This could get ugly, but I am goig to bring up gay rights. If I am not mistaken, most supporters believe it's a matter of preferance and tolerance, and that its morality is irrelavant. It seems to me, however, that its morality must be adressed, and that laws that allow such civil unions and marriges are inconsistant with current ones.

For example, other "unusual" marriges are illegal. I'm sure that there are many people who are not old enough would like to be married. Polygamy is illegal. Unions with animals are not recognized by the law.

If homosexuality is going to be recognized, then let's be consistant, although I, personaly, would prefer things just stay heterosexual in the first place.

one thing...i dont believe homosexuality should be legal if we are going to keep god in this country...in the bible, it specifically says that homosexuals are the only people that he doesnt love...so THAT MEANS NO!
Also...i believe that homosexuality is just plain GROSS...i dont see how u can love ur own anatomy...
this is only my opinion...

Legally they have a right to get married according to the UN charter, also the US constitution (to the best of my knowledge) does not Barr it, I am aware that some republicans want a amendment so it makes it impossible. But under Clinton you had a marriage act that decreed that marriage is btwn a man and a woman, but the issue is that the law passed was not binding (in a sense) because states still had the right to decide on their own. I personally have no problems with homosexuals, or them getting married. It is none of our business to interfere in their lives; marriage is an idiotic institution in the first place imo. So if they are stupid enough to get married, then let it be. We have no right to be in the bedrooms of the nation:

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau


Canada is much more socially progressive then the US that is for sure. I couldn't believe that anti-sodomy laws even still existed in the US in 2002, when it was repealed here in 1967.

In America you can be whatever you want to be as long as you don't push yourself onto those that don't like it. Gays have their bars, beaches , lakes and other hangouts they go to. No one bothers them there, or at least most people leave them alone. When the vast majority of a society believes that HETROsexuality is the way of the society then homosexuals shouldd try and understand that the 1 percent of them can't tell the other 99 percent what should be done. This is a fact, 99 percent of the society we live in are HETROSEXUALS no matter what the fucking news media tells you.

morality is irrelevant in rules.
it depends on what the constitution says. the only people that can interpret the constitution (and that too, not arbitrarily at all) is judges.
their job is not to determine if something is "moral" but if something is "constitutional".
if it is, then morality is irrelevant.

the fact that i think homosexuality is nasty and that "gay marriage" is a circus show and a farce, has nothing to do with the fact that it is "constitutional" (well, that's being debated in the courts right now)
anyway, my and your opinions don't matter

I agree with oth on this issue, it is a very basic human rights abuse to deny these people the right to get married. Why don't we use the analogy of inter-racial marriages in the 60's for instance? That was illegal as well and seen as "digusting, immoral, and unnatural", do we actually think that now? Let me call these ppl "moralists" for simplicity sake. These ppl believe that Gay sex and marriage is evil, disgusting, and even detestable to the human race. But could I not say that so is their intolerance? "Moralists" have the problem of it being a subjective view. What is the objective view here? Which one is more valid Natural laws, or Positive laws? As far as I know in westernized nations at least everyone has the liberty to do what they want. Since marriage is a victimless issue, and since marriage is a personal issue I do not see any reason or any validity of anyone to tell two consenting adults not to do what they want to do. To say that because 99.9% of the population is not gay, lends more to the argument that this does literally nothing to change the landscape of the nation, and it affect what? 100 ppl? Obviously up to 10-20% of the population is homosexual, and these ppl are being denied basic human rights. For what?

I don't see why the government has any policy regarding marriage. Why not just let religious organizations take care of it? I don't know why the government would even recognize marriage. If two people want to commit to live monogamously with each other for the rest of their lives, well great. But why do they need a government paper saying that they've agreed to do it?

But why do they need a government paper saying that they've agreed to do it?Death & taxes.For example, other "unusual" marriges are illegal. I'm sure that there are many people who are not old enough would like to be married. Polygamy is illegal. Unions with animals are not recognized by the law.Am I living in a world of rapists? Or is consent an issue? (Internet porn notwithstanding.) As to polygamy? That's a separate issue because it involves more than two people.

This could get ugly, but I am goig to bring up gay rights. If I am not mistaken, most supporters believe it's a matter of preferance and tolerance, and that its morality is irrelavant. It seems to me, however, that its morality must be adressed, and that laws that allow such civil unions and marriges are inconsistant with current ones.

I don't see that there's much to discuss on the issue of homosexuality and morality. There aren't many arguments that can be devised on a secular level for why it is "wrong" or "Evil", and being that we have a secular government (Well at least in theory) I guess that the "morality" of it is about as relevant as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Theological arguments haven’t got any place in a secular western democracy.

For example, other "unusual" marriages are illegal. I'm sure that there are many people who are not old enough would like to be married. Polygamy is illegal. Unions with animals are not recognized by the law.

If homosexuality is going to be recognized, then let's be consistent, although I, personally, would prefer things just stay heterosexual in the first place.

Well we should be glad that it's not entirely up to you, then, I suppose. Seeing how as you have no stake in the issue one way or another, I don't see how you can think that you might have any legitimate right to decide on it. I don't mean to be too harsh toward you specifically, but this exact same argument is being used in Massachusetts, where we have religious groups demanding to let people vote on the matter, so it is certainly of relevance to the broader issue.

The fact is that allowing homosexual marriage is simply allowing two consenting adults to receive the same benefits afforded to another group of consenting adults who happen to have the completely arbitrary difference of being heterosexual (Which, though I may not agree with it, I would never say makes someone less of a person, or should be used as reason to treat them like a second class citizen).

Frankly this issue does not concern heterosexuals, so I don't see why any heterosexual should be up in arms over it. Quit whining and get on board the equal-protection-under-the-law train, already. It’s sort of sad that our nation should be back in this position again.

Tiassa, of course concent isn't an issue with them, nor is the broader theme that homosexual relationships mirror heterosexual ones in nearly every social detail and nuance. The difference between homosexual marriage and somone marrying an animal is that in a homosexual marriage, one of the partners is not a dog! It is in fact a person who is capable of fulfilling the dutys and social role of a married person, and who is in love with thier spouce.

As for god hating gays, I would like to see some evedence that would convince a court of that. Remember, they don't allow hearsay (Which I suppose means they practice herecy).

one thing...i dont believe homosexuality should be legal if we are going to keep god in this country...in the bible, it specifically says that homosexuals are the only people that he doesnt love...so THAT MEANS NO!

First off, the government should not be concerned with "keeping god in this country". Our government is secular, it's not it's job to endorse one religion or another, and though it may often endorse deism of some sort or another now and again, there is, at least a fairly large segment of the population that recognizes that these little slip-ups ought not be there. You can keep God in your home and in your Church, but you have to realize that he must stay out of government, and you have no right to force him into your neighbors home.

Also, if you'd like to take up the issue of whether or not God hates homosexuals (it shouldn't be done in this thread) I suggest you go to the Religion forum. One thing I can assure you is that there is no clear passage in the bible with the message that God does not love homosexuals, and that, at least in the New Testament, there are plenty which say things quite to the contrary of the idea that God hates anyone.

Also...i believe that homosexuality is just plain GROSS...i dont see how u can love ur own anatomy...
this is only my opinion...

So some vague "ick" factor is enough, in your opinion, do discriminate against a whole segment of the population, and to hate people based upon factors which are out of their control? I hope you realize that is really no different than hating a person because of the color of their skin. Worse, you let that hatred motivate you to support those who would make these people second class citizens.

I know this sounds a little Bush-ish, but shouldn’t the government be allowed to strip people with views like these of their citizenship? It really comes down to a national security. If anyone is a traitor, if there is any terrorist capable of destroying our great nation, it would be people like these who advocate the complete destruction of everything our forefathers stood for. The line between democracy and mob rule is when the majority grants itself the right to subjugate a minority for completely arbitrary differences, especially when those differences don't even effect them. Sir, you aren't fit to be an American.

I've heard different ideas from religious people about who god does and does not love, but quite often i've heard it said that god hates gays. If this is true, I'd like to point out that a number of studies have linked homophobia to repressed homosexual tendencies or fear that one has such tendencies(this isn't to say that its linked in all cases, but a link has been shown), so if again god does hate gays, perhaps some self examination on his part could lead him to resolve his problem.

In America you can be whatever you want to be as long as you don't push yourself onto those that don't like it. Gays have their bars, beaches , lakes and other hangouts they go to. No one bothers them there, or at least most people leave them alone.

Though gay-bars and homosexual friendly districts in most large cities may offer a comforting social atmosphere and refuge from our usually all too heterosexist world for some, don't make the mistake of thinking that homosexuality is a separate culture or society from the rest of the nation. We walk among you, we live next door, we sit next to you on the subway. We've grown up, live, and continue to live shoulder to shoulder with every other man woman and child in this nation. Don’t think of this as an “us” and “them” issue. As much as some people hate to consider the idea, we’re all in it together. There's only one America for all of us, so why can't we just get allong?

When the vast majority of a society believes that HETROsexuality is the way of the society then homosexuals shouldd try and understand that the 1 percent of them can't tell the other 99 percent what should be done. This is a fact, 99 percent of the society we live in are HETROSEXUALS no matter what the fucking news media tells you.

One percent? That's quite a strech. Even those conservative attack-dog wierdos are only willing to downplay the numbers enough to say 2% I've honestly never heard of the one percent figure before. Tell me, where are you getting your numbers?

Recent US census indicate that the homosexual population is between 2% and 5% though, all those results show is how many homosexuals who filled out their census were willing to admit to being homosexual in a time when there were still laws outlawing the practice (in the form of sodomy laws) all together. Not exactly the most reliable source of information, but even with the negative bias, that still puts the population above one percent.

Aside from that we have the famous Alfred Kinsey 1 in 10 statistic (that'd be 10% for the mentally lazy). Though debating the accuracy of that number is probably a thread unto itself.

As it stands, there is really no accurate number of homosexuals in America, but clearly it's enough to start things moving and shaking-enough to stand up, be heard, and fight for their rights, and that's all that matters.

This is not a matter of a minority group telling the majority what to do, because the majority is being left entirely unaffected. This is a matter of a minority standing up and demanding equal protection under the law, an ideal, and a right expressly given to all the people of the United States under our Constitution.

I don't see why the government has any policy regarding marriage. Why not just let religious organizations take care of it? I don't know why the government would even recognize marriage. If two people want to commit to live monogamously with each other for the rest of their lives, well great. But why do they need a government paper saying that they've agreed to do it?

Marriage is not now, nor has it ever really been, a purely religious institution. There has always been a civil issue (probably much longer than it's been a religious issue). The government recognizes marriage as a legal acknowledgement of that particular bond between two people. In a more precise sense this comes into play in terms of taxes, as well as countless other legal considerations, and even in the private sector. Health insurance, being able to see a loved one in the hospital, being able to get a home loan, or adopt a child. These are all things which take a valid legal marriage into consideration, and at present homosexuals are at a distinct disadvantage in all of these areas because they are denied that piece of paper.

Lets get this straight, so that it doesn't come up later: No matter the outcome of the current unrest regarding this issue, religious institutions will not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples. The very idea is, of course absurd, which isn't to say we're above absurdity, but this particular absurdity seems particularly unlikely. If gay marriage is made legal on a federal level, there's not a church in the land that will be obligated to perform a religious ceremony for them; you'll still be able to hold your own views on the issue, hateful and bigoted though they may be. All that will change is that the hateful and prejudiced will no longer have governance over homosexual people's lives; they'll finally be able to-get this-govern themselves in the issues that are relevant only to them. Kind of a wild idea, isn't it?

This was the first couple that were "legally" married in San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2004/02/13/ba_gaywed_01_lm.jpg
Phyllis Lyon, 79, left, and Del Martin, 83, embrace after being married at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday. They are the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.
They have been a couple (without the rights of a married couple) for 51 years!

Let's get those degenrates off the streets NOW!! :rolleyes:
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean
that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -Lynne Lavner

If you are going to bother trying to develop a "universal" legal system - one that is functional for the whole society, not just "most" people - then it obviously should strive to be be reasonably inclusive & fair, & avoid unwarranted judgmentalism, especially in regard to moral views derived from superstitious sources such as religion.

If you don't favour an inclusive approach, then you have to be prepared to face ongoing social conflict with groups who feel they're being unfairly discriminated against - & perhaps the increasing rise of "separatist" politics amongst such groups (which in the long term may be the fate of humanity anyway - today's vast "national" societies may be replaced by large numbers of smaller, semi-autonomous groups, more in keeping with the way humans have lived for most of the existence of our species).

today's vast "national" societies may be replaced by large numbers of smaller, semi-autonomous groups, more in keeping with the way humans have lived for most of the existence of our species
One can only hope.

Marriage is not now, nor has it ever really been, a purely religious institution. There has always been a civil issue (probably much longer than it's been a religious issue). The government recognizes marriage as a legal acknowledgement of that particular bond between two people. In a more precise sense this comes into play in terms of taxes, as well as countless other legal considerations, and even in the private sector. Health insurance, being able to see a loved one in the hospital, being able to get a home loan, or adopt a child. These are all things which take a valid legal marriage into consideration, and at present homosexuals are at a distinct disadvantage in all of these areas because they are denied that piece of paper.

Lets get this straight, so that it doesn't come up later: No matter the outcome of the current unrest regarding this issue, religious institutions will not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples. The very idea is, of course absurd, which isn't to say we're above absurdity, but this particular absurdity seems particularly unlikely. If gay marriage is made legal on a federal level, there's not a church in the land that will be obligated to perform a religious ceremony for them; you'll still be able to hold your own views on the issue, hateful and bigoted though they may be. All that will change is that the hateful and prejudiced will no longer have governance over homosexual people's lives; they'll finally be able to-get this-govern themselves in the issues that are relevant only to them. Kind of a wild idea, isn't it?

*Standing ovation*

My only regret is I didn't get to say it first. Oh, I will add that there's also no precedent for forcing churches to recognize marriages. As is, the Catholic Church generally doesn't recognize any marriage they didn't perform, and I don't recall any legal issues resulting from that.

it's nice to see people basing their politics on some intangible ick factor. since it has been expressed in this thread several times i'll go ahead and take the other side. sex is lovely, no matter who is doing it (consentual of course). btw, the same sexual acts performed by gay couples are done with much regularity by straight couples. i don't know the statistic off the top of my head, but anal sex is more common among straight married couples than homosexual men. and really, who hasn't had oral sex? nuns maybe?

that picture is so sweet. it's like some old fashioned love story; they waited their whole lives to be official in front of the world.

I was on a trip with a co-worker (who I conser and friend and seemed level headed), when he just started bashing gay marriage left and right. I thought he was joking, and then realized that he wasn't.

I trying debating the issue with it, but he didn't say much of anything besides 'it is wrong'. I finally just asked why he thinks that it is wrong, and his answer was... faith.

I was almost hoping that they had at least some logic behind their opinion, because then you can actually hold a conversation about the topic. As it is, gays are up against the same wall that many other groups have been up against... unconditional, unsupported, bigoted... faith. A small percentage of the 'faithful' have a history of causing violence in situations such as this (abortion, race rights, womens rights). This could get messy... but that in no way means that they shouldn't be trying to achieve equal rights.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-03-04.gif

Since I'm forced to listen to talk radio, I can't wait for this to blow over so those blowhards can move to something else.
Last friday, Rush was making a "point" by taking a call from a woman who wanted to marry her dog. Of course she wasn't sincere, just a Dittohead. Rush, the master of the logical fallacy.

I'm for people finding happiness wherever they can.
Sure, the idea of having sex with another guy is still kind of disturbing to me. But so is the idea of having sex with Mimi from the Drew Carrey Show. Or one of her stretchpant wearing counterparts from the local Wal Mart.
So I try not to think of these sorts of things.

Since we do live in a secular society, there should be no problem with gay marriage. If churches don't like the idea, they are within their rights to not allow them. But that shouldn't effect anyone who doesn't want to get married in a church.

I also find it morbidly ironic that the main supporter (or most visible) person for a gay marriage ban is also the same person seperating thousands of families and killing hundreds by sending them to other countries.

I dislike the use of large graphics to get your point across, but I have to agree with the statement in the one above.

Persol, the rejection of gay marriage is that it's not the definition of marriage. If someone thinks that words such as marriage don't indeed change, they only need to look at other examples such as the word "gentleman", which used to mean a rich land owner but now means practically anyone. Eventually, the term "marriage" will mean both heterosexual and homosexual marriage. In fact, we already see this happening, and unless if that is someone's goal, he or she would not support gay marriage. It's not our right to put down others, but we are obligated to call what is abnormal behavior "abnormal" and what is not marriage not marriage. At the same time, rejecting gay marriage in no way infringes on homosexual rights since they may still have valid marriages. Gays must reject the entire "equal rights" argument since they do have equal rights. The state can't recognize my marriage with a gay man, and neither can it recognize your's. Now, most people support civil marriages for gays which makes most of the benifits of allowing gay state marriages null. The only other doubtful "benefit" is that you will be unable to say the state married you, which won't even be a benefit if marriage loses its place in society.


As is, the Catholic Church generally doesn't recognize any marriage they didn't perform, and I don't recall any legal issues resulting from that

Vatican 2 is fairly liberal on this matter. I believe that catholics can be married within Protestant or Jewish churches and synagogs as long as the marriage is approved by a priest.

Persol, the rejection of gay marriage is that it's not the definition of marriage.
Definitions were also the way minorities and women were descriminated against.

Eventually, the term "marriage" will mean both heterosexual and homosexual marriage.
Your definition of marriage is in itself descriminatory.

It's not our right to put down others, but we are obligated to call what is abnormal behavior "abnormal" and what is not marriage not marriage.
I wouldn't call it abnormal, and see no reason for you to do so.

At the same time, rejecting gay marriage in no way infringes on homosexual rights since they may still have valid marriages.
Well no, they can't. A valid marriage is based on love. I 'hope' you agree with that.

Gays must reject the entire "equal rights" argument since they do have equal rights. The state can't recognize my marriage with a gay man, and neither can it recognize your's.
First, this is the same argument that was used for divorce, inter-racial marriages, womens suferage, and now gay marriage. Your argument was flawed then, it is flawed now. Second, neither of us are attracted to the same sex so this doesn't harm us. What it does do is isolate another group of people who you can give no good reason to descriminate against.

Arguing definitions is a very weak position. By definition policemen, firemen, and doctors were all white men. The definition didn't make it any right.

Your definition of marriage is in itself descriminatory.

I don't believe I've given you my definition. Nevertheless, it does not really matter. My definition discriminates by disallowing polygamist relationships.

Persol, don't appeal by previous issues you believe are somehow connected to this without explaining how they are. Definitions do matter. If they didn't then we could just as well redefine what your rights are. The core issue is that you must redefine what marriage means to some people or convince them their definition does not matter. Otherwise, it seems that civil agreements give all the benefits without all the fuss.

First off, the government should not be concerned with "keeping god in this country". Our government is secular, it's not it's job to endorse one religion or another, and though it may often endorse deism of some sort or another now and again, there is, at least a fairly large segment of the population that recognizes that these little slip-ups ought not be there. You can keep God in your home and in your Church, but you have to realize that he must stay out of government, and you have no right to force him into your neighbors home.

Also, if you'd like to take up the issue of whether or not God hates homosexuals (it shouldn't be done in this thread) I suggest you go to the Religion forum. One thing I can assure you is that there is no clear passage in the bible with the message that God does not love homosexuals, and that, at least in the New Testament, there are plenty which say things quite to the contrary of the idea that God hates anyone.



So some vague "ick" factor is enough, in your opinion, do discriminate against a whole segment of the population, and to hate people based upon factors which are out of their control? I hope you realize that is really no different than hating a person because of the color of their skin. Worse, you let that hatred motivate you to support those who would make these people second class citizens.

I know this sounds a little Bush-ish, but shouldn’t the government be allowed to strip people with views like these of their citizenship? It really comes down to a national security. If anyone is a traitor, if there is any terrorist capable of destroying our great nation, it would be people like these who advocate the complete destruction of everything our forefathers stood for. The line between democracy and mob rule is when the majority grants itself the right to subjugate a minority for completely arbitrary differences, especially when those differences don't even effect them. Sir, you aren't fit to be an American.


you say that god shouldnt be mandatory in the country and i respect that...but...why would bush make it mandatory that a book on how the flood that killed the world, except noah and the arc, that made the Grand Canyon be sold in the gift store? he takes god out of the country then puts in illusions of god...Noahs flood was WAY to early for the Grand Canyon...so i believe that God should be mandatory in the country because when he was taken out, ETHICS DISSAPPEARED...look at the sixties...God was once in schools, when he was taken out...i dont wanna think about what happened...now people lie cheat and steal just to get on top for the extra buck...i dont mind if u wanna be a homosexual muslim or jew...but sir...God should be in this country

A man with a ?

So your equate god with civility? I see that as system of fear rather then independant thought. God is removed from school and the real civility comes through....no matter how repugnant it maybe atleast it isn't mostly fed by an Illusion.

Illusion to tame to the masses is how we do things but rather an Illusion of free will and thought is more real than a Illusion of a god fearing society...if that makes any sense. God is a belief, not a strength.

As for the gay rights issue....this behavior is expected. The real problem is that the social norms are being challenged, especially norms related closely with religion and god....that is poking the lion with the stick: you have to expect a roar and a bite or two. Most people can not wrap their head around the concept of same sex love, it frustates the mas to how is it possible, in this frustration they fear that this unexplainable activity will spread around them, changing their world...this change makes them leery.

They aren't fighting and protesting gays...they are fighting their fears...

you say that god shouldnt be mandatory in the country and i respect that...

Good, so did the founding fathers, and that's why they wrote it into the constitution, and why-since this nation's inception-we have strafed for a secular government. We haven't always stayed 100% true to that ideal, but we've certainly got some valid grounds to raise a stink about any infringements. It's worked well enough that there's no significant government institutionalization of religion, save perhaps for Bush's faith based initiative programs, but even those have tight restrictions on what the money can be used for.

he takes god out of the country then puts in illusions of god...Noahs flood was WAY to early for the Grand Canyon...so i believe that God should be mandatory in the country because when he was taken out, ETHICS DISSAPPEARED...look at the sixties...God was once in schools, when he was taken out...i dont wanna think about what happened...now people lie cheat and steal just to get on top for the extra buck...i dont mind if u wanna be a homosexual muslim or jew...but sir...God should be in this country

First off, learn a bit about geology, the beginnings of the Grand Canyon was here long before any human civilization, so don't try to work it into any flood myth chronology.

Aside from that this isn't even a coherent argument. In it's essence all you've just said is that you're a conservative and you're angry and you don't know what about. God has never been in our government, we have always strived to be secular in that regard. I assume that what your mis-guided attempt at an argument is trying to get at is that you think religious faith is declining in American society, and you're probably right. What you're wrong about is that it's had any negative impact on society, you've not backed that up at all with any factual information but instead offered up the base premise of conservatism "Things used to be better". The illusion that "things used to be better" is a tempting one, bit it's generally very vague, and allows one to retreat into some imaginary ideal of a golden age that never really happened, it blinds you to actually dealing with any specific issues, or thinking about how things used to be better and how things have changed. I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but this does nothing but create a rather ugly conservative paradigm in which a person generally becomes old and bitter, hates everything modern, and pines away over any past for any possible future. My advice would be to look at issues in their present context and truly evaluate them before forming an opinion, don't just base it off of how well it fits your golden ideal of the past, because that never happened, and you'll never get it back.

I think of central concern here is that anti-marriage types don’t really understand that a homosexual relationship isn’t just two sinners fooling around, It is ever bit as sincere and real as a heterosexual relationship. Gay partners cant visit each other in the hospital, oh who cares they are just fooling around, gay partners cant get home loans, oh who cares about what land they can or cant buy? They should just live in an apartment anyway because they'll just move on to the next relationship in a few months. This is completely wrong, These relationships aren’t fake, or for show, in fact they are just like a heterosexual relationship with the same emotions and commitments, but none of the support from society.

I think of central concern here is that anti-marriage types don’t really understand that a homosexual relationship isn’t just two sinners fooling around, It is ever bit as sincere and real as a heterosexual relationship.

What kind of infuriating leftist hippy logic is that? Certainly homosexuals like members of the same sex because they want to piss us off! Or better yet they're all atheists or Satanists and want to piss off God. Or how about the fact that they're all just evil-doers simple as that, so it's natural that they'd be doing the evil they do! This is a black and white issue of right vs. wrong, I'm too poorly educated to see any grey areas.

What kind of infuriating leftist hippy logic is that? Certainly homosexuals like members of the same sex because they want to piss us off! Or better yet they're all atheists or Satanists and want to piss off God. Or how about the fact that they're all just evil-doers simple as that, so it's natural that they'd be doing the evil they do! This is a black and white issue of right vs. wrong, I'm too poorly educated to see any grey areas.
Will you be my leader and lead my group of gay hating good Christians into protests in front of the YMCAs around the world?

one thing...i dont believe homosexuality should be legal if we are going to keep god in this country...in the bible, it specifically says that homosexuals are the only people that he doesnt love...so THAT MEANS NO!

Really? I'm not brushed up on the Bible, could you tell me where it says this? :)

If you're against homosexual marriage, don't marry a homosexual.

This was the first couple that were "legally" married in San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2004/02/13/ba_gaywed_01_lm.jpg
Phyllis Lyon, 79, left, and Del Martin, 83, embrace after being married at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday. They are the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.
They have been a couple (without the rights of a married couple) for 51 years!

Let's get those degenrates off the streets NOW!! :rolleyes:


I wonder which one wears the strap on dick? LOL! :D

"I wonder which one wears the strap on dick? LOL!"

Phyllis crocheted one to use on Del, but it just couldn't stand up to the task.

Legally they have a right to get married according to the UN charter, also the US constitution (to the best of my knowledge) does not Barr it, I am aware that some republicans want a amendment so it makes it impossible. But under Clinton you had a marriage act that decreed that marriage is btwn a man and a woman, but the issue is that the law passed was not binding (in a sense) because states still had the right to decide on their own. I personally have no problems with homosexuals, or them getting married. It is none of our business to interfere in their lives; marriage is an idiotic institution in the first place imo. So if they are stupid enough to get married, then let it be. We have no right to be in the bedrooms of the nation:



Canada is much more socially progressive then the US that is for sure. I couldn't believe that anti-sodomy laws even still existed in the US in 2002, when it was repealed here in 1967. :cool:

right on my friend. I live in the US (not really, NYC) and I better love it or I could move back to Sweden, right.
Also I happen to be gay, but as you imply, why bother with the church when the never bothered.
Civil Union, be happy, nice and I don't like Bush

morality is irrelevant in rules.
it depends on what the constitution says. the only people that can interpret the constitution (and that too, not arbitrarily at all) is judges.
their job is not to determine if something is "moral" but if something is "constitutional".
if it is, then morality is irrelevant.

the fact that i think homosexuality is nasty and that "gay marriage" is a circus show and a farce, has nothing to do with the fact that it is "constitutional" (well, that's being debated in the courts right now)
anyway, my and your opinions don't matter

Imagine if whe all thought so about Hitler.
Your opinion matters!

This is stupid really.
A bunch of people who obviously like computers a little bit and there's a problem.
For everybody's sake be more open minded and realize that everybody can do anything or we can stop developing.
love

"Gays have their bars, beaches , lakes and other hangouts they go to"

yes, but straight people dont!!
how can it be equality, if they have places where we cant go, but if we had a place where they cant go, we would probably get sued?

Before, you were discriminated against for being Black, Gay, Female or a Child
nowadays you are discriminated against for being White, Straight. Male or a child

For everybody's sake be more open minded and realize that everybody can do anything or we can stop developing.
Like we can all do drugs if we want to without fear of arrest. Shag animals, molest youngsters, rob pensioners, steal cars, kill people you dont like.

"For everybody's sake be more open minded and realize that everybody can do anything or we can stop developing."

Yeah right :rolleyes:




Before, you were discriminated against for being Black, Gay, Female or a Child
nowadays you are discriminated against for being White, Straight. Male or a child

So very true.

It is not acceptable to be Normal these days. Queer bastards rule!


ps. In the photo above, have you seen that woman dressed in black crying,
What a sad cow!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

It is not acceptable to be Normal these days. Queer bastards rule!


Oh my lord you are so right! Its not like snoids in suits with concervative values who attend church regularly and strongly dissaprove of homosexuals and minoritys are in charge of everything! Oh... WAIT they are! And thats why homosexuals cant get married, and there is going to be a constitutional amendment, and Bush is going to be reelected. Concervatives like you just have such high vanity and low tollerance for deviation from what you know that you constantly feel like you are surrounded by oddness.

"Gays have their bars, beaches , lakes and other hangouts they go to"

yes, but straight people dont!!
how can it be equality, if they have places where we cant go, but if we had a place where they cant go, we would probably get sued?

I'm going to guess that you're a very young person who is growing up in a conservative household, right? It'd be a shame for anyone with a few years behind them to be so infuratingly stupid.

I have no idea why you think a straight person might get sued for going into a gay bar, the idea is absurd.

As for the idea of "places where straight people can go" I'll assume you mean gathering places spacificaly for straight people, as oposed to any sort of place that they can legaly go, that's pretty much anywhere in the country. You go spend some time as a desipized minority and see if perhaps you and your people don't start opening establishments with the spacific purpose of being friendly to your own group.

Before, you were discriminated against for being Black, Gay, Female or a Child
nowadays you are discriminated against for being White, Straight. Male or a child

Being both a white male and a homosexual I can fairly confidently say that descrimination against homosexuals in our nation is a problem, where as descrimination against being a white male is not.

"Gays have their bars, beaches , lakes and other hangouts they go to"

yes, but straight people dont!!
how can it be equality, if they have places where we cant go, but if we had a place where they cant go, we would probably get sued?

Of course we have places we can go. Why don't you go out and go to mcdonalds. The last time i looked it was open to straights as well, but i can be wrong. As for getting sued, you must be joking. It's called a gay bar because the majority of its participants are homosexual, but at the same time it isn't restricted to just gays. If you were straight and felt comfortable around gay men, then go into the bar, it isn't illegal.

Before, you were discriminated against for being Black, Gay, Female or a Child
nowadays you are discriminated against for being White, Straight. Male or a child

Do you realize you said child twice? The reason we pay more attention to black and gays is because they are the minority. No matter how much you argue you cannot deny the fact that white straight men is the majority of the U.S. It will be very hard to discriminate against a white straight man in such a large scale that it would become a national crisis. Every group is disrimated in small intervals but over all, blacks, gays and females have received the most abuse over history. You are just deny the fact that they were worse off then white straight men. Can you name some point in history or the present where a majority of white straight men were discrimated and treated like crap?

Can you name some point in history or the present where a majority of white straight men were discrimated and treated like crap?

What about that thing in 1910 where white strait men had to fight for their right to vote... oh no, that was women

What about the sixties and seventies when white strait men had to march on Washington just to be allowed in the same schools? Oh, hold on I think that was blacks.

What about in current events, where white strait men just recently gained official closure on the legality of their sexuality, and are fighting for their right to marry? Hmm hold on a second...

He is going to bring up affirmative action, I KNOW it. It really gets me whenever someone does that, because they never acknowledge the fact that affirmative action for minorities is in place to counteract the affirmative action for white people that most colleges instituted on their own to keep Jews and blacks out of their classes.

You got a pretty sick mind buddy
Moleste kids, shag annimals. You're from Vienna, Austria,,,?
Maybe not but one guy from Austria certainly agreed with you.
Come on dude, you really mean what you're saying.
love

Heh Heh...
I love this...

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif

"Do you realize you said child twice? The reason we pay more attention to black and gays is because they are the minority. No matter how much you argue you cannot deny the fact that white straight men is the majority of the U.S. It will be very hard to discriminate against a white straight man in such a large scale that it would become a national crisis. Every group is disrimated in small intervals but over all, blacks, gays and females have received the most abuse over history. You are just deny the fact that they were worse off then white straight men. Can you name some point in history or the present where a majority of white straight men were discrimated and treated like crap?"

i know, children are so discriminated against but no-one cares. Voting rights, acces to pornography are just to examples of things adults take for granted, eventually kids will rally for the vote, just like women and blacks did. as in EXACTLY the same

there are few laws against whites, but public opinion is more powerful then any law
a female boxer would have been laughed at maybe 20 years ago, but now they arent
what about a white basketballer? they arent taken seriously
it is public opinion that black guys have penis's about twice the size of white peoples, sposedly that makes sense, i dunno how tho.
i have been given crap for being English, isnt that proof enought that whites are often discriminated against?


"What about that thing in 1910 where white strait men had to fight for their right to vote... oh no, that was women"

your proving my point, i said, 'in the good old days' women were descriminated against, any women who were over voting age then would be 112 years old by now, theres no point giving their granddaughters advantages over guys to make up for it

Advantages for females include, guys pay for dinner/date, girls are allowed to slap guys but guys cant touch girls

"What about the sixties and seventies when white strait men had to march on Washington just to be allowed in the same schools? Oh, hold on I think that was blacks."

And what about Saudi Arabia, where whites have no rights whatsoever and have to pretend to be Arabian? Also, that was still a fair time ago now

"What about in current events, where white strait men just recently gained official closure on the legality of their sexuality, and are fighting for their right to marry? Hmm hold on a second..."

Right, females got the right to vote in 1910, by 2000, they have the right to beat guys up and steal their money, Blacks were given the vote in 60's or 70's, so will be beating the whites up in 2050 and gays will be able to soon after

"He is going to bring up affirmative action, I KNOW it. It really gets me whenever someone does that, because they never acknowledge the fact that affirmative action for minorities is in place to counteract the affirmative action for white people that most colleges instituted on their own to keep Jews and blacks out of their classes."

affirmative action to balance other peoples affirmative action, wouldnt it make more sense to totally ignore whether people are gay straight black white young old male female, instead of piling more weight onto each side of the scale (at the moment govts are doing both, taking away ones rights and giving to another)

Voting rights, acces to pornography are just to examples of things adults take for granted, eventually kids will rally for the vote, just like women and blacks did.

No they won't. What they are prevented from doing is not permanent and they know they will gain the right once they reach the required age. Untill then they understand they must wait untill it is their time to reach adult hood and begin the tasks that they were banned from as a child. Children aren't stupid theya re quite rational.

what about a white basketballer? they arent taken seriously
it is public opinion that black guys have penis's about twice the size of white peoples, sposedly that makes sense, i dunno how tho.
i have been given crap for being English, isnt that proof enought that whites are often discriminated against?

White basketball players aren't taken seriously when THEY'VE DONE NOTHING to be noticed about. This day and time show that statistically, the majority of exceptional basketball players happen to be black. Unless a white man can STATISTICALLY beat this black ball player he will not be taken serisiously because he is worse at the sport than this black player. We do no recognize players because they are white we recognize then because they are good at their sport.

As for the blacks having penises twice white men's size, that is stereotyping not discrimination. You would have to be foolish, not racist to believe in that.

So you were discrimated for being english, should we begin segregating because of that and ruining hundreds of years of progress? If you are taking that small event so seriously then can u truthfully say you can rally up enough white straight english men to cause the senate to change their laws because you were offended? You are redicilous if you think you could, because blacks are still discriminated only worse than you are, gays are still recieving racism only worse than you are. There is no way you can prove to anyone that you have recieved more discrimination than these 2 minorities.

Advantages for females include, guys pay for dinner/date, girls are allowed to slap guys but guys cant touch girls

OYE, Your ignorance is beginnig to annoy me. Do you think at all? Men pay for their dinner/date because that is being courtous. There is no law that u would need to pay for their dinner/date, if you didn't want to pay for it then DON'T. Girls are allowed to slap guys and guys are allowed to slap them back. There have been many cases where men have beaten girls to death there is no law (although I hope you never would) that would prevent you from hitting a girl.

And what about Saudi Arabia, where whites have no rights whatsoever and have to pretend to be Arabian? Also, that was still a fair time ago now

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES?!?!?!?!?

Right, females got the right to vote in 1910, by 2000, they have the right to beat guys up and steal their money, Blacks were given the vote in 60's or 70's, so will be beating the whites up in 2050 and gays will be able to soon after

....im not even going to reply to this....

Blacks had an uphill battle to get into professional sports, and proved themselves through superior performance, unless you want to call these organizations out for being "Anti-white", but in each of their histories blacks were banned from basketball, boxing, baseball, and so forth, only being able to make the crossover because of the superior performance of their black leagues. I would be willing to bet that white people mock you for being English, but if you want to blame the blacks women or gays for that i suppose its your business. And you absolutely never have to be hit by a girl, and defending yourself from one who is assaulting you is against the law nowhere. If you feel obligated to pay for ones meals, it is entirely your problem. Perhaps you don’t feel you can succeed in a relationship without treating her like a prostitute.

After all this you have still failed to display how whites are discriminated against. Try to keep in mind, events like "Oh, this one girl told me she only likes to sleep with Latinos" doesn’t stack up to pervasive social attitudes, and institutionalized discrimination that gays face.

mystech "where as descrimination against being a white male is not."
actually, i cope a hell of a lot of shit for being white, so do many people
now, can you remember your last date? who paid for it?
if the answer is the female, i will be surprised.

I have read magazines such as Womans weekly and terrible thing like that, tehy have articles in them entitled "merely men" how the fuck isnt that sexism, it was an article, purely insulting men. Guys magazines at least have the taste not to insult the other sex

Im not agaisnt ANY group of people whatsoever (Nazis dont count as people)
Ben Folds - "cos my great great great great grandad made someones great great great great grandadys slaves. IT WASN"T MY IDEA, NO IT NEVER WAS MY IDEA!"

I have done nothing against any group, so why should i let some of these people from previously discriminated against groups insult me and cry "RACISM!" whenever i look at them?

I have done nothing against any group, so why should i let some of these people from previously discriminated against groups insult me and cry "RACISM!" whenever i look at them?

You're just going off on a wild self-absorbed tangent here. Do I need to call the waaaambulance (corny though it may be, I love that one).

I honestly couldn't care less who pays for what on a date or what women’s magazines write about men, watch me yawn as I think about it, it bores me terribly. If you're trying to address my argument you'd do well to look at the fact that I'm heavily focused on institutional discrimination against minority groups which has real effects on peoples lives. I'm not walking around crying because someone once said they don't like dirty faggots.

Remember, I too am a white male, and as such subject to the same "prejudice" or "discrimination" that you're imagining, and I can honestly say that it's quite nice to have the whole white male thing to retreat into when feeling a bit vulnerable in a room full of conservatives or otherwise religious folk.

If you’re worried that you have to walk on egg shells to keep from offending someone, my advice to you would be to not bother taking that sentiment to me, because again I don’t really care, and am not sure what you mean by addressing such a comment to me.

More on the whole paying for a woman’s dinner thing, just because I find that to be a particularly interesting and absurd thing to be upset about: You’ll not get an argument out of me defending any particular woman’s expectation that the man should pay for these sorts of things, I’ve never been one for senseless adherence to gender roles for their own sake. . . though if you’re the one who asked her out, It’s really only polite. As far as I know, however, there’s no unified front saying that a man should always buy for a woman, and I don’t know of any mass persecution of men springing forth from this issue. If you’re not man enough to give the impression that if you pay for her meal she’ll “owe” you later that night, then I don’t know what to tell you, it’s purely a matter between the two of you.

Viennas British. Do they have womens weekly in the uSA? I thought it was a british institution.

"I have read magazines such as Womans weekly and terrible thing like that, tehy have articles in them entitled "merely men" how the fuck isnt that sexism, it was an article, purely insulting men. Guys magazines at least have the taste not to insult the other sex"
Unfortunately, I havnt looked at womans weekly for a while, but I think i can say quite clearly that a lot of mens magazines insult women, and stereotype them or indeed insult by stereotying. So womens magazines also do that? What a surprise. Men and women are both human, and have similar tendencies to stupidity.

Alain, Nazis count as people as well, may not be favorable people but humans neverless.

As for you problem with woman's magazine, they have every right to their opinion. Do you not forget the daily words hundreds of millions of men use all over the country? Words such as Bitch, slut, whore, kuto (misspelled) and many more are used usually directed towards woman. But this seems to be accepted by you. As to what Guthrie says, i believe that many men magazines insult women as well.

But hey, your a funny guy. Infact I couldn't stop laughing when i read this "Im not agaisnt ANY group of people whatsoever" it almost sounds like you believe this. Incase you do i would suggest your re read your posts. It is clear that you are against black, woman, and gays. You need to seriously sit down and think about what your fighting for and what your fighting against, you are proposing that homosexuals should not get rights, and that woman and blacks have enough. Whatever discrimination your get is nothing compared to these minorities and maybe you should just shut up and suck up to whatever small racist comments you get. And yet you still haven't answered my question so i will repeat it:

"When have white straight men even recieve discrimanation at such a large scale that there would be a need for change?"

You're just going off on a wild self-absorbed tangent here. Do I need to call the waaaambulance (corny though it may be, I love that one).

actually, gays and blacks have many similarities in the way they used to be treated and the way they are treated now

I honestly couldn't care less who pays for what on a date or what women’s magazines write about men, watch me yawn as I think about it, it bores me terribly. If you're trying to address my argument you'd do well to look at the fact that I'm heavily focused on institutional discrimination against minority groups which has real effects on peoples lives. I'm not walking around crying because someone once said they don't like dirty faggots.

so you dont care whatsoever if women are insulting and using you?, your choice i guess. the rest of that section seems like a cry to be taken seriously, but then, maybe you do have an important job to do, in which case, is sciforums really the best place to publish your work?

Remember, I too am a white male, and as such subject to the same "prejudice" or "discrimination" that you're imagining, and I can honestly say that it's quite nice to have the whole white male thing to retreat into when feeling a bit vulnerable in a room full of conservatives or otherwise religious folk.

you just said your subject to something that doesnt exist, :confused: but it obviously exists, EVEN if it isnt too severe. I cant stand religious people who are against gays or anyone because their bible says so (see religion section of sciforums if you must). Conservatives, id much prefer socialists, communists or greens (cross between hippies and politicians) i think you may have got the wrong impression, i am trying to say, that instead of giving the various groups advantages over others, just get rid of the disadvantages they already have. Otherwise you would end up with an imbalance between the groups no matter how hard you try

If you’re worried that you have to walk on egg shells to keep from offending someone, my advice to you would be to not bother taking that sentiment to me, because again I don’t really care, and am not sure what you mean by addressing such a comment to me.

so, you dont care who you insult? unlike you, i would rather not hurt others feelings, which unfortunately meens they end up hurting my feelings, and im addressing this to you most likely as a reply to something you addresed to me


though if you’re the one who asked her out, It’s really only polite.

you see, laws can be changed in a month, traditions, take years. If you also mean its polite for women to pay when they ask the guy out, then its ok

If you’re not man enough to give the impression that if you pay for her meal she’ll “owe” you later that night, then I don’t know what to tell you, it’s purely a matter between the two of you.

are you suggesting that the only reason you buy women dinner is so that they sleep with you?? if so, that doesn make a large number of females not only unfair, but also prostitutes, if thats not what u ment, please explain what u did mean


Unfortunately, I havnt looked at womans weekly for a while, but I think i can say quite clearly that a lot of mens magazines insult women, and stereotype them or indeed insult by stereotying.

i havent actually noticed that, anyone have quotes from guys magazines??

Nazis count as people as well, may not be favorable people but humans neverless.

no, because they treated the jews and others as subhuman

As for you problem with woman's magazine, they have every right to their opinion. Do you not forget the daily words hundreds of millions of men use all over the country? Words such as Bitch, slut, whore, kuto (misspelled) and many more are used usually directed towards woman. But this seems to be accepted by you. As to what Guthrie says, i believe that many men magazines insult women as well.

and women have their insults for guys. Im not sure if this is because you have something against me, white males, or anyone who is disagreeing with you. Women have every right to their opinion, how come I dont appear to??

But hey, your a funny guy. Infact I couldn't stop laughing when i read this "Im not agaisnt ANY group of people whatsoever" it almost sounds like you believe this. Incase you do i would suggest your re read your posts. It is clear that you are against black, woman, and gays. You need to seriously sit down and think about what your fighting for and what your fighting against, you are proposing that homosexuals should not get rights, and that woman and blacks have enough. Whatever discrimination your get is nothing compared to these minorities and maybe you should just shut up and suck up to whatever small racist comments you get. And yet you still haven't answered my question so i will repeat it:

"When have white straight men even recieve discrimanation at such a large scale that there would be a need for change?"

i am only against blacks gays or women when they think themselves superior to me, which does happen fairly often. i dunno what stuff is like where you all live, but where i live (australia), minorities dont get hassle from people

thank you, you have put one of my main points forward very well, everyone else used to be discriminated against so much, and things had to change, yes, white males are seen as the discriminators, and are only discriminated against a small amount compared to other people, hundreds of years ago

and women have their insults for guys. Im not sure if this is because you have something against me, white males, or anyone who is disagreeing with you. Women have every right to their opinion, how come I dont appear to??

Who says your not entitled to your opinion? Or better yet, why is it that I don't have the right to my opinion? My opinion is that your wrong, your disrespectful, distriminitive, racist and self absorbed. My opinion is, that your way of thinking is what led to the holocaust. My opinion is, people like you is what causes racism, thinking that people have to many rights and some of those rights should be taken away. My opinion is, that you should sit back and rethink your values. Those are mine.

i am only against blacks gays or women when they think themselves superior to me

If they thought of themselves as superior then why would so many of them be fighting for equality?

i havent actually noticed that, anyone have quotes from guys magazines??

You don't need quotes from guys magazines, just 3 minutes outsides in a fairly populated area will give you all the examples you need.

you see, laws can be changed in a month, traditions, take years. If you also mean its polite for women to pay when they ask the guy out, then its ok

Maybe you don't understand why men treat woman so politely. Other than the fact that woman have had to go through day to day hardships and fight for their rights, it is also natural that woman are more fragile than men. I apologize if this insults any females on these forums but it is obvious that men are much stronger than most woman are. A majority of the woman are quite fragile and very emotional at times, meanwhile the basic idea of masulinity is the exact opposite of how today's female (streotypically) is. This is the view on females and many men follow this view, so to be fair, they do what they must for woman and little things like buying their dinner for them is only polite, it isn't a major crisis at all. I believe many woman would buy you lunch if you could actually get one of them to go out with you. But with your views on their life and the lives of others, i wouldn't be surprised if you had a VERY hard time doing so.

minorities dont get hassle from people

thank you, you have put one of my main points forward very well, everyone else used to be discriminated against so much, and things had to change, yes, white males are seen as the discriminators, and are only discriminated against a small amount compared to other people, hundreds of years ago

Are you a minority? Do you follow these monorities around daily and see exacly how they are treaded minute by minute? I dont' think you do.

How is this putting you main point forward? Please explain this to me. I was simply giving an example, any resonable man would tell you that these groups are still discriminated against even to this day. If your gay you may be accepted in some places but in most your are looked down as scum, same thing goes for hispanics, females, blacks, mexicans and more. These things still happen today and you seem to be living in a shell, cut off from the rest of society. You are too well protected and don't see what really happens out in the world. I still remember incidents that didn't happen to long ago, for example, a man being dragged down the street attached to a rope which was attached to the back of a van. His body parts were ripped from him by the speed at which the truck and him were going. The KKK are still active, just not as big as they used to be. A black man was shot 20 times for taking out his wallet to give police his ID. A black boy was stabbed in the neck by one of his fellow classmates. A gay teacher was murdered by one of his students. A female football kicker isn't accepted onto the football team for being female. A black man is brutally beaten in an alley way and left to die. 3 females are rapped severaly (at different times) by a trusted doctor including an 11 year old girl. It just keeps going on and on and on. Where have you been? Why haven't you heard of any of these events? Why do you still think these minorities are being teated equally?

Vortox, remember, the Nazi's thought they were being persecuted by the Jews. That might give you some insight to the sort of mindset the poor persecuted white males are in.

Votorx:
My opinion is that your wrong, your disrespectful, distriminitive, racist and self absorbed. My opinion is, that your way of thinking is what led to the holocaust. My opinion is, people like you is what causes racism, thinking that people have to many rights and some of those rights should be taken away

A majority of the woman are quite fragile and very emotional at times

Hah! Priceless, retard!

Now, on to the fun stuff:

Why haven't you heard of any of these events?

The plural of anecdote is not data.
Now - here is data:
http://www.amren.com/997issue/997issue.html#cover

Using statistics provided from the FBI (not some partisan "anti-racist" group) we can chart arrest rates by race thus:

http://www.amren.com/997issue/graph3.gif

According to the Department of Justice:

"Blacks were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2000"

Now, homicides are usually interracial - because murders generally take place between people who know each other, and people tend to associate with their own race. However, if we look at the stranger homicides:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovrelracetab.htm#stranger

Blacks are over twice as likely to kill a white stranger than whites are to kill a black stranger.

Alain:

Don't take this as a defense. You're almost as stupid as he is.
First, if "having to buy dinner on a date" is oppression in your mind, you are a complete weakling.
Now - why are or were (I've never paid less than half on a date) men expected to pay? Very simple. A man trying to impress a woman into fucking him (let's be honest - the only reason we "date" is that it is more socially acceptable than hiring a hooker and people are too dumb to masturbate) wants to show that he is a good hunter/gatherer and can not only take care of himself, but can feed her and any children she might have by him.

It's basic evolutionary psychology.

are you suggesting that the only reason you buy women dinner is so that they sleep with you?? if so, that doesn make a large number of females not only unfair, but also prostitutes,

DUUUUH! Women are stupid whores.
How long did it take you to figure this one out, brainiac?

i am only against blacks gays or women when they think themselves superior to me, which does happen fairly often.

*Snickers*
Why am I not suprised?
It doesn't really take much to be superiour to you, however.

I am completely against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As a personal matter, I don't understand what the big deal is about -- if you find a human being, in any form, who respects you, supports you, and loves you for who you are, God bless you both because that is rare and nearly impossible to find.

Intellectually, I have an entirely different bitch with this idea.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. There is no constitutional amendment that protects against discrimination based solely on whether you're male or female. There are federal laws and many many state laws that do, but they do not have Constitutional support.

In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a major push for the Equal Rights Amendment, which would include sex as a "protected class" like those under the Fourteenth Amendment -- race, creed, color, national origin, religion, yada yada yada. Most people viewed this as the women's rights amendment, which in many ways it was. It's effect, however, would have reached farther than simply giving Constitutional protection against discrimination against women.

One of the major arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment, and one of the main reasons it was defeated, was that it would protect gay rights, including the right to be married. The ultimate defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment was more a testament to anti-gay senitment than any desire to keep women barefoot and cooking.

The Supreme Court treats most sex discrimination issues in the same way it treats race discrimination, and treats women or men (depending upon the issue) as a "protected class" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Not much chance that this Court would do it, but given this theme of jurisprudence there is every possibility that the Defense of Marriage Act could be struck down under this rationale. The only way to make sure that homosexual marriages will not be legal in this country is to prohibit it via a Constitutional amendment.

Should such an amendment pass, it is virtually guaranteed there will never be an amendment that prohibits sexual discrimination -- a subsequent amendment securing equal rights to all regardless of sex would arguably repeal a prior amendment outlawing gay marriage.

I am against a Constitutional amendment because it would have the lasting effect of forever denying Constitutional protection to everyone based on their sex -- this means men as well as women.

DUUUUH! Women are stupid whores.
How long did it take you to figure this one out, brainiac?

Calling me a retard yet revealing the cruel sexism found in most white supposedly straight male. Treating woman with such disrespect and your fellow peers explains why woman are beating every day for being alive. Thank god the world isn't populated with people like you Xev, or the human race would have died out centuries ago.

wants to show that he is a good hunter/gatherer and can not only take care of himself, but can feed her and any children she might have by him.

And yet you still agree with me to an extent that men, in most cases, need to "treat" woman out for their own personal reasons. Insult me then agree with me Xev? Doesn't seem like a very promising or intelligent way of doing things....

Vortox, remember, the Nazi's thought they were being persecuted by the Jews. That might give you some insight to the sort of mindset the poor persecuted white males are in.

Only supports what I've said. Such men like Xev and alain are the reasons there's racism, discrimination, the holocaust and many other examples of hatred within the world. I don't believe they'll change their views on anything in the world but it is pretty amusing how they try to support their obviously wrong ideas.

Such men like Xev

I have been laughing for ten minutes. Thanks vtorxc, or whatever your name is.

Xev. You must be grinning from ear to ear right now.

Votorx:
Calling me a retard yet revealing the cruel sexism found in most white supposedly straight male.

I'm a woman, you shit-licking fool.

Treating woman with such disrespect and your fellow peers explains why woman are beating every day for being alive.

Who are they beating?
Were you trying to say "being beaten"? Women are subject to disproportionately more abuse because they are physically weaker than men, thus they invite exploitation. See my "femininity and schitzophrenia" thread.

Thank god

How telling that you believe in the magical daddy in the sky.

the world isn't populated with people like you Xev, or the human race would have died out centuries ago.

No, it would be in a much better state.
What's bad about the human race dying out anyway?

And yet you still agree with me to an extent that men, in most cases, need to "treat" woman out for their own personal reasons. Insult me then agree with me Xev? Doesn't seem like a very promising or intelligent way of doing things....

It would be unintelligent only if I insulted you for your stance on the same issue I agreed with you on.

I like your inability to handle any sort of fact - very typical of your kind - wring your hands near clean off on a subject, but avoid any sort of debate centered on "objective" fact.

15ofthe19:
You wouldn't be laughing if you just suddenly grew a vagina and lost all your facial hair!

I'm a woman, you shit-licking fool.

Ok, that's even worse. Your degrading yourself and other females for what reason? What kind of child abuse did you go through to dramatic change your view on woman and call then all stupid whores (which would inevitably include yourself).

No i don't see any avatar either. Is it in your profile? I don't bother wasting my time looking at other people's profile, there is really no reason.

Women are subject to disproportionately more abuse because they are physically weaker than men, thus they invite exploitation.

Yes a typo, I think I'm elligible to one every now and then. There you go, just as I said before. Woman are treated out to dinner and teated with politeness by other men because they are physically weaker then men. Im confused now, are you agreeing with me or arguing with me?

No, it would be in a much better state.
What's bad about the human race dying out anyway?

I actually agree with you, the human race should have died out long ago...

How telling that you believe in the magical daddy in the sky.[quote]

No it's just an expression. Kinda like "Blow me" Doesn't necessarily I want oral sex, its only another way of saying "Fuck You".

[quote]It would be unintelligent only if I insulted you for your stance on the same issue I agreed with you on.

But you did, or do I need to explain how your agreed with me again?

Votorx:
Ok, that's even worse.

How typical of a sexist pig like yourself to assume that I'm male just because I express myself vigorously. What am I supposed to do, giggle and pretend to be stupid just so insecure chauvinists like you can feel validated?
Hmm - no thanks.

Your degrading yourself and other females for what reason?

I invoke the Chris Rock defense. I may state the facts about women because I am one.

What kind of child like abuse

"Child like abuse"?
What, you mean having erasors thrown at my head?

did you go through to dramatic change your view on woman and call then all stupid whores (which would inevitably include yourself).

Who said it's a dramatic change? I observed human behaviour and formed my opinions.
I made a generalization about women based on those observations. Now, obviously this doesn't include every single woman on the face of the planet.

Yes a typo, I think I'm elligible to one every now and then. There you go, just as I said before. Woman are treated out to dinner and teated with politeness by other men because they are physically weaker then men. Im confused now, are you agreeing with me or arguing with me?

You're perpetually confused.
Women are not "treated" to anything, and I'm still laughing over your assertion that people are more polite to women. This is because they are not as able to defend themselves. Vulnerability invites exploitation.

Is that clear enough for you?

I actually agree with you, the human race should have died out long ago...

Good. Now be proactive and sterilize yourself.

But you did, or do I need to explain how your agreed with me again?

Get it straight moron - agreeing with part of what you claim does not equal agreeing with the whole.

How typical of a sexist pig like yourself to assume that I'm male just because I express myself vigorously. What am I supposed to do, giggle and pretend to be stupid just so insecure chauvinists like you can feel validated?
Hmm - no thanks.

Any resonable person would believe you were a male, especially when you degrade woman like the way you did.. I am surprised that you did this, you must hold no self pride at all...

I invoke the Chris Rock defense. I may state the facts about women because I am one.

Chris Rock is stupid and needs to use comic relief to earn a living since he obviously failed at life in many ways. Are you like this as well?

"Child like abuse"?
What, you mean having erasors thrown at my head?

Erasors? What are erasors?

Who said it's a dramatic change? I observed human behaviour and formed my opinions.
I made a generalization about women based on those observations. Now, obviously this doesn't include every single woman on the face of the planet.

Yet you made it seem like it included every single woman on the face of the planet DUUUUH! Women are stupid whores.
I said it was a dramatic change because I only hoped you weren’t born with the idea that Women are stupid whores.

You're perpetually confused.
Women are not "treated" to anything, and I'm still laughing over your assertion that people are more polite to women. This is because they are not as able to defend themselves. Vulnerability invites exploitation.

Is that clear enough for you?

Vulnerability also invites compastion. It is typical that a man buys and treats their girl to dinner or movie or whatever activity they have planned out. Are you going to say this is wrong as well?

Good. Now be proactive and sterilize yourself.[quote]

I’ll do that as long as you cut out your ovalaries and practice genital mutalation.

[quote]Get it straight moron - agreeing with part of what you claim does not equal agreeing with the whole.

Yet what you agreed on was a main point in my debate. So you are disagreeing with what im trying to debate right?

First, I don't see how Xev can claim that women are not emotional in a diatribe that is obviously emotional. The fact is that we are all emotional sometimes; society tells men not to be.


The plural of anecdote is not data.
Now - here is data:

While it's data, there's no underlying proof to your cause. You have not allowed for other factors such as poverty, lack of education, drugs, music, media and cultural values, and most of the serious crimes are committed in densely populated areas where there is a greater percentage of blacks. When was the last time that you saw a black serial killer?


Now, homicides are usually interracial - because murders generally take place between people who know each other, and people tend to associate with their own race. However, if we look at the stranger homicides:

It's difficult to draw any conclusion here without specifying what sort of murders they were. Many of the murders that occur nowdays are the result of drugs.

Fine, humanity is racist, sexist and just plain horrible in nature. There is nothing we can do so why don't we just digress and follow Thomas Hobbes?

okinrus:
First, I don't see how Xev can claim that women are not emotional

Where did I claim this?

in a diatribe that is obviously emotional.

No it's not. You're just a little pussy who thinks profanity makes language scary.

While it's data, there's no underlying proof to your cause.

My "cause"?

You have not allowed for other factors such as poverty, lack of education, drugs, music, media and cultural values, and most of the serious crimes are committed in densely populated areas where there is a greater percentage of blacks. When was the last time that you saw a black serial killer?

This has what to do with the fact that blacks are more likely to attack whites than whites are to attack blacks?
Whatever the interpretation, the fact remains.

Votorx:
Any resonable person would believe you were a male, especially when you degrade woman like the way you did..

What, only men can harbor unorthodox views of women?
I'm not particularly fond of men either. I despise men.
Except when they have really dark hair and eyes, and nice hips. Or long blonde hair and a cute butt. Then they're okay.

I am surprised that you did this, you must hold no self pride at all...

You are such a fucking loser.
Look - if you're willing to sell yourself for a dinner, you are a whore.
Most women are, therefore, most women are whores.

Chris Rock is stupid and needs to use comic relief to earn a living since he obviously failed at life in many ways. Are you like this as well?

Define what it is to "fail at life".
Sheep.

Erasors? What are erasors?

You show a definite ineptitude with English - don't criticize my spelling or I will tear yours apart.

Yet you made it seem like it included every single woman on the face of the planet DUUUUH! Women are stupid whores.

No - your miniscule brain could not make the obvious conclusion that I was making a general statement.

Vulnerability also invites compastion.

Tell that to any child who was abused.
Vulnerability invites exploitation. Philanthropy is only a virtue of the powerful - who can afford it.

It is typical that a man buys and treats their girl to dinner or movie or whatever activity they have planned out. Are you going to say this is wrong as well?

"Their" girl?
What, does he still have the deed of title? I thought slavery was outlawed in the civilized world.
You are such a sexist twit.

No - it's not "wrong", as I pointed out. He's trying to get laid by showing her that he can afford things, she's judging his fitness as a potential partner.

I’ll do that as long as you cut out your ovalaries and practice genital mutalation.

Hateful little one, aren't you?
However, nope. I plan on having oodles of kids. And I'm gonna read the little pukes Stirner and Kant from infancy on up.

Yet what you agreed on was a main point in my debate. So you are disagreeing with what im trying to debate right?

"Trying" would be the operative word.

Whatever, I don't care. If you believe you are perfect and your views on life is absolutely 100% valid then so be it. Bathe in your ignorance, this thread has begun to bore me.

Good one by Jon Stewart on gay marriage: http://ftp.archive.org/movies/lisarein/tvclips/dailyjuly2003/7-31-03-gayrights.mov

Don't have Quicktime? Go here and get free Quicktime alternative player, http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm

No it's not. You're just a little pussy who thinks profanity makes language scary.

I haven't seen you use profanity on this thread. But if you do, then you would have to justify why you're using it.



"My cause"?

Explain your opinion on whites and blacks. Are whites as a whole superior to blacks?


This has what to do with the fact that blacks are more likely to attack whites than whites are to attack blacks?
Whatever the interpretation, the fact remains.

It seems to me that the claim that blacks are more likely to attack whites is within respect to some circumstance. You are implying that given equal condition and environment a black man is more likely than a white man to attack. It's simply not true.

Who says your not entitled to your opinion? Or better yet, why is it that I don't have the right to my opinion? My opinion is that your wrong, your disrespectful, distriminitive, racist and self absorbed. My opinion is, that your way of thinking is what led to the holocaust. My opinion is, people like you is what causes racism, thinking that people have to many rights and some of those rights should be taken away. My opinion is, that you should sit back and rethink your values. Those are mine.

so women are allowed to insult men, im allowed to complain about women insulting men, and your allowed to complain at me, which will give me the right to complain about you?, that, my friend, is called anarchy. I will admit that many people are discriminated against, but it bugs me that other people insult white males and try to take a moral high ground

Quote:
i am only against blacks gays or women when they think themselves superior to me

If they thought of themselves as superior then why would so many of them be fighting for equality?

where i live, there are no laws against any minority group, except maybe women get lower pay in some cases, but this is usually in jobs that require manual labour, which guys are actually better at. Maybe i should spend some time wherever you live

Quote:
i havent actually noticed that, anyone have quotes from guys magazines??


You don't need quotes from guys magazines, just 3 minutes outsides in a fairly populated area will give you all the examples you need.

according to your logic, guys should be allowed to insult women, but i do that quite often and dont notice much of guys shouting at women or insulting them

Quote:
you see, laws can be changed in a month, traditions, take years. If you also mean its polite for women to pay when they ask the guy out, then its ok


Maybe you don't understand why men treat woman so politely. Other than the fact that woman have had to go through day to day hardships and fight for their rights, it is also natural that woman are more fragile than men. I apologize if this insults any females on these forums but it is obvious that men are much stronger than most woman are. A majority of the woman are quite fragile and very emotional at times, meanwhile the basic idea of masulinity is the exact opposite of how today's female (streotypically) is. This is the view on females and many men follow this view, so to be fair, they do what they must for woman and little things like buying their dinner for them is only polite, it isn't a major crisis at all. I believe many woman would buy you lunch if you could actually get one of them to go out with you. But with your views on their life and the lives of others, i wouldn't be surprised if you had a VERY hard time doing so.

you really don't get it, women are physically weaker (being comprised of more body fat and less muscle) emotionally, guys might seem more strong, but it is only because society says that guys arent allowed to cry, that this is so. Guys are strongly engouraged to keep their emotions on the inside, poor us

Quote:
minorities dont get hassle from people

thank you, you have put one of my main points forward very well, everyone else used to be discriminated against so much, and things had to change, yes, white males are seen as the discriminators, and are only discriminated against a small amount compared to other people, hundreds of years ago


Are you a minority? Do you follow these monorities around daily and see exacly how they are treaded minute by minute? I dont' think you do.

i spend all my school time in class rooms with females, gays and blacks, i dont stalk them to see what people say to them, but they seem to get insulted less from what i see

How is this putting you main point forward? Please explain this to me. I was simply giving an example, any resonable man would tell you that these groups are still discriminated against even to this day. If your gay you may be accepted in some places but in most your are looked down as scum, same thing goes for hispanics, females, blacks, mexicans and more. These things still happen today and you seem to be living in a shell, cut off from the rest of society. You are too well protected and don't see what really happens out in the world. I still remember incidents that didn't happen to long ago, for example, a man being dragged down the street attached to a rope which was attached to the back of a van. His body parts were ripped from him by the speed at which the truck and him were going. The KKK are still active, just not as big as they used to be. A black man was shot 20 times for taking out his wallet to give police his ID. A black boy was stabbed in the neck by one of his fellow classmates. A gay teacher was murdered by one of his students. A female football kicker isn't accepted onto the football team for being female. A black man is brutally beaten in an alley way and left to die. 3 females are rapped severaly (at different times) by a trusted doctor including an 11 year old girl. It just keeps going on and on and on. Where have you been? Why haven't you heard of any of these events? Why do you still think these minorities are being teated equally?

either these things happen in the past, in which case there is no point bringing them up, or in america, which does need to have some reforms. in and around Sydney, there are large areas where if you are white, you keep your head down and hurry to get out of their without getting mugged/raped/killed, places include Blacktown and Redfern (i know some black people would get attacked in their, but extremely few)

Alain, we aren't talking about Australia now are we? We are talking about the United States and every other place where minorities are still disriminated against. Are you going to continue to say these minorities have enough rights, meanwhile gays are trying pass a bill to allow themselves to get married?

Alain, we aren't talking about Australia now are we? We are talking about the United States and every other place where minorities are still disriminated against.

Well I don't see why we shouldn't be talking about Australia. I know that this thread has been focusing largely on the state of the fight for civil rights in the United States, but the topic of the state of these issues in Australia is certainly fitting with the topic, I think. I haven't got much of an idea of the climate of laws or social outlook toward homosexuals in Australia (though I know a few gay guys in Australia) and would welcome an informed assessment. I've heard that in Victoria the age of consent for homosexual intercourse used to be higher than that for heterosexual intercourse (16 and 18 I think) but it was recently changed to 16 across the board.

in some places they have more, in some they have less, wouldnt it make sense just to eradicate that word gay from any constitution or law?

in some places they have more, in some they have less, wouldnt it make sense just to eradicate that word gay from any constitution or law?

Of course it is. Gays deserve just as many rights as anyone else. Or are you still saying that homosexuals, blacks and females have to many rights?

in some places they have more, in some they have less, wouldnt it make sense just to eradicate that word gay from any constitution or law?

Well, I'd have to agree with you there. Though in practice things would have to be done a little bit differently. Most of the time conservatives don't like saying 'gay' outright, instead they like to take their evasive "one man and one woman" or "Marriage protection" rhetoric to say that these people can have rights but everyone else (homosexuals) can't. It's sort of like saying that you're putting a limiting trade cap on wooden baseball bats, the obvious effect is to increase the sale of aluminum baseball bats, but so long as you don't say it by name somehow you feel better about yourself.

I am a hetrosexual atheist, I am sick to death of religious people and gays trying to indoctrinate me by knocking on my door, stopping me in the street,screaming there rights over the media.
I have rights to, now all you lot are going to say "you get better rights then me"
then what of my right to a peaceful life and my right to walk down the city streets without being accosted by someone I could go on for ever.
what people do in there private lives is up to them, but dont shove it down other peoples thoats.
you live your life and I'll live mine (stick to this ideology) and you wont antagonise anyone, unless you want to interfere with there basic rights.

one question I will ask of you as it amazes me to how it happens is
how come most men who find that they're gay suddenly adopt a effeminate voice
and the opposite for gay women a butch voice . why ? (your still male and female).

i think the decision lies in what you think marriage is about. I personally dont think it is just about procreation and believe that it is about sharing and commitment. The fact that 50% end it divorce doesnt stengthen any argument.

Women are subject to disproportionately more abuse because they are physically weaker than men, thus they invite exploitation
LOL
It's almost as if firearms were never invented.
As for 'disproptionately'..
You are aware that the majority of violent assaults in the US are committed against men under 25?
Vulnerability invites exploitation.
Perhaps it does down your street but in my country vulnerability tends to invite protection.

Guess that's cultural differences for you :)
Dee Cee

I am a hetrosexual atheist, I am sick to death of religious people and gays trying to indoctrinate me by knocking on my door, stopping me in the street,screaming there rights over the media.

So put up a sign that says no solicitors, and quit watching TV, dorkus. Complaining that the media publicizes the civil rights battle going on in this nation is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. . . and I've been around these forums for a while! I'm terribly sorry that it doesn't fit into your egocentric world, but everyone else in the nation seems to be involved in some issues worthy of being called "news". Maybe next you can tell us how sick you are of hearing about what's going on in stupid old Iraq.

I have rights to, now all you lot are going to say "you get better rights then me"

You do have rights, but you get better rights tha. . . Oooh! you already coverd that. Wait. . . what the hell are you talking about? Honestly if you don't even understand what this issue is about, then do yourself a favor and shut up, it just makes you sound like an idiot, or a troll at the least.

then what of my right to a peaceful life and my right to walk down the city streets without being accosted by someone I could go on for ever.

Wait, are homosexuals and religious anti-marriage people lurking in dark shadows to mug you, now? I mean, I'm sure that at this point I'd punch you in the face if I met you walking down the street, but I can't imagine that happens to you all the time, not unless you'd already had time to introduce yourself to someone.

what people do in there private lives is up to them, but dont shove it down other peoples thoats.
you live your life and I'll live mine (stick to this ideology) and you wont antagonise anyone, unless you want to interfere with there basic rights.

Again, it's clear that you don't have any fucking clue what you're talking about! You just want a chance to write something down and think people are listening to you, don't you? You're working on some bizarre distorted view of the world that is really neither here nor there. Choose a side on this argument, you can't just exist in your own little world of delusions and expect to be taken seriously in this forum.

one question I will ask of you as it amazes me to how it happens is
how come most men who find that they're gay suddenly adopt a effeminate voice
and the opposite for gay women a butch voice . why ? (your still male and female).

Likely because you're a moron who's shooting his mouth off without any reguard for what he's saying; Who also knows no homosexuals, but has wached a few episodes of Will&Grace, or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. My advice to you would be to turn the TV off, take a step outside of your bubble, and figure out what the hell is going on in the world before you try to formulate. . . what I suppose is supposed to be an opinion, let alone an argument.

I think he was talking about me, Mystech. You see, a group I organize actually does go around and accost people on the streets and demand that we be allowed to inform them on our stances on gay civil rights. We have chapters across the nation! Imagine it, and entire league of people dedicated to harassing poor people like pavlosmarcos on the street about gay civil rights! Its getting so he cant even walk out the door!

(note for the sarcasm impaired. There is no such organization, and pavlosmarcos is a bit of a dope for suggesting that he cant even walk out his door without being accosted by someone on one side or the other of this issue as if we are tearing the world asunder in this conflict.)

I think he was talking about me, Mystech. You see, a group I organize actually does go around and accost people on the streets and demand that we be allowed to inform them on our stances on gay civil rights.

I must admit that I've got something similar organized, though we tend to hang around school campuses and encourage gangs of children to beat up kids who disagree with our position. We feed them candy bars for every little conservative brat they send crying off to the nurse's office. I know that it's starting small, but the children are our future, and doing the same thing to adults would be dangerous, many of them have guns!

you live your life and I'll live mine (stick to this ideology) and you wont antagonise anyone, unless you want to interfere with there basic rights.

The crux of the matter, in this thread, is that heterosexual couples have the legal right to marry, & homosexual couples don't. If that anomaly were removed, the issue would die a natural death. So if you don't want to antagonize homosexual people who want to get married, don't support laws or constitutional amendments that prohibit this.

Seems a simple enough issue to me.

Dee Cee if a guy walked up to a woman and said I am going to beat the crap out of you tomorrow at two o'clock then she could have the cops waiting for him or have a gun ready. Men have the advantage in muscle mass and bone density we will on the average kick a girls butt in a fair fight. And most abusive personalities male or female do not pick victims that can fight back effectively.

I have two neighbors the good neighbors and the bad neighbors. The good neighbors were two middle aged homosexual women. One of them just recently died of cancer. They had three well behaved and polite if rambunctious boys. These boys are going to have to move from out in the country into the city to live with their father because their other mother was not married to their biological mom. I have opposed homosexual marriages until recently on the general purpose that any act which encourages sexual deviancy is bad. I have changed my opinion on this issue because it is not right to make the government impose my religious beliefs on someone else. As long as it was just the homos wanting to play house and shove their homosexuality down my throat I could oppose it. Upon further reflection, it seems that I have been trying to shove my beliefs down their throats and have to apologize to them, at least on this issue.

So put up a sign that says no solicitors, and quit watching TV, dorkus. Complaining that the media publicizes the civil rights battle going on in this nation is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. . . and I've been around these forums for a while! I'm terribly sorry that it doesn't fit into your egocentric world, but everyone else in the nation seems to be involved in some issues worthy of being called "news". Maybe next you can tell us how sick you are of hearing about what's going on in stupid old Iraq.



You do have rights, but you get better rights tha. . . Oooh! you already coverd that. Wait. . . what the hell are you talking about? Honestly if you don't even understand what this issue is about, then do yourself a favor and shut up, it just makes you sound like an idiot, or a troll at the least.



Wait, are homosexuals and religious anti-marriage people lurking in dark shadows to mug you, now? I mean, I'm sure that at this point I'd punch you in the face if I met you walking down the street, but I can't imagine that happens to you all the time, not unless you'd already had time to introduce yourself to someone.



Again, it's clear that you don't have any fucking clue what you're talking about! You just want a chance to write something down and think people are listening to you, don't you? You're working on some bizarre distorted view of the world that is really neither here nor there. Choose a side on this argument, you can't just exist in your own little world of delusions and expect to be taken seriously in this forum.



Likely because you're a moron who's shooting his mouth off without any reguard for what he's saying; Who also knows no homosexuals, but has wached a few episodes of Will&Grace, or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. My advice to you would be to turn the TV off, take a step outside of your bubble, and figure out what the hell is going on in the world before you try to formulate. . . what I suppose is supposed to be an opinion, let alone an argument.

I was giving my opinion I was not rude and did not call you down
if you are what the gay world stands then it's in a poor state of affairs and my brother wont be happy and I was'nt picking on gays I have a lot of gay friends and they know my opinions there are a lot of religious people out there that do knock on doors I was just interested in what your view would be I am sorry I ask as I certainly got you back up. my brother says the reason he talks efeminate is to fit in and he told me to put that statement in as an after thought.
you certainly are rude

also Iwas under the impression the the thread was about gay rights not just gays getting wed as I have nothing against that, I never said I had anything personal against gays now did I

As long as it was just the homos wanting to play house and shove their homosexuality down my throat I could oppose it.

This made me laugh a bit as I read it over, but thinking about it, I guess you're right, this is a view that's out there. You've got to wonder about some people when they won't believe that you're not getting married just to piss them off.

This is a reply to the thread of gay rights, I really believe that homosexuals have the right to any of the same things that heterosexuals can do. hence the fact that they are the same type of person, just with diffrent taste. In the article that was composed, it stated that "if they are stupid enough to get married, then let them" them reffering to the homosexuals. but thet also state that they have no problem with the whole matter, but they seem rather confused with what side they are on. so for the fact of the things they keep going between, they surley dont know what they are talking about. They also stated some thing that is written in the bible saying that, Homosexuals are the only people that god dosent love. But one thing that they forgot to mention is that the bible also states, that thou shall not jude, there for god loves EVERY ONE!!!!! :D

one thing...i dont believe homosexuality should be legal if we are going to keep god in this country...in the bible, it specifically says that homosexuals are the only people that he doesnt love...so THAT MEANS NO!
Also...i believe that homosexuality is just plain GROSS...i dont see how u can love ur own anatomy...
this is http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=522766only my opinion...

Who the hell are you to determine how someone should live?The only good thing the church is for these days is to judge and impose its views on everyone else.If the church understood what spirituality really is it would stop all its foolishness.Noone can tell me about God if they do not know the meaning of empathy.Do as you will be done by.Anyone with half a mind can tell that the bible comprises the word of God(which is pure and infallible),and the word of Man(which reeks of inequality,power and self-preservation)

The post that you're responding to is 10 months old, and the guy who posted it is long gone.