I found the following posted on another forum that I visit, where it was posted by someone also claiming to have read it somewhere and found it amusing (though giving no direct source). I found it to be too amusing to pass up. I made a few minor spelling and formatting changes from the original.

<b>12 Reasons why gay people should not be allowed to marry!</b>


1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Is it okay if I take this one seriously in my own right? Normally I would be on the floor laughing, but this topic arises as a nexus of events reveals itself and I haven't even begun to fathom what it is I'm supposed to learn.

Let me preface this by saying that this is what I get when I disconnect myself from the part of the world I'm most comfortable with. Also, let me please note that the issue of HIV has never really struck close to me. Yes, I've known people with HIV, and at least one of them surprised me recently when I heard a random conversation about him and stuck my nose in to say, rather bluntly, "He's not dead?" Of course, that was followed by the customary, embarrassed, "But ... but ... I thought ...." And one of the best teachers I had allegedly died of AIDS, but this episode has been curiously hidden from me. Wait a minute ... I have the net ... hmm ... he's famous enough to be noted as "late" among florists, but ....

It was one of those things where you were told, months after the fact, that someone you knew was dead. And you were told it was of cancer. And then you heard that he was alive. And then you heard he was dying of AIDS. And we all knew he was gay, and at that time the stereotype still prevailed that gay and dying must equal AIDS.

So please understand that this random moment is, for reasons I hope to make somewhat tangible, the damned closest this disease has struck. (Before that? Honestly? It was a cartoon character; that's hard to explain, I know, but he got obits and front-page coverage in the Washington Post and other majors when he died. He changed the face of AIDS for thousands, if not millions. For many of us, it was the first face we could put to the disease.)

But I hadn't been paying attention; the news is old now. But it is in the wake of finally getting around to buying Styx's 2003 album Cyclorama that I had cause to wonder why Glen Burtnik was playing bass.

Styx was my first favorite rock and roll band. Hooked by Robotos, I quickly plunged past that, and went wild with it for years. (It would be, in essence, "grunge" that started chasing certain bands out of my heavy rotation.) For those that chuckle at the notion of Styx, I laugh with you over "Lorelei," smile with Tommy when he says, "I just couldn't write songs about robots," and am willing to bet that there's a number of songs you don't know or don't know are Styx. It is, for instance, a spiritual moment when reality caught up to me and realized that not only did Brian Wilson drop by the studio, but he dropped by specifically to lay backup vocals for a 40-second reprise (26 years after the fact) of Styx's "best song ever," which was also an announcement that, in case anyone doubted it, Styx was officially Tommy's band. (We always knew.)

To avoid turning this into a record review, all I can say is these are the songs that I hum; these are the songs that I know. These songs were among the soundtracks to my dreams at night.

In a live version of "Too Much Time on My Hands," Tommy casually refers to his drummer as a cue--"John Panozzo." We were all saddened by John's death when we learned of it. Judging by the gasp, several thousand of us learned of John's passing when his brother, Chuck Panozzo, nearly reduced himself to tears toward the end of the show several years ago by noting that this was only the second drummer he had ever played beside in his professional career. The house, accordingly, wept.

Chuck ... he's the bass player in Styx. Or at least he was. He's credited on Cyclorama, and even included in the band photo. But he's in semi-retirement or full retirement now. And here I turn to his website:Being so involved in music had become my way of living with the secret I kept from most. My sexual life was never a topic of discussion amongst the band. We had too many other things to focus on, besides our personal sexual lives. I had told my brother and sister when I was 20 that I was gay. My sister thought it was just a "phase", John just thought, "Well that's just Chuck." Again, my sexual orientation was never a big focus of discussion even with family.Just for time frame, this is during the 1970s that Chuck Panazzo told his brother and sister he was gay. All told, the reaction could obviously have been worse, but still:In 1991, a doctor diagnosed me as HIV positive. I in turn asked the doctor, 'how long do I have to live?' The doctor said, "I don't know".* I then asked, 'what can I do?' The doctor's reply, "I don't know". So I walked away not knowing. The attitude seemed to be, I don't know when you're going to die, but it doesn't matter. I then did something that turned out to be somewhat prophetic, I walked into a clinic where gay guys are treated for sexually transmitted diseases. I wrote a check and told them I knew they were doing research on an STD that there is no cure for right now, and that I wanted to donate money to the effort, thinking some day it might come in handy for me. Little did I know how true that would be later on in my life.

In 1998, I became really sick. It was then I came to the realization, that I couldn't live like this anymore. I would live alone, by myself, and never connect with anyone. So I set goals, to get well, to perform again, and to out myself as a gay man with HIV. The hardest goal to reach was going to be getting well. I had severe anemia, which the doctors didn't know how to treat very well at first. I began a treatment of 23 different pills a day and various shots. It was a very aggressive regimen. This disease is not for sissies. I feel I have a moral obligation to help further the cause of research by my participation in study groups. I will continue to do so . . . .

. . . . I had told the guys in the band I would not be able to tour, that my goal at this point was to get well, and I would keep them informed as to how I was doing . . . . I was very weak at the time and it was very difficult to take the medicine through it all, but I did . . . .

. . . . I just completed a 40-city tour this past year (2001), however I don't think I could do that again. It is too difficult to try to maintain taking medicine, get enough rest, and eat the right foods while out on the road. I do not totally want to retire from performing. I plan to appear with the band occasionally. Now my second goal had been met, next was to out myself.

I wanted to find a way to out myself in a positive and meaningful way. I began communicating to various people I knew about how to do this, and while I was doing this, my best friend of 22 years, Richard, passed away. I had told him to get an HIV test, he finally went in February, then he died in July. Here I was getting better, and he died senselessly. When my friend died, there was no funeral, he was cremated. I had to be the one to call his employer and break the news of his passing. I didn't want my life to end up like this. If I was going to die, I was going to be the one to write my own obituary ... I wanted to say it while I was alive. I didn't want people to read in the paper "Chuck Panozzo dies from complications of AIDS". It was through all of this that I became involved with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and decided that was the avenue I wanted to use to out myself.

At the HRC dinner, in front of 1000 guest, I announced that I was gay and HIV positive.* I had the support of family and friends that were present. My aunt and uncle, my sister, her husband, a cousin, James Young, and other friends were there for me . . . . (Chuck Panozzo)I'm not going to sit here and ask if a more tolerant world would have helped Chuck, and subsequently Richard, avoid HIV. It's not something we can know.

But I will say this: Nobody should have to live in the closet for fifty years. Nobody should have to bury their mother and their best friend of 22 years from the shadows of the closet.

I can't be angry for his troubles. Chuck doesn't seem to have time to be angry, and hell, it's his life. If I love him as much as it feels like, then I ought to take the cue from him.

But if you can forgive me for taking this topic gravely seriously, it's just one of those moments. I wasn't paying attention. I had no idea.

When I'm talking to a practicing or professional bass player about music, and that musician understands what I'm telling (as opposed to asking) him, it is in extremely large part due to Chuck Pannozzo. It wasn't spectacular, but he was part of a rhythm section that knew what it was about, and whose band struck my first firm, individual musical passion and pop-culture identity. It's not a matter of mere celebrity, or the frustration of finding something beautiful like Stevie Ray only to lose it inside a year. This strikes, literally, as close to home and heart as it can. This is a man whose work has provided me deep comfort and affecting knowledge.

Would Chuck and Richard have married if they could? Without sarcasm, I apologize that I simply don't feel like writing him and asking. Maybe it'll pop up on a FAQ somewhere, but as much as I'd like to know, it's just not my business.

But to someone's twelve reasons why homosexuals should not be married, I offer one powerful reason why they should:I am adamant about "Gay Rights" and I want to be sure laws are made and protected for all. There will be no second-class citizens in this society. (Chuck Pannozzo)So to those who would insist on a second-class citizenry to hold in contempt, I must insist that you hide your true character from the world for half a century, and then tell me how you feel about the issue.

In 1983 or thereabout, Pannozzo's bandmate James Young wrote a cryptic song that left many of us wondering about his fancy parachute pants and blue eyeshadow:In the dark so all alone
Slowly reach for the telephone
A message waits just for you
A secret place, another rendezvous

It's not always honesty
That is the best policy
But little lies can give you away
Though you'll deny it if they say maybe you're just

Leading a double life
Friends in the daytime, strangers at night
Leading a double life
Can it be wrong when you know that it's right? (Styx, "Double Life (http://www.styxnet.com/styxlyrics/dl.htm)")Lastly, I apologize for the massive post. But when I say a nexus of events arises, I mean that I write this as I'm mulling these various issues. I just found out.

And, apparently, this is how I feel about it. Imagine that.

Note on Edit: I had, initially, included the link at the end of the first quote from Chuck Pannozzo's site, but in revising that quote, I ended up leaving out the link altogether. My apologies for the oversight. The page in question can be found at http://chuckpanozzo.com/mystory.htm

Lastly, I apologize for the massive post.

You should. I find myself usually only reading the 1st and last few sentences of your average post.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Since I am lazy and am going home soon, I will only respond to one of these. I don't know ANY straight parents who hope their kids grow up gay. I don't like the idea of queers raising children. Simply put, the children see their 2 mommies or 2 daddies kissing each other and are told this is ok. Then the kid kisses one of his/her same sex friends, because it's ok right? Or maybe instead of kissing, they play doctor, or worse. Kids already have way too much to confuse their little heads these days. They don't need this on top.
I do realize this is a complicated issue though. Maybe we should just shoot all gays and be done with it. I know this would make dsdsds happy! :D

I don't like the idea of queers raising children.

A valid opinion that I would disagree with...

Simply put, the children see their 2 mommies or 2 daddies kissing each other and are told this is ok. Then the kid kisses one of his/her same sex friends, because it's ok right?

I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. When a five year old girl kisses another five year old girl it's something we have to worry about because it means they're gay and could have a serious relationship. Just like when a boy raised by straight parents plays dress-up with his six year old friends. He's obviously gay.

Or maybe instead of kissing, they play doctor, or worse.

Because having gay parents makes you a nymphomaniac... I guess that means if a kid saw their straight parents kissing, they would also want to "play doctor or worse".

I do realize this is a complicated issue though. Maybe we should just shoot all gays and be done with it. I know this would make dsdsds happy!

Or maybe we should just shoot all the Muslims because the mideast is such a problem and be done with it.

PS Edit: tiassa, if your post doesn't fit onto a single screen you might want to consider shortening it.

haha. kids play doctor with their friends. it happens. it's a learning experience, not in the least bit sexual, and it has zip to do with seeing adults kissing. we've all done it and most commonly with members of the same sex because whether i want to admit it or not kids tend to make friends of the same sex more often than of the opposite. i played doctor with several girl friends and one boy friend when i was little. it's just because they're curious.
if you don't know any yet, hi. i'd love to have a gay daughter. seriously. according to psychologists and sociologists, two women have the happiest and longest lasting relationships of any gender combination. one man and one woman are the least happy. i want my kids to be happy.

tiassa, if your post doesn't fit onto a single screen you might want to consider shortening it. I might. I might also consider stuffing my computer up my ass in such a circumstance.

It would have about as much communicative utility to do so.

I know people wish that such human issues as sexuality could be as simple as our superstitions, but one thing I am not able to apologize for is the fact that reality isn't so obliging.

If we really require such simplicity, there is always room to consider simply whacking off and not caring about anything.

Just because your gay does not mean your children will be gay. I think the real issue here is you are either disgusted of the thought of gays, or you simply want to rebel against something or belong to a group. I say let them marry if they want... Im not gay, but i do not care wether they wed or not and neither should anyone else. It is there decision. You say marriages should only be allowed if the people can produce babies... all i can say is what the hell... Marriages do not MEAN that you will produce babies, and there is no law stating that. Perhaps you should rethink what marriage really means. I think those saying gay marriage should be banned are ignorant idiots who need to be kicked in the face.

Sorry pal be sarcastic all you want to, I do not think that we should honor a condition born out of emotional brokenness!

And this is a scientific bulletin board bud! No more joking posts please or else I will report you.

With 8 posts to his name Frisbinator must be an expert on how this board opperates. I also wonder what he thinks is particulary scientific about ethics morality and justice. I also don't think we should honor a condition born out of emotional brokenness! However on the subject of gay marriage, I do have to say I'm all for it.

well my 1500+ posts just got told. i shall fear being reported from now on.

Mod Hat - "Joking Posts"

Now folks, let's work and play nicely together. Or something. At any rate, I'm going to write this issue off to the arrival of a new sense of humor.

(What? Didn't you notice?)• . . . I do not think that we should honor a condition born out of emotional brokenness!

• And this is a scientific bulletin board bud! No more joking posts please or else I will report you.Since the second contrasts so greatly with the first, I'm of the opinion that our newest friend has simply played his hand too subtly. Welcome, Frisbinator; it's no biggie ... sometimes the sensitive subjects cause people to look past the humor if it seems just absurd enough to take seriously.

thank goodness you're here. those of us who have been joking need to be reported to you asap. consider us all reported.

i don't think s/he was joking, but way to put a nice spin on it.

Mod Hat - Followupconsider us all reported.Indeed.

Maybe I'll recommend a few medals.

according to psychologists and sociologists, two women have the happiest and longest lasting relationships of any gender combination. one man and one woman are the least happy. i want my kids to be happy.

generalisations are always dangerous.

psychologists and sociologists? what, all of them? or just a few. Do you think there would be people in those fields who might disagree? :bugeye:

Some days are just too bizarre. More detail (and hopefully a transcript) as time passes.

But MSNBC is droning at random in the back room; I think I froze earlier tonight when flipping through the channels and heard the phrases "executive privilege" and "future presidents" ... that's a different story.

At any rate, Deborah Norville's show was on. And while I was back collecting laundry, trying for the third hour in a row to wake my partner--per her request--for a whole five minutes so she can make a phone call she wants to make ... whatever.

Anyway, Norville was interviewing Tammy (Fae) Messner (Bakker) and her current husband, blah, blah, blah. I became transfixed when I heard Norville ask about why Tammy never got a cosmetics deal. (Nobody ever offered, can you imagine?) But that was enough because the next questions spilled over into something incredible.

Norville asked about Tammy's association with gays--was it hard to reconcile, in today's political environment, with her Christian faith?

And Tammy, who faces inoperable lung cancer, noted that a gay man (I missed his name) wanted to help her through what cancer treatments she tried. And here she began to cry--and said she would not apologize for her tears--and explained that after everything else came apart, it was the gay community, and not the Christian community that surrounded her with love and compassion. There is no issue to reconcile for her between gays and her faith.

I ... yeah.

And she even laughed at the classic SNL bit parodying her weeping during Jim's confessions before the public, and said she thought that was a great piece.

Seemed worth mentioning. I'll try to dig up a transcript over the next couple days.

I don't know ANY straight parents who hope their kids grow up gay. I don't like the idea of queers raising children. Simply put, the children see their 2 mommies or 2 daddies kissing each other and are told this is ok. Then the kid kisses one of his/her same sex friends, because it's ok right?

Well I'm afraid that regardless of their parent's sexuality, children are going to be prone to experiment a bit with their bodies as they begin to become aware of the differences between boys and girls, or just the relationships of adults as they vary from those with Children. I suppose we could spay and neuter our children to prevent this sort of behavior, but I think that would make more problems than it solves. Humans are curious by nature, and if such a large facet of our biological nature is left as taboo, not to be spoken of, then kids will figure it out eventually on their own. What does it matter who they experiment with? They'll figure out for themselves who they're attracted to and who they're not, and if they don't have an ingrained mental aversion to the possibility that they may be homosexual, then when they reach an age when they can really figure themselves out at least they won't drive themselves nuts with closeting and angsting and moping and all.

Furthermore the issue of parents wanting their children to grow up gay or not is utterly irrelevant. Our parents can’t chose our sexuality for us any more than we can chose it ourselves. It’s certainly natural for a parent to be more comfortable knowing that their child is straight, because it’s generally a frame of reference that they are familiar with, and doesn’t go along with any baggage that they’re not already accustomed to. Homosexuality by contrast is something new and different that they’ll now have to deal with, or help their child deal with. I certainly can’t think that any genuinely loving parent would feel that it would be better to have not had a child than to have had a child that ended up gay. There are plenty of cases of parents abandoning their children because they are gay, but then I don’t consider these sorts of people to be mentally functioning human beings, so they don’t factor into my opinion on this issue.

I do realize this is a complicated issue though. Maybe we should just shoot all gays and be done with it. I know this would make dsdsds happy!

Congratulations Immane1, you're a asset to these sciforums, we've been needing another really good village idiot, and you wear the hat well. This is probably a cheap shot, but do remember that a lot of those queers are also armed (http://pinkpistols.org) themselves.

Sorry pal be sarcastic all you want to, I do not think that we should honor a condition born out of emotional brokenness!

I think you’ve all been a bit cruel to overlook, or simply try to brush aside this particular sentiment with snide remarks. From the meticulously reasoned view which Frisbinator has just shared with us, I think it’s safe to say that he’s coming at us with a fair bit of psychological training under his belt. Why else would he contradict every other credable psychological study of homosexuality done to date? To go against the grain of the APA (http://www.apa.org) like this shows clearly that this is a man with some guts, and the know how to get the message out right. His claim may sound a bit childish, ignorant or even childishly stupid to those of us who have far less training in psychology and sociology. I myself have only taken a modest few 300 level classes of that sort at my current University, and am by no means authoritative in the least on the subject, which is probably why it sounds to me like nothing but an unsupportable ascertain based upon no prior research or observations, but instead Frisbinator’s own initial homophobic “Ick” reflex.

I admire you, Frisbinator, you’ve got the guts to really put yourself out there and let your message be heard louder than the words you use to send it.

we've been needing another really good village idiot, and you wear the hat well.I actually figured it was amateur night. That bit about shooting gays is one of those things that it's hard to actually stop and think someone is actually stupid enough to believe unless you're standing in front of them and can be convinced by their presentation that no, they're not actually joking.

I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt these days. They can't possibly be that stupid.

(And yes, that is my silly faith in humanity. We can only get so stupid if we expect to be taken seriously; I'm of the opinion that, all other considerations of village idiots aside, Immane1 does not wish to be taken seriously.)

I actually figured it was amateur night. That bit about shooting gays is one of those things that it's hard to actually stop and think someone is actually stupid enough to believe unless you're standing in front of them and can be convinced by their presentation that no, they're not actually joking.

I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt these days. They can't possibly be that stupid.

(And yes, that is my silly faith in humanity. We can only get so stupid if we expect to be taken seriously; I'm of the opinion that, all other considerations of village idiots aside, Immane1 does not wish to be taken seriously.)

ding, ding, ding

We have a winner! Every one here with the exception of Frisbee, knows damn well the statement about shooting gays was a joke. Hence the big fucking smile next to it. Duh? You all know that dsdsds has on numerous occasions has made his point using this outrageous statement.

Mystech,

It's nice to see the very acceptance and tolerance you seek for your fellow gays is not extended by you. Instead, anyone who disagrees with you is a "village idiot". Nice.

I would like to meet the guy who thought those 12 reasons up. If he really means what he says,.... well..., I would not take his wellbeing as an important aspect of this meeting. But I suppose it is just a joke (I hope), alas, I know some people with very similar ideas. :mad:

I would like to meet the guy who thought those 12 reasons up. If he really means what he says,.... well..., I would not take his wellbeing as an important aspect of this meeting. But I suppose it is just a joke (I hope), alas, I know some people with very similar ideas. :mad:

You do reaize that each of the reasons was meant to be sarcastic, right? If you take the tone correctly each is poking fun at popular arguments against same sex marriage.


Mystech,

It's nice to see the very acceptance and tolerance you seek for your fellow gays is not extended by you. Instead, anyone who disagrees with you is a "village idiot". Nice.

Oh come off it. I call you names because that's the tone you've set for discourse with you, now live with it. It's called personal accountability. We'll see how amicable you are toward me when I smugly joke about shooting your people. You aren't worth much more than an ad hominem attack anyhow.

Kill kill kill the white man!

immane1 is the typical conservative troll around here, he starts calling names, then cites what a real telling shame it is that others call him names back. We're just trying to be your pal's immane1, trying to play the game you seem to want to play. Don't you see, the people don't want you to hate, we want you to love! Use your self proclaimed powers of joking for good, not random tomfoolery.

Hey Moosey and Mystech,

I actually like you guys. This place would be pretty fucking boring without people like you. ;)

As far as being a troll, I am no more or no less of a troll than either of you two. As far as being a conservative, I'm no registered Republican, actually I'm an independent. Probably more of a Libertarian. I just find it more enjoyable to mix it up with liberals. I HATE the religious right. Jesse Ventura was right, organized religion is a sham. I could go on...

Now back to the subject. I really don't care if gays want to marry. Eventually it's going to happen. Heterosexual people have already fucked up the institution of marriage. I'm pretty sure over 50% of marriages end in divorce. This is hardly something one can defend.

We have a winner! Every one here with the exception of Frisbee, knows damn well the statement about shooting gays was a joke.One should at least note that EM&J does not exist wholly in a vacuum. People are aware of your posts elsewhere, and by them you have framed a context for judging your posts which brings results you most obviously do not appreciate.

You'll notice that whether in green or black, with or without my mod hat, I've now addressed two issues in this topic that have to do with people being flippant and empty regarding sensitive topics. That flippancy is considered disrespectful by some because this is their lives they're talking about here.

To me, the brand of "humor" that I'm dealing with is roughly equivalent to being an audience member on a talk show, listening to a young woman describe years of sexual abuse, and then you stand up and say, "Did you like it better in the ass or in your mouth, baby? 'Cuz I've got one for you, you shagadelic little vixen!!" Sure, it's a joke, and perhaps it's appropriate to you in the comfort of your living room, but when you tell people that their suffering or frustration is only worth your amusement, they tend to take umbrage.

Mod Hat - Deletion

This post has been deleted for the following reasons:

• Profanity
• Lack of point
• Lack of contribution to the topic

I figured at least this time I should tell you why, so you don't make the mistake of posting that post again.

poor baby. can't handle the truth?

tiassa always looks so good in that mod hat. brings out his eyes.

immane1, try expressing the 'truth' in a way so that it has no profanity, contributes to the topic, and has a point. Perhaps then tiassa wouldn't delete it.

If tiassa is genuinely abusing his mod powers to censor you, then talking to Porfiry would be an option. :)

immane1, try expressing the 'truth' in a way so that it has no profanity, contributes to the topic, and has a point. Perhaps then tiassa wouldn't delete it.

"Did you like it better in the ass or in your mouth, baby?"

If tiassa is genuinely abusing his mod powers to censor you, then talking to Porfiry would be an option.

Thanks for the tip, I will.

I would just like to state that the following post in no way represents the views on gay marriage of the 15ofthe19 corporation, or any wholly owned subsidiaries. Enjoy. :D

Modern Marriage:

A scene at City Hall in Portland, or San Francisco, or anytown USA

"Next."

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes,we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each
other.

"Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!"

Mod Hat - General Considerations

I acknowledge an error in giving no comment whatsoever the first time I deleted the post, so I understand a certain amount of anger on Immane1's part at that.

Additionally, I suppose I could have heavily edited the post to one or two sentences, but then I would have left myself an opportunity not only to set the content of his post, but to then respond in black type as a poster.

That is not, in my opinion, the appropriate option: since I went so far as to put on my Mod Hat to defuse a relatively minor situation in the early going, the option of actually responding to that post would constitute a harsh reversal of policy invested in self-satisfaction. Maybe if I moderated "Politics," but not in a forum concerned with "Ethics, Morality & Justice." It's out of character with the forum.

One of the things I appreciate about the EM&J forum is that it's been a fairly easy run. People seem to understand the paradox that comes with being unethical in arguing ethics. (Immoral/morals and unjust/justice are a little more vague, and not as influential dualisms.)

Immane1 is welcome to respond to my post; it's just that I don't feel the post was really a "response," such as I noted with the three reasons for deletion.

It's not a zero-tolerance rule (see "Forum Rules (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20363)"), but combined with the other two factors noted for the post deletion, profanity only hurts the argument against moderation.

And yes, anybody is welcome to appeal above me. If there's something I'm missing, then Sciforums can only get better if I know what it is.

Lastly ... I am a fan of the new Hat. I wore a purple one before. But this color is generally easy on the eyes (I'll have to see how this post looks; most of my mod posts are supposed to be shorter.) It just makes it easier for me to spot them.

15ofthe19

I like how, by the time you get down to "David Deets," the clerk is presuming a non-traditional marriage. Subtle. Nice.

Hey Mystech,
I did notice the sarcasm in it, but as I admitted I know people who would argue likewise, and those really mean what they say. That is something I find frightening.

By the way, 15ofthe19, funny post, I really liked it.

hey 15, what’s stopping brothers and sisters from marrying now? I mean, if suddenly every brother in the world is going to want to get married if gay marriage is legalized, why aren’t strait incestual couples rushing to elope? Your story seems to assume that there is a tidal wave of incest just waiting to spill out into the courtrooms to get hitched, so where is it?

That's pretty much the argument that I have made when discussing this with people who oppose gay marriage. I have a sister, but I don't have any interest in marrying her, even if it might help us make ends meet financially.

I just think this is a state issue, and should be left at that.

I just think this is a state issue, and should be left at that.

Well, the federal government is undeniably involved in the whole thing, so I think it's fair for them to have some sway in the matter. Not involved are the legions of right-wingers who think that it’s their place, or the place of the masses to decide.

Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
*is so shocked that she spits out Solo she was drinking* pfft, gah, shit i really did... euch... anyway, can anyone else see how incredibly stupid that statement is? I don't think that every gay person in the world is adopted or stepped and I used to know a girl who had lesbian parents and she was the straightest girl I know, parents aren't exactly touchy/feely/sexy around their children are they? Heh heh... I can't believe that statement... oh and, let's say that every gay mother had a gay son... what's that got to do with marriage? For this discussion we have to first accept (just for the sake of argument in THIS CASE) that gayness is acceptable and does exist, now about marriage people:

if straight parents raise straight children, how do people become gay

if straight parents raise straight children, how do people become gayThey don't.

There are no gay people.

This is really just a conspiracy to get you to believe in anything immediately before the Jewish Martians take over the interstellar cheese industry; didn't you know that HIV makes fabulous cheese, according to Reticulan food critic Zmaldergov Mdorkmi?

Remember, it's all in the name of commerce.

if straight parents raise straight children, how do people become gay

Reverse the statement:

Gay children are raised by gay parents (or at least one gay parent) so how can gay parents have children?

Conclusion - gay people trick good old-fashioned heterosexual people into marriage or other forms of relationships and accidentily make a baby at one point in time. Now it becomes a gay lottery. Will the baby be gay or not?


na, that's bullshit.

if straight parents raise straight children, how do people become gay

Whoa!
Someone finally realized what the article was getting at.
Can't you guys tell that the article is parody AND satire?

It is VERY clever, I have to admit. I will use it in my future debates about homosexual marriage. It gets the message across quite nicely. :D

Thats what you get for posting brainy comedy where the general public is going to see it. Some people just wont be able to realize that every one of those 12 reasons contains both a reason people commonly give for why gays shouldnt marry, and the argument that refutes that reason

originally posted by rainbow princess:
*is so shocked that she spits out Solo she was drinking* pfft, gah, shit i really did... euch... anyway, can anyone else see how incredibly stupid that statement is? I don't think that every gay person in the world is adopted or stepped and I used to know a girl who had lesbian parents and she was the straightest girl I know, parents aren't exactly touchy/feely/sexy around their children are they? Heh heh... I can't believe that statement... oh and, let's say that every gay mother had a gay son... what's that got to do with marriage? For this discussion we have to first accept (just for the sake of argument in THIS CASE) that gayness is acceptable and does exist, now about marriage people:

I don't think T and I have ever agreed on much of anything except maybe the following statement: Satire is indeed a dead horse. Those of us who know this should really stop kicking said horse, because our audience is dead.

And while I'm on the subject, subtlety and nuance are on life support in the neuro ICU, and the power is about to go out.

Damn shame. I'm going to miss those two. :rolleyes:

I don't think T and I have ever agreed on much of anything except maybe the following statement: Satire is indeed a dead horse. Those of us who know this should really stop kicking said horse, because our audience is dead.

And while I'm on the subject, subtlety and nuance are on life support in the neuro ICU, and the power is about to go out.

Damn shame. I'm going to miss those two. :rolleyes:

Crap, time to start drinking more beer and smoking pot, need to get rid of those extra brain cells. I won't be needing them where I'm going. Keep the lights on in dull mediocrity, 15ofthe19, I'm commin' home!

Satire is indeed a dead horse.

Remember Irony's miracle recovery after 9/11 when all the news folks were saying that this is the death of irony? Why were they saying that, I never did know what exactly was irony killing about 9/11 but it seems to be up and about again, in pretty good shape too.

was 9/11 ironic or not? Was it a case of the nation that thought it was invincible being taken down a big notch by some dirty men with box cutters, or was it supremely un-ironic because the nation the world hates turned out to be the very nation that suffered such awful attacks?

Either way I think Irony doesn't have much to worry about anymore, it's safe to come out of hiding.

I'm very worried about the amount of people who didn't realise that was a satire.
I'm even more worried about the amount of people who didn't realise that was a satire *after* Mystech pointed it out.
Two things occurred to me when reading this thread:
"Not involved are the legions of right-wingers who think that it’s their place, or the place of the masses to decide." Good point. Yes, it's different when you're talking adoption, but seeing as homosexuality isn't illegal or anything, what's the problem? The age-old institution of marriage? *cough* Britney *cough*.
And secondly, on the subject of satire and the response to it (as in, certain people who realised it was a satire). "No more joking posts" - I'll be nice and actually take you seriously. I'm very tempted not to. But anyway - satire strives to make a point about a topic in an entertaining and unconventional way. Thus, uhh, has a use, has a point, is effective...discusses an issue...there's a pretty long list about why it's relevant and important. Also, to people who pointed out it might be insensitive, it's good of you, but - that satire seeks to deride that kind of viewpoint, which I'd assume is a good thing from the average homosexual's point of view. I'm not gay, so I won't profess to know, but I do have an autistic brother, I take very unkindly to any kind of insult on him, but I appreciate most satirical work on mental health care.
Okay, so half of that was irrelevant to the issue. Summing up my point of view: I believe gay people should have the right to marry. It's just exclusion on the basis of sexuality otherwise, and I thought we agreed that was bad?

While we are on the subject of Homosexuality, I wanted to ask a very fundamental question of readers Gay or otherwise.

With out raising a homophobic reation etc.

I understand that one of the greatest challenges facing a gay person, male or female or inbetween is the challenge of self acceptance.
Shit even an average smo like myself has trouble with self acceptance and I don't have the crap that alternative lifestylers have to put up with.

The question I wanted to ask an am prepared to post as a thread is:

Do all homosexual persons harbour deep with in a desire or wish that they were straight? This may seem an obvious question and answer but I mean really deep.......

"If someone could wave a magic wand ( excuse the pun) and deliver a homosexual person to the realms of heterosexuality would you or they wish this to be done?"

The reason I ask this is that I do know that homosexual men still desire to be parents, wanting children etc and knowing the difficulties, would be reluctant to have children.....

As I stated earlier I do understand that self acceptance is often hrad to achieve and this question I hope does not cause uneccessary pain.....

I understand that one of the greatest challenges facing a gay person, male or female or inbetween is the challenge of self acceptance.
Shit even an average smo like myself has trouble with self acceptance and I don't have the crap that alternative lifestylers have to put up with.

The question I wanted to ask an am prepared to post as a thread is:

Do all homosexual persons harbour deep with in a desire or wish that they were straight? This may seem an obvious question and answer but I mean really deep.......

Well that's a good question, probably even disserves it's own topic. Homosexuals grow up on the same culture as everyone else in this society, they have a mix of the same values, and even before they themselves realize that they're gay, they may have formed fairly solid opinions on the issue of homosexuality in general.

Because of that, shame is a fairly common initial reaction to really realizing your own sexuality, and can be a really big factor in the decision to remain in the closet.

But then the experience can be very different for various individuals. Most people just get the heck over it eventually, if they ever felt any shame at all, and don't have any trouble accepting themselves.

As for the question of waving a magic wand and turning straight, I don't suppose that everyone would turn that down, however the mere suggestion of it may upset others. To some it would seem a bit like "if you could wave a magic wand and turn black (you unrhythmic low jumping white-boy!) would you do it? It's not something we'd change, it's just part of who we are.

The second sentence of every point either doesn't make sense or isn't true. Divorce is illegal? Single-parents can't raise children? None of these are facts, or if you believe they are then you should say where. New Zealand?

As for the question of waving a magic wand and turning straight, I don't suppose that everyone would turn that down, however the mere suggestion of it may upset others. To some it would seem a bit like "if you could wave a magic wand and turn black (you unrhythmic low jumping white-boy!) would you do it? It's not something we'd change, it's just part of who we are.

Fair coment......

The second sentence of every point either doesn't make sense or isn't true. Divorce is illegal? Single-parents can't raise children? None of these are facts, or if you believe they are then you should say where. New Zealand?

As stated over and over and over and over again in this thread, that is because the list is a satire! The second sentences are what makes it a satire, showing that the points in the first sentences are as unsuportable as the ones in the second sentence. Really now, its only a three page thread, please read and try to comprehend before you come up with some statement like "Gee, you know what, I think this thread might be about homosexuals!" Duh! That is the point!

Do all homosexual persons harbour deep with in a desire or wish that they were straight? This may seem an obvious question and answer but I mean really deep.......It's not so much a question of wishing they were straight, but a translation whereby "straight" equals "normal." And after a couple decades living on the fringe of every culture you know, it can start to wear on you.

Which is really strange, incidentally, when you look at the way men and women get along, at least in the United States. Happiness, apparently, is a warm bed. And a cold heart.

Those homosexuals who do actually wish to be straight are, I think, the clearest indication of what a genetic or biological predisposition toward homosexuality looks like. Some of these folks will, much like a 13 year-old girl has successfully argued, feel victimized by biology. I tend to think the socialized or "acquired" homosexuals, those whose sexuality is environmentally spawned or reinforced--e.g. reaction to sexual trauma--generally don't wish to be straight except, such as in the example given, the desire for it all to go away, and for everything to be statistically "normal." (This is a misnomer; fully 1/4 of women in the US will be raped in their lifetimes; the majority of that will occur in childhood or youth; normal, in the end, is reduced to plurality at best, if not an outright fraud.)

To draw a dangerous comparison, it's a problem of defining the goal. Statistically- or apparently-deviated individuals have not cornered the market on clarity; I know nobody who would assert they have. But watch how people deal with, for instance, the depressed. Nobody I know who deals with such difficulties actually wants to be normal. "Normalcy" is largely what pushed them over the edge, unless it's a running chemical or structural issue. "Normal" sucks. The normal don't like being normal, why should the deviant aspire to be? In the end, the goals ought to be functionality and sustainability. The mistake I've made, for instance, all through my life, was the twenty-five years of aspiring to normalcy. I chased "normalcy" for so long, made so many bad decisions in my quest for the normal that I am, in fact, the wreck that comes before you all here. I don't mind thinking harder than the people around me, but at the same time I wish it could go toward something more immediately useful than castles in the sky. But normal? (Expletive) normal!

And I've watched in my friends who wrestled with their sexuality a battle between the competing desires for normalcy on the one hand, and happiness on the other.

And yes, they are competing desires.

So a lot of what passes for "wishing they were straight" is actually an incorrectly-stated pursuit for functionality and security; "normalcy," the comfort of being like 90% of your neighbors, is an amazingly heavy weight of comfort.

I don't actually believe that a tremendous number of homosexuals wish they were straight. And of those that do, I'm of the opinion that it's generally not a wish to be straight per se, but rather a desire to not be considered--or consider themselves--superficially abnormal and set apart by a mere label.

I always smile when I hear a homophobe include some aspect of the "wealth" of gay men in a discussion of homosexuality, because the wealth spoke to a limited number of possibilities, most interesting being the propositions that sexual repression in society causes the men to channel more of their efforts into their work, or that ... hey, two gay men are wealthy? You mean they're not out blowing their lives on drink and drugs and wild sex? You mean they're living in a happy, apparently-monogamous relationship and behaving ... gasp! ... like people are allegedly supposed to behave when they are happy and secure? Or, at the very least, they're getting along as well as their "normal" neighbors? Very few of these men, for instance, will wish they were straight.

Another dangerous notion, but functional: Think of how hard it is to get information about drugs. I don't mean for you and me, but when we get right down to it, the whole drug war is predicated on an extremely limited number of sources, and most of them incomplete, inappropriate, or ill-conceived. It's really hard to get good data when the participants in the surveys are confessing to crimes. Point: As a nefarious idea--e.g. "drugs" normalizes within a society, the tone of discussion changes. The last six years have seen marijuana normalize somewhat, for instance. After one of the Clinton-era's own anti-drug experts compared marijuana's addictiveness to caffeine (still a slight exaggeration), the whole discussion changed. Everybody knew the stoners at work because they were looking at the coffee-freaks and laughing that stoner laugh. And in the middle of that, when NIDA finally announced that they had identified withdrawal symptoms from THC, every stoner in the country said, "Well? Duh!" And it's true. It's like caffeine withdrawal. Only it takes about a day to set in at least, and not forty minutes. And the stoners didn't tell NIDA to piss off because (A) we knew it was true, and (B) the discussion had finally reached a point where rational discourse is remotely possible. People might think stoners are lazy and inattentive, but watching and thinking are two things they're notorious for. Nobody denounced the study. Nobody called it false. Nobody called it political. The issue went away and we can now include that minor point in the honest discussion.

Any nefarious idea goes through this. In fact, I just this morning had my boundaries redrawn; my opinion of the most ridiculous sexual gratification changed. It's no longer a tie between exhibitionist adult babies and vinyl-doms. (What? Enjoy yourselves, but I do chuckle when I see it in public. I won't be chuckling anymore ... the ABs and the doms have just been normalized by ... oh, never mind.)

Homosexuality has traditionally been considered a nefarious idea. Wait, wait, wait. Let's get this straight. Gay men everwhere owe heterosexual men and homosexual women a debt of gratitude. For as long as humanity has reviled sodomy between men, and as long as there has been a debate about heterosexual sodomy, female homosexual intercourse has generally been worshipped. It's only a severe minority of people who actually have a problem with it. So in miles and miles and miles (to Infinity and Beyond!) of lesbian porno films and mountains (Olympus Mons!) of sapphic snapshots we find a partial normalization of "homosexuality."

But it's getting to the point where gay men can discuss their relationships with their parents. Anyone ever seen Jeffrey? The "mod parents" were wallpaper-crawlingly ... odd in a particular scene. Or how about John Waters recounting how his mother, upon learning that his film was called Pecker, and making the natural presumption since he's an oversexed, flamboyant gay man, said, "You know, dear, the other night on the television, they called it a johnson!"

These are pioneers.

It was Christmas day, 2001, standing on the fourth green at a par 3 course near my mother's house, that my mom starts talking about grandchildren. And she says to me, "And even if you or your brother are gay, I would hope you could settle down and maybe adopt one."

I just looked at her, jaw open. I didn't tell her, "I'll let you know when I figure it out." I decided leaving it an open question would be a bad idea. Few things surprise me in the world, but that . . . .

The discussion about homosexuality is changing. The idea of men having sex with one another is not so pointedly reviled. While fewer heterosexual men will want to watch gay men having sex, there is less fear among the herd. Whether resignation or actual progress, I think it will be an interesting day when mothers discuss their children's partners in any context.

wow....that was some post....tiassa...thanks for sharing that....

They don't.

There are no gay people.

This is really just a conspiracy to get you to believe in anything immediately before the Jewish Martians take over the interstellar cheese industry; didn't you know that HIV makes fabulous cheese, according to Reticulan food critic Zmaldergov Mdorkmi?
OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! I thought I was the only one who knew! And they tried to lock me up! BUT YOU KNOW TOO! It's so obvious people!

GOD! I know that! Why do people keep saying stupid things like you, SpyMoose?! I. Was. Only. Joking! If the stupid thread can be satire why can't I?

As stated over and over and over and over again in this thread, that is because the list is a satire! The second sentences are what makes it a satire, showing that the points in the first sentences are as unsuportable as the ones in the second sentence. Really now, its only a three page thread, please read and try to comprehend before you come up with some statement like "Gee, you know what, I think this thread might be about homosexuals!" Duh! That is the point!

It all depends on what you believe the purpose of marriage is. When I first heard this issue come up I believed that the only reason for marriage was to provide special benefits to parents to help them raise their children. Since I do not believe that homosexuals should adopt in most cases this excluded them from consideration I have changed my mind. I believe that it is in the interest of society to promote long lasting relationships between consenting adults. So yes I agree with homosexual marriages and probably group marriages if there are ample protections to keep them from being abusive. I also believe that it should be harder to get a divorce. The only time that the state needs to get involved in my private life is when my private life affects the state. The state should also keep its nose out of other people’s private lives just to be fair. If people want the benefits of marriage such as custody property transfers or just an ounce of human respect they should be allowed them. We should give larger tax credits if it is our goal to help families. We should give these tax credits to everyone who is raising children including homosexuals. Even freaks deserve respect.

if straight parents raise straight children, how do people become gay
unfortunately, by mixing with gay familys ,and gay people,or even having a sexual fetish,and chosing to go after the same sex. after all people,have the strangest tastes.

Thankyou for the story.
It was a perspective i have not seen before.

I can look at jokes both with and about gay people, in good humour, cause light humour exists. That, and cause my best friend and i have a Will and Grace friendship. Sometimes you tell people that you're friend is gay, and they'll look at you funny, and you feel that you are being rude even mentioning it, which is hard, because i have respect for both people's views and ways of life. There are conservative people, and religious people, and it can be auwquard to even invite friends out, because if one looks down on the other, it can be hard. Sometimes they clash, and all that can be done is to walk on.

It can be enlightening to look at it in anothers eye's.

Thankyou again

Men are created to be with women and vice versa for the main purpose of creating new generations.

Men are not created to be with men and neither women to be with women for any purpose including sexual pleasures.

Men are not created to be with men and neither women to be with women for any purpose including sexual pleasures.

It's a good thing that people like you are born with a flat out unquestionable monopoly on the truth. It makes it a lot easier for you to take positions that take ridiculously intrusive and irrational liberties with the extent that it is fair to dictate the lives of others.

If I may be allowed to spin your comment here (I really should go into advertising) what I just heard was that Homosexuality is the only 100% effective form of birth control. I should see about printing up some bumper stickers with that phrase or something.

"Men are created to be with women and vice versa for the main purpose of creating new generations."
humans only need to survive as a species, it doesnt matter if half of the population are gay, as long as the others have enough kids

"unfortunately, by mixing with gay familys ,and gay people,or even having a sexual fetish,and chosing to go after the same sex. after all people,have the strangest tastes."
lol, how did the first person become gay then??? :P

It's a good thing that people like you are born with a flat out unquestionable monopoly on the truth. It makes it a lot easier for you to take positions that take ridiculously intrusive and irrational liberties with the extent that it is fair to dictate the lives of others.
Just because you do not like it and call it "ridiculously intrusive and irrational...", it is still the undeniable truth!

lol, how did the first person become gay then??? :P
You have to find out from that first person. But seriously, there are people who biologically are born with the tendency of being gay so this was how it started. However, many gay people are not really born with this tendency but still become gay anyway just for the purpose of sexual pleasure.

By the way, this thread was about allowing gay people to be married. I do not support homosexuality but I still accept the fact that they have their rights to choose their lifestyles. Gay couples may legally call their living together as union partnership or whatever but marriage is already defined as a union between a man and a woman. If something like union partnership is not good enough for them, why do the gay people not just come up with another the word for their union? How about "garriage"?

Guess ... lemme see if I got this right? Some people become gay 'cause they enjoy the sex? Well, if they enjoy the gay sex, wouldn't that suggest that they have a biological predispositiuon towards it?

Oh, and you declaring something doesn't make it the undeniable truth anymore than all the pundits' predicitions make the Lakers the champs.

many gay people are not really born with this tendency but still become gay anyway just for the purpose of sexual pleasure.


Ok hold on, so some people just "Turn" gay for the sexual pleasure of it? But if these are people who were otherwise straight, then why the fuck would they just up and decide to "turn" gay? Wouldn't the be just as repulsed as anyone else by the idea of sleeping with someone of the same sex? You haven't thought this through very well, have you? Maybe they just naturally desire to have relations with members of the same sex just as straight people desire to have relations with members of the same sex. . . oh wait that would be a qualitative difference and they certainly didn't just will those desires into existence, now did they? Time to go back to school and pay attention during psy101 I guess.

I just looked at your website....you look like some dude that got hitched at a gay wedding on tv last week, although you were dressed as a bride then. Same sunglasses though...

StarOfEight and Mystech,

Oops! You guys got me on my "...for the purpose of sexual pleasure" comment :o . I think it is true that if it is for "sexual pleasure" then it should mean that these people already have a gay tendency. What I should have typed was "...for the purpose of satisfying their sexual curiosity."

Can any of you at least admit that the behind of a man is not there for the purpose of being penetrated by another man, and/or a woman is not created for the purpose of enjoying sex with another woman?

Anyway, back to the main topic, a man is not created for the purpose of marrying another man and a woman is not created for the purpose of marrying another woman. This is still the undeniable truth. It is not the same as saying that "the Lakers will win the finals" but that "the Lakers will play basketball."

I just looked at your website....you look like some dude that got hitched at a gay wedding on tv last week, although you were dressed as a bride then. Same sunglasses though...

Well don't worry, because that wasn't me. I assure you I'm still single. . . and those aren't even real sun-glasses, they're magnetic clip-ons for my perscription glasses. It's all a fabrication and misrepresentation! Also, I wouldn't dress like a bride if I were getting married, how tasteless!

Can any of you at least admit that the behind of a man is not there for the purpose of being penetrated by another man, and/or a woman is not created for the purpose of enjoying sex with another woman?

I don't know, Guess, it seems to work pretty well, so I'm not sure where you're comming from with this. Saying that humans were created for any purpose is kind of wishy washy isn't it? Created for who's purpose? Were trees created for the purpose of letting us sit in they're shade, or do they just happen to have convenient shadows? This kind of after the fact rationalization is kind of subjective isn't it? There aren't many objective absolutes in the arena of human interactin and socialization.

Well, guesswho, if you are trying to force an intelligent design position, and imply that we weren’t "supposed" to be gay, then why is the prostate gland positioned where it is? Don't know what I'm talking about? Feel around in your rear, you can do it on the pretence of inspecting for colon cancer or whatever, when you find where your prostate is the discovery will probably be noted by a rapid ejaculation.

Though I must say your premise is comical. Like Mystech said, trees weren’t made to cast shadows, but they sure do, and we like to sit under them. My hands weren’t made to click a mouse, but I'll be damned if t hey aren’t good for it.

SPYMOOSE your the scientist here.
do men ejaulate, when there bowels are full, or not....

If not, why not.
I would be interested to know.

let me make it clear, I'm not picking fault with you, just asking a question.
I hope, you dont take it that way.

I don't know why a bowel movement does not stimulate in the same way, but I have suggested an experiment that can prove to you that anal penetration is extremely pleasurable for men. Should you conduct this experiment, and manually stimulate your prostate, you would surely loose the argument that men are not 'designed' to be pleasured in this homosexual way.

Legalize gay marriage.

Guess - who's to say we were created for any purpose? If you want to believe that, go ahead, but don't pretend that's an adequate reason for denying people rights because what they do makes you uncomfortable.

Guess - who's to say we were created for any purpose? If you want to believe that, go ahead, but don't pretend that's an adequate reason for denying people rights because what they do makes you uncomfortable.

I second that.

Guess - who's to say we were created for any purpose? If you want to believe that, go ahead, but don't pretend that's an adequate reason for denying people rights because what they do makes you uncomfortable.

That’s the thing though, they believe it, so they aren’t pretending. They actually are that strange and dangerous! They really do think that a white guy with a beard sitting on a cloud is made deeply unhappy because some of us are in love with each other, so they want to do whatever they can to stop it. And for some reason this bearded guy on a cloud’s unhappiness is justification to piss off untold numbers of us. Hurray for the all loving, all creating god who apparently created something he doesn’t love so his other creations have to try to harass it. It makes a lot of sense.

Guess ... lemme see if I got this right? Some people become gay 'cause they enjoy the sex? Well, if they enjoy the gay sex, wouldn't that suggest that they have a biological predispositiuon towards it?

Oh, and you declaring something doesn't make it the undeniable truth anymore than all the pundits' predicitions make the Lakers the champs.

I do believe Detroit took it home. :p

That's my point, dude.

If man was meant to fly he would have wings.

I am just kidding. It seems like every one is so certain that they know what choices other people should be making and that aggravates me to no end.

It's only point twelve I disagree with. Marriage as a legal status, recognised by the state and required in order to recieve certain legal priveleges, cannot, if the tenets of American faceless equality have anything more than symbolic worth, be given to a select group of individuals and withheld from another. However, marriage as a social contract between a man and woman believed to hold spirtual and moral value, may be restricted by the issueing parties according to their respective spirtual and moral beliefs. It is not the place fo state to order the Catholic church to sanction gay marriages, any more than it is the role of the state to grant religious civil unions, like traditional Christian marriage, any legal recognition, be it in favor of or against.

So, I'd prefer a general change in the legal definition of "marriage," as described for both homosexual and heterosexual unions, to reflect a more secular and morally irrelevant basis. For example, calling them "civil unions," and defining them as "two persons sharing personal property and retaining pertinent child-rearing rights." This would effectively remove the object of discussion altogether (namely, whether or not gay "marriage" is immoral).

Of course, arguments regarding homosexuals raising children may still apply. However, insofar as I am aware, there has been no scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality can be deliberately imparted. More careful study and observation is necesarry. However, assumeing it is more likely that a child raised in a homosexual environment will turn out gay himself, is it the place of the state to prohibit the parents' lifestyle choices in this regard? After all, we all agree that the state cannot order families to raise secular, Christian, agnostic, or Jewish children. Whats the difference?

give me 12 reasons anyone can judge anyone elses choices in sexuality. What they want to do is their business, keep out of it

i have not even read the reasons and i am already against homosexuallity.

what is unknown is "scarry" so i guess i am looking at a general picture here but still i do not see what the world has to profit from homosexuallity.

I was at our harbor today. We have the worlds larges bench there if i am not misstaking :P but in the corner, the furthest away you could see the kids with black makeup on then and those with the palestina scarfs (might be spelled wrong).
Hence they do not fit in the society they go to the extreme. Even with simple matters as this.
Homosexuallity i see as one of those extremes, those who did not fit in. But homosexuallity is not just mental, i reckon it is physical too. Actually i do not know what it is, just don't like it.

As the fascist, capitalist, conservative bastard i am, I just dont like gay's.

Baal Zebul, don't insult yourself like that :) I respect your opinion, although I oppose you on this issue.

good that someone does. WHAT i respect is your right to get descrimiated against just like you would have everyone do and your right to have your private life interefered with for no other reason than that the other person thinks your life is "wrong"

i have not even read the reasons and i am already against homosexuallity.

what is unknown is "scarry" so i guess i am looking at a general picture here but still i do not see what the world has to profit from homosexuallity.

Well, I'm glad that you're at least willing to admit that your opinion is based on the fact that you're a dimwit who hasn't got a clue about even the fundamentals of this issue. If more people had the courage to admit that to themselves, and as such recognize that it's not even particularly their place to hold an opinion, let alone be making decisions for the rest of us, then I think the world would be better off.

interesting triviality about the reproduction aspect.
Judging from their rather conservative ramblins. One would guess you are against children born out of wed-lock and/or premarital sex.
So by that thinking how could you tell if couples are fertile or not? Should all straight couples be tested before marriage for fertility and if they fail. They should be denied marital rights?

Also when did we get an official religion and kill all those practicing otherwise? and forbid single parents to raise children?

Who says that a child with a single parent lacks role models in the home, what about grandparents, uncles&aunts, siblings, friends and neighbours? I beleive the apporpriate quote is "it takes a village to raise a child" so unless you intend to raise all children in isolation with just their mom and dad then I don't know how your going to accmplish this.

Also in a "Theocracy like ours" the values of no religions are really being imposed, because otherwise there would be no murder theft or name calling. (the basic general rules of all major world religions...) OH! and no shell-fish!

OH! If only gay parents raise gay children, where did gay people come from? Because they must've come from somewhere and stright parents will only raise straight children.

and last but not least what does Britney spears have to do with gay marriage? I mean she married a man, or am I mistaken? OH! What am I thinking! ONLY ARRANGED marriages are meaningful... those have been around for centuries!

It's only point twelve I disagree with. Marriage as a legal status, recognised by the state and required in order to recieve certain legal priveleges, cannot, if the tenets of American faceless equality have anything more than symbolic worth, be given to a select group of individuals and withheld from another.

Most of those who are against marriage are not entirely against the concept of allow gays civil unions. Our main dillemma is that we believe marriage is between a man and women, husband and wife. The idea of gay marriage is as foreign to us as a three-some called marriage or someone's one night stand.

Moreso, we do not feel that a homosexual family is the *best* situation to raise a family. Calling a relationship "marriage" by the state would be imposing this equality.

Moreso, we do not feel that a homosexual family is the *best* situation to raise a family. Calling a relationship "marriage" by the state would be imposing this equality.

Hmm and imposition of equality vs. an imposition of inequality. . . which exactly is worse? Considering that in either situation it's not an imposition on you or any other straight people, I don't really see how it should even matter to you!

It's all well and good for you to define marriage how you want based upon your religious teachings, but you've got to keep in mind that "Because God says so" is not an argument that grants you license to impose your views on the entire nation.

Oki: Y'know for all this talk of religion and marriage don't you think that that would mean that only religious people could "marry". Oh and then we'd have to decide which religion its legal to marry under. Are muslim marriages any less marriage like? Are they a mockery of christian marriages? should they be banned by constitutional laws?

And then if we go "only christians can marry", Which christians? Catholics? Protestants? Mormons? Anglicans?

Draw me the line.

What about Anti-Anti-disestablishmentarians? They're Christians too!

Right, if a marriage is a union between one man and one woman in the eyes of God, then why do we allow atheists to marry?

Oki: Y'know for all this talk of religion and marriage don't you think that that would mean that only religious people could "marry".

I never claimed that my definition of marriage was religious. Why do you believe your definition, is non-religious but mine is?

I believe nonchristians do not receive a sacramental marriage but would be able to participate in a non-sacramental but valid marriage. I'm not sure about the other christians; I'm sure God blesses their marriages. This is nevertheless a distinction outlined by religion thatis not applicable. I refer to marriage in all cases to be between a man and a women.

It's rather standard terminology that marriage is composed of a husband and wife. I don't believe this is only a religious definition but one that evolved from our society.

why?

you do realise that lanuage evolves dont you and that words dont mean the same for everyone

i sugest you never ask an australian girl who she is "rooting for" because she will PROBABLY slap you (here root means sex)

so why cant you keep YOUR definition to yourself

have you ever looked at what the international declaration of human rights defines marrige as?

((1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

this doesn't define it as only ONE woman and ONE man
it says people have the right to marry and have a familly. Seems that the UN doesnt think that one man and one woman means marrige

so why cant you keep YOUR definition to yourself

Well, I will within reason but the purpose is to debate whether my or your's definition is right. To say "keep it to yourself" begs the question of why I must and you not.


this doesn't define it as only ONE woman and ONE man it says people have the right to marry and have a familly.

This seems to be something thrown in to allow some of the muslim counties onboard.


Seems that the UN doesnt think that one man and one woman means marrige

The UN is not the US, but I believe the UN's statement is consistent with the current laws. The sentence uses the word "marriage," and it would be quite odd for it to mean anything other than man and women, especially with the emphasis on founding a family.

The UN is not the US,

Sometimes the US thinks that it is... which explains its actions in Iraq.


and it would be quite odd for it to mean anything other than man and women

That's from your perspective, which has been shaped by American laws.

The UN does not specifiy that marriage CAN'T be between a man and a woman.


especially with the emphasis on founding a family.

A gay couple can have a family, either through adoption, or modern science.


i sugest you never ask an australian girl who she is "rooting for" because she will PROBABLY slap you (here root means sex)

ROFL.
Good call, Asguard. How true indeed. ;)

It's rather standard terminology that marriage is composed of a husband and wife. I don't believe this is only a religious definition but one that evolved from our society.

Sorry to single you out, Okinrus, but do people really think this way?

Would you agree with the following statement?

• In the history of the United States, religion has never had any effect on people's perceptions, choices, or actions.

Whence comes the seed from which that definition of marriage evolves? It comes from religion. In the US, that religion is the diverse paradigm of Christianity.

Sometimes you'll hear a poignantly mistaken Christian claim that the US is a "Christian nation." Generally, that person is referring to the prevalence of Christian values in the social norms of America.

Admittedly, the "Christian nation" argument doesn't do much for the alleged Christian who is arguing Christian social supremacy, but it does strike me in contrast when people put forth arguments that ignore that prevalence of Christian values in American culture.

And although I'm not following the whole of the specific part of the debate I've stuck my nose into, I wanted to splinter off in the abstract from another of your statements:


Well, I will within reason but the purpose is to debate whether my or your's definition is right. To say "[keep] it to yourself" begs the question of why I must and you not.

In my personal experience, much over the years has been made of "rights" in terms of religious debates. One of the striking things you'll notice in American social-religious debates, and something I've worked very hard to quash in our Sciforums environment, is a tendency by some Christians to make the argument that if I don't get my special way, my rights are being infringed. This argument has pertained to the publication of books, the stocking of libraries, the gender of your neighbor's sex partner, a woman's right to medical care, biological education of youth, ad nauseam.

For each of those, a quick example:

• Publication - "This book shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day." (e.g. general book burning - Harry Potter, &c.) The general argument is that allowing such obscenity into circulation infringes a Christian's right to free religion by failing to respect their standard of decency required for acceptable existence.
• Libraries - Oregon endured a ten-year fight over the book Heather Has Two Mommies; somewhere in there I recall a Christian woman going before the Salem-Keizer (Oregon) school board to protest the presence of Robert McCammon's Demon Walk in the school libraries. The woman demonstrated a specific lack of understanding of literature in general--in other words, I could see her point if I took a McCammon novel as literally and gravely as she attempted to take the Bible. The general argument seems to be that allowing such books onto public library shelves infringes the Christian's right to free religion by forcing a violation of their religious standards. Allowing a McCammon novel, for instance, or Heather Has Two Mommies on public library shelves seems to be something akin to forcing a Jew to eat pork while tattooing his wife and having consensual sex with another man. (That last refers to Lot's daughters; an obscure swipe I admit.)
• Gender of sex partner - Georgia, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Texas, and finally, Massachusetts. I mean, really ... in Oregon, Christians tried to fire state employees for having a sex partner of the "wrong" gender. In the Oregon battle, they even tried to rewrite the state curriculum in a manner that would have screwed the medical schools, for sure. Medicine based on religious moral assertions? Come now--giving bad medical advice to sodomites is a worse idea than faith healing.
• Woman's right to medical care - Even the terminology can set off some Christians. I call it a woman's right to medical care, some folks call it murder.
• Biological education - I agree that there are a number of things that should be taught within the home, but society pays for it collectively when parents fail to perform those certain duties. I look at the school-prayer people and wonder, "Do you really want a public-school teacher teaching your child religious faith?" I mean, I understand that somebody might be uncomfortable having an ogling midlife-crisis explaining sex to their daughter, but that's no excuse for parents to skip out on it. In the meantime, we have a high first-world teen-unwed birthrate and a scant excuse of a social net to protect the future of the species. Abstinence as a cause in the face of HIV didn't really work. Ignorance definitely didn't. People are people, and that means they're human. We must, at some point, prepare to deal reasonably with this fact.

In the end, the simple problem I have with the above arguments spawned by various people pursuing their faith in Christ is a simple comparison:

• Humans appear to be social creatures. As such, we must make certain sacrifices and compromises to get along. Christians claim the highest possible stake in their faith: the eternal soul. And they use it like a club when there is a political cause afoot. Logic and reason take a back seat compared to the value of the soul. But in the end, the reason I choose what I do is that I believe it ensures the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people.

Christians don't give a rat's ass about that sort of thing. As one church in Seattle once put it, in large letters on the marquee, Freedom is not the liberty to do what you want, but to do what God says is right. At a mystical level, sure, it's true. But I guarantee you they weren't aiming for the mystical. It's the classic question of "who watches the watchers." I simply try to minimize the effect of that question by minimizing the watchers.

Generally speaking, if Christians find themselves against a wall whereby they feel their way/opinion/&c is denied while others are being accepted, such as in arguments over the definition of marriage, I would point to the issue of how tightly one draws the circle. People can believe whatever the hell they want. But in a social cooperative, the species has an obligation unto itself to treat people fairly, and that means setting definitions as inclusively as possible.

This is often difficult, especially in gay-related debates, for Christians. The rhetorical tendency of some of the sharper voices to group homosexuality with child rape, bestiality, and necrophilia suggests a lack of understanding of the notion of consent. (I admit that doesn't surprise my sense of humor, as Christianity carries an inherently twisted notion of consent.)

What happens is that "your" ("their," whosever) opinion is perceived as inherently cutting out a legitimate segment of the population.

With what marriage represents in society, it must include homosexual unions. If society wishes to strip the legal privileges of marriage and reduce it to a proprietary contract, then fine, we can leave it to the churches. Most of us have better things to do, anyway, even if it's just sitting on a rock with a cigarette and killing ourselves slowly.

In the meantime, though, when a family that kicked out your deceased partner of over thirty years when he was a teenager steps up and yanks his estate out from under you and your lack of legal recourse stems directly from society's legal regard for homosexuality ... is that really fair?

Should you be denied employment as a police officer or a typist because of the gender of your sex partner?

The problem with some people's definitions is that they are designed to intentionally exclude other people.

Tiassa i think its time that someone took this further
after all no one who posted against us actually FOLLOWS the faith they profess to follow

Christanity says that god gave man freewill to do what he saw fit.
after the flood he pledged that he would never punish his people on earth
somepeople here seem to think that they are BETTER than god
oviously they must if they can judge when god has said he wont
but how can you be better than the god you worship?

you cant
so oviously these people arnt true christan worshipers because they dont worship god

they reject christs comandment to "love one another" and they reject gods plege not to judge on earth

Sorry to single you out, Okinrus, but do people really think this way?

Unless if you mind updating everything to say person A and person B, marriage really is quite entrenched in society.


• In the history of the United States, religion has never had any effect on people's perceptions, choices, or actions.

No, it's effected the people within the United States but there are number of checks against any particular religious institution taking control.


Whence comes the seed from which that definition of marriage evolves? It comes from religion. In the US, that religion is the diverse paradigm of Christianity.

I don't believe religion persay. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that modern depictions of marriage, while being partly inspired by religion, did not come from religion. For instance, the era of romantic love and knights dying for their love do not originate with religion.


is a tendency by some Christians to make the argument that if I don't get my special way, my rights are being infringed. This argument has pertained to the publication of books, the stocking of libraries, the gender of your neighbor's sex partner, a woman's right to medical care, biological education of youth, ad nauseam.

This is not what I meant. Those who believe in gay marriage must give as much evidence showing us they do not believe just because of their religious belief, and I do consider the stark anti-religious remarks just as religious as the any Christian's. For if one was to hold a full separation of church and state, one must leave the hatred of church behind. Yet such a thing is not entirely possible, and this is why their understanding of church and state is flawed.

I think this is akin to your following remarks. Why should we take Bible's off of our shelves in goverment and school buildings? There's quite a large difference between supplying students who search and endorsing a particular religion. In fact, quite a few of my teachers quoted from verses that were general enough not to endorse religion.


• Woman's right to medical care - Even the terminology can set off some Christians. I call it a woman's right to medical care, some folks call it murder.

It's rather unfortunate that Luther removed the book of Sirach. Cults such as the JW would probably not have ever been started.


Humans appear to be social creatures. As such, we must make certain sacrifices and compromises to get along. Christians claim the highest possible stake in their faith: the eternal soul. And they use it like a club when there is a political cause afoot. Logic and reason take a back seat compared to the value of the soul. But in the end, the reason I choose what I do is that I believe it ensures the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people.

When I have used my belief in the soul as club? Logic and reason are only as good as the begining and the end. If the beginning is wrong, the conclusion is wrong and if the end's wrong, I'll use of reason and logic will only destroy ourselves.




Christians don't give a rat's ass about that sort of thing. As one church in Seattle once put it, in large letters on the marquee, Freedom is not the liberty to do what you want, but to do what God says is right. At a mystical level, sure, it's true. But I guarantee you they weren't aiming for the mystical. It's the classic question of "who watches the watchers." I simply try to minimize the effect of that question by minimizing the watchers.

I think your preacher is referring to what the archbishop Sheen said. Something like "Freedom is not the liberty to do whatever you want but what is right" in response to communism. Obviously, the potential failing of capitalism is when freedom is abused to enslave. All sin will eventually lead to less freedom but the fog makes this unclear to us and some.

It's also not clear when to directly stop evil or allow evil. If were to really try to stop all homosexual relations, I would assume that would only lead to more evil and clash. Yet if we try to influence, perhaps, and with other issues such as abortion we will have to take the risk and forcebly stop.


Should you be denied employment as a police officer or a typist because of the gender of your sex partner?

No, but that doesn't mean that everyone can become a police officer or typist.

so oviously slavery couldnt end because they couldnt change the documents?
how about the vote for women?

change ALWAYS happens
everytime parliment sits they change stuff

Well, I will within reason but the purpose is to debate whether my or your's definition is right. To say "keep it to yourself" begs the question of why I must and you not.

The obvious answer to that is that your definition oppresses a segment of the population, whereas ours has no effect on the rest of the population. If gays start getting hitched you won't even know the difference, if you get your way we will continue to attempt to manage relationships without the legal protections that would be so useful.

In this light it is difficult to understand why you even think your opinion of the issue should matter, however the power of tradition in the United States makes us look to the Christian churches on issues of marriage; you really have no concrete authority on this subject, and no stake in how it is decided.

Baal Zebul: I'm just kind of bothered by something in your post. And its not your stance on gays.

Its your stance on people "fitting in". Why do you beleive that everybody has to fit in, or rather that people do "fit in". Its this attitude that i find erronious. Especially in todays diverse society how exactly does one go about fitting in. And to what group does one attempt to make this assimilation? Should I try to fit into the preppy super PTA moms with pastel sweaters and mini vans? And if so what about the unhappy marriages that sometimes occur, the repetitive days, do I try to fit with them? Or should I try and fit in with the 'preppy cool kids' at my highschool? Wear all the right make up, all the right clothes, listen to only peppy pop music and join the cheer squad? And if so should I also 'fit in' with peer pressure and have sex when i'm 16 cus everyone else is doing it? Should I stop eating so i fit into the right skinny weight category? Maybe start snorting ridilin to keep my perfect grades up under pressure? Should I stop showing symbols of respect and devotion to my religion like the scarves so I fit the afforementioned religion? And should I throw away what i feel is right for me in my sexuality and life style, and the chance for a happy relationship to be with some fucking guy i don't find attractive, to have the perfect happy family with 2.5 kids and a dog.

Who am I supposed to fucking fit in with and WHY?

Source: Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4310822,00.html
Title: "Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote"
Date: July 14, 2004

Even I find a moment to grin that I'm calling up a British source for the story, but it's coincidental. It was the first link I found with the roll call, and it's an AP wire story to boot.

The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporters of the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill . . . .

. . . . Voting ``yes'' were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

Voting ``no'' were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent.

Source: Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4310822,00.html)

Comment:

The vote even fell short of a simple majority; at least one major news outlet calls the failing bill a stinging defeat, and I think the embarrassment stems from internecine bickering among GOP senators.

To the other, though, American pundits and analysts see the issue as one of sharp focus for the election despite the defeat. I'm wondering if this isn't so much an embarrassing defeat for the GOP--the "Republican base vote" is pretty strong within itself, and will be proud of its senators for making a stand at least. In the end, what we have then is a dead issue before Congress that will be a hot potato in the presidential election.

Of course, the War on Terror also challenges Equal Protection, but there's a matter of priorities that nags at me. Economy, terror, wars and rumors of wars, and the unspeakable five-letter word that crouches in the shadows as the Selective Service surveys its own fitness to function--and we're arguing about buggery, carpet-munching, and the legal right of two people to love one another?

I'd say that plays well into the GOP's hands. Better this issue than a real one.

While it is a good thing to have this affirmation that Americans haven't gone completely lunatic yet, we must remember that any sense of "victory" in the failure of the Homophobes Amendment is tempered by the fact that Americans could--and well should--expect this outcome. We cannot let the sense of victory cloud the sleight of notions at play. The GOP is trying to play cups and balls at least, and they're not doing a very good job.

Looking over to the New York Times for a final note, I find the quote of the week on this issue, from none other than Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA):

"You can say I'm a hater. But I would argue I'm a lover. I'm a lover of traditional families and children who deserve the right to have a mother and father."

Source: Oakland Tribune (http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2271568,00.html)
____________________

Reference Links:

• Associated Press. "Gay Marriage Roll Call." Guardian Unlimited, July 14, 2004. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4310822,00.html
• Hulse, Carl. "Opponents of Gay-Marriage Ban Expect Senate Win." New York Times, July 14, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/national/14gays.html

Note: New York Times links require free registration. See link below for other source.

See Also:

• Hulse, Carl. "GOP lacks Senate votes to pass gay-marriage ban." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 14, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/182023_senate14.html

I don't get it, it's already friggin' illegal everywhere anyhow, and now they wanna' make it even more illegal? We've got state laws everywhere 'cept Massachusetts, the Federal "Defense" of Marriage Act, but for some that's just not enough? We've gotta' throw in a fucking constitutional amendment for no good reason? It wasn't voted down on Wednesday by the way, it was some form of "Procedural vote" whatever the hell that means, but as I understand it they were not actually voting on the proposed amendment, and Frist vows that this isn't over yet.

They didn't have enough votes to force a vote on the Amendment. That's why analysts consider the amendment dead as a Congressional issue this year, and why it's apparently that much more an embarrassment for the GOP. That the Amendment couldn't muster enough support to be worth voting on is significant.

deleted

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial Narrow]Well, I don't know so much about the various metits of the 12 reasons gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry specifically per say, but having read them I can certainly think of at least one perfectly valid reason why heterosexual people, on occasion's such as this, should most certainly not be allowed to conceive at all... ;)


If that was an attack against me I'd ask you to please read a little bit more of the thread. Please don't drag up ancient threads just to make the same stupid comment that about a dozen other people have already made in the same thread simply because they didn't give it a good enough read through.

mystech, you do realize that it's a natural chemical imbalance that happen before birth? That is how someone is homosexual.
That said, I don't understand why the fuck it matters. They want to get married. Whoopry frick-fuckin doo.
Gays have as much a right to be as happy or unhappy as straight people.

p.s) I agree with Mr.Anonymous.

deleted

Yeah, I read that list on gatorgsa.org. Hilarious! I also liked the "I think I might be straight..." brochure.

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial Narrow]... em, Mystech old boy. The only possible way the response I actually wrote could possibly be directed against you personally is if you are actually the author of the specific 12 reasons why, etc...

Okay then, why would you be disparaging the author of those 12 reasons, then? My question holds as strongly, I think. They are a clear work of satire, not a serious condemnation of same-sex marriage.

mystech, you do realize that it's a natural chemical imbalance that happen before birth? That is how someone is homosexual.


Really, is that it? You might want to call the authorities of the scientific and medical communities and alert them that you've discovered the exact thing that makes a person homosexual.

This thread was cute in it's day I think, but it's been nothing but "attack of the reading-comprehension issues" for quite some time now. Would it be rude of me to ask Tiassa to lock it?

deleted

Is replying to one of your posts always this much fun?

Take a look at Hapsburg's reply, and note that you don't particularly distinguish your own tone from his. Posts like that account for about half of this thread.

come on its their own life... who are you to decide whether they can marry or not?
their tendencies go against nature... so what's wrong???
aren't mentally or physically chanllenged individuals permitted to marry???
your talkin shit!

because marriage is all about a man and a woman coming together. You get married under the eyes of your God.

why would you need to get married if you were gay? clearly you're godless.

because marriage is all about a man and a woman coming together. You get married under the eyes of your God.

why would you nee