Homosexual Marriages

[BoogyMan]

for the last time, why would anyone want to choose to be homosexual, you are hated, people think you are disgusting, you are discriminated against. you lose your friends, you get harrassed in school,you are denied constitutional rights, you have to be secretive about your relationships, i seriously wonder if some of you people think before you talk,Â*Â*let me ask u this, would you choose to have homosexual sex if homosexuality was the norm, and you were a misunderstood, hated, disgusting heterosexual.

Asktes, I have to ask you, who here has said anything about homosexuals being disgusting and hated. I personally have said over and over again that disaproval does not equal hate.

As for the question, people choose every day to do things that cause them to be outcasts to society. Premeditated murder is a horrible but cogent example of a choice that leads to becoming an outcast. Before you call out equivocation that is not what I am doing, I am merely disproving the faulty logic used in formulating your question.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Newscaster, nature itself suggests an order based on male and female, and the preponderance of pairings show one is functional and the other to be aberrant.Â*Â*Male and female are functional, can reproduce and propagate the species whereas the other cannot.Â*Â*I see a choice being made in only one of these situations and that would be to step outside that which is normative and into homosexuality
[/quote]

for the last time, why would anyone want to choose to be homosexual, you are hated, people think you are disgusting, you are discriminated against. you lose your friends, you get harrassed in school,you are denied constitutional rights, you have to be secretive about your relationships, i seriously wonder if some of you people think before you talk,Â*Â*let me ask u this, would you choose to have homosexual sex if homosexuality was the norm, and you were a misunderstood, hated, disgusting heterosexual.
[/quote]

Why did I date only Black Women? I lived in Texas, all of my family and friends made fun of me and was told my child could not be part of their Family. My first girlfriend was Black, was I born that way?

Maybe it was because I did not respect my Mom, she put us kids last.
I went without a lot of the time, days without food and nothing nice to wear. I suffered every day of my life, I did not know my Dad. I was beat by my Brother, We paid $500.00 for our house when I was 10.

So was I that way because of birth? No but now I like all women.

On the other hand if you are right, I not feel you are.
I would say I'm wrong and would say we need to work on this so others are not helped.

But I want you are every Gay Person to know, I do not hate you.
I will treat you like any other person, but as stated I don't think your right.

My Brother is Gay, Mom my was young and was lied to.
They toke my brother and we could not find him, the famliy who toke him only loved him as long as they could not have their own kids. After they did they made him feel like crap, he had no friends and then he meet some people who cared and he felt they liked him.
They were Gay he said he gave up on Women because he was hurt too many times, he said that only the Gay People he knew would be his friend. He said he feels he is Gay.

Now was he born that way? No
Did he have a sad life? Yes
Do I wish I could have been there for him? Yes

I love my Brother, he is my blood.
But it was his doing and his right.


Mark

[Newscaster]

Yes there is an order in nature and in the overwhelming number of situations, you need a male and a female to reproduce. But sometimes, an anomaly occurs and reproduction becomes impossible. Again, one does not step into homosexuality as a choice. It just happens. I have talked with many many homesexual men and women who would give anything to be straight. They made NO CHOICE. Nature made the choice for them. I am truly sorry that homophobes cant understand that but then, I also truly believe they have some of their own issues they are wrestling with that makes then so angry and in some tragic cases, capable of murder as has happened far too many times.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Yes there is an order in nature and in the overwhelming number of situations, you need a male and a female to reproduce. But sometimes, an anomaly occurs and reproduction becomes impossible. Again, one does not step into homosexuality as a choice. It just happens. I have talked with many many homesexual men and women who would give anything to be straight. They made NO CHOICE. Nature made the choice for them. I am truly sorry that homophobes cant understand that but then, I also truly believe they have some of their own issues they are wrestling with that makes then so angry and in some tragic cases, capable of murder as has happened far too many times.


People who kill would kill no matter what, killing is wrong.

[Newscaster]

Map2010, thats nice. Whatta guy.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Map2010, thats nice. Whatta guy.


I know, would you like to join my Fan Club?
Its only $49.99 LOL.

[Newscaster]

Only if you give out magic decoder rings and a siren whistle.

[askates]

Asktes, I have to ask you, who here has said anything about homosexuals being disgusting and hated. I personally have said over and over again that disaproval does not equal hate.

are we on the same website?



As for the question, people choose every day to do things that cause them to be outcasts to society. Premeditated murder is a horrible but cogent example of a choice that leads to becoming an outcast. Before you call out equivocation that is not what I am doing, I am merely disproving the faulty logic used in formulating your question.

I do not choose to not be attracted to women. I choose to have sex with someone that i am physically able to. No erection-no sex.that is not a choice because i would have made it when i was growing up with society-instilled self hatred. Alcoholics choose to drink. they have a choice. my choice is abstinence, or concealed ashamed homo-erotic masturbation, imagine being told who you are is wrong, and be expected to respect that opinion

[MAP2010.wireless]

Only if you give out magic decoder rings and a siren whistle.


Hey I do, they come with sticker as well.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Asktes, I have to ask you, who here has said anything about homosexuals being disgusting and hated.Â*Â*I personally have said over and over again that disaproval does not equal hate.

are we on the same website?



As for the question, people choose every day to do things that cause them to be outcasts to society.Â*Â*Premeditated murder is a horrible but cogent example of a choice that leads to becoming an outcast.Â*Â*Before you call out equivocation that is not what I am doing, I am merely disproving the faulty logic used in formulating your question.

I do not choose to not be attracted to women.Â*Â*I choose to have sex with someone that i am physically able to. No erection-no sex.that is not a choice because i would have made it when i was growing up with society-instilled self hatred. Alcoholics choose to drink. they have a choice. my choice is abstinence, or concealed ashamed homo-erotic masturbation, imagine being told who you are is wrong, and be expected to respect that opinion


I'm sorry you were hated in your life, I do not hate you.
I don't think your right, but I don't hate you.
If your right and it is from birth we need to do everything to fix it.

But I will say you do a good job making a point.

Mark

[BoogyMan]

Yes there is an order in nature and in the overwhelming number of situations, you need a male and a female to reproduce. But sometimes, an anomaly occurs and reproduction becomes impossible. Again, one does not step into homosexuality as a choice. It just happens. I have talked with many many homesexual men and women who would give anything to be straight. They made NO CHOICE. Nature made the choice for them. I am truly sorry that homophobes cant understand that but then, I also truly believe they have some of their own issues they are wrestling with that makes then so angry and in some tragic cases, capable of murder as has happened far too many times.


Newscaster, you lessen the credibility of your argument every time you resort to calling those who disagree honestly with homosexuality an angry homophobe.

[Newscaster]

Boogey, over the years, I have researched stories about homosexuality many times including interviews with top scientists and psychiatrists. I quote them. Most homophobes exhibit a fear of being gay themselves. They also have psychological problems with performance of heterosexual sex. And I have yet to find a scientist who has done verifiable work who claim it is a matter of choice. Those who do claim it is choice tend to be religious fundamentalists with backgrounds either in unrelated science or no science at all.

[Nitrus]

Well it depends what context the choice is, e.g someone I know was Bi-Sexual and chose to be Gay, rather than Bi.

That was his own choice and preference.

[Nemo]

Same-sex marriage cannot have much effect on marriage as a social institution. We live in a free society, and one should be free to be miserable as one chooses, whether with a partner of the same sex or the opposite.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Most homophobes exhibit a fear of being gay themselves. They also have psychological problems with performance of heterosexual sex.


Proof please. And when you post research papers make sure they are not biased, written by homosexuals.

[Nemo]

Marriage is a three-party contract between a man and a woman (although some state laws use the term “persons capable of contracting� or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. In this regard, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, viz. marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

The federal government, on the other hand, has no interest in any of these things.Â*Â*There is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant to the pursuit of happiness, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law.Â*Â*Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable.Â*Â*See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.

[piratemonkey]

BoogyMan, you lessen the credibility of your argument every time you resort to calling those who disagree honestly with faith-based thinking an angry athiest.

Threads have topics for a reason. Stay on topic or start another thread.

[Newscaster]

Boogey Man: First of all, the term homophobe is a psychiatric term......not a bad word. To apply the term Homophobe or homophobic to someone is simply an ascertained description of the person. I know many homphobe who are really nice guys when you talk about other subject but they become out of control when homosexuality is mentioned.
As far as my losing credibility.....do you really believe I worry about that? I worry more about people who refuse to understand, when confronted by verified facts.
And credibility or not.......I still believe most homophobe are like they are out of a fear that they themselves might be gay. And they worry about it becausae every guy, at one time or another in their lives have wondered about it in relation to themselves.
I would suggest you do some research into the causes or reasons for homosexuality and I do not mean reports from fudamentalists who are not real scientists. Read the reports coming from medical reearch centers or hospitals and maybe you will learn something about what is being learned about the condition.

[BoogyMan]

Boogey Man: First of all, the term homophobe is a psychiatric term......not a bad word. To apply the term Homophobe or homophobic to someone is simply an ascertained description of the person. I know many homphobe who are really nice guys when you talk about other subject but they become out of control when homosexuality is mentioned.

It is truly sad that you continue the disingenuous practice of labeling those who disagree with homosexuality as homophobes.Â*Â*This is a shame to you Newscaster, especially in light of the fact that the dictionary is online and easily searched.Â*Â*I will paste the definition of homophobe into the thread for you:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ho·mo·phobeÂ*Â*Â*Â* /ˈhoʊməˌfoʊb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hoh-muh-fohb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

[Origin: homo(sexual) + -phobe]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

As far as my losing credibility.....do you really believe I worry about that? I worry more about people who refuse to understand, when confronted by verified facts.

Newscaster it is quite obvious that you arent concerned.Â*Â*As for confronting me with facts I do believe the dictionary has handed you your hind parts.

And credibility or not.......I still believe most homophobe are like they are out of a fear that they themselves might be gay. And they worry about it becausae every guy, at one time or another in their lives have wondered about it in relation to themselves.
I would suggest you do some research into the causes or reasons for homosexuality and I do not mean reports from fudamentalists who are not real scientists. Read the reports coming from medical reearch centers or hospitals and maybe you will learn something about what is being learned about the condition.

I would suggest you actually do some research.Â*Â*I find it completely hilarious that you even refer to homosexuality as a "condition."Â*Â*You just cannot help yourself can you?

You intended to use the word homophobe as a pejorative and have failed miserably at a redefinition of the term.

[Newscaster]

Boogey, I am not going to debate you over homosexuality. This issue has been done over and over again. But I will say....homophobia is as I said....a fear of homosexuality with the fear factor based on the possibility of being one. Its not a fear of homosexuality as a disease because YOU CANNOT CATCH IT FROM SOMEONE. It is simply an extreme concern that you might be one yourself. And the extreme fear is fed by the fires of religious fundamentalism. Homosexuality stems from a glandular accident suffered painlessly by an unborn fetus within the last two months of a pregnancy. It is for a men, the presence of too much estrogen and for a girl fetus, too much testosterone. That little fact, that you will no doubt reject, comes from Johns Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore and several other centers where real research is underway.
Finally, Boogey-Man, you seem to really get worked up over the issue. Could it be......? Naw, not you.

[BoogyMan]

Newscaster, you spoke thusly:

Boogey Man: First of all, the term homophobe is a psychiatric term......not a bad word. To apply the term Homophobe or homophobic to someone is simply an ascertained description of the person. I know many homphobe who are really nice guys when you talk about other subject but they become out of control when homosexuality is mentioned.

You tried to redefine the term and are now spinning like a windmill trying to cover up that attempt in wake of being shown the actual definition.

I could actually take your commentary a bit more seriously if you would ever post a link to substantiating material.

[Newscaster]

BoogyMan.....you dont seem to get it. I dont care about this subject. You apparantly do. Why not sit down in a quiet dark place and ask yourself why
you react as you do.

[BoogyMan]

I get it, you don't want to substantiate your commentary and expect me to accept a redefined term that a simple dictionary search refutes. We will go through the topic again, homophobia is a hatred or fear of homosexuals. The term doesn't apply, and its usage to tar those who disagree with homosexuality is disingenuous and an effort to steer the discussion off topic.

[Nemo]

Words don't mean what you mean anymore.

[Newscaster]

Boogy, one last time. Homosexuality is not something you agree with or dont agree with. It is not a choice. I just happens and contrary to what some believe, it is not reversible. Now, you have an issue with homophobia which is a fear of those who are homosexual. I am certain you dont fear the word all by itself. I also believe you dont fear homosexual people. You may not like them. You surely dont want anything to do with them and if in the position, you would not hire them, hang out with them or be very happy if a member of your family came to you and said...."Guess what, Uncle Boogy......" But you certainly dont like the word and you are doing your best to spin yourself away from any association with that word.
Thats is your problem. Not mine. I have served in the military with gay men, I have worked with gay men and women and I have no fear of them or the word. Nor does my wife and my grown son and daughter. Have a nice day.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Homosexuality is not something you agree with or dont agree with. It is not a choice.


Being a homosexual is a choice.

[Nemo]

You are who you are - whether you choose to believe it or not.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You are who you are


So if I rape a five year old it isn't my fault?

[BoogyMan]

Words don't mean what you mean anymore.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ho·mo·phobe /ˈhoʊməˌfoʊb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hoh-muh-fohb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

[Origin: homo(sexual) + -phobe]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Thats rich Nemo. Very rich.

[Nemo]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI (1871)

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, one last time.Â*Â* Homosexuality is not something you agree with or dont agree with. It is not a choice. I just happens and contrary to what some believe, it is not reversible.Â*Â* Now, you have an issue with homophobia which is a fear of those who are homosexual. I am certain you dont fear the word all by itself. I also believe you dont fear homosexual people. You may not like them. You surely dont want anything to do with them and if in the position, you would not hire them, hang out with them or be very happy if a member of your family came to you and said...."Guess what, Uncle Boogy......" But you certainly dont like the word and you are doing your best to spin yourself away from any association with that word.
Thats is your problem. Not mine. I have served in the military with gay men, I have worked with gay men and women and I have no fear of them or the word. Nor does my wife and my grown son and daughter. Have a nice day.


Assumption thy name is Newscaster. This is hogwash! I hate no-one and you cannot spin it that way. I find homosexuality against the law of God and have quoted scripture to backup my position on this many times. You have tried with the help of Nemo to redefine words in aid of your efforts and that is sad, especially in light of the fact that you hold to your redefined term after it has been refuted. Your argument is with the dictionary in this regard, not me.

If you cannot honestly debate the topic and substantiate your points it would appear that there is no reason to debate.

[Newscaster]

If homosexuality is a choice, then being straight is also a choice. When did you guys make that choice? No. Ig someone rapes a child it is a crime, not a choice.
Being homosexual is NOT a crime.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If homosexuality is a choice, then being straight is also a choice. When did you guys make that choice?



I think I was about 15, and I said "damn this nookie is nice"

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Me too, I was around 15.
2. And I never looked back either, and never will I might add!
3. Hehehehehehehehehehehehe,........

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[underdawg]

So if this was a choice, that would imply that you also concidered being a homosexual also.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So if this was a choice, that would imply that you also concidered being a homosexal also.


Of course, but Michael Jackson never returned my letters, so I stuck with the pink stuff.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But why is this thread in Religion?
2. Being a homosexual isn't about any Religion.
3. This should be in Conspiracy Theories.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[underdawg]

maybe you are a bisexual if you had urges for both sexes and chose to act on your heterosexual side.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

maybe you are a bisexual if you had urges for both sexes and chose to act on your heterosexual side.



Well, I could be bisexual, if I chose to be, but I choose to be heterosexual because sexuality is a choice.

[underdawg]

Yes, you can chose the sex act, but that is not what homosexuality really is. It is the attraction to the same sex. At this moment can you honestly look at the same sex and will yourself to be attracted to them?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

At this moment can you honestly look at the same sex and will yourself to be attracted to them?


Well, I am attracted to myself, and truthfully have had a lot of sex with myself over the years.

[underdawg]

Sorry, I suppose most of us do love ourselves, but other than yourself, at this moment can you honestly look at the same sex as yourself and will yourself to be attracted to them?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Of course I could, if I chose to, just like guys go gay in prison then go back to the splittail when they get back out.

[underdawg]

We are not taking about the sex act, we are talking about attraction. So right at this minute you can will yourself to lust after another guy? I think you might be in the minority here. So can any other heterosexual on this board get the hots for the opposite sex just by willing it so?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

We are not taking about the sex act, we are talking about attraction.


exactly.

[underdawg]

Flea_ Bit_ Monkey perhaps you are a bisexual if by pure will you can find yourself lusting after a man. It is not a trait that I possess. I can not will myself to lust after a woman.

[Alonzo]

Ahh, so flea declares his bisexuality. Wasn't expecting that.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It's not bisexual, it's a choice. Like when I see an underage girl that looks hot but is too young, I ignore any sexual impulse because I choose to.

Another example, even though I chose to be heterosexual, I don't choose to lust after any woman except my wife. Now some might say "but your heterosexual so you HAVE to lust after all attractive women", but they ignore that it is a choice.

[underdawg]

So when you look at guys do you think, "hey he looks hot!'", but think oh no, he is the wrong sex, and try to ignore your sexual impulse because you choose to?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So when you look at guys do you think, "hey he looks hot!'", but think oh no, he is the wrong sex, and try to ignore your sexual impulse because you choose to?


No, any more than when I look at a hot 15 year old and say the same thing. I chose to be attracted to women. If I was in prison I could easily change that to teenage drug offenders, until I got out.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Flea just checkmated you fellers.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[underdawg]

I really don't feel the same way as you do when I see women. You apparently can find men, women, and young girls hot in a sexual way that I can not find myself. I have had sex with women by pure will, but never found them hot or sexually appealing. I think you may be a bisexual by definition if you truely feel that way.

[underdawg]

Do you share the same urges that Flea_bit_ Monkey feels towards the opposite sex Chess_Wars_ Now?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I really don't feel the same way as you do when I see women.


Perhaps you have some sort of emotional imbalance, have you sought professional help?

[underdawg]

Because I don't feel lust for a woman the same way you feel lust for men and women? No, I think it just means that I am a homosexual and you are perhaps bisexual.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

But I am not bisexual, I am a normal man who can control his urges. If you can't control your urges perhaps you should explore why.

[Newscaster]

Congratulations Under Dawg.......finally someone who gets it.

[underdawg]

I am sorry Flea_Bit _ Monkey but urges is what it is all about. The urge is what makes me a homosexual not the sexual act. For the first 30 years of my life I remained a virgin out of choice. I think I have pretty good control.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I am sorry Flea_Bit _ Monkey but urges is what it is all about. The urge is what makes me a homosexual not the sexual act. For the first 30 years of my life I remained a virgin out of choice. I think I have pretty good control.


Actually sexuality is defined by the act, and also you don't seem in control of your urges, you can choose to act or not to act on them, but you can't control them.

[underdawg]

Hmmmm, I wonder if anyone else agrees with your definition of sexuality. I wonder how you would define a closeted homosexual.

[underdawg]

I can see how some people can perhaps think that sexuality is a choice. Flea_Bit _ Monkey has said that he has felt urges for both women, men and perhaps young girls. My urges are quite limited in scope compaired with his, because I only have urges for other men. I feel that sexuality is solely based on our urges and not our actions. As a gay man I am quite capable of having sex with a woman, but that does not make me a heterosexual, it only makes me an actor.

[Newscaster]

Sexuality is NOT defined by the act. It is defined by inner urges and attractions. There have been gays who for whatever the reason never participated in the act. They however were still homosexual.
A closeted homosexual is still homosexual in or out of the closet. And I know of closeted homosexuals who were deathly afraid of being outed and so, they got married and even had children but while they may have appeared straight on the outside, inside they were a wreck.
AND NOW GENTLEMEN AND LADIES, I THINK YOU HAVE DEBATED THIS ISSUE RIGHT INTO THE GROUND. ITS TIME YOU ALL MADE A CHOICE.....to talk about something else.

[Alonzo]

But I am not bisexual, I am a normal man who can control his urges. If you can't control your urges perhaps you should explore why.


So, by your own admission, you're bisexual/ pedophile (depending on the age of the girls you're attracted to) practicing heterosexuality. Since you have urges for young girls, men and women and enage only women.

[askates]

yea if i was put in an all female prison, unless i was raped , I'd be abstinent, cant just switch that stuff on and off.

[Nitrus]

What kind of people am I talking to? lol.

Elton John got married recently, do you think he should have controlled his urges?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So, by your own admission, you're bisexual/ pedophile


Not at all, I'm hetrosexual. I could choose to be gay, or a pedophile, just as I could choose to murder, but having the choice to do something isn't the same as choosing to do something.

I'm suprised you are so confused about this.

[Alonzo]

So, by your own admission, you're bisexual/ pedophile


Not at all, I'm hetrosexual. I could choose to be gay, or a pedophile, just as I could choose to murder, but having the choice to do something isn't the same as choosing to do something.

I'm suprised you are so confused about this.


So you do sometimes have an attraction to men and children, right?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So you do sometimes have an attraction to men and children, right?


Of course. You don't love your father or young relatives?

[Alonzo]

So you do sometimes have an attraction to men and children, right?


Of course. You don't love your father or young relatives?


You have a sexual attraction to them?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So you do sometimes have an attraction to men and children, right?


Of course. You don't love your father or young relatives?


You have a sexual attraction to them?


To my father and young relatives? Of course not, how could you even ask such a question!

[Alonzo]

This is why I asked if this was a joke account. You know very well what I'm asking. You said you are attracted to men and young girls. Is that true?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You said you are attracted to men and young girls.


Where did I say that?

[Alonzo]

Like when I see an underage girl that looks hot but is too young, I ignore any sexual impulse because I choose to.


Well, I could be bisexual, if I chose to be

So are you attracted to men and underage girls or not?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you claim I said something specific, why not provide a quote to that effect?


You said you are attracted to men and young girls.

You claimed I said that, simply provide the quote that proves you are telling the truth here.

[Elrathin]

You claimed I said that, simply provide the quote that proves you are telling the truth here.



RIght here.




So you do sometimes have an attraction to men and children, right?


Of course. You don't love your father or young relatives?


A question was asked if you have an attraction to men and children. You said "Of course".

[Alonzo]

So, since you are refusing to answer the question, and I provided the quotes I based my comments on, should I assume you simply don't want to admit your urges for men and underage girls?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You claimed I said that, simply provide the quote that proves you are telling the truth here.



RIght here.




So you do sometimes have an attraction to men and children, right?


Of course. You don't love your father or young relatives?


A question was asked if you have an attraction to men and children. You said "Of course".


Which is true, I love my father and all the kid relatives. You don't?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You said you are attracted to men and young girls.


Please provide the quote that proves this isn't a lie on your part.

[Newscaster]

Gentlemen, Ladies, I would like to close this debate with these comments from some people I assume you know about.

*********

"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy."
--Tom Clancy


"You know "that look" women get when they want sex? Me neither."
--Steve Martin


"Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand."
--Woody Allen


"Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night."
--Rodney Dangerfield


"There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL."
--Lynn Lavner


"Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
--Matt Barry


"Sex at age 90 is like trying to shoot pool with a rope."
--George Burns


"Sex is one of the nine reasons for reincarnation. The other eight are unimportant."
--George Burns


"Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake whole relationships."
--Sharon Stone


"My girlfriend always laughs during sex ---no matter what she's reading."
--Steve Jobs (Founder, Apple Computers)


"Ah, yes, divorce, from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet."
--Robin Williams


"Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place."
--Billy Crystal


"According to a new survey, women say they feel more comfortable undressing in front of men than they do undressing in front of other women. They say that women are too judgmental, where, of course, men are just grateful."
--Robert De Niro


"There's a new medical crisis. Doctors are reporting that many men are having allergic reactions to latex condoms. They say they cause severe swelling. So what's the problem?"
--Dustin Hoffman


"Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a house."
--Rod Stewart


"See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time."
--Robin Williams



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE CLOSED!!!!!

[Elrathin]

Which is true, I love my father and all the kid relatives. You don't?


No, you were talking about your sexual urges towards men and children when you said "of course". It is in the context of what was being discussed and you admitted it. We all know it, that is enough for me. I'm done with you, now that you've lost again.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Which is true, I love my father and all the kid relatives. You don't?


No, you were talking about your sexual urges towards men and children when you said "of course".


No, it is clear in context that I was not.


"Of course. You don't love your father or young relatives?"

See the context mentioning father and young relatives?

So clearly you didn't read the entire response and were completely wrong.

Next time I suggest you read the response and not jump to conclusions you can't support.

[Elrathin]

No, it is clear in context that I was not.


"Of course. You don't love your father or young relatives?"

See the context mentioning father and young relatives?

So clearly you didn't read the entire response and were completely wrong.

Next time I suggest you read the response and not jump to conclusions you can't support.


I read it just fine and so did everyone else.

Sorry, you admitted you are sexually attracted to men and children and now you are backpeddling. Next time I suggest you don't try and get caught up in word games if you don't want to get caught.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Sorry, you admitted you are sexually attracted to men and children


No I didn't, that is a blatant lie on your part.

Why do you thing debating by using lies is OK? Don't you realize it simply makes your opinion very marginal? Have you never heard of the boy who cried wolf?

[Elrathin]

No I didn't, that is a blatant lie on your part.


Yes, you did and we have it quoted. Quit lying.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No I didn't, that is a blatant lie on your part.


Yes, you did and we have it quoted.


Still telling a blatant lie, sigh, I guess you are thinking no one else on the board can read, and therefore you can lie about what I said.

Or perhaps you think the liberals on this board will support you in a lie, because they lack personal honor?

[Elrathin]

Still telling a blatant lie, sigh, I guess you are thinking no one else on the board can read, and therefore you can lie about what I said.

Or perhaps you think the liberals on this board will support you in a lie, because they lack personal honor?


Maybe you should seek help and therapy for your problem of being sexually attracted to children.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

There you go again, ignoring truth.

Are you afraid to debate without resorting to lies?

[Elrathin]

Are you afraid to debate without resorting to lies?


The truth was already on my side when I quoted your quotes. Your little games have no affect on the fact you said you were sexually attracted to men and children. This time your little word game backfired on you.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Are you afraid to debate without resorting to lies?


The truth was already on my side when I quoted your quotes.


Saying a lie is true over and over doesn't make it so.

[Elrathin]

Saying a lie is true over and over doesn't make it so.


Well then quit saying the lie over and over again then. You were caught, deal with it.

[Nitrus]

Stay on topic please. This thread will be locked if the irrelevant discussion continues, it has gone on for 2 pages, and im bored of it.

This thread is one of the most active threads on the site, lets not ruin it.

[underdawg]

As far as Gay marriage goes, many conservatives have stated that they are afraid that gays want to change the definition of marriage and they are afraid that society will suffer a decline because of this.

I think the family structure has been evolving since the beginning of time in response to the changing environment. Conservatives will say that the family structure has been constant since the beginning of time, yet they are mistaken.

In the long past, people used to live in extended families. Not only were there a husband, wife and kids that lived together, but grandparents, uncles, aunts cousins, all lived together in a large extended family. Also is was not uncommon for men to have more than one wife. And in those large extended families, we have no idea who might have been having sex with who.

Also long ago and in some countries now, marriages were arranged by the families. People often married people they were not in love with. It was more a financial arrangement between two families more than a bound of love.

Here in America the family has undergone a great change in structure in response from changing from and agricultural nation to industrial nation, and now to and information nation. During the agricultural phase you had children growing up and living close to home. Extended families were the norm at the time. Once our country became more industrialized children grew up and moved to the cities. Extended families started to become a thing of the past.

Within my lifetime I have seen divorse become common place. It is pretty common for people to have 2 or 3 step parents. Not only that but the family roles has changed dramaticly. Now it is not uncommon for both spouses to be working outside the home, and the child being raises by a surragate that being a nanny, child care provider, or a grandparent.

Whether or not the name has changed, the family structure certainly has. Is it harmfull to the welfare of the children? Well that is debatable. The point is that the family structure has changed due to the changing times. I think the argument that the right has about gays trying to redefine the family and marriage is a pretty weak one. Change is coming whether they choose to accept it or not.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this GD thread is in the wrong category.
2. Being homosexual has nothing whatsoever to do with Religion.
3. Move it, okay Nitrus?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

2. Being homosexual has nothing whatsoever to do with Religion.


It does when people claim a reason it should be illegal is DUE to religion. Sorry Bucko, go bug someone else in another thread if you don't like it.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It does when people claim a reason it should be illegal is DUE to religion.


Who is that, specifically?

[underdawg]

Mostly evangelical Christians and conservatives who would ban gay marriage because they believe homosexuality to be a sin and an abomination and try to make laws to punish them.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Not wanting to legalize gay marriage isn't the same as outlawing homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with people getting their morals from their religious beliefs.

[underdawg]

The two issues are intimately tied together. Anyway it isn't about right or wrong , it was about keeping this topic of Gay marriage under the catagory of religion. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you were posting about the religious asppects of gay marriage, you would be right. Since you aren't, you are wrong.

[Elrathin]

Who is that, specifically?


Chess does. He even spoke about it, his GAWD doesn't like it according to him and some others. Maybe you should read some more of Chess's posts.

[Elrathin]

Not wanting to legalize gay marriage isn't the same as outlawing homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with people getting their morals from their religious beliefs.


Then their moral beliefs (from religion) are that homosexual marriage should be outlawed because of it. Hence why this is in the religion section.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

OK, well, according to most religious people, homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage should not be made legal.

I guess that settled, thread can be closed now.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I condemn this thread.
2. Its an unholy issue.
3. And should of been started in the *Law* topic.
4. Not close, but moved.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But I condemn this thread.


Like I give a shit what you think Chess. This is a religious issue cause YOU think your GAWD is against homosexuality.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It was adam and eve, not adam and steve! :P

[underdawg]

Well FBM I am thankfull that we live in a country that is not run by Biblical law, but the constitution.

[lily]

What kind of people am I talking to? lol.

Elton John got married recently, do you think he should have controlled his urges?


Well.....now that depends, Nitrus. When he was married to a woman, his music was much better. What can compare with Someone Saved my Life Tonight? But then there's Daniel and Your Song........shoot, now I'm confused and I won't get Benny and the Jets to stop playing in my head.


Oh but the question was should he control his urges? Perhaps, but my question to you is should he have to live his life without love?

[Elrathin]

It was adam and eve, not adam and steve! :P

And you know this how? Maybe God did a test drive on the whole subject and found out it is better to introduce it later.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well FBM I am thankfull that we live in a country that is not run by Biblical law, but the constitution.


Yes, I thank God for that as well.

And of course the constitution doesn't mention gay marriage either.

[underdawg]

Thats right and it didn't say you couldn't have it either.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Thats right and it didn't say you couldn't have it either.


No, but it isn't a right. It's up to the people, and the people say no way jose.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Oh but the question was should he control his urges? Perhaps, but my question to you is should he have to live his life without love?


I would have said no, till he wore this. Now I say yes, no love for reginald.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41145000/jpg/_41145432_donald_rex_elton2.jpg

[underdawg]

According to the 14th ammendment privileges are you be given to all citizens equally. The majority can not take that away whether they disapprove or not.

[underdawg]

it is pure prejudice based on religious doctrine that they try to enact into law.

[Nitrus]

This thread is in the Religious section because of the dispute between the religions of the world and those who believe gay marriages should be allowed in the church.

[Nemo]

When Cicero’s friend Atticus offered him his daughter in marriage, he declined stating that it would be difficult to be married and practice philosophy. However, Socrates managed it, and he married Xanthippe, who was reputed to be the worst wife in all Athens. Indeed, some scholars maintain that Socrates took up philosophy because of his marriage; which would at least explain why he was always gadding about on the streets with his friends instead of staying home with his wife. (As Socrates reputedly said himself: “By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you will become very happy; if you get a bad one, you will become a philosopher - and that is good for every man.�) Contrariwise, it has been suggested that, in the end, Socrates willingness to take the hemlock was not due so much to his philosophical principles, as his wish to be finally free of that woman.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

According to the 14th ammendment privileges are you be given to all citizens equally.


That is not exactly right, but even gays have the right to marry someone, there is no exclusion of gays in the marriage laws.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

This thread is in the Religious section because of the dispute between the religions of the world and those who believe gay marriages should be allowed in the church.


However there is nothing to discuss along that religious tack. The Bible condemns homosexuality and therefore few if any Christians will approve of perverting the sanctity of marriage.
That's really the entire religious aspect of it.

[underdawg]

Christians do not own a monopoly upon marriage when it comes to heterosexual marriages. The government also issues marriage licences that are not sactioned by God in any way. Those type of unions are certified by the secular community and not by God. Gay marriage would be a marriage certified by the secular community and would have nothing to do with perverting your sanctimonious church marriages. I certainly don't see Christians all riled up because atheists or devil worshipers get marriages.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But again this isn't a religious matter, its a legal matter.
2. Religion condemns homosexuals, which well it should.
3. And marriage is a Religious Act, not a secular civil act.
4. Its Gawd who binds two together in Marriage, not a law of mans, or a piece of paper.
5. Those who do not except this, and use a piece of paper in wedlock, are not really married.
6. They are not bound in Marriage, but in mans Law.
7. There is a difference, that only those who believe in Gawd will acknowledge, and understand.
8. All others are heatherns, and have not eyes to see it.
9. And they use mans Law to bind themselves into a improper wedlock.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nitrus]

So you believe ONLY God can "seal" a marriage.

Are you talking about legal marriage or moral marriage? People can get "married" without the correct certificates, its what THEY feel marriage is that counts.

Then you get into the whole argument about which one is "right" legal or moral?

Answer: Whichever YOU want and whatever YOU choose.

So if Gay people want to get "married" legal or otherwise, then it is not Gods place to judge.

[Nemo]

The authority to solemnize a marriage, whether by a minister of a church or other official, is granted by the State.

[underdawg]

CWN wrote:

4. Its Gawd who binds two together in Marriage, not a law of mans, or a piece of paper.
5. Those who do not except this, and use a piece of paper in wedlock, are not really married.
6. They are not bound in Marriage, but in mans Law.
7. There is a difference, that only those who believe in Gawd will acknowledge, and understand.
8. All others are heatherns, and have not eyes to see it.
9. And they use mans Law to bind themselves into a improper wedlock.

So if atheists and non believers can have these types of marriages built on man's laws and not ones that are joined by God, why can not homosexuals do this also? Christians don't seem to throw much of a temper tantrum when atheists call thier union a "marriage".

[Thirdparty]

CWN wrote:

4. Its Gawd who binds two together in Marriage, not a law of mans, or a piece of paper.
5. Those who do not except this, and use a piece of paper in wedlock, are not really married.
6. They are not bound in Marriage, but in mans Law.
7. There is a difference, that only those who believe in Gawd will acknowledge, and understand.
8. All others are heatherns, and have not eyes to see it.
9. And they use mans Law to bind themselves into a improper wedlock.

So if atheists and non believers can have these types of marriages built on man's laws and not ones that are joined by God, why can not homosexuals do this also? Christians don't seem to throw much of a temper tantrum when atheists call thier union a "marriage".


Ah, one question. If it is not the state or county that really makes the marriage legal, why do clergy have to sign the forms and send them in?

Second, did God recognize all the muliple wives people had in the bible?

Last, the institution of marriage is built upon the bible, tradition, and civil law. To ignore any or all is to ignore the history of the institution.

[underdawg]

Well in this country we do ignore the church and the clergy in many marriages. A justice of the peace or a captain of a ship can legally marry a couple. The church never has to be involved at all. It can be a totally secular marriage.

[Thirdparty]

Well in this country we do ignore the church and the clergy in many marriages. A justice of the peace or a captain of a ship can legally marry a couple. The church never has to be involved at all. It can be a totally secular marriage.



Yes, that is correct , underdawg. What I was attempting to state, perhaps poorly, is that the institution of marriage itself is both a biblical concept and a traditional one from other cultures than Judeo Christian.

I think the solution to gay marriage is allow states to vote on civil unions. There will be some churches that will marry gays and some not, but most will not. So, leave them civil unions as an option, but only if the voters pass it. Majority rules.

[underdawg]

When it comes to the personal happiness of two grown consenting adults, I do not think that the majority should determine whether or not they have the right to be legally joined.

[underdawg]

When I hear people say that if gays were allowed to get married it would threaten the sacredness of marriage. It would change the definition of marriage. They say it would be the downfall of society. Another majority of people plain just hate homosexuality for one reason or another and you just can't reason with hate.

When people practice another religion different than your own they change the definition of God. They see God much differently than you do, but it doesn't threaten the way you practice your own religion. You might not like the other religions, but here in the U.S. you tolerate them.

If gays were to get married, it would be the same thing. You might not like them, but it would it really change the way you see your own marriage? The people who are against gays getting married have expressed that they believe it is wrong, sinfull, against the will of the majority etc, but they really haven't really given any concrete reasons why or how they think it would destroy heterosexual marriages or our way of life. Does anyone here actually feel that their own marriage is so fragile that it will collapse when homosexuals are allowed to legally marry? Who here feels that society will break down and chaos will reign if this happens and explain how so? So far people have stated an irrational fear and have nothing concrete to back it up.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If gays were to get married, it would be the same thing. You might not like them, but it would it really change the way you see your own marriage?


Why take the risk?

Who knows what the effects would be? Society really doesn't need to take that risk, which could be substantal just for a few whiny people, does it?

[Elrathin]

Why take the risk?

Who knows what the effects would be? Society really doesn't need to take that risk, which could be substantal just for a few whiny people, does it?


They voted in Bush a second time, can't get any riskier than that. Came up snake eyes on that one too.

[underdawg]

I suppose if we had to depend on people who thought like you do FBM we would never have attempted to go to the moon or try anything in life for fear of what might happen.

I suppose you too might be one of those whiny people if the government said that you could not get married.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this is a Two Queens, Two Rooks, and Two Knights CHECKMATE!
2. Just read it and weep, is all you can do.
3. Sorry bout that.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas





Sorry bout that,

1. But again this isn't a religious matter, its a legal matter.
2. Religion condemns homosexuals, which well it should.
3. And marriage is a Religious Act, not a secular civil act.
4. Its Gawd who binds two together in Marriage, not a law of mans, or a piece of paper.
5. Those who do not except this, and use a piece of paper in wedlock, are not really married.
6. They are not bound in Marriage, but in mans Law.
7. There is a difference, that only those who believe in Gawd will acknowledge, and understand.
8. All others are heatherns, and have not eyes to see it.
9. And they use mans Law to bind themselves into a improper wedlock.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

2. Just read it and weep, is all you can do.


Yes that is all you can do now. Suck it up and quit weeping then.

When gay marriage is legal, just don't do anything stupid like kill yourself over it.

[underdawg]

In this country, the government does concider marriage a civil legal act whether you think so or not CWN.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But civil marriages, don't work, and lead to divorce every time.
2. Those who stay Married 50 years or longer were in-fact Married By Gawd.
3. 99.97% of all long term Marriages were indeed Married by Gawd Himself, in a Church Wedding.
4. These facts are from another one of my human studies I have performed.
5. To say man kinds laws will get you Married is a pure lie.
6. It will not take hold and bind the two together.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I suppose if we had to depend on people who thought like you do FBM we would never have attempted to go to the moon or try anything in life for fear of what might happen.


Not at all, going to the moon is a result of our military industrial complex, coupled with the cold war. Unlike social experiments that have no real benefit for society overall, going to the moon made good sense. It's one of the few things JFK did right.

Or did you mean "going to the moon" as some kind of euphemism for gay sex?

[Alonzo]

Why take the risk?

Who knows what the effects would be? Society really doesn't need to take that risk, which could be substantal just for a few whiny people, does it?


Last time I checked canada's still in one piece. So is massachusetts and denmark.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Why take the risk?

Who knows what the effects would be? Society really doesn't need to take that risk, which could be substantal just for a few whiny people, does it?


Last time I checked canada's still in one piece. So is massachusetts and denmark.


Yea, and if you leave a loaded gun in your kids room and he doesn't shoot himself or someone else the first night, it doesn't mean it's a harmless thing to do.

Aside from the fact that the long term effects are not yet known in all three examples, and social effects are likely to take a generation or more to manifest, Canada is a minor, isolated country that has a social structure significantly different from the US, Denmark is an even less important small country with even more significant differences than the US, and massachusetts will likely reverse the mistake if the people are allowed to vote on the issue in '08, before the effects are truly known.

The jury is still out, but the risk isn't worth the complete lack of any significant gain.

[Alonzo]

Well, psychological studies have shown no difference between children of homosexual and heterosexual parents.

Canada is a minor, isolated country that has a social structure significantly different from the US

You've never been to canada, have you? It's probably the closest you'll get to the u.s., just a little more liberal, and cleaner.

And if MA was so upset about same sex marriage, maybe they would have actually defeated even a single pro same sex marriage incumbent in the elections. Fact is, not a single pro same sex marriage incumbent lost, and more were voted in, replacing incumbents who opposed it.

Either way, the issue is likely dead, as romney attempt to gain political capital for a presidential run (he doesn't take much interest in MA anymore unless he sees a benefit, he even mocked the state a few months ago while in another state) was denied by the courts. And after january 2nd, more pro same sex marriage congressman will take office.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You've never been to canada, have you?


Bad guess on your part, but then you usually are wrong these days. You make the mistake of thinking because the people of Canada are similar to Americans, that the social system is also the same. That's not a valid assumption on your part.

And as I said, it will take a generation or more before the effects of gay marriage are known.




And if MA was so upset about same sex marriage, maybe they would have actually defeated even a single pro same sex marriage incumbent in the elections. Fact is, not a single pro same sex marriage incumbent lost, and more were voted in, replacing incumbents who opposed it.


Your premise being that the liberals won because they were pro gay marriage, a severely poorly thought out premise seeing as how states that have put up marriage protection amendments have passed them overwhelmingly, while still electing liberals. The two are not connected, and the MA liberals know it, which is why they are doing everything in their power to keep a protection of marriage amendment off the ballot.

Eventually, the voters will have their say, and the odds are gay marriage will end there.

[Thirdparty]

When it comes to the personal happiness of two grown consenting adults, I do not think that the majority should determine whether or not they have the right to be legally joined.


They should when it involves laws, property rights, wills, and other issues. You are changing the very nature of something which is contractual and has legal implications.

Hence, it should be voted on by all, not a minority imposed dictum upon the majority.

[Thirdparty]

When I hear people say that if gays were allowed to get married it would threaten the sacredness of marriage. It would change the definition of marriage. They say it would be the downfall of society. Another majority of people plain just hate homosexuality for one reason or another and you just can't reason with hate.

When people practice another religion different than your own they change the definition of God. They see God much differently than you do, but it doesn't threaten the way you practice your own religion. You might not like the other religions, but here in the U.S. you tolerate them.

If gays were to get married, it would be the same thing. You might not like them, but it would it really change the way you see your own marriage? The people who are against gays getting married have expressed that they believe it is wrong, sinfull, against the will of the majority etc, but they really haven't really given any concrete reasons why or how they think it would destroy heterosexual marriages or our way of life. Does anyone here actually feel that their own marriage is so fragile that it will collapse when homosexuals are allowed to legally marry? Who here feels that society will break down and chaos will reign if this happens and explain how so? So far people have stated an irrational fear and have nothing concrete to back it up.




When something that has defined Western society as the institution of marriage has, it certainly does concern me, and us all. The civil unions option should be there as all of us are Americans and have rights.

However, simply because a minority of lessss than 3-5% of the population want to change it for the rest of society does not mean it should be so.

Will there be chaos? Well, that depends , as stats are already showing those with gay parents have higher incidences of suicide, emotional instability, etc. A society does not usually break down all at once, it does so bit by bit, like Rome.

[Alonzo]

When it comes to the personal happiness of two grown consenting adults, I do not think that the majority should determine whether or not they have the right to be legally joined.


They should when it involves laws, property rights, wills, and other issues. You are changing the very nature of something which is contractual and has legal implications.

Hence, it should be voted on by all, not a minority imposed dictum upon the majority.



Not sure how the person I may affects you.

Also, civil rights are not issues that should be left to a vote.

[Thirdparty]

Alonzo,
Missed that one..the person I may ?


I am saying that changing the institution of marriage opens up many legal and property issues, as well as changing the institution itself.

I suppose when we go the polygamy route or marrying children to adults that will be ok too?





When it comes to the personal happiness of two grown consenting adults, I do not think that the majority should determine whether or not they have the right to be legally joined.


They should when it involves laws, property rights, wills, and other issues. You are changing the very nature of something which is contractual and has legal implications.

Hence, it should be voted on by all, not a minority imposed dictum upon the majority.



Not sure how the person I may affects you.

Also, civil rights are not issues that should be left to a vote.

[Alonzo]

Bad guess on your part, but then you usually are wrong these days. You make the mistake of thinking because the people of Canada are similar to Americans, that the social system is also the same. That's not a valid assumption on your part.

Well, I've lived in canada, toronto to be exact. The only noticeable difference in social structure is that there were significantly more immigrants, but that changes when you drive about 15 minutes north.

And as I said, it will take a generation or more before the effects of gay marriage are known.

Well, same sex civil unions have been legal since 1989 in denmark. And homosexual parenting has been going on for generations with no harmful effects.



Your premise being that the liberals won because they were pro gay marriage, a severely poorly thought out premise seeing as how states that have put up marriage protection amendments have passed them overwhelmingly, while still electing liberals.

So you're saying that vocal proponents of same sex marriage did not lose votes over that? I can point out candidates who possibly lost because there were questions over whether they supported same sex marriage or not. One of my professors was running for the state senate and lost by a razor thin margin, one of the big issues that harmed her was that she had signed a petition to ban same sex marriage. She claimed that she was tricked into signing it (plausible, as telling people they were signing a petition to get wine into grocery stores was a common tactic by same sex marriage opponents, and the fraud became a major issue in the state for a while), but she was attacked for it.

The two are not connected,Â*Â*and the MA liberals know it, which is why they are doing everything in their power to keep a protection of marriage amendment off the ballot.

Well, even a couple long term liberal incumbents were kicked out, the most notable thing about these incumbents is that they were strongly against same sex marriage.

Eventually, the voters will have their say, and the odds are gay marriage will end there.


Well, you're not going to find any poll that clearly favors your side in MA. That's not true for the pro equal marraige side. Your confidence is unwarranted.

[Alonzo]

I am saying that changing the institution of marriage opens up many legal and property issues, as well as changing the institution itself.

How does my partner change anything about you and your partner?

I suppose when we go the polygamy route

Last time I checked, no one could only form sexual and emotional attachments in polygamous relationships. There's also more unanswered questions about the well being of children and spouses (particularly women) in polygamous relationships.

or marrying children to adults that will be ok too?

Cue the ridiculous arguments. But hey, at least it's a little better than the bestiality one.

I only see one consenting adult there, and I see plenty of evidence that children are harmed in such unions.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well, I've lived in canada, toronto to be exact. The only noticeable difference in social structure is that there were significantly more immigrants

I said social system, not social structure, two entirely different things. Canada has a socialist system, if you didn't realize that.


Well, same sex civil unions have been legal since 1989 in denmark. And homosexual parenting has been going on for generations with no harmful effects.

Really? So you can now provide exhaustive, unbiased studies showing there were no harmful effects? Are are you just guessing?

Also, as I said, it will take a generation or more for any effects of a social change to be apparent, since it likely won't fully manifest until then, so you do that math and tell me how many years a generation is.



So you're saying that vocal proponents of same sex marriage did not lose votes over that? .

Exactly, not in any meaningful way. When people are allowed their voice, even in states that vote in liberals, they overwhelmingly vote against gay marriage. The liberals in MA obviously believe this to be so, or they wouldn't have stonewalled the amendment to end gay marriage from getting a popular vote in '08, would they?

[Thirdparty]

I am saying that changing the institution of marriage opens up many legal and property issues, as well as changing the institution itself.

How does my partner change anything about you and your partner?

Well, redefining the nature of marriage for one. Do we now change our textbooks in schools, references to our kids when we describe marriage, and simply with a nod say this is all fine? Let me be clearer, you have every right to live your live the way you want to live it. But don't change and redefine my life and the instistutions I believe in simply because you want to. As I said, I support civil unions if a state votes them in. Majoriities, not minority rule. But don't ask me, or a church, or a nation to redefine something because you want it.



I suppose when we go the polygamy route

Last time I checked, no one could only form sexual and emotional attachments in polygamous relationships. There's also more unanswered questions about the well being of children and spouses (particularly women) in polygamous relationships.

Which will be the next step if gay marriage is approved. After all, it is a right , is it not? Who cares about tradition and institutions.


or marrying children to adults that will be ok too?

Cue the ridiculous arguments. But hey, at least it's a little better than the bestiality one.

I only see one consenting adult there, and I see plenty of evidence that children are harmed in such unions.


Well, it will be the logical progression. Not necessarily because gays would push for it, but since everyone in America today thinks they are entitled to their ways, someone will push for it.

[Alonzo]

Well, it will be the logical progression. Not necessarily because gays would push for it, but since everyone in America today thinks they are entitled to their ways, someone will push for it.


How is jumping from 2 consenting adults to allowing individuals who cannot consent, and individuals who are known to be harmed by such relationships, to marry adults a logic progression? Its illogical even as far as slippery slope arguments are concerned.


I said social system, not social structure, two entirely different things. Canada has a socialist system, if you didn't realize that.

Canada does not have a socialist system, they have more socialist aspects than america does (though neither is without), but it is not a socialist system. Either way, I'm not sure how universal health care and similar things is going to play a role here.



Really? So you can now provide exhaustive, unbiased studies showing there were no harmful effects? Are are you just guessing?


Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.


http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Overall, then, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges from results of existing research is thus one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, and with mothers' adult friends--both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this area to date are few, and the data emerging from them are sketchy. On the basis of existing research findings, however, fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities are unfounded....

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes....

The gender identity of preadolescent children raised by lesbian mothers has been found consistently to be in line with their biologic sex. None of the more than 300 children studied to date have shown evidence of gender identity confusion, wished to be the other sex, or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences have been found in the toy, game, activity, dress, or friendship preferences of boys or girls who had lesbian mothers, compared with those who had heterosexual mothers.......

Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms...

Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes when they learn about their mother’s homosexuality at a younger age, when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother’s lesbian identity, and perhaps when they have contact with other children of lesbians and gay men.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341?fulltext=homosexuality&searchid=QID_NOT_SET


The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, all the largest and most respected organizations in their field, have echoed the same results.



So you're saying that vocal proponents of same sex marriage did not lose votes over that? .

Exactly, not in any meaningful way.

Tell that to the likes of Marie Parente, a 15 year incumbent and one of the most vocal opponents of same sex marriage. She was a democrat who lost.

When people are allowed their voice, even in states that vote in liberals, they overwhelmingly vote against gay marriage. The liberals in MA obviously believe this to be so, or they wouldn't have stonewalled the amendment to end gay marriage from getting a popular vote in '08, would they?


Well, polls have placed opponents anywhere form 40-50%. Show something favoring your side.

But, do you play games with civil rights? If you can kill something now then do it, instead of taking a risk and harming peoples lives. Even if there was a 98% change of winning, you don't risk it.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, all the largest and most respected organizations in their field, have echoed the same results.

Unfortunately for your point, none of those studies dealt with the social effects of gay marriage.


Well, polls have placed opponents anywhere form 40-50%. Show something favoring your side.


The fear over giving the people a vote.

Denying the democratic process isn't something people do lightly.

Besides, wasn't the poll flawed?
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/4_April/041103_mn_globe_admits_poll_problematic.shtml
And even flawed as it was, it was still within the 5% error factor.

Give the people a voice, that's the poll that counts.

[ne_cvoboden]

The authority to solemnize a marriage, whether by a minister of a church or other official, is granted by the State.


You mean to say that before the state, people didn't form pair-bonds? And that absent the state, pair-bonds wouldn't form?

Do you really believe that the state is necsesary for people to "marry"?


The only way for all parties rights to be respected is to remove government from marriage alltogether. Marriage is simply a type of formal agreement between 2 or more people, of a somewhat specialized nature. That is all. Buck stops there. Any benefits of marriage, such as insurance are left up to the parties involved, whether they want to recongize a certain agreement, that is, a type of marriage.

[Newscaster]

I think the marriage laws ought to be changed. Tall men may only marry short blond women. Redheaded women must only marry men who weigh more than 350 pounds.
And Brunettes will not be allowed to marry anyone if their hair is shorter than two feet in length.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I think the marriage laws ought to be changed. Tall men may only marry short blond women. Redheaded women must only marry men who weigh more than 350 pounds.
And Brunettes will not be allowed to marry anyone if their hair is shorter than two feet in length.


Collect enough signatures and get it on the ballot if you really believe in it, and let the voice of the people be heard. Good luck with all that.

[underdawg]

So now you people who think like chicken little that the sky is falling by allowing gays to marry, what specifically are you afraid of? You keep giving vague ambiguous answers. If there is a slippery slope, then tell me how that effects you? If you think that society will crumble, tell me how so? How does this threaten your own personal marriage? If gays get legally married tomorrow, is your own marriage so fragile that it will fall apart? I think you have totally irrational fears and have nothing to back it up. When you keep talking about what the majority wants, that tells me nothing of the reasons why it shouldn't be so only that you don't like it.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You keep giving vague ambiguous answers. If there is a slippery slope, then tell me how that effects you? If you think that society will crumble, tell me how so?


If you are the one in favor of making societal changes, I would think the onus is on you to convince the rest of us that those changes will have no detrimental effects.

So show me an unbiased, comprehensive study that will convince us all that there is no detrimental effect to allowing gay marriage.

[underdawg]

Well if you can not give any logical reasons why gays shouldn't get married , then you have the weaker argument .

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well if you can not give any logical reasons why gays shouldn't get married , then you have the weaker argument .


Not at all, since the default situation is that marriage is between a man and a women, and you are in favor of changing the default, the onus is on you to convince the majority that the change is both needed and is not detrimental.

Unless you can do that, there is no argument because there is no valid reason for the people to make the change, or even consider it.

[Elrathin]

Unless you can do that, there is no argument because there is no valid reason for the people to make the change, or even consider it.


It is up to YOU to provide the evidence of why something shouldn't happen. If I say you can't walk down the street in pants, but you have to in a dress, I need to provide the reason why you can't do that.

You got it turned ass backwards, get it right.

[underdawg]

I challenge you to give any sort of sensable reason why gays should not get married if you dare. I doubt if you have any at all. Prove me wrong.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It is up to YOU to provide the evidence of why something shouldn't happen.


Nope, your looking at it backwards. If you try to tell everyone cars now need 5 wheels instead of four, you better have a reason for the change.

[underdawg]

thats okay, I really didn't think you could think of an answer.

[Elrathin]

Nope, your looking at it backwards. If you try to tell everyone cars now need 5 wheels instead of four, you better have a reason for the change.


That's just it and you made my point. Noone is telling you HAVE to have 5 wheels on a car, only that it is a choice. You need to give me a reason of why I can't have 5 wheels. Thank you for proving that you are indeed looking at it backwards.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I challenge you to give any sort of sensable reason why gays should not get married


Did you already forget?


Because there is no reason to change marriage for a small special interest group, and because the impact of making the change is unknown.

[Elrathin]

Because there is no reason to change marriage for a small special interest group, and because the impact of making the change is unknown.


Not a valid reason at all. Fear of change is not a reason to not allow change to occur. I could say we don't know the impact of change to alot of things, however, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to occur.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Noone is telling you HAVE to have 5 wheels on a car


Yes you are, the car is marriage, you want to add something to it, an extra wheel. It's up to you to convince the car owner (society) that their car needs that extra wheel.

Thanks for proving my point!

[Elrathin]

Yes you are, the car is marriage, you want to add something to it, an extra wheel. It's up to you to convince the car owner (society) that their car needs that extra wheel.

Thanks for proving my point!


If the car was marriage, noone is telling you have to marry a gay guy are they? No, in fact they would be saying that you would have to accept that someone else may want a car with 5 wheels. You are not willing to give them that choice. Therefore your point in NOT even close to being valid.

Thank you for missing the point and proving mine once again.

[underdawg]

In a court of law it is always the accuser that has the burdon of proof. You are accusing gays of being unworthy of being able to get married. I say present the evidence.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I could say we don't know the impact of change to alot of things, however, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to occur.


Yes, it certainly does if there no idea of the effects of the change and no overriding reason to make it.

Making changing to society shouldn't be some haphazardly experiment, it should be thoughtful, reasoned.

[Elrathin]

Making changing to society shouldn't be some haphazardly experiment, it should be thoughtful, reasoned.


Gay people aren't going away. Gays raise children legally, gays can adopt children legally, this is just the next progression of it.

If being gay was soo bad, then why are gays allowed to raise children?

Sorry the evidence points towards NO MAJOR NEGATIVE EFFECTS of gay marriage except bigots have to deal with it being a choice.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

In a court of law it is always the accuser that has the burdon of proof.


This isn't a criminal matter trying to prove a crime, that is a very weak and poorly thought out analogy, but even with that analogy it is you accusing marriage of not being adequate, you are the accuser.

Really it is more akin to a civil case, and it is you who needs to prove a street boundary needs moving because it encroaches on your property.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Sorry the evidence points towards NO MAJOR NEGATIVE EFFECTS of gay marriage


What evidence? You have presented none, as usual.

[underdawg]

No, this is more like trying to deny someone a drivers license or a social security card. It has to do with a persons life and how they want to live it. It is like saying that since we are gay we can not participate in society the same way that you are allowed to do.

During the civil rights movement blacks wanted to be treated the same way , but you, the majority said that it might cause the downfall of society. Would you tell blacks or other minorities that since they are a minority, they have to prove that they are worthy to be equal in society?

As a gay man, how do I prove that I am worthy to be treated as a normal citizen? How does anyone prove that they are worthy to do anything? What in the hell makes you so special that you can think that gays have to prove our worthiness to you?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No, this is more like trying to deny someone a drivers license or a social security card.


It's nothing like that at all, nor is it segregation of blacks, it's gays seeking to alter marriage laws and practices without showing that they need altering or showing what the long term effect might be. It would be foolish to make a societal change like that on little more than a whim.

[underdawg]

I say let the government take away your marriage and see if you think that would feel like a whim.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Could they? Who should I call to make it so!

But as to the error in your point, you are not having a marriage taken away, you are asking for a marriage that never existed in the first place.

So it's really not the same.

[underdawg]

Well the good news is that opinions are so changing across the country. Eventually people who think like you will be part of the minority and gays will eventually be granted equal rights just like everyone else. It is just a matter of time. Someday you will just have to deal with it.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But when and if this ever takes place, expect many sorted plague's to arrive at the same time.
2. Including rampant HIV cases, with new strains coming that kills in a week, with Gawd awful sores in different parts of the body.
3. I don't wish this upon America, but if the day comes, and you see this happening remember that you were forewarned by, *The Great CWN*.
4. This would be only a righteous re-payment for modern day heathernism.
5. And justified.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

One of the major researcxh companies, a few months ago, did a fifty state survey of divorce court records to see how many divorces there were, or postponed weddings because some guy in the next town married another guy or a woman married some other woman. They came up with a grand total of 0.
No guy broke up with his fiancee or vice versa, no orders for caters were cancelled due to gay marriage.
Anti Gay Marriage people oppose same sex marriage simply because they are homophobes.

[BoogyMan]

Anti Gay Marriage people oppose same sex marriage simply because they are homophobes.

Yet again, we have another dishonest usage of the term homophobe to try and further a political agenda around homosexual marriage.Â*Â*Let me post the definition of homophobe for you, again.

ho·mo·phobeÂ*Â*Â*Â* /ˈhoʊməˌfoʊb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hoh-muh-fohb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.Â*Â*

Such a term may be apropos for a small sorry lot that actually does fear or hate homosexuals, but it is not a proper term to describe those who cannot support homosexuality because they believe it to be wrong.Â*Â*Using the term in such an instance is dishonest and cheapens the debate.

[Thirdparty]

Well the good news is that opinions are so changing across the country. Eventually people who think like you will be part of the minority and gays will eventually be granted equal rights just like everyone else. It is just a matter of time. Someday you will just have to deal with it.



Don't think that will be happening anytime soon. Pew Forums in recent sampling show that anywhere from 50-60% of Americans are opposed to gay marrriage. Pew is a charitable trust and liberal supporter of NPR, so you can't diss the source, it could even be higher than that.

I would like to see some proof that opinions are changing anywhere but the ultra liberal centers of Boston, San Francisco, and possibly NY or Seattle.

Just isn't happening.........

[Newscaster]

Boogy, as you point out, a homophobe is one who hates homosexuals or homosexuality. Do you think those who appose giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals does not hate them to one degree or another? And since there is no term for mild homophobia, or for someone who is just mildly annoyed by gays, you are stuck with the word that applies. HOMOPHOBE. Or maybe homophobes dont like the word because its labels them in the same light as the terms they apply to gays and lesbians. Ya think?

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, as you point out, a homophobe is one who hates homosexuals or homosexuality. Do you think those who appose giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals does not hate them to one degree or another? And since there is no term for mild homophobia, or for someone who is just mildly annoyed by gays, you are stuck with the word that applies. HOMOPHOBE. Or maybe homophobes dont like the word because its labels them in the same light as the terms they apply to gays and lesbians. Ya think?


The word doesn't apply and mocks your ability to formulate civil debate. YOU are stuck with the term and are the one tarring others with an inappropriate term for political gain.

[Alonzo]

quote

The fear over giving the people a vote.

Denying the democratic process isn't something people do lightly.

Besides, wasn't the poll flawed?
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/4_April/041103_mn_globe_admits_poll_problematic.shtml
And even flawed as it was, it was still within the 5% error factor.

Give the people a voice, that's the poll that counts.
[/quote]

First, there were multiple polls over the years and it's repeatedly been in the 50-60% support range. Second, civil rights are not matters of voting. Voting didn't desegregate schools, didn't remove bans on interracial marriage (in some cases anyway) etc. The majority cannot be trusted to decide the rights of a minority. And even if they could be, their opinion should have little value. For example, it shouldn't matter whether or not 90% of people in alabama opposed interracial marriage, it should still be legal. Hell, in 2000, 40% of alabama voted to keep the unenforcable ban on interracial marriage in place.

[Newscaster]

Well Boogy, if you believe the term homophobe does not apply.....you tell me the appropriate term that would deny a group of law abiding citizens a basic right enjoyed by all others. Are you going to tell me that those who oppose sam sex marriage are doing so out of love for their fellow man?

[underdawg]

Gay marriage might not happen anytime soom, but I have noticed a gradual change in attitudes towards homosexuality just in my lifetime. When I was in high school and college , I never saw anything on tv, the news or much less anything that had to do with homosexuals. The only images I saw of homosexuals were the comical versions of overtly feminine acting men very stereotypical of the time.

When I was younger homosexuality was a crime and one could be thrown in prison. If you were found to be gay in the army you could be sent to prison. The word gay or homosexual was not listed in any telephone book twenty years ago.

I have personally noticed a lot of changes towards homosexuality in my lifetime. most of the changes have come from the younger generation. I still find it quite surprising that straight people will sometimes outnumber the gay people who go to gay bars. Gay marriage too will come to pass, and the people who would oppose homosexual rights will one day be the minority. it is like a tide washing over the country, and there is nothing the Christians can do to stop it. Near the end they may put up great battles, but eventually their old ideas will be swept away.

[Newscaster]

Regardless of your gender, male, female or whatever, allow me to wish you all a Happy New year and I pray 2007 brings you all the things you want, they you are not hurt by anyone and that you do no harm yourself and I hope you achieve all your goals in the coming year.

[Thirdparty]

Gay marriage might not happen anytime soom, but I have noticed a gradual change in attitudes towards homosexuality just in my lifetime. When I was in high school and college , I never saw anything on tv, the news or much less anything that had to do with homosexuals. The only images I saw of homosexuals were the comical versions of overtly feminine acting men very stereotypical of the time.

When I was younger homosexuality was a crime and one could be thrown in prison. If you were found to be gay in the army you could be sent to prison. The word gay or homosexual was not listed in any telephone book twenty years ago.

I have personally noticed a lot of changes towards homosexuality in my lifetime. most of the changes have come from the younger generation. I still find it quite surprising that straight people will sometimes outnumber the gay people who go to gay bars. Gay marriage too will come to pass, and the people who would oppose homosexual rights will one day be the minority. it is like a tide washing over the country, and there is nothing the Christians can do to stop it. Near the end they may put up great battles, but eventually their old ideas will be swept away.




With all due respect, underdawg, there are several flaws in your post.

First of all, while you are correct that in some ways society has changed, I think that change has not necessarily come about because people are moving toward accepting gay issues, but because all groups in America want a voice-immigrants, legal and not, men, women,