Daremo's Den - Gay Marriage....

Daremo

1st June 2005, 10:26

However no one is advocating that we all turn gay. Also to refute part of your statement there are a number of men who put 'men bits' into women's 'poo-pipes' and a number of women who enjoy it. Sexual practices and the sexual 'norm' varies considerably from straight missionary position.

The question is one of legalities. These are human beings who have been granted the right in our society to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The Supreme Court of the U.S. has also indicated that there can be no expression of hate nor, in fact, any discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, political affiliation or sexual orientation.

The question is simple....Are Gays an equally protected segment of our society? Do they have the right of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Do they fall under the applicable laws?

If this is true then why can't they marry the person of their choice? Why can't they be free to enjoy the same advantages as a heterosexual couple?

This does not mean that you have to personally approve of their lifestyle. You would have to acknowledge that they are of equal citizenship with yourself and entitled to the same rights and benefits as yourself. You would do so if you were unaware of their sexual orientation and assumed that they were heterosexual, why not when you know the truth?

No one is forcing you personally into a gay relationship, but just to allow others to have their relationships under the law. There is no force or coercion here, these are consenting adults as you profess to be. They let you have a heterosexual relationship, why do you discriminate against them?

I'm was a US Marine, I have 3 children and am about as heterosexual as you can get. However I recognize that all laws must apply equally to all persons or the law is a sham.

Rikku

1st June 2005, 11:01

OK you win, I personally know alot of gays bi's lesbians...and some of them are actually nice people and all, so I guess they shouldn't really be treated any different...ya know in one of my favorite animes theres a similar issue but thats about people marrying computers...I'm drifting off the subject now a little

Kitz E Kat

1st June 2005, 13:36

Don't bother me none.
While it may seem strange for a bloke to wan't to marry a bloke , and kinda just shows how mad the world has gone , what's the harm ?

But really it's not just wanting to get married for the sake of getting married, i think it has to do with certain rights.

There is a case here right now in the courts , about a lesbien couple, they are a middle aged couple they got married in Canada and wan't the marriage to be recognised in Ireland ( which it ain't).

The real problem is , if one dies she can't leave her estate to her partner in the same way a man could or woman in a "normall" situation.

Her partner is , in law, treated as a complete stranger , that's hardly right and fair.
Also they are taxed as two single people and not as a couple , a couple would pay less tax as two individuals.
However they are treated as a couple by the welfare authorities , they say , hey, we can't give ya money cos your "partner" is working !

Let them marry , and get on with life.

Pneumonic

1st June 2005, 15:10

If one is not going to discriminate based on race why do colleges and business' have to maintain a quota of minorities? Isn't that just racism with benefits?

To the point, though, I could give two shits whether or not someone is gay. I've grown up around 2 lesbians whom I love very much and they have been wonderful Aunts to me my whole life. However, I don't think they should be married. I believe the word marriage should be completely removed from the government period and put in place of it the word partnership. Now the Church can use the word marriage in it's original form and everyone is now happy. Everyone has the same rights and now Judeo-Christian beliefs are left unharmed.

The problem I have with the gay community and all those who scream about equality, is that they don't want equality. They want to be special. No if ands or buts about it. If you go to your damn job every day and do a good job, who the fuck cares what you do in the bedroom? I don't care if you're gay, so shut the hell up about it. I'm not holding a parade because I'm straight! Your sexual preference, just like the color of your skin, should not determine who you are, what you can accomplish, or if you get a home loan. Get over it.

Daremo

1st June 2005, 17:43

The need for quotas and 'reverse discrimination' was a result of the late '60's and in response to the civil rights movement in the U.S.. It is generally regarded as mostly unneeded today in most places.

What ever word you use to make nit-pickers happy is immaterial. The fact is that a gay should be able to enjoy the same legal and financial benefits as a hetero. No one should be penalized legally for choosing a life-partner that is not the 'cultural norm'.

Now some benighted twit is sure to say, "well what if he wants to marry an animal?". Animals cannot enter into a binding contract, which, in essence, is exactly what a marriage is - a contract. Maybe someday when we breed horses and dogs smarter and with a demonstrable sentience and ability to communicate undeniably to where their existance as an explicit sentience is unquestionable -- then you and your 4 legged friend can share special moments together -- but not right now.

Of course 160 years ago non-whites in America were considered animals and property. There were even laws in some states that had death penalties for inter-racial marriage, especially for the non-white half of the marriage. We've overcome that and now Ted Dansen and Whoopi Goldberg are free to marry and divorce like the rest of us. It's that evil, carpet-munching Ellen DeGenerate that we have to stop.

duder

1st June 2005, 18:14

hmm... this is quite the 'touchy' subject. as much as i was let down by bruce willis' role in "The Jackal" (if you've seen it, i hope you know what i'm refering to) i don't really have any problems with gays getting married. besides how gays get "pleasure" and their superior knowledge of interior decorating and fashion, they're no different from all the rest of us.

for fear of possibly taking this thread off of topic, i'll start a new one on what i think the real debate oughta be about.

peace,

duder

l0gic

1st June 2005, 20:22

Here's the thing... At first it was deemed "acceptable" to have an openly gay lifestyle, now we're close to (already there in some states) legally accepting homosexual marriage. Is the next phase normalizing homosexual adoption? It seems like the next logical step, one which I certainly hope doesn't happen.

The question is, will people accept it to save face? The kids aren't likely to have any say in it, so is society willing to have presumably straight children raised by a homosexual couple? I wouldn't want to put a child through that, which is the main reason I'm against it. I don't feel gay couples should be allowed to raise children, which is much more likely if a marriage has been solidified.

Daremo

1st June 2005, 20:53

Then, may I ask, what is your position if a bi-girl / lesbian, in a lesbian relationship/marriage has a child? Do you then advocate that we take the child from the mother? What if the father is a Bi-guy/gay? Does he then lose his parental rights?

Is that situation materially different from divorced heterosexual parents? Do you feel the parents are exposing the children to <gasp> sex? They might actually be perfectly moral people who just happen to have an orientation for the same sex. This doesn't mean that they are going to expose the child to danger, just that the child has 2 mommies or 2 daddies.

If a child lives with love, he learns love. The worst a child could learn in that case (IMHO) is that the persons who raise him love him. He might learn tolerance for things different than the cultural norm.

Would it make him gay? I don't think so. I think sexual identity is more than environment. He might more easily accept others being gay or, if he is gay more easily accept his identity.

Is a child more at risk with moral gay parents or 'swinging' heterosexual parents. Where do you morally draw the line? Is it gay that makes you uncomfortable or is it sex?

Remeber that sexual orientation is a cultural phenomena as well as an inherent sexual identity. Almost all children will experiment with sex with partners of both sexes if the opportunity and cultural bias exists.

For example the great civilizations that gave birth to our own accepted gay, bi and hetero behavior. Rome, Greece, Macedonia, Persia all openly accepted, as normal, sexual diversity. Not one of these nations fell because of sex. They generally fell because of poor government and strong enemies. The sexual climate at their height was basically the same as at their fall. That is all except Rome and Greece. Christianity was catching on and heterosexuality was rising when those two civilizations fell. If anything Christianity contributed to their fall.

I don't see as the human race has suffered because children were raised there by bi and gay parents. Those civilizations produced some of history's greatest thinkers, writers, philosophers, mathmaticians and warriors. Not bad for a bunch of blazing fags like Alexander the Great, Socrates and Aristotle.

Pneumonic

1st June 2005, 21:04

Blazing fags indeed they were. LoL. My two Aunts are raising a child. His name is Jacob and is the cutest thing ever. He has some learning disabilities, but they take great care of him. My one Aunt was artificially inseminated so they could have this child. When I first heard about it, I was really against it. But I don't believe there is anything wrong with what they have now, after seeing it. The gay parents thing is still kind of iffy with me, just because I don't know how the other kids would react to a kid having two dads or two moms. That would be my only concern.

I spoke with my father about this earlier tonight and he put it to me like this. Take a nationwide vote. Give the gay activists 3 years to stump on it and in '08, let the people decide. That's the real beauty of this country. Not free speech, but the freedom to govern ourselves. Let the people decide. If it's a no-go, then guess what, it's over. And if it's a go, then it's a go. If it's 50/50, then it stays as is. But they need to stop wasting our money lobbying and suiing and all the other taxpayer paid bullshit that keeps wasting our money.

I don't think I could have said it better myself.

SyntaxHeir

2nd June 2005, 08:37

My opinion on most things is "You do your thing and I'll do mine". In so long as your actions don't interfere with me or anyone else, I'm okay with it. You're free to pursue happiness in any way you see fit until said pursuit impedes somebody else's.

So go ahead and be gay, whatever, get married fine by be, will you now please shut the fuck up about it? I agree with Pneumonic I dont think they want equallity at all, I think they want privilege.

I'll stay out of Hollywood and San Francisco as long as they agree to stay out of my yard. Soon as someome starts bringing that stuff onto my porch I'll be sure to ruin the rest of their day.

relik

2nd June 2005, 11:37

On the religious aspect, which Daremo already covered is completely wrong. I'm a strong Christian and putting all views aside from religion, its not what "nature" intended. I see the arguments from both sides, and I can understand the concept in todays culture of acceptance. I do think a lot of homosexuality is brought from being raised poorly, molestation, or several other contributing factors that may cause this. I think homosexuality should be treated as a disorder such as alcoholism or drug abuse. These are both perversions of the sort and have treatments for them. With supression and proper treatment I think its fixable. I think its wrong to steer in the direction of acceptance due to the fact it is against religion.

I do see both points though, its just I can't break away from what is intended and what it has become...

ReL

SyntaxHeir

2nd June 2005, 14:03

Against who's religion? Yours? What happens if someone disagrees with your religion? Are you suggesting we enforce laws on all citizens based on Christian principles? Sounds an awful lot like religious persecution.

I think homosexuality should be treated as a disorder such as alcoholism or drug abuse.

Let's explore this shall we? Alchoholism and drug abuse are not pre-existing behaviors. With the exception of crack babies, people are not born druggies. So they are indeed disorders which can be corrected with proper treatment. So what indicators do we have that people "develop" homosexuality? When is the earliest that children will display homosexual tendencies? Using the example of drugs again, even kids in good homes, who go to good schools sometimes end up rebelling and getting into drugs.
Is it all cultural influence or is any of it genetic? The whole nature versus nurture debate. I dunno where I stand on this topic. I think it may be both. I believe that some people have their wires crossed and "turn" gay due to the abuse mentioned above. I also think it may be possible that some people just "choose" to be gay. It may also be possible that some sort of genentic birth defect scrambled their chromosomes and they turned out different.

The trick would be discovering some sort of chemical or biological "key" or "pattern" associated with gays. For instance true schizophrentics [sp?] have different brain patterns than "normal" people. Prisoners have often tried to feign certain mental illnesses in hopes for an insanity plea but doctors can spot a faked illness.

So if doctors could spot a unique identifier in those who claim to be "born gay" then all those who become that way due to abuse have, as you say, a valid disorder and at that point should it be treated? Can you force treatment on a person who is of sound mind and body? Cancer patients can refuse chemo. Where does that leave all the people who choose to be gay? Are they just poser queers? Now that's actually kinda funny. Maybe there can be "gay school" where they teach you how to prance and decorate and match your belt to your shoes or some such thing.

You chose to use the word suppression in addition to treatment. I'm going to assume you meant something else. You don't really believe suppression of anything makes it go away do you? It's not like we're putting out a fire here. Anything that's ever been under "prohibition" has done nothing but flourish. We can look to

Alchohol Prohibition [failed miserably, now legal]
Gambling Prohibition [failed miserably, now legal in many areas]
Drug Prohibition [guess what'll happen as soon as the Feds find it profitable]
Gay Prohibition? You'll never stop them with suppression.

I'm all for Christianity, really. I was raised baptist. But what makes you feel like you can force your ethics onto other people, particularly when their actions don't affect you or yours in any way? It may be "offensive" to you but the Constitution doesn't provide you the proctection "not to be offended" in fact in many ways it protects people rights to non-violently offend you. [Freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom of religion, this includes satanist, voodoo cultists and dirt worshipers.]

As I said before as soon as gays start impeding the pursuit of happiness of others with their "gayness" then I'll be right up front with you leading the charge. Until then, I'll quote our friend GMW.

"No victim, no crime"

Pneumonic

2nd June 2005, 17:45

I'm curious why anyone would think it's a genetics thing. That's kinda funny. A gay gene. He's got a lisp and all. And why do they all have that damn lisp? That makes me think there is a gay gene, because they all just can't sound the same you know.

So would we treat this as a genetic defect, kinda like a hermaphrodite? Pretty soon we'd be able to test to see if our kids would be gay then! Imagine that. Hold on. Seriously imagine it:

A devout Christian couple gets it on missionary style (Alllllright...LoL) and they find out they're going to have a gay child (taking the stance that it's genetic). Do they have the child and allow the child to be gay? Or do they abort the child (which is another thread starter) in the name of what is holy and good?

Hmmmm...It's fun to be funny because things just pop into your mind. I would like to say that I am a non-practicing Catholic (I am getting better), so I don't want anyone to take offense to the way I phrase things.

Daremo

2nd June 2005, 21:05

I like this....There are some really good points coming out to make us all think and examine each other's viewpoints.

I just have three comments one for and one against relik's comments and then one of my very own...

1) Pro-ReLiK....It certainly is against the perception of evolution (another science vs. religion thread there). After all with only one sex there's no reproduction. It would seem that, from that standpoint, homosexuality is a self-correcting issue. Now many religious persons may say that homosexuals 'recruit'. Well so does the military (OOOOO another thread). Heterosexuals also recruit. Ever been to a church's singles' get together? How about any nice club?

2) Anti-ReLiK....It really isn't against nature. There are hundreds of hours of tapes by animal researchers which show 'homosexual' activity by various species of animals, especially primates. I guess you can't get more natural than animals, after all since they have no real language it's hard to 'recuit' another gay chimpanzee.

As a comment not related to any others....Waht if being gay isn't a disease? What if it is caused by hormonal imbalances in the womb or genetic pre-disposition of some type? Then it really can't be 'treated'. I know that with gays being suppressed in the past 50 years or so in western nations there are some miserable people. Think about it. Being forced to live a lie. Never being able to have an open, long-term, loving relationship with another person. Being forced to marry a person of a sex you don't really feel an attraction to. Now we have two miserable people and with divorce being a stigma in the past they have to stay miserable together. Look at Rock Hudson. Gay as they come and forced to pretend otherwise for an adoring female fan base.

My point here is that it wasn't too long ago that gays were strongly suppressed and even discriminated against. I think that there has always been about the same percentage of gays -- we just didn't see them because they were in exile from public view. I could post a lengthy list of famous gays from all walks of life, some that even an anti-gay bigot would admire as a person. We even saw them in the movies as openly gay characters, we just didn't recognize them as such. For example Marlene Dietrich in ANY of her movies. How about Peter Lorrie in the movie the Maltese Falcon. He played a character called Joel Cairo. He sent Bogart his card and it reeked of gardenias. The character was obviously, steriotypically gay. But he made it past the censors. Partially because being gay was so foreign, the morally upright censors never saw him as anything but a funny little wimpy man.

SyntaxHeir

3rd June 2005, 08:23

If we broaden the definition of diease to mean anything that causes a DISease then maybe it is. After all a hormonal imbalance causes menopause and if that ain't a whole lot like have a disease I don't know what is.

But like any imbalance or shift from the accepted norm people will seek to "treat" it and bring it back in line with the others.

What if an abused child grows up to be angry or violent instead of gay? Is that a disease that needs to be treated? Well if the "stress management" and "sensitivity training" that is so bloody prevalent is in any indicator, it seems people will try to "treat" any behavior that conflicts with their opinion.

Another thread topic: ADD, ODD, ADHD, SAD, Social Anxiety Disorder and all the other "diseases" of our day.

I say we define a disease as such,

You can't negogiate with a disease.

People can't be "talked out of" cancer or diabetes. If a sudden change in thinking alliviates the symptoms then I say it's not really a disease at all but a behavioral trait. That's gonna piss off a whole lot of recovering alcholoics who think, probably rightly, that their issue is a "disease" but hey, I could be wrong.

relik

5th June 2005, 21:14

I apologize if I came off strong about religion. I didn't mean for it to get that way.

To say something on Darmemo's post, I highly doubt that there was as many homosexuals in the 70's then there are today. The reasoning behind this, you had mentioned.

It is more widely accepted, therefor more people are gaining exposure and awareness of this instead of supression and discrimination.

There are medical studies that have supported the "THEORY" of a possible "gay" gene.

This is only a theory, which means it is unproven and cannot be considered a law.

I honestly think homosexuality is a choice. Someone from a perfectly good bringing and a perfectly good house who has always been a perfectly good student and a perfectly good person has always been perfect.

Why do people dye their hair pink and orange and get 300 tattoos etc. etc. It could be a possible lifestyle change. Or it could be from bad upbringing. I have read reports on the nicest, perfect family, where behind the closed doors their sons were getting molested everyday.

How can you tell if a child is gay? Well, I can give you this example. At an elementary school, there is a kid, who talks with a lisp, wears makeup, and when he wakes up from a dreamn he is fondling his own brother. This is not a hearsay story or a made up story, its 100 percent genuine.

I think thats sure signs of a problem right there wouldn't you say? Why would a kid do this? Because hes being molested possibly?

Again these are my own opinions and views based upon research and my own personal beliefs. I am known to be wrong (quite often), but until science can find that "gay gene", I'm sticking to what the majority of homosexual lifestyles have been.

ReL

SyntaxHeir

6th June 2005, 07:53

Responding to the child Rel mentioned.

I certainly think that kid has some issues that need to be addressed. I don't know if he's a gay kid but left to his own devices I can easily see how he could get saddled with that label and eventually "accept" it.

I think that child's behavior is peculiar and is indicative of trouble, I do not necessarily believe it to be homosexual tendencies. I think it is society's willingness to pre-judge things like this, which would "lead him down that road" so to speak.

It's like if you were to tell a disabled child "You're stupid" or "You're not good enough", the problems the child has are not being stupid or good enough but if that's all he hears he'll come to believe it.

Daremo

6th June 2005, 08:27

I apologize if I came off strong about religion. I didn't mean for it to get that way.No need to apologize, your opinion is your own and no better or worse than anyone else's. This is free speech.

I honestly think homosexuality is a choice. Someone from a perfectly good bringing and a perfectly good house who has always been a perfectly good student and a perfectly good person has always been perfect.

Why do people dye their hair pink and orange and get 300 tattoos etc. etc. It could be a possible lifestyle change. Or it could be from bad upbringing. Why is it 'bad to have pink hair and tatoos? What does that have to do with a person's morals or sexual identity? For example, Groucho Marx was tatooed over every inch of his body except the head and hands. The picture shows him wearing briefs and shoes, so I can't speak about genitals or feet. I would consider Groucho to be a reasonable man. He raised a daughter who is, by your standards, normal (non-pink hair). Before hearing this, would you consider Groucho 'bad'? Do you now consider him 'bad'?

Inquiring minds want to know

Kitz E Kat

6th June 2005, 13:36

Quote: I honestly think homosexuality is a choice.....

I would have to disagree with that , why would anyone want to "be" gay ?
They get shunned , beaten up , descriminated against , are in greater risk of catchin AIDS , and are on the margin's of society.....

Who would want that, not me !

As for pink hair and tatoo's , may look a bit mad , but i can't see how that would affect someone's moral's etc.

Rikku

6th June 2005, 14:40

I actually like the sound of pink hair and tattoos, maybe only on a young lady though =p

SyntaxHeir

7th June 2005, 07:19

Nuthin wrong with punk rock girls. :D I'd agree Rikku.

Rikku

8th June 2005, 14:00

well it looks like the poll came out with a definative result...bastard gays...

Kitz E Kat

8th June 2005, 15:52

Opps! , double post , damm keyboard shortcut's :-)

Kitz E Kat

8th June 2005, 16:03

Well if you can't beat them ........ :-)
Of course not in the biblical sense of the word !!!!

Statistics have shown that one in ten married people are gay !!

When is the last time you heard of a gay peodophile? ( me , never).

A gay man will never try get it on with your wife !

Ever got the shit knocked out of you by a *gay* ?

Ever been in anyway fucked up ( pardon the pun ! ) by a gay person?

I ain't gay , don't know any gay people personally , ain't been messed around by any gay person, don't really have a problem with gay people.

In my book you can do what the fuck you wan't to, as long as it don't affect me or any unwilling person , then do what the fuck you wan't to, what's the problem ?

It is a free world , ain't it ............

See, while your focusing your attention on a branch of society, gay's, a bunch of people that never posed no threat , or caused you no harm, you ignore the real threat to you and your family......... the government ....

It's a pretty neat, but old idea "divide and rule".........

Daremo

10th June 2005, 14:27

Actually, Kitz....It ain't a free world, far from it. Most of the population of this world lives in hunger, fear or poverty. If it was a free world gays could marry and this whole forum would not only be unnecessary but unimaginable. Free speech would be taken for granted and it's lack would seem absurd.

SyntaxHeir

13th June 2005, 07:39

Free speech would be taken for granted and it's lack would seem absurd.

So if we extend this idea to the gays and we let them do as they please [rightly so in my opinion], will they stop with the parades and STFU already?

Daremo

13th June 2005, 07:48

Hollywood just had its annual 'Gay Pride' parade. It's pretty amusing, the costumes are the best part. Although I must admit that the one in San Francisco is MUCH better.

Oddly enough, if the Nazis held a 'White Pride' parade, we'd call it a Rally and there would be significant hell to pay.

Hmmmm How about a Gay Nazi Parade or a Nazis are Gay Parade?

Rikku

13th June 2005, 09:49

I like the sound of a nazi parade! That'd kick ass!

SyntaxHeir

13th June 2005, 11:58

If you chang it from a Nazi parade to a Skinhead parade you could actually make quite a statement.

A lot of people automatically, and incorrectly, associate all skinheads with being racist nazi pigs. In comparision a lot people, also incorrectly, associate all gays with prancing, limp wristed faries.

Fight stereotypes with strereotypes perhaps?

Rikku

13th June 2005, 12:03

Im not bald...quite far from it, I have a large spikey bright red mass =p yet I'm still pretty rascist, well to a degree, maybe I'll be a Nazi perfectionist, blonde hair blue eyes please =p hahaha Well I am the forum villian after all ;)

MrsMo

14th June 2005, 01:06

I keep wondering about the argument given by the anti-gay marriage politicians that gay marriage harms "family values." I want to know how having Ace and Gary becoming Mr. and Mr. Gay Couple harms anyone else? How does that threaten my family or the values I teach my children? Doesn't having a couple living next door who are happy, loving and respectful of each other provide a great example, regardless of that couple's sex? How about having the town (straight) drunks living next door, screaming at each other and their kids? I would think that would be much more harmful for a child to witness - not to mention being actually involved in. I grew up next to the town drunks. Believe me, there were LOTS of things my parents wished I had never seen or heard. The first time I heard the word "fuck" it was screached from their front porch. However, my parents set a good example that allowed me to put the neighbor's behavior in perspective, even as young as I was. To me, THAT'S family values and if parents set a proper example, the neighbor's high-jinks aren't going to overly influence the children. People need to take their noses out of their neighbor's bedrooms and pay attention to their own behavior, because that's what's really going to teach your children.

Kitz E Kat

14th June 2005, 11:01

I always worry about people that use "Family values" as an argument.
I think they feel threatened by the concept of "gay" marriage, and that's cos they are insecure in themselves.
How the family is goin to collapse as a result of a few gay wedding's i really don't know.

Rikku

14th June 2005, 12:34

I'm just confused, let them do the hell they want, sick fucks! Aslong as it has nothing to do with me I couldnt give a crap! I'll just sit around minding my own buisness, besides I'm far too young to worry about family values!

SyntaxHeir

15th June 2005, 07:45

"Family Values"

That term is just a little too vague. Who's family? Who's values? Some families don't let their children celebrate holidays. So then are we going to outlaw the fourth of July or trick or treating because it undermines people's "family values"?

Other families don't belive in any one God or in God at all? So should the Catholic church down the street be forced to stop ringing the bells after mass because of somebody else's family values?

My family doesn't think it's such a great a idea to be gay but I don't think seeing gay people living together in my neighborhood is going to affect me or my own.

Sounds like a bullshit excuse to oppress people and to what end? Usually you can trace it back to taxes, or more generally, money. I can't see who stands to gain from disallowing gay marriages.

I despise people who tell others to change their behavior when said behaivor isn't harming or interfering with anyone. What the fuck ever happened to "Home of the free"? If they're not buggin' you then leave people alone for the love of Pete.

ph0t0k

24th June 2005, 12:13

The problem, I think, lies in mixing belief systems with the law. Those who state gay mariage and homosexuality in general to be wrong are expressing a belief. It comes down to the fact there is absolutely no legal reason whatsoever to prevent gay mariage.

What I fear are the reprisals against religious institutions for refusing to perform gay marriages. Incidentally, I'm an athiest. The hypocrisy of the gay pride movement will land the Catholic church in court to defending their constitutionaly protected religious beliefs. If you're gay and want to get married, by all means do so, but don't cry foul when those who's faith system systemically opposes homosexual unions refuse service.

When gay marriage is officially declared legal, they have to be careful in how they write the law ensuring the protection of everyone's rights, including those who don't agree with it.

relik

24th June 2005, 13:43

Very well spoken photon, I couldn't agree more.

ReL

Daremo

24th June 2005, 13:50

Since religious organizations (churchs) are really private clubs whose rites and traditions are protected by law, they can legally refuse to marry anyone who doesn't fulfill their 'requirements'.. However the state would be obligated to perform a civil service. When Nevada allows gay marriage the business in Las Vegas will be brisk because they allow same-day marriages. All you have to do is stop by the state offices, stand in a long line, fill out a form, show ID and get a marriage license. Then just pop on by one of the many wedding chapels in town for a 15 minute "you may kiss the bride" wedding.

relik

24th June 2005, 14:04

I just want to make sure a priest isn't forced to marry someone that is under their religion unholy. Thats the only thing I would care about...

And... THREE BUBBBLES!! Muahaha....

ph0t0k

29th June 2005, 12:06

Canada just became the third nation in the world to recognize gays' rights to marry.:041:

Now our idealic Premier (the same as a Governor of a state) has decided to try and abolish civil marriage from Alberta's provincial law by requiring all marriages be perform by a religious authority.

I have half a mind to go down to the Legislature Building with my bat and tattoo his forhead with "Louisville".

Time to move to Quebec.

relik

29th June 2005, 12:45

Would the religious authority have the right to refuse? I mean, you can't force someone to marry someone if it goes against your beliefs.

I mean, if they can find priests who will marry a gay couple, go for it, I may not agree with it but its not my choice.

That sucks by the way, sorry to hear that.

ReL

Kitz E Kat

29th June 2005, 14:06

Now our idealic Premier (the same as a Governor of a state) has decided to try and abolish civil marriage from Alberta's provincial law by requiring all marriages be perform by a religious authority.

He can't do that can he ?

What about people that don't want a religious marriage?

Dude is mad :-)

ph0t0k

30th June 2005, 08:16

He can't do that can he ?

What about people that don't want a religious marriage?

Dude is mad :-)

Our government can pretty much do whatever it pleases, they've even intsituted methods to which laws that are passed cannot be challenge in the courts (they call it a Notwithstanding Clause). We have no official impeachment process, but still have some method of checks and ballances in the form of government appointed bureaucrats that are supposed to be the watchdogs for the Canadian people (did you detect the sarcasm?)

It would never really fly Kitz, he's just shooting off at the mouth and making an ass of himself in the process....something's he's quite proficient at. I just read that our provincial government is taking a more reasonable approach by challenging the new federal ruling in court to see if it overrules existing provincial law. Marriage falls under provincial jurisdiction, but will certainly be trumped by federal civil rights. Plus there's precident from successful legally challenges made against provincial law regarding gay marriage in ten provinces, although Alberta wasn't one of them. The premier is just barking, but at least he's representing his constituents....most Albertans are opposed to gay marriage, at least according to the polls.

=BB=

10th July 2005, 12:28

As a father, grandfather and teacher I have learned a lot watching kids grow up . . Toronto is a truly international city with a lot of love and respect for differences. I am proud of Toronto's 25-year history of accepting Gay Pride (two huge parades ) as an expression of this city's big heart.

Separation of church and state is also an important principle to uphold - no church is forced to perform any ceremony it does not wish to perform - I was married to my wife 30 years ago at the Old City Hall -
marriage can be religious or non-religious. I see marriage as a contract between two people to share their lives together - and of course who you love and want to spend your life with is strictly your right to choose.

I support the right of all individuals to choose their mates, and to have their union made legal and official as a "marriage" - if they so choose.

The Ontario Superior Court ruled that Canada's legal definition of marriage—"the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman"—is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and violates homosexuals' human rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them," wrote Justice Harry LaForme. "The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This in turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage. … I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry. I cannot conclude that freedom of religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage."

The new definition of marriage, at least in Ontario, is now "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/123/32.0.html

secular humanist cheers!

Rikku

10th July 2005, 12:44

I really can't belive they changed that definition...that's just sad! And gay parades! Theres one for the terrorists!

=BB=

10th July 2005, 12:48

I really can't belive they changed that definition...that's just sad! And gay parades! Theres one for the terrorists!

Try this on for size:

Coretta Scott King: Homophobia Same as Racism

Make Room At The Table for Lesbian and Gay People

Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination, said Tuesday the civil rights leader's memory demanded a strong stand for gay and lesbian rights.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.

Makes good sense to me! Equal citizenship cheers:)!

Rikku

10th July 2005, 14:11

meh Martin Luther was a faggot

=BB=

10th July 2005, 14:23

meh Martin Luther was a faggot

Not worthy of any response.

Moderator please remove this abusive post, or put it in the "flame" area or general stupidity waste bin. (Is there any way of putting someone on "ignore" here?)

no cheers

Rikku

10th July 2005, 14:27

=BB=

10th July 2005, 15:50

Our government can pretty much do whatever it pleases, they've even intsituted methods to which laws that are passed cannot be challenge in the courts (they call it a Notwithstanding Clause). We have no official impeachment process, but still have some method of checks and ballances in the form of government appointed bureaucrats that are supposed to be the watchdogs for the Canadian people (did you detect the sarcasm?)

It would never really fly Kitz, he's just shooting off at the mouth and making an ass of himself in the process....something's he's quite proficient at. I just read that our provincial government is taking a more reasonable approach by challenging the new federal ruling in court to see if it overrules existing provincial law. Marriage falls under provincial jurisdiction, but will certainly be trumped by federal civil rights. Plus there's precident from successful legally challenges made against provincial law regarding gay marriage in ten provinces, although Alberta wasn't one of them. The premier is just barking, but at least he's representing his constituents....most Albertans are opposed to gay marriage, at least according to the polls.

A Victory for Canadian Values

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

By BETH DUFF-BROWN
(edited and condensed by BB)
ASSOCIATED PRESS

TORONTO

"Stop trying to make it a religious issue, This is a civil rights issue ..."

Canada has an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples, according to government statistics.

"We are a nation of minorities," Prime Minister Martin said. "And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights."

"This is a victory for Canadian values," said Alex Munter, national coordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, a group that has led the debate for the legislation.
Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage.

Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled to perform same-sex ceremonies, with couples taking them to court or human rights tribunals if refused. The legislation, however, states that the bill covers only civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies.

According to most polls, a majority of Canadians support the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved.
Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.
Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C., said same-sex American couples applaud Canadians.

"We know that it has been somewhat contentious in Canada, but at the same time the Canadians have largely approached this issue in a rational and democratic way and are providing a very positive model for the rest of the world," Sklar said.

positive cheers!

Kitz E Kat

10th July 2005, 15:56

Rikku , you are taking the piss here , right ?
All he did , was make himself a legend for what he did.

Build a fuckin bridge , any muppet can do that , move an oppressed population to fight to the death for something , only a great man can do that.

Martin Luther King died for what he believed in , would you?
He knew if he continued at what he was at , he would be killed .

That takes gut's more gut's than i and you have put together,am i brave enough to do something like Martin Luther King did ? no way .

Sure you can get a tattoo of the swastika , that's easy, you can diss anybody you want to , but getting of your arse and actually putting your life on the line for a cause , that takes gut's .

Black , white, gay , straight, male , female , you gotta respect someone that is prepared to go and do something that really does make a change...

And he really did make a change :-)

MrsMo

10th July 2005, 15:58

Chill out, it's my opinion, all he did was make up some crappy speech that any waster could have done! Maybe if he built a big bridge or was the first man in space, but all he did was talk! Not worthy of all the hype in my opinion!

Do you really believe that? Yes, anyone could have possibly made that speech, but nobody else did. MLK may not have been perfect, but he inspired a nation; not only the blacks in America owe him a debt of gratitude. Yes, civil rights would still have happened, but who knows when - I lived through the 60's in Detroit and I believe that without his words the laws passed and the changes in behavior would have been years longer in coming. We are still lagging in accepting the equality of people "not like ourselves," but we've still come a long way and it's in good part thanks to people like Martin Luther King.

Daremo

11th July 2005, 08:20

This is a 'free speech' forum -- as such all can speak their mind, no matter how stupid.

The few remarks made thus far do not warrant this thread being put in the flame area. If it does get out of hand, I will move it.

Due to the nature of this site some, if not all, persons will be offended. Live with it. Learn to deal with others who aren't as polite as you.

Also please remember that every member has the ability to give negative reputation points. This means that if you do not like a post, you can actually take away from someone's reputation. If a person has enoug reputation taken away, he cannot raise in rank and if he already has rank, can lose it. In fact it is possible that if a person has enough reputation removed they can be placed on probation and have almost no privileges and, if the person has low enough negative reputation, can even be banned by the membership here.

So you see -- you guys have the ability to maintain the membership of this site by common decree. All the members here are really mini-admins in that regard.

Therefore, don't just complain -- act! Give or take reputation depending upon your feelings about the statements others make. Try not to take reputation just because you disagree (although you can), try to take reputation based on whether the other member is not meeting community standards (whatever they evolve to be). This is a social experiment.

=BB=

11th July 2005, 11:08

Thanks for the clarification, Daremo. I am impressed by the member contolled points system!

As regards moving the entire thread to the flames area, I had suggested earlier that only one particular post in the thread be moved or removed, because it alone violated rule number one, IMHO:

1) No "Hate" comments. We will not tolerate discrimination of any religion or ethnic group. Hate an individual for who he is, not what he is.

I do believe that "faggot" is a term of biggotry and hatred. Using such an abusive term directed towards a Nobel Prize winning martyr of the American Civil Rights movement goes well beyound mere "hate" and enters the outer reaches of mega hurtful desecration of a great soul, a great cause and a great worldwide hope and inspiration.

May I suggest that the posting rules be slightly enlarged to include no ugly isms . . no racism, no sexism, no ageism and no terms of hateful abuse against any group or person whatsoever? The current no "hate" comments does in fact cover all of this, but not clearly enough, IMHO.

Now fuck off, I've got work to do;)!

Big Cheers to a fine and democratic board!

p.s. there is a difference between expressing a real "opinion" and simply spewing hateful slogans and homophobic graffiti.

Kitz E Kat

11th July 2005, 11:33

Now fuck off, I've got work to doimages/smilies/wink.gif!
Perhaps i should just clarify , that is a Cyrus quote and not an offensive one,just in case anyone is offended, just to clear that up :-)

http://www.trailerparkboys.com/main.html , is where Cyrus lives :-)

May I suggest that the posting rules be slightly enlarged to include no ugly isms . . no racism, no sexism, no ageism and no terms of hateful abuse against any group or person whatsoever? The current no "hate" comments does in fact cover all of this, but not clearly enough, IMHO.

While i do agree with you in that i don't consider myself a racist or sexist, etc. Are we not straying into the world of the politically correct ?

While i disagree with Rikku's comment, is it not better to let someone make their comment and then ask them to justify it ?

Rikku made a statement , but did'nt really back it up, your and Mrs Mo's case were well made and pretty much blew Rikku's comment out of the water, he is either gonna have to rethink his position or come up with an equally valid reason to call MLK a faggot.

Do you see where i am coming from, if i make a statement like "the pope sucks" i had better be able to back that up, or you guy's will just eat me for breakfast.

So i would be of the opinion that you post pretty much what you want to, but you better be able to back it up, cos the dog's are baying for blood !

I think Daremo's social experiment is a good one, and worthy of a trial to see how it works out.

Interesting stuff so far :-)

Daremo

11th July 2005, 13:24

Very interesting...Rikku's status has been bumped down. Due to negative reputation he has lost his last promotion in rank. He will now have to gain positive reputation to be able to get back his lost rank. This loss had to be the result of multiple people giving him negative reputation. Unless the offending person is within just a very few points of the border between ranks, just one negative vote would not affect him.

I guess this social experiment may succeed yet.

Rikku

11th July 2005, 13:25

Yeah so you blew my comment outta the water ok that's true, but it's not gonna make me change my mind :)

And yeah I lost a rank which is very dissapointing true, but you know that's what you get, people didn't agree with me...so what? It's my opinion and I'm pretty much entitled to it I think, if you are offended by it, then that's not my problem, I can't please everyone...and I'm not going to pretend to agree with things people say just to make them happy, I'm just saying what I think.

SyntaxHeir

11th July 2005, 14:18

May I suggest that the posting rules be slightly enlarged to include no ugly isms . .

May I suggest a tissue and a Midol?

I mean really, disallowing hate is one thing but making it against the rules to hurt somebody's "feelings"? What are you a pre-school teacher?

I'd also like to address the ranking system. I hope the Rikku didn't lose rank simply because people disagree with him. I would like to think it's based on being a good/bad forum citizen and not just political bias.

I may not always agree with Rikku but I give him credit for sticking to his guns. If he makes a statement that is openly rejected he doesn't backpedal or try to weasel out of what he posted.

Try not to take reputation just because you disagree (although you can), try to take reputation based on whether the other member is not meeting community standards (whatever they evolve to be).

Kitz E Kat

11th July 2005, 14:21

Well really Rikku , that's my point , you are entitled to say what you like, i and other's may not agree , but you are entitled to your opinion.
I would bet that there are many area's that we would agree on, i think it's cool to explore these things here.

That's why , to an extent i would not like to see the site made to "politically correct" it would prevent you from your point of view, and for you it's a valid one.

To me it ain't , but i think you should have the right to express it, and i should have the right to challenge it.

It would be a pretty boring , and rather futile event if we all had to have the same opinion on things.

Good luck :-)

=BB=

11th July 2005, 14:23

Kitz E Kat

11th July 2005, 14:31

Dunno about Canada , but in Ireland you gotta get a licence to have a dog ! Any fuckin idiot can have a child :-)

To be honest , i would not want to be the child in a gay household, i got the shit knocked out of me for being "speckie" ( i wear glasses) when i was in school.
I would fear goin to school if i was a speckie bastard with the two father's !

Children are the biggest shower of bastards, they will, through insecurity , pick on anyone that is in any way different, and being the son in a household with two father's sure is different..

Otherwise , don't bother me none , they would make as good or better parents as any so called "normal" couple.

SyntaxHeir

11th July 2005, 14:51

Whether a member agrees or disagrees, likes or does not like - is not the problem - that is all good. What needs enforcing is the rule against "hate" - if it ain't enforced, what is the point in having the rule in the first place?

Boards and people worth being around are growing, changing and evolving.
It is not good enough to allow the same sort of crude, pointless hosreshit to go on repeating itself, once it is clear that most folks prefer actual discourse, as opposed to purile name-calling and vapid virulence.

Looks like we have all been pulled off-topic. Gay marriage, right? How about this variation: Should gay/lesbian couples be able to adopt children? I say they should, as long as they are fit and sane . . 'course many heterosexual couples would not qualify, eh? What do you think?

35 degrees Celsius cheers!

Well I can't see any logical reason why gays/lesbians should have any different criteria for adoption. I don't think sexual preference in on the application is it? If they meet all the standard requirments and are denied simply because they're gay wouldn't that be discrimination?

[By the way, why is it necessary to differentiate between gays and lesbians? Doesn't gay just mean homosexual and isn't that a gender neutral term? Is it "incorrect" to call a woman "gay"? Doesn't make any sense to me.]

@Kitz
While I would incline to agree about the kid having a difficult time with two dads, I would hesitate to restrict parenthood to people whose children will never face any difficulty. Would we then not allow disabled people to adopt? What about "mixed couples"? What about introverted computer types? They all could get their fair share of hazing due to being different.

While I might not consider it the "best case scenario" I would certainly consider it favorable to living without parents of any kind. Gay people are capable of love and nurturing like any other.

Oh and you're right. Children are remarkably adept at pointing out people's differences. I wonder what makes them so vicious? I used to work for a day care and I would reguarly be taken aback by the ferocity of their teasing.

Conclusion: Momma says kids are the Devil.

Kitz E Kat

11th July 2005, 14:58

Oh , i agree with you Syntax , i just am saying i would not like to be that kid.

SyntaxHeir

11th July 2005, 15:03

Kitz E Kat

11th July 2005, 15:19

Interesting point Syntax, however i know some people that had alcoholic parent's , they don't drink alcohol.
Children raised by "abusers" do tend to go on and abuse themselves, dunno why?
As for children raised by "gay's" being gay themselves , i dunno either , but doubt it..

You would imagine if you were "abused" that it would be the last that you would want to inflict on someone else, it seems not .
I guess it's early day's on being raised by a gay couple , time will tell. However i don't think that being gay is something you "learn" i really do think you are born that way.

Interesting .....

MrsMo

11th July 2005, 16:13

Interesting... I suppose if a child didn't want to be adopted by a particular couple you could not force him or her. Then again I don't suppose a couple would wan't to adopt a kid that didn't like them in return.

I wonder if a child raised by gay parents would be more likely to turn out gay themselves? Like children raised by abusers or alchoholics? I guess that would give credence to the "homosexuality is a learned trait" argument.
The question of "if a child has homosexual parents will he/she be homosexual" has been studied and the answer is a resounding no.

That said, there was a story in the news a few weeks back. A homosexual couple (men) had adopted 4 siblings whose parents had both died in an accident and who could not be kept together in any other households. The private school (Catholic) the children attended are attempting to force the two male parents to not present themselves as a couple at any school functions because it offends their sensibilities. The Principal was opposed to the school board's attempt and has not been rehired for the next school year.

The other school children were interviewed and they had no problem with the household arrangements of the 4 orphaned children. The parents interviewed had not problems with the gay men presenting themselves as a couple; the only objection seemed to come from the school board.

I understand that it is a Catholic school and the Catholic church has very strong ideas about homosexuality but I'm disgusted that rather than being happy that there was a couple - regardless of who or what - willing to take on 4 children, the school board has chosen to put their sensibilities before the welfare of those children.

=BB=

11th July 2005, 19:30

The question of "if a child has homosexual parents will he/she be homosexual" has been studied and the answer is a resounding no.

That said, there was a story in the news a few weeks back. A homosexual couple (men) had adopted 4 siblings whose parents had both died in an accident and who could not be kept together in any other households. The private school (Catholic) the children attended are attempting to force the two male parents to not present themselves as a couple at any school functions because it offends their sensibilities. The Principal was opposed to the school board's attempt and has not been rehired for the next school year.

The other school children were interviewed and they had no problem with the household arrangements of the 4 orphaned children. The parents interviewed had not problems with the gay men presenting themselves as a couple; the only objection seemed to come from the school board.

I understand that it is a Catholic school and the Catholic church has very strong ideas about homosexuality but I'm disgusted that rather than being happy that there was a couple - regardless of who or what - willing to take on 4 children, the school board has chosen to put their sensibilities before the welfare of those children.

Good point and interesting news item, MM ! You have to wonder why a profession that has historically been peopled by mostly gay clergy would be so harsh towards gay men? Darkly ironic . . a bunch of projected self-hatred or clever diversion?

take thee to a nunnery cheers!

SyntaxHeir

12th July 2005, 07:10

I think as a general rule, people of today need their "delicate sensibilities" berated more often. Some people need to realize that just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong or illegal.

I can't imagine what sort of weak excuse the school board would offer for such a position.

“Je-sus loves the li-ttle chil-dren…

[Well except the ones with gay parents]

… all the little children of the wor---ld.”

Radical Ed

11th August 2005, 15:27

many time we c theese people, we make verry good fun with dem
1 time we stick dem wit glue in the secret parts ha ha dis was verry funny
they kept fallin over stuck wit the glue
doctor had to fix dis

dis was verry funny thing
theese people r not correct and have 2 b fixed
Thanks

maryjane

15th August 2005, 09:58

Good point and interesting news item, MM ! You have to wonder why a profession that has historically been peopled by mostly gay clergy would be so harsh towards gay men? Darkly ironic . . a bunch of projected self-hatred or clever diversion?

take thee to a nunnery cheers!
I checked this out and found out that "historically" most priest were younger sons of wealthy households who didn't stand a chance of inheriting land or money. They were sent to be priests so they would have a way of supporting themselves and to give their familys some influence in the church. There were so many younger sons, and they were so straight, that they had lots of kids who were given the last name Merryman(sp?).

Right now instead of being gay, priests are mostly straight but they think the Pope has a direct line to God. And the Pope thinks the bible is God's word written down, and the bible says gays are "an abomination."

Rikku

15th August 2005, 12:27

Arlene

11th September 2005, 18:09

Hay folks, did not know where to post this article, but I think it would fit in this forum so here you go!

Pro-family Rally Draws Thousands in Belgium

BRUSSELS, Belgium, SEPT. 11, 2005 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Organizers say more than 4,000 people took part in a pro-family march in Brussels that protested legislation that would allow homosexual couples to adopt children.

"The Family Is Truly Important!" was the theme of Saturday's rally in the city's Parc du Cinquantenaire, organized by the Institute of Family Policies. The demonstrators represented 10 international pro-family federations and 600 not-for-profit organizations.

Preceding the event, some 20,000 signatures were obtained in support of the idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman, and the right of children to have a father and a mother.

Organizers clarified that the rally was not a rejection of homosexuals, but rather a rejection of same-sex unions being given the same status as a traditional marriage.

The Belgian episcopal conference supported the march with a statement calling the event "a peaceful gesture in favor of the family."

As a show of support for the march, Spanish families protested in front of the Belgian embassies and consulates in Madrid, Barcelona, Granada, Seville, Malaga, Mallorca and Tenerife.
ZE05091101

Kitz E Kat

12th September 2005, 05:49

They say that "more than 4000 turned up" , that means less than 4000 turned up !
Even if 4000 turned up, you got 10 internationl "pro-family" ( don't know any "anti family" group's out there !) groups and 600 not for profit orgs.

That works out at an average of 5.5 people per group , wow !

Great support :-)

SyntaxHeir

12th September 2005, 06:45

I've never considered myself a "gay supporter" but, everytime I hear a story about people wanting to prevent other people from doing something as caring as adopting an orphan, it makes me wanna march in a parade somewhere. [Okay maybe not that far...]

In all seriousness, I'd like to see some numbers regarding crime rate amongst gays. If I had any money to bet, I'd wager child abuse and other violent crime is low amongst gays. Hell, I'd even wager that unemployment is low too. [Hard to keep yourself stocked with hair care products when you're out of work.]

So in summary, I'm still not prepared to say a gay couple would be my first choice for a kid but, I am certain it's better than no parents at all or worse yet, a ward of the state.

Ultimatehacker1

21st December 2005, 12:26

No one can do anything about meteor crashes or taifoens or tsunami's...
That's nature!!!!
And we are part of nature....
So when a guy loves a guy or a girl loves a girl it is nature, and we can not do anything about it. No law can stop people preventing to love someone..
They die for each other (Romeo and Romeo, Juillet and Juillet)

Daremo

21st December 2005, 16:14

The fact that gays love each other is not the issue. The issue and the question is:

"Should Gays be allowed to Marry and thus get all the social and legal benefits that a marriage emplies"

Whether they love each other has absolutely nothing to do with it. Some people who get married do not love, or even like each other. They do it out of social convention or convenience or a personal duty or requirement. Love is not required for marriage.

You could really love your dog, but should you be allowed to marry your dog?

Socially, western civilization of today holds that marriage is between one man and one woman. All legal and social benefits are assuming theis 'norm'. If gays are allowed these legal rights, is it in actuality a marrage or is it a civil union? There are all sorts of legal and religeous questions and debates.

Kitz E Kat

21st December 2005, 16:32

It's a civil union, and in reality no different than two dude's goin into business together, the definition of marriage or wedlock is the union of two people for the creation of baby's which ain't really practical in a same sex marriage :-)

Now some people may not like that , but them is the fact's !
It's merly a civil thing, which is really all it can be.
Gay "Marriage" is a misuse of the term "marriage" it is more properly called a "union".
It's an instrument invented by society to reflect the changes within it.
For better or worse , your call !

Daremo

21st December 2005, 16:38

A question O Kat.....

What about a man and a woman who decide to marry but Know, for a fact, in advance of the marriage, that one or both of them are sterile and cannot have children? Is that still a marriage or is it a civil union? Their state and their church call it a marriage just because it's a man and a woman.

What about old people who decide to marry for companionship. They can't have children and many don't desire sex at all. Is that a marriage? The same state and the same church will bless that union as well and call it a marriage.

Hmmmmm.... This seems to leave procreation out of the definition of marriage if both the church and the state will call the two examples I mention above a "marriage".

Kitz E Kat

22nd December 2005, 00:39

You will have to take that up with them !
I did not create the definition of Marriage :-)

And to suggest the old people may not be interested in sex , never !!!!! :-)

SyntaxHeir

22nd December 2005, 06:35

TreeFrog

22nd December 2005, 06:52

I'm out of the loop here on definations but my take would be this.:

Marrage seems to me to be a religious thing. Not a state thing..

A union would seem to be a state thing.

Church and state are "usually" two different things, dispite the heavy influence each has on the other.

The meaning and use of the trems are mixed up perhaps because of the way we use language these days.. (very sloppy) Perhaps also because of the fact that we have to a very large extent always had a church play a huge part in the procedings. So it is always a "marrage"

Wether or not a state will alow a same sex union is seperat from whether or not a church will conduct a service for such a marrage.
There is no reason why the two should agree.
"The Church of Rikkus Holey Arse" is welcome to conduct a ceramony to join, dogs or cats or people or any combination of them in a marrage. Wether or not it is recognised by a state is another thing.

In a cival context it a question of wether or not the state is religously influenced or otherwise socially influenced to agree to it or not..
A state will agree or not based on the votes the govenment expects to get for the decission. (that is simplistice but it represents the princaple)
In terms of the economics.. well from a state point of view I'm not sure if it means signifficantly more tax is paid or less!!

I dont think that having same sex Marrage or Uninions will increase the population of Gay or Lesbian people. So far it seems that people to a large extent just are homosexual or not. pretending not to be for example gay is not going have an impact on the econimy as far as I can emagin and apart form votes that is what we elect our state to look after.

I'm not gay. I feel uncomfortable when I see two guys kissing. I dont like the idea of same sex errr.. sex! it is definatly unnatrual to me.

However I do support the right of others to make dicisions for themselvs as long as those dscisions do not interfeer with the lives of others.
That statement is a dangerous one as if this StarTreck directive was taken on in buisness and state pollicy the world would ... not make as much money!!
To conclude... Excelciour!..Aspiration is the beginning of great things.

Smile it is good for you. :-)

MrsMo

22nd December 2005, 08:59

I'd like to hear some arguement against a "civil union" getting the same benefits as a "marriage". Okay so we don't call it a marriage because the means man and a woman and clouding up the terms makes things difficult for the census and for scientific study blah blah.

Whatever it's called, on what grounds would we deny tax, insurance and other benefits to civily joined people?

In my mind the conversation goes something like this.

We'd like to file our taxes jointly
Um... you can't do that because you're two dudes [or dudesses]
Why does the tax code care?
We only allow man/woman couples tax breaks. All you queers and single people are SOL.

Where's the logic in that?
Actually, I think the argument should be made for civil unions getting the tax breaks and not marriages. Civil unions are a "state approved" union of two people, whereas marriages are a "church approved" union (yes, yes, I know that the priest/minister/cabal Leader says something to the effect of "by the power <your church> and the state of <your state> I hearby declare you husband and wife" -- but it is still a religious ceremony as opposed to a civil ceremony). Tax breaks are are received (or not) due to decisions by the civil authorities, not the church, so why should marriages receive preferential treatment?

SyntaxHeir

22nd December 2005, 14:28

+5 Insightful!

My only answer is, although we may be "tolerant" and live in free society we still like to find way of making people suffer for non-conformance.

TreeFrog

23rd December 2005, 05:51

+5 Insightful!

My only answer is, although we may be "tolerant" and live in free society we still like to find way of making people suffer for non-conformance.

No No No.. We need to find a way to do it.. it is a necessary feature of social groups.
It might even be a genetic feature.
If it weren’t we might very well have been mad extinct by now.
As humans we have the opportunity to aspire to rise above this. however at a base level we are part of a group and as such we are raciest and confrmists.

There is no way to escape it. Tolerance is an intellectual thing. I dont mean you have to be an intellectual well read prat to be tolerant but you have to make a decision to do it.
Or we get genetically engineered to remove those "negative" traits.

However there is another problem we are going to face in the next 50+ years.. At current population growth rates……we are going to find it hard to all fit on the planet. The advent of same sex non childbearing uninions my well be a saving of us. lol
we could actually encourage it. :p
more tax brakes and sex toys. lol

SyntaxHeir

23rd December 2005, 07:29

Interesting point you have there Treefrog. Is fear of the unknown a natural thing? Is there some sort of intrinsic response to withdraw and avoid interaction with unfamiliar people, activities, food, etc?

To some degree I would say yes, the initial response may naturally be distrust or fear and I would also posit it takes an intellectual to anaylze the situation, come to the realization "this may be new but not necessarily bad" and adjust accordingly.

Maybe, what it all boils down to is nearly everyone's inclination to resist change and in my experience not all changes are good ones.

Maybe some folks are quite content with their lot in life and view negatively anything what would try and change their routine.

As a die hard proponent of liberty and personal reponsibility I support people's right to be intolerant as long as that intolerance does not lead to agression or oppresion against other persons or property.

So in summary I say, dislike the gays all you want just don't think you have any moral or social obligation to restrict their freedom by hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and
social differences in our society.

TreeFrog

24th December 2005, 06:26

Syntax.. you have been writing too much code.. take a brake.. lol

I think that to some extent that is what Daremo set up this site for. So that people could say what they like. To take that liberty and develop an understanding of personal responsibility. Perhaps even think about things a bit as they post and read.. A fully open and unrestricted space to grow.. or not as the case may be... but a place to be free to do it all the same..

It is also what I understood the US constitution to be largely about too. (not that I have studded it or even read through.. lol)

The two angels set to protect the garden with the tree of life are fear and desire..

Now if you take this out of the context of a church institution and think of it as a statement by someone or some people who looked at the world very carefully..
You might see that Fear and Desire are the two things that stop us so often.
Often it is simply fear of loosing and desire to have more.
Such is..

Radical Ed

25th December 2005, 17:50

pleese dis is not correct god is not wanting theese peopl

if god did make peopl 2 b funny then dis wud b in his book dis is wrong by god and allah and dis is sick 4 peopl 2 do funny men make no baby, dis is not correct.

Rikku

26th December 2005, 11:52

Get with the program Ed...

Allah huh?...just as I thought...scum of the earth...

TreeFrog

28th December 2005, 06:04

Ed.... IMO (In My Opinion)
Both God and Allah as expressed in the respective books are politically motivated expressions of a shadow of something that is barely recognizable from the text. In other words I’m sure it was all good stuff originally but politics have stretched it so much I could not put too much weight on it personally..

Just as an example.. How many people make the connection between the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic church.. The second is just an extension of the first. Christianity was assimilated into an already established system that was set up to take tax form large areas of the world. Christianity became part of it.
Make no mistake, the Roman Empire like many other empires, was in it for the money. There were some ideals.. there always are.. but if the system was not making money then it needed changing until it did.
You could argue that the Roman Empire still exists. though the shape of the hat has changed it still fits...

:-)

So using such dated political text to argue a, moral or other argument is not going to wash on me..

Radical Ed

28th December 2005, 16:54

Get with the program Ed...

Allah huh?...just as I thought...scum of the earth...
mr rikki u jus make fun of me ur not full man
dis is why i make not many time here mr mo is verry good man and mr =bb= is good man allah is good man make us all here
no allah no here

if u make fun of allah ur lamer ur givin no helps
allah give many helps 2 me and many peopl
allah forgiv u 4 ur probs
he is good man and helps me
he is kind man

Daremo

28th December 2005, 17:02

Wow -- Sounds like Ed has "got religeon". Quite a departure from the "hey you wanna buy my mother -- she vigin" Ed of old. But hey, maybe it'll do him good.

So Ed -- Allah Akhbar and Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah and have a Kwazy Kwanzaa.

SyntaxHeir

29th December 2005, 05:02

Great now we have an Ed with a cause. I hope he's not riding my bus.

TreeFrog

29th December 2005, 10:33

And D himself has caught a similar condition and started talking gobeldygook.

Looks like the new year is going to be an interesting one.. :-)

Rikku

29th December 2005, 10:46

Im not a full man? What a shame!

TreeFrog

29th December 2005, 11:17

I would not worry too much Rikku... whatever it is Father Ed see you are lacking.
I'm a lesbian traped inside a mans body... but I never had a girlfriend complain :-))

lol

Kitz E Kat

29th December 2005, 12:09

And D himself has caught a similar condition and started talking gobeldygook.

Looks like the new year is going to be an interesting one.. :-)

Yeah ! Like who the hell is Allah Akhbar ? A friend of Radical Ed's !
Or is all this some sinister commnuication method between international spy's :-)

TreeFrog

30th December 2005, 02:27

MrsMo

4th January 2006, 14:06

Thats it Ed.. our game is up... Our cover is blown. the goose is loose. . we now have to kill everyone here. But dont touch the Kits E Kats cat. !! It has been said that if given enough of the right Kat Fud that cat can hack anything.

We will have to start using the Second Biforum Com System..
(useing two or more web forums to comunicate with.. one part of the conversation would be on one forum and another on another forum.. )
No one will know what we are talking about, but that is the idea right!!
So that's what's been going on with our Mr Ed from the beginning! He's actually been leaving secret messages. If we knew which board to look at for the other half of his conversations, we would uncover a whole terrorist network!

Kitz E Kat

4th January 2006, 15:17

May I suggest fisherprice.com/forum's/newusers/toy's4peoplewith/learning/problems....
as a good starting place :-)

TreeFrog

5th January 2006, 05:11

When I was a software engineer I though the best job would be to write educationl programs for childern.
Perhaps I should follow the link Kits E Kat and see if they are highering. ;-)
Do you think there is a space in the market for Gay Marriage educational software.. (just to be on topic) ?!!

PhoenIXHighToweR

1st February 2006, 11:28

ALL I CAN DO IS LAUGH!!

SERIOUSLY in a country where 50% of marriages end in divorce after 2 years (USA) how can ANYONE say that we as a country think marriage is sacred or something to be cherished. we've made a total mockery out of the institution of marriage. anyone opposed to gay marriage out there ever been divorced???? i have a couple gay friends, and personally i think it's kinda gross BUT im secure in my sexuality, and my childerens morals and values will be taught by ME, not televison, or cosmopolitan magazine, or anything else people use to dump there kids off on so they can get free time.so im not too concerned about their "way of life" affecting me. who are we to judge if it's moral or not (i've known alot of "moral" people do alot of FUCKED UP SHIT that was far from moral). if gays/lesbians want to be as miserable in marriage as everyone else LET THEM.
PERSONALLY, im more concerned with gay people ADOPTING than getting married. will they teach their adopted childeren that gay is the only way to be???

MrsMo

1st February 2006, 11:43

PERSONALLY, im more concerned with gay people ADOPTING than getting married. will they teach their adopted childeren that gay is the only way to be???Nope. Extensive, long term studies have been done on children raised by gay couples and they have no greater incedence of homosexuality than the general population.

Kitz E Kat

1st February 2006, 11:50

i've known alot of "moral" people do alot of FUCKED UP SHIT that was far from moral

Well ain't that the truth !

PhoenIXHighToweR

2nd February 2006, 07:25

Nope. Extensive, long term studies have been done on children raised by gay couples and they have no greater incedence of homosexuality than the general population.

VERY interesting.

Radical Ed

10th February 2006, 14:18

pleese dis is wrong gay is wrong baby shud have woman and man not gay gay is not correct gay can not have baby dis is not the way gay man is not right

Rikku

10th February 2006, 16:32

But arnt you gay Ed?

PhoenIXHighToweR

12th February 2006, 04:14

radical ed, any chance your asian???

i love chineese food, and i've got a knack for accents. when i read your posts it seems like you type in asian english :)

u wan sampole?

Rikku

12th February 2006, 08:30

He talks in a language I call "bollocks"...basically...

Kitz E Kat

12th February 2006, 12:52

He talks in a language I call "bollocks"...basically...

Thanks Rikku ! That gave me a good giggle :-)
There would be some truth in what you say !

SyntaxHeir

12th February 2006, 16:43

Ha! That was great Rikku, a sure nominee for the next Webby Awards.

Rikku

12th February 2006, 17:22

It's so true...sorry about any splling mistakes tonight by the way, Ive been out to the pub and Im trying to pull an all nighter, bu im going a bit blurry eyed ya kow, gazing inot the nothingness a bit...

suicidal angel

12th February 2006, 21:49

radical ed for the first time i agree with u. but who cares this world is fucked anyway. let people do what they want. lets just hope the rioters dont get hold of the gay newlyweds.

FrontDesk

15th February 2006, 12:35

I'm just thowing my 2 cents in here. Lots of what I'm going to say has already been said. I was going to stay out of it but what the heck- here goes.

#1- what's up with calling them gay? Let's call a spade a spade- I know lots of "gay" people. How come when I call them a homosexual- they're squirming? I know I know, there are some that would say, hey, call me what you like, but for my experience- they squirm. Why? I'ts not slang, it's not improper. You want abreviations? Too many syllables? Fine, homo if you like. If you're not proud of yourself and what you're doing, maybe it's time to re-assess yourself.

#2- I don't think these people want equal rights- they want special rights. Nope sorry- you weren't "born" a homosexual. You made a choice. Nature makes mistakes- sure. Flies are born without wings... blah blah endlessly on. You have chosen to be "different" live with it. I have heard arguments on both sides and I will say that there is a small percentage of the population that "could" be homosexual if nature made a mistake. Certainly not at the current levels.

#3- I want special rights too. I am left handed. I want special rates on my taxes. Not everything is designed for me. I want exceptions. I want recognition! I didn't choose to be left handed. It just turned out that way. I could "work" at being ambidextrous but why should I? I am what I am.

#4- Nope, I can't go along with homosexuals being married. If what they are complaining about is how come they don't get the same benefits are married, well, I think singles should get the same benefits as married. How come single people are penalized? A marriage is between a man and a woman. Want to change that? You're going to have a to re-define everything. I personally don't want my marriage defined as being in the same category as two homosexuals, thanks.

#5- Lest you think I have an ax to grind ( I do ) I know people whom I call friend who are homosexual. I do not choose my friends by the sins they choose to commit- I commit plenty of my own. I do not agree with the way they live their lives and if asked I will offer my opinion.

Kitz E Kat

15th February 2006, 13:16

Just a couple of quick point's Front Desk !
Much as I may try to, I could not "become" a homosexual, no matter how fashionable it may be !
I don't "fancy" blokes, never did , doubt I ever will, you ARE born gay, that's it end of story, nobody "become's", any more than you could become "left handed" , you could try but ultimatly fail.

I do agree with your point No. 2, I think that they do wan't special right's, I also think that some tend to push their sexuality on the rest of us. They can be a bit "in your face" !
But I can't see the harm in giving them equal right's in respect of living together, what's the harm in that ?
Here for instance, if a partner in a gay relashionship dies the remaining partner has no right's to pension's, property etc. That's not really fair IMO.
To fix this is easy and has no cost to the state, or to you and me.

Oh, you sneaked in a nice one at the end it's a "sin" ???? Against who ????

As a left hander dude, yeah, I wan't special right's, free stuff, and well anything I can get for free really :-)

FrontDesk

15th February 2006, 13:51

"Much as I may try to, I could not "become" a homosexual, no matter how fashionable it may be !
I don't "fancy" blokes, never did , doubt I ever will, you ARE born gay, that's it end of story, nobody "become's", any more than you could become "left handed" , you could try but ultimatly fail."

I think there are a multitude of reasons why someone would or "could" choose to become gay. I believe you wholeheartedly that you don't fancy blokes but there are some that choose that lifestyle as a result of some horrific thing that happened in their life. Horrific being a word that each individual would have to define. Nor do I think that this kind of choice is always on a conscious level. I"m not a head Dr, have any credentials that would make any of my opinions stand up in court. All I know is that if you talk to enough homosexuals you will most likely find the same thing I have, Dad was a loser, mom was way too overbearing, someone didn't get enough love, got a heart broken somehow, or whatever that made it easier to choose to love someone in that special way that was much safer than dealing with the oposite sex.

To me the harm comes in the form of fairness. I am not a homosexual and have never had a fancy for the same sex. I do however have a best friend who is the same sex as me. We have at times over the years lived together and shared all kinds of things. If one of us died tomorrow- we're not married nor would we ever want to be. What allowance does the law make for that kind of relationship? You can't legislate everything. you can try- good luck. A Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Oh and, you could become quite successful at becoming "other handed". Many who have broken arms or had limbs removed have to "learn" to do something another way. Yup, can be done, tough? You betcha, but you learn.

Kitz E Kat

15th February 2006, 14:05

I think if you talk to the parent's of most homosexual's, they will tell you that they "knew" that their child was not , well normal! at a very early age.
I hear you on the early childhood thing, that is responsible for a lot of thing's but I doubt if homosexuality is one of them, and even it is, it's still something that the person is inclined to do, and did not decide to do.
Big difference !

What about a man and a woman living together, who are all but married.
Here they now pretty much have equal right's and rightly so, why should you have to get married, no real reason. I know lot's of happy man and woman couple's living together with children, and no intention of ever getting married. Are they entitled to the same right's as married people ???
Of course they are, so then what's the difference if it's same sex couple or not , none , it don't make a blind bit of difference.

As for the left hand bit !
May father was left handed, back in the good old day's for some odd reason, you were not allowed to write with your left hand in school, by pain of a large stick! He could write equally well with both hand's, however he would still kick a football with his left foot, he was still a "left hander" !
A guy could have "sex" with a guy , but still be "straight" .....

FrontDesk

15th February 2006, 18:41

I don't know about the parent thing. I have not had the opportunity to talk to my friends parents- most of them being long dead and dusty by now. A person might have been a weirdo kid and have some issues- ok. I'll go along with that. There comes a time though that you arrive at the age of reason and start making decisions for yourself. If you want to kink out and be a homo, ok. Go ahead- your decision, but there is a price to be paid for every decision in life. In this case, if you live in the good old US of A your decision will come with the price that you can't marry your buddy and enjoy the same legal ramifications as a heterosexual couple. I guess this forum is about why not and I've come to the end of my why not except to say, i don't like it, it's not "normal' as defined by the majority and well, as I said earlier- I have an ax to grind.
Yup, you can be straight, do a buddy and still be straight- I heard that kind of behavior defined on the radio recently as- HomoCurious. Interesting name.

Left handed- I grew up in a time in Catholic School where upon being discovered as being left handed I was forced to write with my right hand. Forced as in beaten with a ruler. As a right hander I could only write upside down and backwards- quite a confusing time. My mom finally went in and talked to the nun who said being left handed was a form of the devil. my mom said to devil with them and I was allowed to be the left hander I am today. My Dad was ambidextrous. He was always ready and willing to give me a math lesson writing left handed.

SyntaxHeir

16th February 2006, 05:54

A couple of points I'll make here:

First, my cousin had a traumatic childhood and came through it marvelously. Good grades, well adjusted, even-tempered and *gasp* regular, non-abusive, non-asshole-type boyfriends. Well now she's going through her college age, rebellion thing and suddenly she's a lesbian. None of us in the family believe this for a minute but after two years she's really *is* or is maintaining the act to prove a point. Still, you won't convince anyone who has ever known her that she was *born* gay.

Secondly, and I'll preface this with, I'm not married so I don't know exactly how it works but, if you granted someone power of attorney, listed them as next of kin, claimed "head of household on your taxes" and put them on the rest of your paper work wouldn't that cover 90% of the legal end of being married?

Spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically, I agree with our resident Queen of All. [and now for the dreaded "however"]

However, it strikes against my moral compass to impose external force onto anybody who is doing no harm to others. Said another way, telling a peaceful person how to live or what do to is petty tyranny and I will not tolerate it.

I may not like it, it may "weird me out" to see it, but it brings no harm to non-participants so I say. Gay it up, you queers.

[Would you now call me tolerant or intolerant?]

Kitz E Kat

16th February 2006, 16:06

I may not like it, it may "weird me out" to see it, but it brings no harm to non-participants

Exactly so, where's the problem, there ain't one , leave them to it, on a scale of 1 to 10 of thing's that we should be worried about this is at 1 !

SpoofedEx

11th January 2007, 13:51

Another late post of me. I just noticed this as a poll and decided to vote. Well, I couldn't really find my option:
"It already is"

In my country, at least.

I voted definately although I feel for the "I wouldn't get involved" part of the Yes option. But I agree too strongly for just a yes. Why not? Why not spend your life with a man if you'd like to?

Anyway, I wouldn't just post for that. What I noticed is how many ppl voted for definately. Kind of anarchism-forum I think ;-). Freedom first? "Free speech" forum?
I LIKE IT!

SyntaxHeir

12th January 2007, 17:20

Did someone say anarchism?

Pleased to meet you... hope you guess my name. :)

Rikku

12th January 2007, 17:25

Isn't that a song?

MrsMo

19th January 2007, 08:39

Isn't that a song?OMG, you know how to make me feel old! Yes, it's from a very popular song: Rolling Stones, 1968, Sympathy for the Devil...

SpoofedEx

19th January 2007, 11:57

Awww don't wory, I'm 19 and I know the song... At least, I could sing part of it in my head, but didn't know it was from the rolling stones until I googled it ;-)

Rikku

19th January 2007, 12:51

Hahaha good tune =p and since when did age matter? ;)

SpoofedEx

19th January 2007, 14:22

Kitz E Kat

19th January 2007, 14:59

Exactly... the beauty of the internet ;-)

In fact, one of my favourite albums is Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds. Released in 1978 on LP. I still listen to at least some of the songs daily...
And it's... well, quite old, to say the least.

You guys know it?

(hmm... in a gay marriage thread... right)
Yeah I know it , let's just leave it at that !!!!!! :-)

And as for this being in a gay marriage thread, around here thread hijacking is the norm, and actively encouraged :-)

If you can find one thread of any size that stayed on topic, you can have your money back !!!

MrsMo

19th January 2007, 16:19

SyntaxHeir

31st January 2007, 07:42

Sadly, to someone who is 19, yeah... :(

matt138

14th February 2007, 04:21

Its just wrong! It just doesn't work! Men bits were made to go in woman bits!! And not in poo pipes!!!

And sorry for the un-intellectual view, but in the end it's all down to evolution, what would happen if everyone turned gay??....Maybe thats why theres no dinosaurs anymore! They all turned gay!! O.O

hahaha this made me pmsl i actualy fell off my chair cos i couldnt breathe lol

SidneyGarretson

5th September 2007, 10:22

Hi There, Free Porno Directory - The Best Adult Link Directoy with tons of Adult XXX Movies, XXX Pictures, Live XXX Shows and More! Visit ( [/url]) If link above does not work please copy and paste: [url="http://www.free-porno-directory.com"] (http://www.free-porno-directory.com) Into your web browser. Sidney

pukn

6th September 2007, 09:04

When it comes to same sex marriage, I think the big picture is this.

Life is way too short to squabble over who you fall in love with and want to spend the remaining years you have with. If you're fortunate enough to find the "ONE" who makes you happy and you can live with, then by all means, fuck what society has determined is "correct".

After having been married once already, I can definitely tell you, finding the right one for you is about as hard as winning the lottery. But when you do find that one, you won't even have to ask...

Pneumonic

13th September 2007, 05:51

I grew up with 2 aunts that were gay. They split up, but they had a son while they were together. They were both major influences in my life and I love them very much.

I posted on this topic, probably about a year ago now, and while some of my opinions have not changed, I have come to a different realization.

I truly believe that people have an issue with it because we are using the word marriage. I would venture a bet that if we changed it from 'marriage' to 'partnership' ACROSS THE BOARD people would accept it easier. People associate Marriage not with a man and a woman, but with a church and a priest, pastor, what have you. I believe that it really is an argument about semantics, which is absolutely retarded. Just my thoughts though.

And finding the right person is definitely like winning the lottery. When I first joined this forum I was with a girl that I was supposed to marry. We were together for 5 years, 2 of which I was in the Marines for. She left me this past April and I thought I'd never do it again. I just got married in July to a highschool sweetheart and have never looked back. =)

pukn

13th September 2007, 07:44

Congrats buddy! Hope you many, many good years with the Mrs.

Pneumonic

13th September 2007, 07:53

Thanks! I 'preciate it.

WendyLoveI

8th October 2007, 14:18

Rikku

9th October 2007, 05:53

Wow! Free porn! Something to do while I wait for this damn Fedora to download! Haha Oh and yunno this site wouldn't work properly on Firefox today! Nightmare!

duder

10th October 2007, 18:48

ugh.. fedora core..

*ahem*... http://archlinux.org <--i love this distro... between the aur and the default stuff, there's basically nothing you can't install.. and configure as you like. wanna install from source? not an issue.. wanna just use the pacman repo's with precompile stuff? not an issue... want to be the coolest kid on the block with the most rockin'est linux distro out there? may be an issue if you get fedora :P but not with arch :)

sorry.. i just really love this distro.. /spam

peace,

duder

Rikku

11th October 2007, 10:40

Yeah, I soon got bored with Fedora core, bit of a nightmare getting it how I wanted! So I started playing with Backtrack2 I'll give that distro a shot some time!

SyntaxHeir

11th October 2007, 19:54

I just got married in July to a highschool sweetheart and have never looked back. =)

May be a little late but... congratulations buddy! All the best!

Atluxity

20th October 2007, 15:18

Why should anyone try to stand in the way of two people being happy together, just becouse they dont like the idea about it? It doesnt hurt anyone else that there ARE homos, so what is the big deal?

Are you so much better than they are, just becouse you like to put your meatloaf together with a uterus and they enjoy something else? Just like being naked is the most natural thing in the world, so is being gay. Dont flame me for this, check your facts! Some of the smartest animals are sometimes gay, and they dont get shot down by the other animals becouse of it.

I just love people that are homophobic. Dont even want to sit next to a homo, they are scared of being fondled with. Like the homo is so freaking desperate. Or even better, guys that get ANGRY at homos. Guys that wants to hit homos in the face just becouse they kiss in front of him. that guy... he is freaking scared.. and the poor guy dont even know how to deal with that.. maybe he is most scared of thinking its ok.. after thinking its ok, he might start to think its hot, and OMG he suddenly turned gay...

Whatever makes people happy, i say

(Oh, yeah... evolution... We are 5 billion people on earth or something, I think we'll manage to let a few fags marrige. Like a law is going to stop them anyway.. stupid)

SyntaxHeir

23rd October 2007, 13:22

Okay... this is something that's always bothered me. Personally, I'm all for leaving people to their business. Marry, don't, gay ,straight, whatever do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll stay out of each other's way.

Having said that, just because people don't like a thing or don't agree with it or even hate it, doesn't mean they're afraid of it. That's simply incorrect, it's not fear it's ignorance, or intolerance or simply stupid but not fear.

I don't like celery, in fact I've been known to become openly hostile when presented with food that contains celery. I don't even like the sound of celery when chewed so I don't care for people who eat in my presence. Does this make be celeryphobic? Do I secretly WANT to like celery and I'm afraid of admitting it to the world? Do I have dark, lustful, celery fantasies that I'm afraid might be revealed if I'm too frequently exposed to celery? Is this absurd enough yet?

Sorry pet peeve.

GrowMoreWeed

23rd October 2007, 14:43

You know where you can stick your celery.....

http://www.bangedup.com/archives/celery.jpg

My apologies Mrs Mo! :o

matt138

23rd October 2007, 15:15

You know where you can stick your celery.....

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwww

SyntaxHeir

24th October 2007, 08:55

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and..... EWE!

Daremo

24th October 2007, 08:59

I must ask: Is that a random celery image from the net or do you know the subject who is doing the South Park shove food up yer ass bit?

If you know her - then get some erotica shots going, the pphoto contest only has about a week left - GET THOSE ENTRIES IN NOW!!!!

GrowMoreWeed

24th October 2007, 09:40

Unfortunately, it's just a random shot I'd seen before. If my misses would do that, I'd certainly be entering more than the photo contest. ;)

MrsMo

24th October 2007, 21:08

I was just fine till that last bit... now I have to add my "EWWWW!"

pukn

25th October 2007, 14:34

Aw damn, now I'm gonna have Security sniffing me out cuz of that...

Thanks for the phreakin disclaimer.... :|

GrowMoreWeed

26th October 2007, 03:30

With all the "dodgy" threads on here, I don't think you should be worried about one picture. The perils of free speech eh?

Kitz E Kat

1st November 2007, 15:12

Aw damn, now I'm gonna have Security sniffing me out cuz of that...

All they have to do is get their celery sniffing dogs out and your history dude :-)

Will4764

30th August 2008, 04:17

Its just wrong! It just doesn't work! Men bits were made to go in woman bits!! And not in poo pipes!!!

Although I totally disagree with is, I thought it was the best way to start a discussion. I laughed so hard.

And sorry for the un-intellectual view, but in the end it's all down to evolution, what would happen if everyone turned gay??....Maybe thats why theres no dinosaurs anymore! They all turned gay!! O.O

I have actually heard a theory, or rather this view point, before. When I was discussing this with a friend a while ago he told me of his idea that homosexuality is actually linked to evolution and it is the human races self defence against detected problems!

So if the human body detects something that it can't sort out and that it thinks will be a problem to the race as a whole, it becomes homosexual! Hense allowing the person to lead an almost "normal" life yet taking them out the "bad" genes from future generations!

about people marrying computers...

Now there is a law we should pass!

Her partner is , in law, treated as a complete stranger , that's hardly right and fair.
Also they are taxed as two single people and not as a couple , a couple would pay less tax as two individuals.
However they are treated as a couple by the welfare authorities , they say , hey, we can't give ya money cos your "partner" is working !

I think that's great. That's a typical government thing that. We can't help you because your "partner" is working but we can't treat you as a couple because your "partner" isn't legally recoginsied as such. Laughable.

I don't think they should be married. I believe the word marriage should be completely removed from the government period and put in place of it the word partnership.

I think that's a good idea. Because of course we are thinking of homosexual marriage in the eyes of the law, so why not take away the confusion? Though I think a lot of people would disagree with that.

Daremo

31st August 2008, 07:37

I love it when a good thread gets bumped. I re-read this from the beginning and there are some great points there.

Can we re-visit this? Now that some time has passed since the first post on this thread, has anything changed? States are now allowing gay marriage in the US. Is it becoming more accepted? Are we becoming less moral? Is western civilization about to end? Will an angry God smite us?

How do you feel now that time has passed?

Rikku

31st August 2008, 13:42

It's still fucking wrong! Hahaha dirty bastards!

GrowMoreWeed

31st August 2008, 16:12

I'm with the Darwinists on this one.... natures response to over population.

We have enough people on the planet - PLEASE SLOW DOWN ON THE BREEDING FOLKS! :)

MrsMo

2nd September 2008, 09:41

I am thoroughly confused by people's objection to gay marriage. What someone else does in their bedroom in no way influences what I do in mine! Why should two people who love each other be vilified because they happen to be of the same sex? In what way does their being together harm me or the community?

TreeFrog

3rd September 2008, 02:39

I am thoroughly confused ...

Just to quote you completely into another context MrsMo..

This must be one of the longest running threads ever.

I'm all for gay men.. Was thinking of sorting out a "Be Gay" campaign. Encouraging more men to be gay and even to get married just means there will be more ladies around for guys like Kitz and me. :D

Rikku

3rd September 2008, 05:04

Haha never looked at it like that before! More gays means more single girls! Winner!

SyntaxHeir

3rd September 2008, 06:44

I've never heard of the "gay gene" as being a human defense mechanism. I suppose if cast in the proper light that explanation would satisfy the scientists AND the Christians??

Oh noes!! Unity!

All kidding aside I'm also happy to see this thread renewed. Although, it does seem a bit much ado about nothing doesn't it? Who's business is it really?

Who is it really hurting?

People around here are probably tired of my same of song but here it is again, "If it ain't hurtin' nobody it ain't your business."

And while we're throwing out disconnected and poorly thought out assertions... has anybody ever met a dangerous/strung out/wife beating/car jacking/thug gay dude? I know it's a sterotype but must of 'em seem pretty mellow.

Ain't hurtin' nobody and not harshin' my mellow... do as thou wilst.

MrsMo

2nd December 2009, 07:39

A man in California (straight & happily married, btw) has set up a web site to gather signatures to change the CA state constitution to disallow divorce. He reasons that if gay marriage was banned to "protect the sanctity of marriage" then the voters should have no problem REALLY protecting marriage by banning divorce.

Yes, it's being done tongue in cheek and the man doesn't really expect to get his proposal on any ballots, he's just trying to point out the hypocrisy in last year's election results banning gay marriage.

On a side note, I LOVE this quote he gave a reporter
"The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember 'Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be.'"
Here's a link to one of the many news stories: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/john-marcotte-california_n_287796.html