saying they don't sin.
I actually meant that you're mistaken, it's called a figure of speech, the lying part. Maybe you do and don't know it. I'll just say the museum of Tolerance in LA would beg to differ. I'd love to see you complain to the to them about that thing with the two doors saying "those with prejudice enter here" and "those without prjudice enter here" and the second door is locked because EVERYONE HAS PRJUDICE. I'm not basing that fact off that, obviously, I knew the fact long before I'd even seen it, just using it as an example. Unless you consider discrimination and prejudice two different things (even though they are one in the same, just "discrimination" has a heavier negative connotation to it), I'm sure you do. But I'll be damned if someone said they don't have prejudice and were telling the truth.

discrimination
n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice [syn: favoritism, favouritism] 2: the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished [syn: secernment]

You do realize that doesn't just apply to traits that people are born with, like race, gender, hadicaps, sexuality. I don't want to ruin topic by listing all the ways in which you are prejudiced (as far as I'm concerned) even though that would be rather easy. Treating people differently because, say, they don't have a car, is considered discrimination, as silly as that sounds, but the word people would use is prejudice. If you consider them two different things, it's fine, but if you also feel that your statement would apply replacing the word "discrimination" with "prejudice", then... uh... no comment.

Sorry for going off like that, that statement just kinda annoyed me.


~Zak

[Lady Vulpix]

I don't believe there's such thing as human nature, aside from the biological aspect. Everything else is cultural. I don't reject people I don't know for their appearance, beliefs, origin or anything they do that doesn't hurt anyone. "Human nature" is just an excuse some people use for not trying to improve themselves. "It's human nature, I'm human hence I can't change it". That's alright as long as you're talking about your need to eat, drink, sleep and breathe, or about not knowing everything, or making a mistake every now and then, but not if you're trying to justify a negative attitude towards others who have done no harm.

I don't think it would be a good idea to turn this topic into a personal argument, but if you think I'm being prejudiced against someone, I'll gladly discuss it via PM.

[Zak]

I don't believe there's such thing as human nature, aside from the biological aspect. Everything else is cultural. I don't reject people I don't know for their appearance, beliefs, origin or anything they do that doesn't hurt anyone. "Human nature" is just an excuse some people use for not trying to improve themselves. "It's human nature, I'm human hence I can't change it". That's alright as long as you're talking about your need to eat, drink, sleep and breathe, or about not knowing everything, or making a mistake every now and then, but not if you're trying to justify a negative attitude towards others who have done no harm.

I don't think it would be a good idea to turn this topic into a personal argument, but if you think I'm being prejudiced against someone, I'll gladly discuss it via PM.


It doesn't matter, I wasn't saying you should go out of your way to try not to be. I said you should just simply not deny it and pretend to be perfect. Like I said, saying you aren't prejudiced is like saying you never sin. The same applies to every human being in the world, I'm not personally accusing you of anything but that ridiculous statement. Hell, I can't even name something I'm prejudiced against, but I bet if I thought for a while I would think of something, and I'm sure most people who know me would be able to.
Of course a lot of people (most likely yourself included) have a very good reason for whatever it is and don't realize it, but good reason or not, the fact remains that it's prejudice. You said you don't understand why it exists... most of it stems from good reason, but if you said "I don't understand why discrimination for reasons X or Y exists" that would be different.

EDIT: Here's a little example right here. In response to me, you said:

I'm not lying, Zak. Maybe you do, but that doesn't mean everyone does.
I never even stated that I do, hell, even though I'm sure I am prejudiced to a lot of things and don't even know it, because it's a fact that everyone in the world is. Ask any psychological expert. Or anyone at the museum of tolerance who've studied about it. With that, your claim that because I know that fact, I'm "one of the few people who discriminate, while others don't" is pretty shallow in itself. Of course, even if the above people I mentioned told you the same thing I did, you'd probably just say the same thing to them: "Just because you do, doesn't mean everyone else does." Unless you have a better reason for why you said that to me, I think it's safe to assume you'd say it to them as well. Either way, saying that in response to that is pretty shallow in itself. I'm not saying I mind it, I didn't take any offense to it, but that doesn't change the fact that it proves my point.


~Zak

[Lady Vulpix]

That's at most misinterpretation, not prejudice. And it was logical deduction. You say everyone discriminates, you're a part of everyone, hence you discriminate. Otherwise you'd be your own counterexample and you would have never said that. In any case, making a mistake doesn't imply discrimination, just like being against discrimination doesn't make you perfect. Not doing it is better than doing it, that much is clear, but there are still many other things that can be improved about a person (me or anyone else).

[RedStarWarrior]

I find it unfortunate that the people who are often victims of prejudice are, in this instance, becoming victimizers. I find it equally unfortunate that such a thing has to be overpublicized allowing for the situation to be blown out of proportion.

I pride myself on the fact that I am not prejudiced at all. Everyone has a clean slate for me, regardless of race, creed, nationality, gender, age, and sexual preference. In my opinion, being prejudice is unreasonable, as it is, by default, self-fulfilling. If you don't care for black people because you think they are all criminals, then you are more likely to notice when a black individual does something wrong and, often unconsciously, ignore any actions made by a black individual that is contrary to your belief. However, I feel that it is my right to respect the opinions and beliefs of others, whether or not I agree with them, so long as it doesn't put my or someone else's personal identity or well-being in jeopardy.

Zak and Gabi, please resolve your differences outside of this thread.

[Zak]

Sorry, it was me who started it, blame me. Though I wasn't really arguing differences, more like arguing the meaning of the word 'prejudice'

Back on topic, if someone asked me if I was prejudiced against anything, I would say no, because given the definition most people tend to have of it, I wouldn't be considered having prejudice, and I'm also proud of that. I wouldn't consider Gabi prejudiced either by that definition. But you could still be prejudiced against little things, like for example people who dress a certain way. Or for another example, if you see some guy in a bar that's dressed as a drifter and has all sorts of outer qualities of a drifter, even though one might not assume it, it's possible (yet extremely unlikely) that he's either a mathematical genius, or an award winning scholar or whatever, but of course no one's going to expect something like that. I'd consider the possibility if I thought about it, but I certainly would expect it. Most people in the world wouldn't consider the possibility. That's also called prejudice. That sort of prejudice IS part of human nature. It's less of a big deal, but it's still prejudice.

Another big time "little prejudice" is age. It's not considered a big deal, but it's always really pissed me off. When I was 14, this guy (the most ageist man I know) refused to explain about why a certain person hasn't been around. He claimed he was "not sure if I was old enough to hear that story" (he was 24). Later I found out that the reason the person hasn't been around was because they crashed their parents' car and got grounded. What the fuck? Give me a break, 14, too young to know about car crashes and getting grounded? Some people seriously have their heads up their ass. I'm glad my parents aren't like that.

Also, sometimes OCD can make someone be prejudiced against certain people with certain traits, unfortunately.

Of course, human nature is not an excuse to be racist, sexist, or homophobic unless you've been abused all your life by people of a certain group. Unfortunately it does give the excuse to be ageist.

As for this issue, it's the same as Blacks making fun of Whites. I'm sure if niether of them were put through loads of neglection and abuse they wouldn't have even gone out of their way to look for a reason.

EDIT: Whoa, ordering two supermods... classic. No problem, just thought it was kind of funny.

[Razola]

So now I have a *Genetic Defect*?

Hahaha.

Oh and sorry about my other post. I was pissed and was all like... I DO THIS AND THIS AND THAT AND IM NOT A FULL HUMAN?? Ahhhh!

Oh well, I have things to do. My defected, unnatural boyfriend gets off work at 1.
We all have defects. I have asthma, some people are colorblind. Why do you get uppity when I call it for what it is? There's nothing WRONG with it. People who are 100% free of defects are rare if not non-existent.

But, from a nature-based science standpoint, your condition is a hindrance. As animals we basically want to reproduce and further our species. You are at a disadvantage in this area, because you do not find the proper gender (for repoduction) attractive and thus don't have the normal incentive to reproduce.

I'm not following as to why you find it shocking or even...offensive? I've already said it's no basis for bigotry or exclusion.

[size=large]AND LADY VULPIX, YOU WILL NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED TO MARRY IN MY CHURCH DUE TO CONFLICTING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO, AND NEVER WILL.

Go ahead, argue it.

[GreenShirT]

Official ruling is:
"...gay people cannot insult straight people because being gay is more wrong that being straight in the eyes of those on the moral highground. They can hardly call you straight as an insult since that is normal and acceptable :)"

[Razola]

Official ruling is:
"...gay people cannot insult straight people because it's fucking hypocritical and slows the civil rights process."

[Lady Vulpix]

[size=large]AND LADY VULPIX, YOU WILL NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED TO MARRY IN MY CHURCH DUE TO CONFLICTING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO, AND NEVER WILL.
I have a cousin who married a Catholic man, and they had a ceremony in a synagogue. For a while they had talked about having one in a Catholic church too. I guess the most orthodox churches wouldn't allow it, but some do. Anyway, I wouldn't want to marry in a church, but that doesn't mean I won't get married at all.

[Edit: fixed a spelling mistake pointed out by Raz.]

[Razola]

My point is that this is not really a "marriage" debate. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and churches can't be told whom they can and can't have in such processions.

What we are talking about is cold, hard civil unions. Government-recognized couplings with wonderful tax cuts and other fringe benefits. THAT is what all people (within limits) should have a right to. My right-leanings say the government shouldn't have a say in whom we choose for partners.

Why people get religion involved is beyond me. Just because civil unions are legal doesn't mean the Supreme Court is going to force you to take gays in the Church.

EDIT: Please tell me that is a different spelling for "Synagogue". Because...you should be able to spell your place of worship correctly...right?

[Magmar]

If you're fundamentally opposed to homosexual marriages, then don't have one.

I think that should be the bottom line, honestly.

[Lady Vulpix]

Sorry, Raz, I speak English as a second language, sometimes I get mixed up with the Spanish spelling of some words. I'll fix it if it offends you.

[lordsalamence]

you should be 18 before you look at things like that.

...*abuses a salamence*

Anyways! Honestly, Heald, your argument is strong, yet it just doesn't make sense when it all boils down to that any person above the age of 18 is allowed to vote, play lottery and purchase cancer sticks. Why can't they marry each other if they choose, regardless of gender? Beastiality and pedophelia almost always involve minors or non-citizen animals.



hell no! not that!I just like to laugh at them cuz one woman looks like a big hairy guy and im like "is that even possible?"

[Razola]

hell no! not that!I just like to laugh at them cuz one woman looks like a big hairy guy and im like "is that even possible?"
We've reach Stereotype city limits.

[Magmar]

That kid just won't stop spamming. @_@;

[Everoy]

lordsalamence, you're really starting to piss me off. You keep posting spam in topics with ridiculous things that piss people off, and I hope you get banned in the near future. Or contract a horrible disease, I'm not sure yet.

That being said.

I am not religious in any way, shape, or form, and I don't see why people often factor religion into the equation of gay mariiage.

I am very, very pro-gay marriage. I am not gay, but I have friends that are gay. Now, there's all these people that say, "Well, gay people aren't born that way. They choose to be gay." That is one of the most ridiculous explanations I've ever heard. Why would people choose to be gay? Why would people choose to be discriminated against? And for those who say it is a defect:


de·fect
n.
1. The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency.
2. An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.

Gay people are not incomplete, nor are they inadequate or failures. Homosexuality is not a defect.

[Heald]

I am not religious in any way, shape, or form, and I don't see why people often factor religion into the equation of gay mariiage.
Because marriage is essentially a religious ceremony. Back in ancient times where many civilizations had a basic state religion that one had to adhere to or be killed as a heretic, all civilizations were incredibly patriarchal - men ruled over women with an iron fist. However, there were two inherent problems with this :

1) No matter how powerful men were, they could not resist succumbing to their sexual urges;
2) Sex is often frowned upon in religious societies.

Therefore, marriage was formed as a way for men to satisfy their sexual urges in a religiously-sound environment. Nothing more, nothing less. You take away religion, there is no point in marriage - sex can not be inherently right or wrong out of wedlock since there is no God or other universal authority to make it right or wrong. The only reason people think that sex is such a big deal is because of religion - sex is a religious taboo. All modern societies are founded on the basis of one religion or another and so the basic morals have been carried over and even atheists have unwittingly accepted the morals of the religions of old. Even in this age of sexual liberalisation, someone who has sex with a lot of people is often viewed in a bad light - why? Because of the underlying religious feelings of society.

In short, marriage is essentially a religious ceremony and if one were to completely reject all religious ideas, marriage would essentially be pointless. Sure, a civil union is useful for government benefits, but without religion a marriage means nothing. You can go as far as saying you have a Partnership with someone without involving religion. Same-sex couples could call their other half their 'partner' but as soon as you mention buzzwords such as 'bride', 'groom' and/or 'marriage' then you are reviving the religious roots of religion.

What I am saying is that for Christians, and also in other cultures and what we consider to be 'weddings' and 'marriages' in their cultures, a marriage is the holy matrimony of man and woman to do what their God intended and this is what their God wanted and this is their gift from God. What Gay Marriage does is essentially steal their ceremony, but instead change it from heterosexual to homosexual, which, for all intensive purposes we shall assume that their God does not approve of homosexual marriages. You can call it a civil union or a registered partnership.

I am very, very pro-gay marriage. I am not gay, but I have friends that are gay. Now, there's all these people that say, "Well, gay people aren't born that way. They choose to be gay." That is one of the most ridiculous explanations I've ever heard. Why would people choose to be gay? Why would people choose to be discriminated against?
People do choose to be gay. I have several friends who are either gay but had girlfriends or had been gay but now have girlfriends. Hell, I even have one who pretty much decides he is either heterosexual or homosexual every other month. How 'gay' you are, as far as modern accepted science has determined, depends primarily on your hormones and your environment. It has been proven that those who attend all-boy schools are more likely to be gay than those who go to mixed-gender schools. Do you suppose that is a coincidence and that it is entirely genetic whether or not people are gay?

It is completely ludicrous to even suggest there is a 'gay gene'. The theory of evolution counters this. Gay people choose not to reproduce, therefore the gay gene is not passed on, therefore if there ever was a gay gene, it would never have survived.

As I was saying, when you hit puberty and your hormones start dictating who and who you aren't attracted to, your environment has a huge impact on this. As studies have suggested, during pre-pubescant years, boys and girls will hang out with people of their own gender and harbour little or no sexual feelings whatsoever. As soon as puberty hits, they will feel attracted to those around them. If a boy then goes to an all-male school and has little to no contact with females not from his own family, he will find it more difficult to grow sexually attracted to a gender he has little experience with. Likewise, a boy who goes to a mixed-gender school will have his hormones hit right when he is socialising with girls and he will adjust to sexual attraction a lot easier. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but this is generally the case with all empirical evidence. Therefore, we can rule for the timebeing that based on the evidence available that homosexuality is purely hormonal.

Your argument that because no one would voluntarily choose to be discriminated against, no one would voluntarily choose to be gay is baseless and void. Plenty of people have done things although they knew they'd be discriminated, such as Communists openly declaring their attitudes in Cold War America, or Jews openly declaring their religion in Nazi Germany although they knew that the Nazis would come and kill them. It's a little thing we British like to call 'backbone', and judging from most other people on this planet, you all lack this mysterious substances in tonnes.

And for those who say it is a defect:

Gay people are not incomplete, nor are they inadequate or failures. Homosexuality is not a defect.Fine, it's literally not a defect, but it is still scientifically speaking a flaw - modern science has accepted evolution and since homosexual voluntarily choose not to reproduce, they will not pass on their genes, which is scientifically speaking the main purpose of life - to survive long enough to produce offspring who will carry on your genes.

[Razola]

They are failures at breeding. They have a deficiency at choosing a proper mate.

Yes, they are defects. We all have defects, because we ALL lack something "necessary or desirable for completeion of perfection."
I don't understand why some of you are so hung up on this.

And you are right on the matter of choose, though some celebrities might fake it in a last-ditch effort to get attention. I will say that young people, especially girls, will pretend to be homosexual or bisexual to get more attention. This works better with girls because the lipstick lesbian seems to be more appealing. For whatever reason, gay men just seem to lack the appeal. Male dominated world, I guess.

But, in general, no sane person would choose to forfeit all civil union and adoption rights.

[Razola]

You take away religion, there is no point in marriage I disagree. In modern times, marriage has evolved into two seperate areas. Civil Unions are basically government perks to encourage people to live together. When you live together, there is increased chances of child-rearing. In essence, it's the government's way of handing out reasons to breed.

This works with gay people, because we have plenty of kids in orphanges who could use a good home. So I see no problem with offering the same benefits to homosexuals.

RELIGIOUS ceremonies vary from religion to religion. You can get married in a church and never be recognized as a civil union by Uncle Sam or the King or whomever. These are rooted in culture and tradition, and the government can't force a private organization to change in this way. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't allow gays to barge into churches and demand wedding ceremonies.

[Magmar]

You're right. You can't force churches to wed gays, but as for those drive-in marriage joints, why not? Seriously, is there any good reason that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights? Like, tax benefits, adoption, etc.

[Metallixs Girl]

I just noticed something, people are saying adoption is a "right" but technically, it's not a right for anyone, or else they couldn't turn anyone down and there'd be no reason for the social service people to come check on the kids because it would be a right to have an orphan no matter what their life would be like... just something to chew on...

[Razola]

You're right. You can't force churches to wed gays, but as for those drive-in marriage joints, why not? Seriously, is there any good reason that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights? Like, tax benefits, adoption, etc.
What?

Quickie marriage shacks aren't really religious, they just do a crappy ceremony and have you fill out forms for....CIVIL UNION. And we've all generally agreed that CIVIL UNIONS should be available to people of all sexual orientations. Other forms of people living together forever should be handled by the private parties.

Pay attention!


people are saying adoption is a "right" but technically, it's not a right for anyone, or else they couldn't turn anyone down and there'd be no reason for the social service people to come check on the kids because it would be a right to have an orphan no matter what their life would be likeWhile that adoption really isn't a "right", please keep in mind that rights can be revoked. For example, for have a right to Life and the Pursuit of happiness, but the government can still kill you or throw you in a stinky prison full of burgeoning homosexuals if you don't comply with certain rules.

[Metallixs Girl]

[

What?

Quickie marriage shacks aren't really religious, they just do a crappy ceremony and have you fill out forms for....CIVIL UNION. And we've all generally agreed that CIVIL UNIONS should be available to people of all sexual orientations. Other forms of people living together forever should be handled by the private parties.

Pay attention!
While that adoption really isn't a "right", please keep in mind that rights can be revoked. For example, for have a right to Life and the Pursuit of happiness, but the government can still kill you or throw you in a stinky prison full of burgeoning homosexuals if you don't comply with certain rules.


Understood. But, still, the right to Life and Liberty etc was written into the Constitution, while adoption wasn't...

[Razola]

Liberty and Happiness are pretty vague; adoption could easily fall into those catergories.

[Metallixs Girl]

True, but I'm just curious, would that make driving a right? How do you know the difference between right and privilage?

Technically, by that logic everything is a right, and groups can fight to get whatever rights they want recognised, like I hear pedophiles in holland or somewhere are doing...

And no don't worry, I'm not associating gays with pedos, this little post was about right vs privalige and the line in the constitution...

[Razola]

There is a clause in the Constitution that says the states deal with all rights not included in the document.

A privlege has to be earned. You don't have a right to be CEO of a company. You can, however, work hard and rise up to that position.

Rights generally are given and are revoked if you don't follow the rules. People can claim they have rights all the time. That doesn't mean they'll get them.

[Metallixs Girl]

There is a clause in the Constitution that says the states deal with all rights not included in the document.

A privlege has to be earned. You don't have a right to be CEO of a company. You can, however, work hard and rise up to that position.

Rights generally are given and are revoked if you don't follow the rules. People can claim they have rights all the time. That doesn't mean they'll get them.


Oh okay then, that sounds right...^_^ You can earn your license, but you can't really earn an orphan, I don't think, all right.

[Everoy]

It is completely ludicrous to even suggest there is a 'gay gene'. The theory of evolution counters this. Gay people choose not to reproduce, therefore the gay gene is not passed on, therefore if there ever was a gay gene, it would never have survived.


Don't put words in my mouth, k thnx.

[Razola]

Oh okay then, that sounds right...^_^ You can earn your license, but you can't really earn an orphan, I don't think, all right.
Right is kinda vague. A person could say they have a right to earn a license or a right to apply for adoption. It's not incredibly important, though. People will say they have rights all the time; doesn't mean they will actually get them.

[Heald]

Kevvaelli : Your exact quote was

I am very, very pro-gay marriage. I am not gay, but I have friends that are gay. Now, there's all these people that say, "Well, gay people aren't born that way. They choose to be gay." That is one of the most ridiculous explanations I've ever heard. Why would people choose to be gay? Why would people choose to be discriminated against?
It can mainly be inferred from this that you think that people are born gay rather than choose to be gay at a later stage of life. The only way someone can be 'born' something i.e. to be born blonde-haired, blind, or gay is to have it genetically chosen for you. If you have blonde hair, this is because your genes dictated that you would be. If you were born blind, this is a result of having a genetic defect or mutation. Therefore, to be born gay, as in no matter what you can do, when you hit puberty you will start having homosexual feelings, then that would imply that there was a gay gene. Therefore, you were suggesting that there was a gay gene, albeit amiguously and apparently subconsciously.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to have the message of your posts mistaken for something else then don't be so ambiguous k thnx

[Everoy]

I should just stop posting here if I'm going to be offended so easily T.T

[Lady Vulpix]

That's up to you, but I would recommend ignoring Heald's posts. He tends to be aggressive, but that's his problem, not yours.

[Razola]

I should just stop posting here if I'm going to be offended so easily T.T
We need more people thinking like this. Because the internet is full of tough hombres.

Not really, we just have too many sensitive types coming in.

[Magmar]

Just so you know, I found boys attractive at a VERRRY early age... I mean, way before puberty. The attraction started out with small, simple things, like I would just notice certain physical features and be in complete awe of it... I won't get into any real in-depth explanation, but I was definitely gay since I was a toddler. And no, I wasn't exposed to homosexuality at ALL as a kid, that I know of.

[Razola]

Just so you know, I found boys attractive at a VERRRY early age... I mean, way before puberty. The attraction started out with small, simple things, like I would just notice certain physical features and be in complete awe of it... I won't get into any real in-depth explanation, but I was definitely gay since I was a toddler. And no, I wasn't exposed to homosexuality at ALL as a kid, that I know of.
Attractive does not mean sexually attractive. That will not kick in until puberty.

[SilverPersian]

Kevvaelli : Your exact quote wasIt can mainly be inferred from this that you think that people are born gay rather than choose to be gay at a later stage of life. The only way someone can be 'born' something i.e. to be born blonde-haired, blind, or gay is to have it genetically chosen for you. If you have blonde hair, this is because your genes dictated that you would be. If you were born blind, this is a result of having a genetic defect or mutation. Therefore, to be born gay, as in no matter what you can do, when you hit puberty you will start having homosexual feelings, then that would imply that there was a gay gene. Therefore, you were suggesting that there was a gay gene, albeit amiguously and apparently subconsciously.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to have the message of your posts mistaken for something else then don't be so ambiguous k thnx

I agree with you that there is no 'gay gene' (although I could be wrong), but by the same token, I think that the way we are socialised into sexuality does not constitute a choice. I didn't sit down one day and 'choose' to be attracted to men, and Im sure that you didn't sit down and 'choose' to be heterosexual. Our sexual orientation is not natural, but it also is not chosen.

[Heald]

That's up to you, but I would recommend ignoring Heald's posts. He tends to be aggressive, but that's his problem, not yours.
Don't mistake aggressiveness for tenacity. I called his post ambiguous; that is critical at worst and advisory at best. It's not like I said he was a cockfag and his opinion blew donkey balls, which would be aggressiveness. The fact is, if you do ignore my posts, you are more likely to incur my tenacity.


We need more people thinking like this. Because the internet is full of tough hombres.

Not really, we just have too many sensitive types coming in.
Precisely. The most popular sites - SomethingAwful, Newgrounds, Fark, YTMND etc feed off people getting offended on the Internet.


I agree with you that there is no 'gay gene' (although I could be wrong), but by the same token, I think that the way we are socialised into sexuality does not constitute a choice. I didn't sit down one day and 'choose' to be attracted to men, and I'm sure that you didn't sit down and 'choose' to be heterosexual. Our sexual orientation is not natural, but it also is not chosen.
It's sort of both. The most widely accepted theory is that when you hit puberty, your hormones will decide your sexual preferences - it has been suggested that those who have higher hormone levels are more likely to turn out gay as they hang around men a lot more and will succumb to their hormones. However, it is a question of acceptance - mind over matter if you will. You could choose to succumb to your hormones or not. Most people do, but that's their problem. I do in fact have a friend who was heterosexual for most of his puberty and did in fact have girlfriends, but later made the executive decision to turn homosexual. Obviously one day he decided he no longer found females sexually attractive and instead was attracted to men.

[Magmar]

Attractive does not mean sexually attractive. That will not kick in until puberty.


It's hard to explain but it was definitely an attraction to them specifically for being men. If you really want to know more about it PM me.

[Razola]

I think I'll pass.

[RedStarWarrior]

Some evidence has shown that homosexuality is, at least in part, hereditary with certain parts of the brain developing differently in homosexuals than heterosexuals, homosexual males having similar brain structure to heterosexual females and vice versa. As ludicrous as that sounds, it could easily be a recessive gene, allowing for it to be passed along via heterosexuals.

[.hacker]

Calling straight people "babymakers"? Yup, that works well. They continue to help continue the human population. Do gays continue the human population? No. If everyone was gay, wouldn't the human race end? :(

[Magmar]

It should go:



Calling straight people "babymakers"? Yup, that works well. They continue to help continue the human population. Do gays continue the human population? No. If everyone was gay, wouldn't the human race end? :) :D :birthday: