As of today (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/19/nj.civil.unions.ap/index.html), New Jersey is the third US state to permit same-sex civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. All civil unions and marriages between homosexual couples obtained in other states or nations are now eligible for recognition as civil unions, and civil union licenses are granted to them automatically. New Jersey state Senator Loretta Weinberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Weinberg), a prime sponsor of the law, calls this a "big, giant step forward".

I call it a punch in the face.

Wanna know why?

It reinforces some negative ideas concerning same-sex couples and marriage. It reinforces the idea that gay people are somehow different from straight people, that the love between two men or two women is somehow different, that the union between them is somehow undeserving of being called a marriage. They have the same rights and responsibilities, but it's not called a marriage; it's called a civil union. They can't get married, but they can get civil unioned-- united, unionized, whatever the fuck the word might be.

It's precisely the sort of injustice we did away with for blacks and other minorities about forty years ago, which we called "separate but equal". We did away with it because we had realized — but have since forgotten, apparently — that separate is not equal.

Imagine a woman wants to go to a university and earn a diploma, but they refuse her one after she goes through all the required coursework and earns the necessary marks. The reason? Diplomas are for men. Why? Because traditionally, only men are educated.

Understandably, women would fight to have their education recognized as being the same as men's.

Now imagine that a man and a woman both go to a university and enroll in the same course program. They take the same courses, they get the same grades, and in the end the man receives a diploma for his hard work, while the woman receives a certificate, which is now equivalent to a diploma and which women can now receive. Both the diploma and the certificate mean the same thing and have the same benefits, but the woman cannot receive a diploma because it's only for men. Instead she's given a certificate.

Why? If they both mean the same thing, then why does the woman only deserve a certificate? What's so different about her? What's so inferior about her? Why should you have a penis and testicles to get a diploma? What about the fact that she has breasts and a vagina makes her unworthy of a diploma?

If both civil unions and marriages mean the same thing, why do gays only get to civil unionate, unionize, unionify? Why should the fact that both people in the couple have a penis, or both have a vagina, have any bearing on whether or not they receive a marriage license, on whether or not they are worthy of one?

Some supporters of same-sex civil unions mean well. They see it as one step closer to marital equality. They're happy that New Jersey homosexuals can now have their love recognized by the government in some way. And I can see and understand their train of thought.

But I wonder if they realize what this implies to the American people. To them, seeing gay couples being told they can have all the benefits of marriage but can't have their union called a marriage reinforces the widespread meme that gay people are inferior to straight people. Of course, because it's so subtle, the American people don't realize this, nor do they realize that this is effectively a step backwards, not forwards.

I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize what this means to the people who don't support marital equality. To them, simply having the same rights and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy should be good enough for gays. To them, if gays keep asking for the ability to marry, then they're being ungrateful pricks. Just like they would consider the women who continue to push for diplomas for both sexes a bunch of ungrateful broads.

I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize this is a punch in the faces of homosexuals everywhere, plain and simple.

I think civil union is the legal term while marriage is the religious term.

It's a first step. When everyone realizes their objections amount to semantics, they will change it.

I think it's wrong regardless of what you call it.

I think civil union is the legal term while marriage is the religious term.

Not in the US. The union between a man and a woman is called a marriage in all the legal texts and such, unless they specifically get a civil union or a domestic partnership or whatever. At least this is my understanding.

It's a first step. When everyone realizes their objections amount to semantics, they will change it.

I hope you're right.

I think it's wrong regardless of what you call it.

Well you go right ahead and think such silly things if you want to. :rolleyes:

I think civil union is the legal term while marriage is the religious term.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If there is a church that will marry two men or two women then it's a "marriage"
Right?

It reinforces the idea that gay people are somehow different from straight people, ...

Hmm, they ARE different!! ...LOL!

Gay men like to fuck other men in the ass - gay men like to suck on the cocks of other men ...no normal male would even consider such things. So ....homo men ARE different to normal men.

Now I know that that's a shock, so I'm hoping that you were sitting down when you read that revelation. If not, well, I'm sorry. :D

And I'm sorry you feel punched in the face, but that's life, ain't it?

Baron Max

I find it a silly exercise that demonstrates the absurdity of monogamous, exclusive, homosexuality.

Be a Greek. Fuck as many men (or women) as you want. But then settle down and be serious.

That's exactly what I was thinking. If there is a church that will marry two men or two women then it's a "marriage"
Right?

I think so. I know that religious ceremonies are not acceptable for a legal definition of civil union. People from India married under a religious ceremony need to undergo a civil union if they move abroad.

Hmm, they ARE different!! ...LOL!

Gay men like to fuck other men in the ass - gay men like to suck on the cocks of other men ...no normal male would even consider such things. So ....homo men ARE different to normal men.

Now I know that that's a shock, so I'm hoping that you were sitting down when you read that revelation. If not, well, I'm sorry. :D

And I'm sorry you feel punched in the face, but that's life, ain't it?

Baron Max

You need to get out more. Sexuality is not as black and white as you think it is.

You need to get out more. Sexuality is not as black and white as you think it is.

Oh, really???? Hmm, I've been wondering about you, Sam, perhaps now I'm beginning to see the light. :D

Hey, how does the Koran view a man fuckin' another man in the ass??? Or a man suckin' another man's dick?

Baron Max

Oh, really???? Hmm, I've been wondering about you, Sam, perhaps now I'm beginning to see the light. :D

Hey, how does the Koran view a man fuckin' another man in the ass??? Or a man suckin' another man's dick?

Baron Max

It doesn't.

It doesn't.

Oh, c'mon, Sam ....please! Even if you don't know it, somewhere in that damned book is a passage that makes mention of men fuckin' other men in the ass!! I know it, just know it! ....even if you don't.

Baron Max

You need to get out more. Sexuality is not as black and white as you think it is.

Yeah, but he's too senile to comprehend this. I kinda don't bother with him anymore.

SamCDKey:

Baron Max is speaking for men very well here. Straight men find the sodomizing or engaging in oral sex with another man to be disgusting.

There is very little in the ways of "scales of homosexuality" for a heterosexual guy.

Well you go right ahead and think such silly things if you want to. :rolleyes:


Same to you for thinking it's a good thing.

I wonder, if we had a poll, how many members would admit to thinking that a male sticking his dick into another man's asshole is a good thing to do? Ditto for a man sucking another man's dick?

How many would actually call that ............love??? Or something even remotely good? ...even with all of the horrid bacteria that thrive in the human asshole? Hmm, I wonder.....?

Baron Max

It's neither 'good' nor 'bad'. It just is, so deal with it.

Or, better still, just don't think about it - I don't.

Except when people who claim to hate it keep bringing it up. ;)

If it impacts us socially, whyever should we not?

Well, yes, if it 'impacts'* you socially, that's different.

How does it impact you socially?

*And, yes, I intend to 'stuff' as many innuendoes into my replies as I possibly can. Forgive this - I'm English, and really can't help it.

Well, yes, if it 'impacts'* you socially, that's different. How does it impact you socially?

If nothing else, it's an issue that's divided the nation and caused disrespect, disgust, covert discrimination, and hatred to flourish in the society.

Baron Max

Also the tax issues, as well as the cultural destruction of the meaning of marriage for the alst 6,000 years, even in gay-friendly cultures.

Good play on words, by the way.

sodomy should have nothing to do with tax definitions in my eyes.
i also think homosexuality is wrong, but that shouldnt stop gays from attaining full legal stature, because of a lifestyle choice. its a basic civil rights era debate of our own time.

Since when do civil rights mean an utter overturning of what marriage means?

Since when do civil rights mean an utter overturning of what marriage means?

since civil rights acknowledged desegregation, and allowing women to vote.
the legal definition of marriage is a legal one, not a moral one.

there is absolutely no reason at all to deny gays the right to exercise the same practices as heteros.

i also think homosexuality is wrong, but that shouldnt stop gays from attaining full legal stature, because of a lifestyle choice. its a basic civil rights era debate of our own time.

Gays already have full legal rights in exactly the same way as all normal males in this country. Normal males can't marry other males, and neither can homos. Ditto for lezzies.

But see, what the homos want is SPECIAL rights, above and beyond what any other normal male has ...and that ain't right. And worse, they want those special rights simply because they like to fuck differently!

Baron Max

[B]
But see, what the homos want is SPECIAL rights, above and beyond what any other normal male has ...and that ain't right. And worse, they want those special rights simply because they like to fuck differently!

Baron Max

ah, and see..you want to deny those rights to people that fuck differently than yourself.

surely you can see hypocrisy in your own point?

If nothing else, it's an issue that's divided the nation and caused disrespect, disgust, covert discrimination, and hatred to flourish in the society.
So which came first: homosexuality or Cain and Abel hatred?

So which came first: homosexuality or Cain and Abel hatred?

republicanism.

As of today (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/19/nj.civil.unions.ap/index.html), New Jersey is the third US state to permit same-sex civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. All civil unions and marriages between homosexual couples obtained in other states or nations are now eligible for recognition as civil unions, and civil union licenses are granted to them automatically. New Jersey state Senator Loretta Weinberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Weinberg), a prime sponsor of the law, calls this a "big, giant step forward".

I call it a punch in the face.

Wanna know why?

It reinforces some negative ideas concerning same-sex couples and marriage. It reinforces the idea that gay people are somehow different from straight people, that the love between two men or two women is somehow different, that the union between them is somehow undeserving of being called a marriage.
What a load of crap. Did you know that the US could have had nationalized healthcare in the seventies! Do you know who stopped it? Ted Kennedy. Why? It didn't go far enough for him. So he killed the bill and got squat instead.

Take what you can get. Once the camel has its nose in the tent, it's only a matter of time before he's all the way in.

We've gone from no one even considering the idea of same sex marriage, to "civil unions aren't good enough" in one fell swoop!

Get real.

Now, if it were up to me, homosexuals would never get the right to "marry". I'd OK some kind of civil union, but it would not be the equivalent of marriage. Clearly it's not right that homosexual couples sometimes can't make medical decisions for their "partner" and other such things.

But I don't consider a homosexual union to be equivalent t a heterosexual one. The reason "marriage" deserves special status is it is the best way to produce and raise the next generation. Kids are expensive and a lot of trouble, but without them a society literally dies.

Then perhaps we should pass a law requiring all married couples to have kids?

Since when do civil rights mean an utter overturning of what marriage means?

Since now.

ah, and see..you want to deny those rights to people that fuck differently than yourself. surely you can see hypocrisy in your own point?

No hypcrisy at all. Homos have exactly the same marriage rights as normal males and females.

Normal males can't marry other males; normal females can't marry other females; homo males can't marry other males; homo females can't marry other females.

Where do you see any discrimination or any hypocrisy?

Baron Max

Facial:

Sorry, but I am ill convinced by changes that would destroy the entire concept of marriage as a useful social construct.

The Devil Inside:

Marriages, like all other licenses, have prerequisites. If you cannot meet them, you cannot get it. The prerequisite of marriage is one willing male and one willing female - homosexual and lesbian couples do not meet these criteria.

The Devil Inside: Marriages, like all other licenses, have prerequisites. If you cannot meet them, you cannot get it.

Just like lots of things in life ......

Can't get a driver's license until you're 16 (or whatever).

Can't buy beer or liquor until of the proper age.

Blind people can't drive cars!

People without tits can't use the public women's restrooms.

Can't fly on airplanes carrying fifty pounds of Semtex.

Lot's of things in life have requirements that must be met before one can get or do them.

But homos seem to want SPECIAL CONSIDERATION .....just because of who and how they like to fuck. Odd, huh? And they say that normal people discriminate?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

But homos seem to want SPECIAL CONSIDERATION .....just because of who and how they like to fuck.Baron Max
Despite, not because of.

I wonder how many people who oppose gay marriage are also of the opinion that homosexuals are naturally promiscuous? This little package quite neatly reinforces that prejudice.

Despite, not because of.

No hypcrisy at all. Homos have exactly the same marriage rights as normal males and females.

Normal males can't marry other males; normal females can't marry other females; homo males can't marry other males; homo females can't marry other females.

Where do you see any discrimination or any hypocrisy?

I wonder how many people who oppose gay marriage are also of the opinion that homosexuals are naturally promiscuous? This little package quite neatly reinforces that prejudice.

Don't make no fuckin' difference, does it? I sure don't see how!

I mean, take me for example, ...I think if a heterosexual male accidently rubs up against a homo, like in an elevator, he's instantly infected with the "homo germ" and will immediately start seeking out other males to suck and to stick his dick into! Geez, that really scares me! :D

Baron Max

I wonder how many people who oppose gay marriage are also of the opinion that homosexuals are naturally promiscuous? This little package quite neatly reinforces that prejudice.
Males are naturally promiscuous. Why do you think HIV showed up first among homosexual males? There's no female to say no.

Normal males can't marry other males; normal females can't marry other females; homo males can't marry other males; homo females can't marry other females.

Where do you see any discrimination or any hypocrisy?
It's obvious, isn't it? Heterosexual people can marry the people they love; homosexual people can't.
I mean, take me for example, ...I think if a heterosexual male accidently rubs up against a homo, like in an elevator, he's instantly infected with the "homo germ" and will immediately start seeking out other males to suck and to stick his dick into!
Now no you don't, Baron. :rolleyes:
Males are naturally promiscuous. Why do you think HIV showed up first among homosexual males? There's no female to say no.
I assume you disapprove, and are in favour of gay marriage to reduce the incidence of this kind of behaviour? Only kidding, you're against this too, I can sense it. You can't 'have it both ways' though. ;)

I assume you disapprove, and are in favour of gay marriage to reduce the incidence of this kind of behaviour? Only kidding, you're against this too, I can sense it. You can't 'have it both ways' though. ;)I was simply explaining the increased promiscuity among male homosexuals. Males need a stronger sex drive. It's what drives us to achieve, it's what drives evolution. So I fully approve of it.

As I said earlier in the thread, I would approve of some sort of civil union but I would not make it "equal" to marrage in all respects.

The Devil Inside:

Marriages, like all other licenses, have prerequisites. If you cannot meet them, you cannot get it. The prerequisite of marriage is one willing male and one willing female - homosexual and lesbian couples do not meet these criteria.

this is the same as saying that a fish cant breathe gas because it cannot breathe gas.

in other words, its circular. the object of the debate is to produce some sort of resolution that will satisfy all parties (at least for those of us that are reasonable).

why should gay couples not enjoy the same legal privileges as heterosexual couples? their sex orientation should have nothing to do with health insurance, inheritance, tax law, or whatever.

to stonewall gay marriage or civil unions, or whatever you choose to call it....is pointless and cruel to those gays that actually lead productive lives and want to enjoy legal status equal to everyone else.

why is it that republicans fall all over themselves to justify the killing of thousands of foreigners over a lie, but somehow think they sit in a moral crystal tower, overseeing the rest of us?

is there a constitutional law that bars this kind of union?



..............thats what i thought.

why should gay couples not enjoy the same legal privileges as heterosexual couples?

They already can! The gay males can marry females if they want ...in exactly the same way normal males do. There is no discrimination at all.

And as to your little ploy to use "couples" instead of individuals in cute ...but our laws and the Constitution is about rights of individuals, not couples or groups of people.

...their sex orientation should have nothing to do with health insurance, inheritance, tax law, or whatever.

Homos can get all those things now in the same way as normal people. Ain't no discrimination at all.

C'mon, just face it, homos want SPECIAL RIGHTS just because of their "odd" sexual habits and desires.

Baron Max

What special rights do they want?

What special rights do they want?

Gay males want the special right to marry another male. That's a SPECIAL RIGHT above and beyond the legal rights of normal males. Normal males can't marry another male either. See? Both homos and normal males have exactly the same rights under the law.

All of that is ditto for the lezzies.

Baron Max

Gay males want the special right to marry another male. That's a SPECIAL RIGHT above and beyond the legal rights of normal males. Normal males can't marry another male either. See? Both homos and normal males have exactly the same rights under the law.

All of that is ditto for the lezzies.

Baron Max

Who says normal males can't marry other normal males? Do you think you need to perform anal sex before a comity before you can marry as two males?

Gay males want the special right to marry another male. That's a SPECIAL RIGHT above and beyond the legal rights of normal males. Normal males can't marry another male either. See? Both homos and normal males have exactly the same rights under the law.

All of that is ditto for the lezzies.

Baron Max

there ISNT a law barring it.
it may be a custom, but not a law..except in a few places.

just stop trying to act smart.

People like BM will become more & more isolated as the rest of the world progresses. Gays being taxpayers but not allowed (Sharia style) to marry an adult of the same sex is an outrage. But gay marriage IS inevitable. Gays have every right to be as miserable as everyone else.

It would be funny if Baron Max and Buffalo Roam would marry. They were made for each other.

It would be funny if Baron Max and Buffalo Roam would marry. They were made for each other.I'LL be the Flower Girl!:)

Gross.

Hmm, they ARE different!! ...LOL!

Gay men like to fuck other men in the ass - gay men like to suck on the cocks of other men ...no normal male would even consider such things. So ....homo men ARE different to normal men.

Now I know that that's a shock, so I'm hoping that you were sitting down when you read that revelation. If not, well, I'm sorry. :D

And I'm sorry you feel punched in the face, but that's life, ain't it?

Baron Max

I hope you pass on your deep philosphy to all those who get so upset about homosexuality.

Just tell them, that's life, things upset us. Get on with yours.

Gay males want the special right to marry another male. That's a SPECIAL RIGHT above and beyond the legal rights of normal males. Normal males can't marry another male either. See? Both homos and normal males have exactly the same rights under the law.

All of that is ditto for the lezzies.

Baron Max

This is incorrect. I am sure there is nowhere on the civil union forms where one must declare one's sexual preference. A straight man could marry a straight man. So there is no need to be jealous. And no government official will do spot checks to make sure you are having sex with each other. Hell, you and one of your buddies could still make stupid jokes.

but here's why your 'argument' is really stupid.
People are now allowed to marry the people they love. And that was something denied them.
It's not like shopping for a steak.
but you, rights protected by the laws, can still view getting married in mathematical terms if you want.

Weren't there people that were against marriages between black and white - on the basis that such a union of marriage was "unnatural"?

There will always be people left behind as the World moves on.

They already can! The gay males can marry females if they want ...in exactly the same way normal males do. There is no discrimination at all.

They can't marry the people they love. It is not like playing dominoes.

And as to your little ploy to use "couples" instead of individuals in cute ...but our laws and the Constitution is about rights of individuals, not couples or groups of people.

So we have extended the constitution to allow INDIVIDUALS to marry other individuals they love. Just as we allowed INDIVIDUAL women to vote despite the fact that the constitution did not grant them this right. All in the American tradition.

African americans and other GROUPS were granted certain rights as Groups. Amazingly enough other GROUPS did not lose anything.



Homos can get all those things now in the same way as normal people. Ain't no discrimination at all.

But a gay person whose family beat the shit out of him from day one will suddenly get control over that person's health care, as one example, when that person gets hit by a car and put in a coma. The man he loved and shared his life with for the last 20 years is cut out. A civil union protects people from this. There are other kinds of problems where they end up having less rights.

C'mon, just face it, homos want SPECIAL RIGHTS just because of their "odd" sexual habits and desires.

They get no special rights. There would be nothing they can now do that you as a prejudiced illogical straight guy can't already do.

Name one thing they will be allowed to do that you cannot do.

Baron Max[/QUOTE]

Gay males want the special right to marry another male. That's a SPECIAL RIGHT above and beyond the legal rights of normal males. Normal males can't marry another male either. See? Both homos and normal males have exactly the same rights under the law.

All of that is ditto for the lezzies.

Baron Max

Once you've read the arguments showing your special rights theory is the BS it is, can you have the intellectual honesty to just say you hate gays and stop making people waste time showing you what you should be able to figure out on your own.

man you are an asshole.

I'LL be the Flower Girl!:)

i was thinking the "cock-ring bearer".

heh.

Why would anyone have a problem with 2 gays getting married, I certainly dont, its their life. But it it absolutely disgusting that some gays can adopt childeren, how can they think this is normal. And to get married in a church is completely out of the question. If anyone can justify these two things i would be most interested to hear your views.

And to get married in a church is completely out of the question.

That's for the church in question to decide.

But it it absolutely disgusting that some gays can adopt childeren, how can they think this is normal.
i was raised by 2 uncles. one of them was gay.

*shrug* does this mean that i should have instead been put in a foster home, instead of having 2 people that loved me taking care to secure my future?

'nuff said.

What a parade of homophobia this thread is. All the usual suspects have turned up. (Why are you people so terrified of people who have a different sexual preference?)

I'll consider the comments in the order they appear in the thread, because (a) the opinions are indistinguishable and (b) I'm too lazy to group them.

Hmm, they ARE different!! ...LOL!

And difference is bad, right? Everybody ought to be just like Baron Max. Baron Max's ideas about sex are the RIGHT ideas, and anybody who deviates from them is evil!

Gay men like to fuck other men in the ass - gay men like to suck on the cocks of other men ...

You seem to know a lot about gay men. Fascinated and at the same time repulsed. Interesting. You're not in denial, are you?

no normal male would even consider such things. So ....homo men ARE different to normal men.

I have news for you. MANY men who consider themselves heterosexual like to anally penetrate women, and some are not averse to doing the same with men, too. Take jail, as an example environment...

As for your claim that no "normal" man would ever consider sucking a body part belonging to his sexual partner, that's equally ludicrous.

Hey, how does the Koran view a man fuckin' another man in the ass??? Or a man suckin' another man's dick?

Why do you care? You're not a Muslim?

Baron Max is speaking for men very well here. Straight men find the sodomizing or engaging in oral sex with another man to be disgusting.

You speak for all straight men, do you? Who made you President of Men?

I wonder, if we had a poll, how many members would admit to thinking that a male sticking his dick into another man's asshole is a good thing to do? Ditto for a man sucking another man's dick?

"Good" in what sense? What are you talking about?

How many would actually call that ............love???

Do you think sex is love? Or love is sex?

If it impacts us socially, whyever should we not?

How does what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms impact you socially?

Also the tax issues, as well as the cultural destruction of the meaning of marriage for the alst 6,000 years, even in gay-friendly cultures.

Interesting concept, the cultural destruction of the meaning of marriage. You do know, I assume, that marriage has been, for most of history, a way of cementing inter-familiar political bonds. Do you agree that all this recent rubbish about marrying for "love" is wrong, too?

Since when do civil rights mean an utter overturning of what marriage means?

What do you think marriage means? Please explain.

Gays already have full legal rights in exactly the same way as all normal males in this country. Normal males can't marry other males, and neither can homos. Ditto for lezzies.

But see, what the homos want is SPECIAL rights, above and beyond what any other normal male has ...and that ain't right. And worse, they want those special rights simply because they like to fuck differently!

You're not really this stupid, are you? At least try to make some kind of sensible argument.

But I don't consider a homosexual union to be equivalent t a heterosexual one. The reason "marriage" deserves special status is it is the best way to produce and raise the next generation. Kids are expensive and a lot of trouble, but without them a society literally dies.

As I wrote above, originally marriage had much less to do with producing and raising children than in forming family alliances.

Marriages, like all other licenses, have prerequisites. If you cannot meet them, you cannot get it. The prerequisite of marriage is one willing male and one willing female - homosexual and lesbian couples do not meet these criteria.

How things are now are the way they must always be! So says Prince_James.

You're living in a time warp, PJ. You would have been much more comfortable in the 1950s.

But it it absolutely disgusting that some gays can adopt childeren, how can they think this is normal.

What's wrong with gay people adopting children? How does a person's sexuality affect their ability to bring up children? Please explain.

What a parade of homophobia this thread is.
I'm curious, James R.

Have you ever made love to another male?

No affirmative response in evidence, James R. must be as homophobic as those he judges to be homophobic -- even if they are not. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Athelwulf ....

I think the first thing we need to do is get some sort of platform established upon which the obvious logical argument can be juggled and pitched about. How can we have a separate but equal argument if there is no separate but equal?

I know. I know.

Its not natural, you cant tell me its healthy for a child to be raised by 2 gay people. Even in a case where the child turns out alright (by a normal persons terms) it isnt fair to take that chance on their behalf.

No hypcrisy at all. Homos have exactly the same marriage rights as normal males and females.

Normal males can't marry other males; normal females can't marry other females; homo males can't marry other males; homo females can't marry other females.

Where do you see any discrimination or any hypocrisy?

Baron Max

Well, in your own words (italics my own):



Gay men like to fuck other men in the ass - gay men like to suck on the cocks of other men ...no normal male would even consider such things. So ....homo men ARE different to normal men.


Do gays vacillate between "normal" and "un-normal", depending on which condition supports your current argument? Hypocrisy? No???

I'm curious, James R.

Why?

Have you ever made love to another male?

Does it matter?

No affirmative response in evidence, James R. must be as homophobic as those he judges to be homophobic -- even if they are not.

Please explain your reasoning, if you have any.

Its not natural, you cant tell me its healthy for a child to be raised by 2 gay people. Even in a case where the child turns out alright (by a normal persons terms) it isnt fair to take that chance on their behalf.It isn't natural? Sure it is. It isn't supernatural. Two humans that love eachother is about as natural as you can get. Whether or not you approve isn't important. It's wrong for a child to be raised in a home with divorcing parents, single parents, abusive parents, parents that don't like eachother, parents that molest, parents that are alcoholics. But two adults in love are qualified to raise children as well as any other couple. Your self righteous bigotry toward gays is immoral. Just wanted you to know your pedastal isn't as high as you might think.

Bottle-feeding children instead of breast-feeding them isn't natural. To all of you who say the love between two members of the same sex isn't natural, I say this: Start breast-feeding your kids, and return to the wilderness. Leave every last bit of technology behind you and become a feral beast, relying on no trace of technology whatsoever in order to survive. Then you can talk to me about certain romantic relationships being unnatural.

Same-sex love is actually no less natural than any other kind of love. But that point aside: If you base your opinion on same-sex marriage, or even same-sex love for that matter, on whether or not it's natural, then I hope you've bothered to carry this mindset to its logical conclusion.

Athelwulf ....

I think the first thing we need to do is get some sort of platform established upon which the obvious logical argument can be juggled and pitched about. How can we have a separate but equal argument if there is no separate but equal?

I know. I know.

I thought there was a platform in there. That was the purpose of making up the scenario where women can't earn diplomas and evoking the times when blacks were segregated from whites. Or do you mean I should more directly explain it?

If it isn't clear to other people, I'll try to explain: If you want institution A, and I tell you "Well I don't really feel like giving A to you, but I can give you institution B, and even make it equal to A, only it won't be A, because I still don't wanna give you A", then I'm effectively segregating you from the people who get to enjoy institution A and creating an institution B which I claim to be equal, although different.

Same-sex love is actually no less natural than any other kind of love.

Oh, I think same sex "love" is perfectly natural. It's a male stickin' his dick into the asshole or mouth of another male that's pretty damned UN-natural!

Gays are not being segragated or discriminated against in the institution of marriage. Hetero males are not permitted to marry others males in exactly the same way!

There are other natural limits to marriage as well; Fathers can't marry their own daughters; Mothers can't marry their own sons; Brothers can't marry their own sisters. Those are simply laws that we follow and there's no good reason to change them. Those laws are, in fact, discriminatory, aren't they?

Gays just want SPECIAL RIGHTS ...above and beyond what normal people have ....and all because gay males like to stick their dicks into the assholes of other males!

Baron Max

I thought there was a platform in there.

Whoops. Er ... oh, shit. No, no. Please.

What I meant is that the civil unions are the platform: Nobody can allege that they're even equal, as I understand it, but that's an unfortunate theoretic issue right now. As each inequality arises to example, there will be this civil union infrastructure to compare with. Unless God Itself shows up and radically alters our understanding of humanity, it seems that the idealization of love will continue.

To the other, do you ever wonder just what special right above and beyond the homophobes like Baron are always yammering about? Given that this comes down to gender discrimination, the question to be asked of the Fourteenth Amendment is whether or not love, especially its component portions of comfort and security, is subject to gender discrimination. Even the Preamble (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html) speaks in gays' favor: "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Combined with the Fourteenth, "separate but equal" will not long hold under such stresses.

The Christians can render unto Caesar on this one: nobody's saying they have to marry their own gender. Nobody says they have to sin. And the idea of amending the Constitution? Love thy neighbor, right? And exploit thy democracy as a hammer of thine vengeance? It's between the gays and God. There is no reasonable case, short of, "We reserve the right to sin in order to further punish people we don't like," that Christianity can plead.

When it comes down to it, all will rest on the Fourteenth Amendment.

But first we need something to set atop that magic number. I'm disappointed that it's not equality and inclusion, but the outcome is inevitable, so it's good to see at least some progress. There now exists an framework upon which to build the house of equality.

Each new marital freedom or civil union law among the states will eventually add up to a number that the courts can only but affirm among all fifty.

Gays are not being segragated or discriminated against in the institution of marriage. Hetero males are not permitted to marry others males in exactly the same way!
...

Gays just want SPECIAL RIGHTS ...above and beyond what normal people have ....and all because gay males like to stick their dicks into the assholes of other males!

so if group A likes guns and group B doesnt, does that make it fair for group B to regulate that no-one is allowed guns? i mean they both have the same rights dont they?

Why? Does it matter? Please explain your reasoning, if you have any.
Of course. I have your reasoning...
What a parade of homophobia this thread is.
If you've never made love to another male, you must obviously be homophobic.

Until you've made love to another male, you have no right to presume that other males who haven't are automatically homophobic.

Even then you'd be a presumptuous twit.

If you've never made love to another male, you must obviously be homophobic.

Until you've made love to another male, you have no right to presume that other males who haven't are automatically homophobic.

That ... almost ... makes sense. Are you playing some obscure dictionary game?

Oh, wait. No, you don't make any sense. For a moment I thought I was looking at six Dobermans with angry chipmunks chittering out from where their scrota should be.

Nonetheless, are you trying to play some sort of dictionary game?

Oh, I think same sex "love" is perfectly natural. It's a male stickin' his dick into the asshole or mouth of another male that's pretty damned UN-natural!

And yet if it was two women, you'd be sitting there with your tongue hanging out and your hands down your pants with a tub of moisturiser by your side.

Your denial that homosexuality is somehow wrong is kind of stupid really in light of your arguments on these forums.

Why do you care whether they get married or not? Are they forcing you to have your anus penetrated by a penis if they get married? Nope. Why are you so concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom? To remind you of an argument you have enjoyed using in just about every thread that pertains to people's private lives... "mind your fucking business".

Apt don't you think?

Gays are not being segragated or discriminated against in the institution of marriage. Hetero males are not permitted to marry others males in exactly the same way!

For someone who has proclaimed to have been an architect and one would have assumed, would have received some form of education, you sure are simple minded and down right.. dim.. aren't you?

This argument of yours is soooooo dull and soooooo repetitive. Do you have it saved so that you can just copy and paste?

Why would a hetrosexual male wish to marry another hetrosexual male? You do know the difference between being homosexual and hetrosexual don't you? Homosexual males wish to marry other homosexual males. They are denied that right. Therefore, it stands to reason that homosexual males are being "discriminated against". Do. You. Understand. Now?

There are other natural limits to marriage as well; Fathers can't marry their own daughters; Mothers can't marry their own sons; Brothers can't marry their own sisters. Those are simply laws that we follow and there's no good reason to change them. Those laws are, in fact, discriminatory, aren't they?
You do know why the laws against incesteous marriages exist don't you? Because such marriages could lead to children and those children could be born with severe disabilities and deformaties. You do understand the difference don't you Baron?

Gays just want SPECIAL RIGHTS ...above and beyond what normal people have ....
Special rights? Oh you mean the right to marry? Like hetrosexual couples are allowed to marry but homosexuals aren't allowed to? I shall repeat something so you understand..

Homosexual males wish to marry other homosexual males. They are denied that right. Therefore, it stands to reason that homosexual males are being "discriminated against". Do. You. Understand. Now?

Nothing special about it. They just wish to be granted the same rights that hetrosexuals have. Or do you think hetrosexuals being allowed to marry is somehow special?

and all because gay males like to stick their dicks into the assholes of other males!

Haven't you caught on yet? They can "stick their dicks into the arseholes of other males" all they want. They just want to marry.

Or are you one of those who thinks that you only have sex after you get married?

And honestly, what business is it of yours if a homosexual male likes to "stick his dick into the arsehole" of other males? You seem quite obsessed with their sexual acts if this thread and other threads on homosexuality are anything to go by. Jealous? Curious?

To quote you Baron. Maybe it is time society started to "mind our fucking business" about what consenting homosexual adults do in the privacy of their bedroom and also in relation to their getting married.

Or are you being "hippo-critical" about what society should stick its nose into?

And yet if it was two women, you'd be sitting there with your tongue hanging out and your hands down your pants with a tub of moisturiser by your side.

Yeah, I would ....but I still wouldn't allow them to be married!

Why are you so concerned about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom?

Gays can do that if they wish, and I'd support their rights to do it. But that's not the same as marriage, Bells, which I'm staunchly against.

Why would a hetrosexual male wish to marry another hetrosexual male? ... Homosexual males wish to marry other homosexual males. They are denied that right. Therefore, it stands to reason that homosexual males are being "discriminated against".

It's not a matter of whether they want to or not, Bells, it's a matter of rights and permission under the law. Normal males can't marry normal males; homo males can't marry other males ....same "males", same laws, same conditions, same scenario, .....thus no discrimination.

You do know why the laws against incesteous marriages exist don't you? Because such marriages could lead to children and those children could be born with severe disabilities and deformaties. You do understand the difference don't you Baron?

So if they had surgery to prevent pregnancy, would they then be permitted to marry and adopt children? Hmmm?

They just wish to be granted the same rights that hetrosexuals have. Or do you think hetrosexuals being allowed to marry is somehow special?

Sure, I think homos should be permitted to marry in exactly the same way as normal males .....to members of the opposite sex. Normal males can't marry males, so why should homos expect to do something that even normal males can't do? Ahh, yeah, homos are expecting SPECIAL RIGHTS ...not equal rights!!!

And honestly, what business is it of yours if a homosexual male likes to "stick his dick into the arsehole" of other males?

Homos can do that any time they wish in the privacy of their own homes ...and I support their right to do it. But this is about permitting the homos the right to marry ....which I'm stanchly against. To give homos the right to marry is to give them SPECIAL RIGHTS above and beyond the rights of other normal males.

Baron Max

Baron Max:

Oh, I think same sex "love" is perfectly natural. It's a male stickin' his dick into the asshole or mouth of another male that's pretty damned UN-natural!

"Natural" means "occurring in nature", I assume. Since the acts you refer to clearly occur in nature, they are therefore quite "natural".

There are other natural limits to marriage as well; Fathers can't marry their own daughters; Mothers can't marry their own sons; Brothers can't marry their own sisters.

These are not "natural" limits, but legal limits. Marriage is a legal construct, not a "natural" one.

Gays just want SPECIAL RIGHTS ...

No. They just want to be able to marry their life partners - just like heterosexual people do.


Mr. G:

If you've never made love to another male, you must obviously be homophobic.

No, that's wrong. Where did you get that idea?

Until you've made love to another male, you have no right to presume that other males who haven't are automatically homophobic.

And if you have, then you do have that right?

Even then you'd be a presumptuous twit.

Oh, I see. Then who is qualified to judge somebody as homophobic, then, in your expert view?

Yeah, I would ....but I still wouldn't allow them to be married!

And who are you again? And why should anyone care what you think?

Seriously Baron, why do you care if homosexuals wish to marry?

Gays can do that if they wish, and I'd support their rights to do it. But that's not the same as marriage, Bells, which I'm staunchly against.
Ah so you are against marriage in general or just if homosexuals decide to marry?

It's not a matter of whether they want to or not, Bells, it's a matter of rights and permission under the law.
This is where you are right. So do you think the law is correct to discriminate against one group of people when anti-discrimination laws state it is illegal to do so?

Normal males can't marry normal males; homo males can't marry other males ....same "males", same laws, same conditions, same scenario, .....thus no discrimination.
Your simplification of the matter is simple really. You keep resorting to this argument over and over again. It only shows you simply do not understand the issue at hand either because you choose not to, or because you really are that dim.

So if they had surgery to prevent pregnancy, would they then be permitted to marry and adopt children? Hmmm?

Nope.

Sure, I think homos should be permitted to marry in exactly the same way as normal males .....to members of the opposite sex.
Oh. So you're ok for people of the opposite sex to marry, even though you said above you are against marriage. It's just the "homo" who you don't think should have equal rights. You agree that the law and the system should discriminate against a group of people.

Again, why do you care if homosexuals can marry or not? It really is none of your "fucking business" is it? It does not affect you in any way, shape or form. So why do you care?

Normal males can't marry males, so why should homos expect to do something that even normal males can't do? Ahh, yeah, homos are expecting SPECIAL RIGHTS ...not equal rights!!!
So now homosexuals aren't normal?

What is normal Baron? Define normal for me?

You admited yourself you would be turned on by two women going at it, so you're turned on by people you consider abnormal? Is that normal? Are you normal by any definition?

And no, homosexuals are demanding equal rights. The rights they have now are special because they discriminate against them. So they wish to have equal rights. Maybe one day you might understand and be able to differentiate between the two.

Homos can do that any time they wish in the privacy of their own homes ...and I support their right to do it.
So why can't they marry in the privacy of their own homes?

You don't mind them having sex, just so long as they don't marry? LOL!

But this is about permitting the homos the right to marry ....which I'm stanchly against.
Again, why do you care?

Why do you care if some "homo" in California (for example) decides to marry? How will their marrying impact on you? You live in Texas, so why do you care if homosexuals in New Jersey marry?

To give homos the right to marry is to give them SPECIAL RIGHTS above and beyond the rights of other normal males.
Really? Males can marry whoever they so choose, so long as it is a woman. You don't think that is discriminatory? Aren't you just the 'speshual' little "hippo-crit".

What about women marrying? You are obsessed with the thought of men marrying each other in this thread (and others), so does that mean you are fine with women marrying other women?

Honestly, you would think you have a personal stake in people marrying. When you do not. It has nothing to do with you. So why don't you mind your own business Baron?

He's quite obsessed about mansex. He repeats the "dick in the asshole" part quite often. Thinks about it alot. Makes ya go hmmm.:p

Mr.G; No, that's wrong. Where did you get that idea?
It is an exaggeration, an extrapolation of the notion that a heterosexual male who judges homosexuality to be less than personally relevant -- individually and socially -- therefore must automatically be a homophobe.
And if you have, then you do have that right?
Certainly in the self-loathing sense.
Oh, I see. Then who is qualified to judge somebody as homophobic, then, in your expert view?
You've stumbled into the point: Anyone can judge, but those who assume they're best qualified to adjudicate -- thanks for the reciprocally snarky "expert" qualification, btw -- qualifications for judging invite guffaws.

He's quite obsessed about mansex. He repeats the "dick in the asshole" part quite often. Thinks about it alot. Makes ya go hmmm.:p

Our lord made us pretty good, with certain parts that fit into certain sections perfectly, and others that obviously don't . If you don't believe in God , then evolution has made it this way.

That ... almost ... makes sense. Are you playing some obscure dictionary game?

Oh, wait. No, you don't make any sense. For a moment I thought I was looking at six Dobermans with angry chipmunks chittering out from where their scrota should be.

Nonetheless, are you trying to play some sort of dictionary game?
The more interesting question is why Doberman scrota are on your mind. Ya must be a doggie bag sorta guy, eh?

....but I still wouldn't allow them to be married!

Baron Max

I think I have posted this opinion at least once before, but what the hell, I'll do it again.

There are, in my opinion, four different kinds of "marriage".

First, if any two people have a relationship and decide that it is a marriage, then for them it is a marriage and nobody else has anything to say about it.

Second, this couple has a circle of friends and family. If that circle is willing to recognize their relationship as a marraige, then so be it... it is a marriage at a different, social level.

The first two atttributes have been around since the beginning of humanity.

The third type of marriage is a function of the religious community. A church consecrates a relationship and holds it up to the community as a model of desired behavior.

The fourth type of marriage is that recognized by civil society, where the relationship is granted certain legal and economic status. There are well-known tax benefits, rights of inheretance, stuff like that.

The first two kinds of marriage are not subject to anything that anyone in a position of authority might have to say about it. It is a private matter between two people or between two people and their personal community. It's the third and fourth level that are creating the problem. The question is whether religious sensibilities can pit themselves against what are perceived as civil rights.

The question before the law is whether the legal and economic benefits granted to two people who have entered into a relationship can be denied to pairs of people based on gender. A case can be made that two people can enter into a business relationship and can currently obtain many of the same kind of benefits a married couple have. A case can also be made that two people can enter into a domestic relationship that benefits them and society - for example, two people could choose to share an apartment, child-rearing responsibilities, etc. So from the state's point of view, what difference does it make whether those people have some personal definition of their relationship as "marriage" or not?

What it comes down to is some people's disapproval of their neighbors, and their consequent efforts to deny these people any particular benefit from participating in civil society. The arguments are always the same. Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Women shouldn't be allowed to own property. White men who don't own property shouldn't be allowed to vote. People who can't pay their debts should go to prison. Women who commit adultery should be stoned to death. So on and so forth. Why? Because to permit these things will cause the destruction of society / God's wrath / loss of political power for certain privileged people.

If a religious sect wants to castigate people for their behaviors, that's fine. If they refuse to grant them a recognized marriage, or refuse to recognize a marraige the couple has declared, that's fine, too. But a decision has to be made whether two people can be granted civil rights based on a declared legal relationship. I really don't see how we can deny those rights.

I was married in a civil ceremony that had absolutely no religious trappings whatsoever, no mention of God or any of that. So in that sense my relationship with my wife is not recognized by any church. Nobody checks into the quality of my relationship, whether I abuse my wife, screw other people, or otherwise carry on in a way generally considered anathemical to a civil union. The state doesn't grant me legal rights based on the quality of my marriage, whether we are capable of producing children (we aren't, by the way), or anything else. So why apply the sole condition of differing gender to the establishment of a civil union?

I think I know why. The people who are against granting civil benfits to two people of the same gender who have established a relationship (a roundabout way of not using the word "marriage", eh?) do so for two reasons:

It's a legitimized form of bigotry. People filled with hate can't easily express their hatred for the traditional groups (blacks, jews, the disabled, women), so gay people are the new, acceptable target.

Fundamentalist Abrahamaics believe that if they even countenance a conditional acceptance of dogmatically disapproved behaviors, then God will smite them. See also abortion, evolution and contraception as other examples of people not minding their own damned business.

So to suggest that you won't "allow" something is absurd. I know people who consider themselves married. That's none of my business. I know other people who consider themselves married, and since I know them I am willing to recognize their marriage. Just because they are both same-gender couples doesn't matter. I know of at least two other married couples who are opposite-gender and who, in the opinion of our circle of friends and family, emphatically should not be married. In the case of one couple, the "marriage" is a farce and is one in name only. So where are those concerned about the "sanctity of marriage" - why aren't they getting involved in these cases? Because it's none of their business, none of mine and none of yours.

What it comes down to is some people's disapproval of their neighbors, and their consequent efforts to deny these people any particular benefit from participating in civil society.

Exactly! And although somewhat on the negative side, that's not a bad definition of "society". A society makes rules and laws for which the members have agreed to follow ...they've "formed" a society, a group of people with a common goal and common attributes. That's what a society is!

Society has hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions, of rules and laws that the society and it's members have agreed to. Members of society can't simply allow one, or a few, individuals to violate those rules just because they want to do so.

Take any and all rules and laws of society, and you can probably give decent arguments against those rules and laws, or why members should be permitted to violate those rules and laws. Does that mean that we, as a society, should allow those rules and laws to be violated? Or changed just for the convienence and desires of a few individuals?

Society doesn't permit brothers to marry their own sisters. The reason we use for denying such marriage is that the offspring might be retarded, and thus a detriment to society as a whole. But you might notice that, even if the brother and his sister were to have operations to prevent conception, they still could not be married. They've negated the actual reason for the denial of marriage, yet they still can't marry.

So why apply the sole condition of differing gender to the establishment of a civil union?

Why establish ANY rules and laws in a society?

Because it's none of their business, none of mine and none of yours.

We could use that and similar arguments to discard any and all rules and laws of society. Rules and laws are made by a society for that society as a whole, not so individual members can violate those rules and laws at will.

None of our business? Is it any of New York City's business to ban trans fats from all restaurants in the city? No, of course not ...but they did it anyway, didn't they? Because it's deemed "in the best interest of that society".

None of my business? Well, it's also none of my business if someone wishes to drive at high speed and reckless manner in some town that I never visit.

As long as I have a voice/vote in my own society, then I'll vote against permitting same-sex marriage.

Baron Max

As long as I have a voice/vote in my own society, then I'll vote against permitting same-sex marriage.

Baron Max

Believe it or not, I'll defend your right to express your voice / vote to the last ditch.

Interesting that you should mention the taboo against brothers and sisters marrying - there was a story on CNN this AM about a German couple (brother and sister, four kids!) trying to keep out of jail and also trying to get the law changed by the German parliament.

But to the subject at hand - social rules and civil law. I agree with you that conformity to law is critical to the function of civil society, and that adherence to social norms is also pretty important, though to what degree is easily debatable. You must admit, though, that there is usually some flexibility to rules and law. Flexibility regarding the interpretation and enforcement at any given moment, and long-term change over generations. I probably don't need to cite examples.

I concede that I was too sweeping in the "none of my business" generalization; obviously if a guy is beating his wife every night we can't permit that to go on just because it is deemed to be none of our business. Somebody is going to intervene, and rightly so. Many other examples could be cited, but it always comes down to a matter of whether an activity is causing harm or not.

What, in your opinion, is the harm in same-sex marriage? The actual harm - to you, your neighbors or their kids?

Believe it or not, I'll defend your right to express your voice / vote to the last ditch.

Thank you for that.

...it always comes down to a matter of whether an activity is causing harm or not.
What, in your opinion, is the harm in same-sex marriage? The actual harm - to you, your neighbors or their kids?

Define "harm".

And, no, it doesn't and shouldn't always come down to "harm" ....it should always be what the society wants, needs and is willing to accept.

And just to clarify things for you, let's take the example you mentioned; the husband next door beating the shit outta' his wife every night. What "harm" does it do to me, my family and my neighbors (and you) ...and anyone else not directly involved? And even more to the point, what if that family was on the other side of town? What harm does it cause anyone but the beaten wife?

If we were to pull the plug and let the entire continent of Africa sink beneath the waves of the ocean, killing every man, woman and child, would it actually harm you??? My guess is that it wouldn't.

You must admit, though, that there is usually some flexibility to rules and law. Flexibility regarding the interpretation and enforcement at any given moment, and long-term change over generations.

Of course ...otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But just what those revisions and changes are to be should be determined by the society as a whole, not just by and for one special interest group.

Hell, if we keep on making changes to society, pretty soon they're gonna' even let women vote, for god's sake!!

And probably worse, soon there after, they'll even allow blacks and other non-whites to use the same damned drinking fountains and restaurants as we do! Geez, what's next?! :D

Baron Max

And just to clarify things for you, let's take the example you mentioned; the husband next door beating the shit outta' his wife every night. What "harm" does it do to me, my family and my neighbors (and you) ...and anyone else not directly involved? And even more to the point, what if that family was on the other side of town? What harm does it cause anyone but the beaten wife?
Baron Max

You're right, Baron, it would do me no harm whatsoever. So what if I see her limping down the street with a black eye, a pace behind her husband? Nothin' to me. No sir. Must have fallen down repeatedly. Awful clumsy. It's good that you and I are able to keep to ourselves and not be concerned about the sounds of shouting, breaking glass, the begging... none of our concern.

You're right, Baron, it would do me no harm whatsoever. .....

See? I knew you'd finally see the point.

But it's interesting, don't you think, that you didn't even give a definition of "harm"??

...and yet you typed up a whole bunch of crap as if that was explanation enough. What if you never even saw the woman??? You didn't bother covering that aspect of "harm", did you?

Wanna' try again? :D

Baron Max

See? I knew you'd finally see the point.

But it's interesting, don't you think, that you didn't even give a definition of "harm"??

...and yet you typed up a whole bunch of crap as if that was explanation enough. What if you never even saw the woman??? You didn't bother covering that aspect of "harm", did you?

Wanna' try again? :D

Baron Max
And it is interesting how you keep dodging questions.

See? I knew you'd finally see the point.

But it's interesting, don't you think, that you didn't even give a definition of "harm"??

...and yet you typed up a whole bunch of crap as if that was explanation enough. What if you never even saw the woman??? You didn't bother covering that aspect of "harm", did you?

Wanna' try again?
Baron Max

Harm: causing physical or psychological/emotional damage or injury to a person, animal or other entity.

Physical harm is pretty easy to determine. It's the psychological / emotional damage that is more difficult to assess. The beaten woman causes you no physical harm because you aren't the one gettin beaten. It may or may not cause you emotional harm depending on whether you have any general concern for people you don't know getting beaten. Your example of Africa was a good one. I simply can't work up the same level of concern for the people of Darfur as I can for the guy down the street whose house got wiped out in a flood last summer. It depends on proximity and capacity for identification.

You made the point in an earlier post that we should not make accomodations for small interest groups that try to bend the rules outside of social and legal norms. There is certainly a case to be made for that. For example, the population of people in wheelchairs / scooters is pretty small, something like one percent or a little less. Thirty years ago the decision was made that these people needed accomodation, so billions of dollars was spent to build ramps, widen toilet stalls, define architectural standards for widths of doors and hallways, add elevators, make curb cuts, and do all the other things that you can see all over the place. Was it worth it? Was the harm these people suffered at not having access balanced by the cost to add all these features added to the infrastructure? I don't know. But the decision was made and now hardly anybody would suggest going back.

If we grant people who wish to cohabitate in a civilly recognized relationship certain legal status (ability to inherit property, make medical decisions, and accrue certain tax benefits), is the harm to you and me substantial? I don't think so. I think the main objection lies in placing some sort of social stamp of approval on nontraditional relationships. The public expression of these relationships causes some people psychological/emotional injury, and so we ought not to permit it.

Society has hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions, of rules and laws that the society and it's members have agreed to. Members of society can't simply allow one, or a few, individuals to violate those rules just because they want to do so.

Members of a society can certainly do this. There are all sorts of examples throughout american history where people have been allowed to break certain rules: assemble adn protest for example without the appropriate permits that were denied for various reasons.

We allow exceptions all the time. A small example: police often decide not to arrest people or give out tickets or fines in all sorts of situations. In many cases this is done because the officers involved see extenuating circumstances.

Take any and all rules and laws of society, and you can probably give decent arguments against those rules and laws, or why members should be permitted to violate those rules and laws. Does that mean that we, as a society, should allow those rules and laws to be violated? Or changed just for the convienence and desires of a few individuals?

Should allow those rules to be changed? Well, of course. That's a basic idea of our society that WE CAN CHANGE THE RULES if we so decide to. Sometimes WE make those changes because we want to help minority groups or allow those minority groups to do something that is currently against the law BUT WON'T BE LATER.

It was once illegal in many places to marry someone of another race. I assume from some of you posts you might think that still should be illegal. But EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONLY A SMALL % OF THE POPULATion who wanted to do this, still Americans decided that restricting people that way was based on old stupid ideas. And even though many people were still stuck in the past, clinging to old values that often included hatred based on race, still Americans went ahead with the change. There are many, many other examples.


Why establish ANY rules and laws in a society?

According to the implied logic women should not have been granted the vote.



We could use that and similar arguments to discard any and all rules and laws of society.

We should be free to follow constitutional procedures to come up with new rules and to eliminate old ones. That goes on all the time, every day.



Rules and laws are made by a society for that society as a whole, not so individual members can violate those rules and laws at will.

If they change the laws those people are no longer breaking the law. If a black man marries a white woman we can no longer throw them in jail. They are not, by definition, breaking a law.

Black people cannot be OWNED by white people any more. The reason that is true is because the rules and laws changed. This upset many people. Oh, well.


As long as I have a voice/vote in my own society, then I'll vote against permitting same-sex marriage.

Fine. That's all it really comes down to. You don't like it. You are trying to present arguments that make it sound like some weird legislative process is being created. But you are wrong. This is what happens. This is PRECISELY HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS. Laws change.

You might want to study a little history. Take note of how changing morals have CONTINTUOUSLY AFFECTED LEGISLATION in this country.

Then you will see how UNAMERICAN your ideas about the law are.

That's a basic idea of our society that WE CAN CHANGE THE RULES if we so decide to.

Yeah, I agree. So let's have the American people vote on the issue ...the American people will decide how they want to change the laws. Would you abide by that vote?

You might want to study a little history. Take note of how changing morals have CONTINTUOUSLY AFFECTED LEGISLATION in this country. Then you will see how UNAMERICAN your ideas about the law are.

Yeah, I agree. So let's have the American people vote on the issue ...the American people, members of the society, will decide how they want to change the laws. Would you abide by that vote?

Or ....perhaps you're not actually seeking the approval of the American people and American society? Perhaps what you're really seeking is the convoluted complexity of "the law" as determined by a bunch of doo-gooder, liberal politicians???

It was once illegal in many places to marry someone of another race. .... But EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONLY A SMALL % OF THE POPULATion who wanted to do this, still Americans decided that restricting people that way was based on old stupid ideas.

Read what you wrote above ...read it carefully and then check history.

The American people did NOT vote on that issue ...it was forced down their throats by the liberal, doo-gooder politicians and lawyers of the day! Read history concerning that era ...by far, the greater majority of the society did not want blacks to marry white women. Yet it was forced upon the society! And you seem to think that was a good thing ...for something to be forced upon the members of a society, even when they didn't want it?

Is that the way you want society to operate ...to be forced to change or accept changes that the society does NOT want? When they don't even get to vote on the issue?

So let's have the American people vote on the issue ...the American people will decide how they want to change the laws within their own society. Would you abide by that vote?

Baron Max

The more interesting question is why Doberman scrota are on your mind. Ya must be a doggie bag sorta guy, eh?

You're late to the party, Mr. G. Anyone paying attention could offer a perfectly logical reason why you remind me of Doberman scrota.

Hey, what's that haze in here?

:m:

You're late to the party, Mr. G. Anyone paying attention could offer a perfectly logical reason why you remind me of Doberman scrota.
It's good to know you spend your valuable time thinking about me and caring about what I might think about what you think.

It is a reasonable compromise to offer the same benefits, rights, and responsibilities to lifetime-committed gay couples, yet call it by a different name.

To preserve the sanctity of (heterosexual) marriage and (homosexual) civil unions, adultery should be against the law for both institutions (penalty being in the form of community service), and divorce very difficult except in profound scenarios. Faithful couples increase the stability of society regardless of their sexual orientation, and state-sponsored unions should never be taken lightly or frivolously whomever is involved. Those who enter into them under these conditions would be worthy of societal respect and support.

What if two widows want to share a home - save money on living costs, have some companionship, maybe even be available to make those end-of-life decisions - but there's no lesbianism involved that makes the morally strong uncomfortable. Wouldn't it make sense to grant them some legal and economic benefits from the arrangement?

Yeah, I agree. So let's have the American people vote on the issue ...the American people will decide how they want to change the laws. Would you abide by that vote?

--------------------------------------------

So let's have the American people vote on the issue ...the American people, members of the society, will decide how they want to change the laws. Would you abide by that vote?

--------------------------------------------

So let's have the American people vote on the issue ...the American people will decide how they want to change the laws within their own society. Would you abide by that vote?

By George!!

Baron has discovered the copy and paste function.:eek:

Yes Baron. Lets have a vote on the issue. However the question that should be asked is this. Could you abide by the vote? After all, you have stated many times in this thread that you:

...still wouldn't allow them to be married!

Now it stands to reason to question whether you would accept if the majority voted that they did not care if homosexuals married and voted that they should be allowed to. Don't forget your words above now my dear man. You have stated quite plainly that YOU would not allow them to marry. So you cast your one vote and you lose. What then? What do you do then?

Now what I still don't understand is this. I have asked you this several times before and you simply fail to answer it.

What business is it of yours if homosexuals decide to marry?

How will two gay men or women marrying in New Jersey, affect you down there in Texas? Why do you care if they get married?

Or ....perhaps you're not actually seeking the approval of the American people and American society? Perhaps what you're really seeking is the convoluted complexity of "the law" as determined by a bunch of doo-gooder, liberal politicians???
You aren't seeking the approval of the American people either. Remember these words again Baron?

...but I still wouldn't allow them to be married!

You too hide behind the law each time you spout:

Normal males can't marry normal males; homo males can't marry other males ....same "males", same laws, same conditions, same scenario, .....thus no discrimination.
Now if the law changes, or more importantly, moves with the time and adapts to society (as it is meant to do, otherwise the law becomes stagnant), you scream out that it is the "doo-gooder liberals" who are changing it. What you fail to realise is that people change and situations change. What was never acceptable decades ago is now acceptable. Call it a form of evolution if you will. As people become more educated and leave behind the 'hick' mentality, they begin to see the world for what it is. That is what happens when you live in a progressive society.

You live in a society that is free and you appear, by all accounts, to be proud of being free. So why are you so keen to restrict a large group within your own society? Why are you denying them the freedom that you hold so dear?

The American people did NOT vote on that issue ...it was forced down their throats by the liberal, doo-gooder politicians and lawyers of the day! Read history concerning that era ...by far, the greater majority of the society did not want blacks to marry white women. Yet it was forced upon the society! And you seem to think that was a good thing ...for something to be forced upon the members of a society, even when they didn't want it?
And?

So you think it should still be illegal for the coloured to marry whites?

Or maybe your society progressed enough to allow the individual the right to choose their spouse and remove the law from such a choice. After all, if you are going to say to all and sundry that America is the "land of the free", you can hardly claim such a status if you restrict 2 people from marrying based on colour alone. It would be quite "hippo-critical" of you to do so.

What negative impact on society did it have if two people of different colours married? What negative impact did it have on you for example? Do you think you are worse off for it today? Do you think blacks should still be slaves? Do you think blacks should not have the right to vote? Do you think women should not have the right to vote?

America, in all its claims of 'freedom', has always been one of the last to actually progress forward. I can see now why that might be. The desires of some of its citizens for a repressive and divided society is holding it back. Personally I hope the gay marriage issue goes to a vote. And I hope people vote for the affirmative in allowing them to marry. Then maybe it might show that you actually are a progressive nation. And maybe, just maybe, you might shut up about the 'do-gooder liberals' who have been the ones to fight for you to have the freedoms you currently have and hold dear.

Is that the way you want society to operate ...to be forced to change or accept changes that the society does NOT want? When they don't even get to vote on the issue?
I think the fact that this is such a hot topic for discussion tends to indicate that society is changing and many in society are calling for a change. You are broadcasting your self and your outdated views and projecting them as somehow representing all of society. You are but one individual in your society Baron. You have only one vote. If society votes against you, what then? Can you accept that? Will you accept that?

What if two widows want to share a home - save money on living costs, have some companionship, maybe even be available to make those end-of-life decisions - but there's no lesbianism involved that makes the morally strong uncomfortable. Wouldn't it make sense to grant them some legal and economic benefits from the arrangement?

Why? For what reason would anyone grant special consideration for something like that?

Baron Max

Yes Baron. Lets have a vote on the issue. However the question that should be asked is this. Could you abide by the vote? After all, you have stated many times in this thread that you:

Through all the bullshit that you continually type, Bells, I missed that silly question. But if it was put to a vote of the American people, and they voted to allow gay marriages, then, yes, I'd abide by it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd abide by the decision of my fellow members of society.

The problem, of course, is it will never be put to a vote by the American people ...it'll be forced down our throats by the liberal politicians.

What business is it of yours if homosexuals decide to marry? How will two gay men or women marrying in New Jersey, affect you down there in Texas? Why do you care if they get married?

Because, unfortunately, I'm a member of the same "society". Laws that are enacted in, say, NY or NJ would and will ultimately affect me in Texas.

You live in a society that is free and you appear, by all accounts, to be proud of being free. So why are you so keen to restrict a large group within your own society? Why are you denying them the freedom that you hold so dear?

We restrict the freedoms of kids under 18, don't we? We restrict people from enjoying pictures of naked little girls, don't we? We restrict the freedoms of drivers of cars that can do 120 mph, don't we? We restrict the freedoms of convicted child molestors, don't we? ........ Need I go on? Hmm?

So you think it should still be illegal for the coloured to marry whites?

Yes.

I also think that women should never have been given the right to vote.

After all, if you are going to say to all and sundry that America is the "land of the free", you can hardly claim such a status if you restrict 2 people from marrying based on colour alone.

We restrict lots of freedoms in the USA, Bells, or haven't you noticed? It's the right of a society to control the acts of its members ...that's what a "society" is and does.

What negative impact on society did it have if two people of different colours married? What negative impact did it have on you for example? Do you think you are worse off for it today?

Negative impact? That doesn't matter except to historians! A society does what it thinks it should do at that time. "Negative impacts" come later.

Had the American people been given the right to make that choice, they'd have overwhelmingly voted against allowing blacks to marry whites. You know it and I know it. However, I don't know what the vote would be today ...maybe they'd even vote against it today, too.

Do you think blacks should still be slaves? Do you think blacks should not have the right to vote?

It's all too late for that now. I'm not so sure, but had I been around at that time, I might well have voted to send all the slaves and their descendants back to Africa. You talk about negative impact ...freeing the slaves had a horrendous negative impact on this nation, and it's one that's being felt today.

The desires of some of its citizens for a repressive and divided society is holding it back.

So you think that the members of a society should have no vote on issues that directly affect them? That whatever you, or some other liberal doo-gooders, say is "progressive" should be forced upon them without the freedom to vote on the issues? And yet in that long, long post of yours, you imply that freedom in a society is a great thing?

Freedom in a society is not as simple as you make it out to be, Bells. The "freedoms" of a society also include some agreed-upon restrictions of those very same freedoms.

Baron Max

Finally, some honest answers from Baron. Nice to finally see exactly what your views are Baron. More to the point, nice to see that I was right about you. Your honesty is appreciated.


Through all the bullshit that you continually type, Bells, I missed that silly question. But if it was put to a vote of the American people, and they voted to allow gay marriages, then, yes, I'd abide by it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd abide by the decision of my fellow members of society.

The problem, of course, is it will never be put to a vote by the American people ...it'll be forced down our throats by the liberal politicians.

And if it is, then you become a sheep and will simply go along with it.

For your sake, and for the sake of those with a vested interest in this, I hope this does go to a vote and I hope they win.

Because, unfortunately, I'm a member of the same "society". Laws that are enacted in, say, NY or NJ would and will ultimately affect me in Texas.
How so?

How will two homosexuals marrying affect you at all? Will they be claiming a chunk of your land, wealth, health, life?

We restrict the freedoms of kids under 18, don't we? We restrict people from enjoying pictures of naked little girls, don't we? We restrict the freedoms of drivers of cars that can do 120 mph, don't we? We restrict the freedoms of convicted child molestors, don't we? ........ Need I go on? Hmm?
Do you? Or do you restrict them after they have committed the act?

Do you think such restrictions benefit society as a whole? And how are they on par with two adults of consenting age and the same sex wishing to marry? Will they endanger the lives of others, as one would expect a person speeding might for example?

Yes.

I also think that women should never have been given the right to vote.
Why?

We restrict lots of freedoms in the USA, Bells, or haven't you noticed? It's the right of a society to control the acts of its members ...that's what a "society" is and does.
Ah finally. The illusion of freedom is shown to be just that. An illusion.

Negative impact? That doesn't matter except to historians! A society does what it thinks it should do at that time. "Negative impacts" come later.

Had the American people been given the right to make that choice, they'd have overwhelmingly voted against allowing blacks to marry whites. You know it and I know it. However, I don't know what the vote would be today ...maybe they'd even vote against it today, too.

Oh I don't doubt they would have voted no.

But looking back, with the joys of 20/20 hindsight, how has the end of restricting blacks and whites from marrying negatively impacted on your society today? After all, as you have said, the negative impacts come later. So it is now 'later'.. what are those negative impacts Baron.

It's all too late for that now. I'm not so sure, but had I been around at that time, I might well have voted to send all the slaves and their descendants back to Africa. You talk about negative impact ...freeing the slaves had a horrendous negative impact on this nation, and it's one that's being felt today.
Indeed. The white folk are now having to live with the coloured folks having equal rights. The horror!

Of course, you are quite happy that some of those descendants of slaves are giving their lives for your war on terror. But that's beside the point isn't it? After all, why should you care if some nigger is dying for your country? I wonder how anyone can view equality and fairness as being a negative impact.

So you think that the members of a society should have no vote on issues that directly affect them? That whatever you, or some other liberal doo-gooders, say is "progressive" should be forced upon them without the freedom to vote on the issues? And yet in that long, long post of yours, you imply that freedom in a society is a great thing?
Oh I am for freedom in society. I am the product of a free society Baron. My parents left a country plagued by a South African form of apartheid and worked hard in a free society to allow me to be where I am today. You are damn right I love the very notion of freedom. Hence why I find your views and beliefs to be quite sad in light of what history and the happenings of the world should have taught you. But at least you are honest, I'll give you that. Now when I call you a racist bigot, I can know that I actually am right.:)

And refer to above in regards to the vote issue.

*Edit*.. missed this bit..

Freedom in a society is not as simple as you make it out to be, Bells. The "freedoms" of a society also include some agreed-upon restrictions of those very same freedoms.
But when a large group finds themselves being discriminated against and denied rights that are allowed to others under such restrictions, don't you think the issue needs to be addressed? Oh wait, I forgot who I was asking... nevermind.

Finally, some honest answers from Baron. Nice to finally see exactly what your views are Baron. More to the point, nice to see that I was right about you. Your honesty is appreciated.

Oh, but, Bells, my views change daily ...with every new news account of happening around the world. Surely you, of all people, wouldn't want me to pick a position, then staunchly defend it in light of new happenings, would you? :D

But at least you are honest, I'll give you that. Now when I call you a racist bigot, I can know that I actually am right.

No, Bells, that post was typed up this morning ....and is good for only that particular moment in time. Tomorrow is another day!

I never like to think of myself as a "racist bigot" because I essentially hate all humans and all those "races" fit right in with that ideal. If I could, I'd eliminate all humans from the Earth, and it wouldn't matter one little bit to me which "race" I started with! :D

How will two homosexuals marrying affect you at all? Will they be claiming a chunk of your land, wealth, health, life?

Laws, rules, insurance, and any and all various such legal proceedings. One law in NJ will ultimately affect the laws, etc in other states. Always has, always will.

After all, as you have said, the negative impacts come later. So it is now 'later'.. what are those negative impacts Baron.

If you don't know the answer to that, Bells, then you haven't been paying attention to the news!! Or to the crime stats! Or the gang violence! Or the pregnancy rates in teenagers! Or the number of black, single mothers in the USA! Or the poverty rates of blacks in the USA! Or the violent riots by blacks that occur regularly!

But when a large group finds themselves being discriminated against and denied rights that are allowed to others under such restrictions, don't you think the issue needs to be addressed?

Large group? How many gays and lezzies are there in the USA, Bells?

And, yes, I think the issue should be addressed ...which it is being addresssed. But by the same token, I think the members of the society should have their say ...by voting! NOT BY HAVING IT CRAMMED DOWN THEIR THROATS BY LIBERAL POLITICIANS!

Just remember, Bells, my views may well change again when I have lunch with one of my black friends. (Oh, my god! Do I actually have black friends??? Ain't that a scary fuckin' thought! ...LOL!) In fact, I might come back and do a complete 180 on you! ....LOL!

Baron Max

Bells, hommos affect us all, those with kids anyways, in that they bring to the podium the fact that being one is okay, thanks to some of our governing bodies. That I don't think is right. I don't want my kids to go to school and have to learn how it is okay to be gay.

Why? For what reason would anyone grant special consideration for something like that?

Baron Max

Because it might be better for older people to live in company of other people instead of alone - more cost-effective, safer, healthier. Since these benefits would accrue to the wider society as well as to the individuals involved, then we might want to encourage them to do so by providing some incentives.

I responded to your post asking for elaboration on the notion of "harm" - any comment?

Oh, but, Bells, my views change daily ...with every new news account of happening around the world. Surely you, of all people, wouldn't want me to pick a position, then staunchly defend it in light of new happenings, would you? :D

God forbid.

Laws, rules, insurance, and any and all various such legal proceedings. One law in NJ will ultimately affect the laws, etc in other states. Always has, always will.
Fair enough.

If you don't know the answer to that, Bells, then you haven't been paying attention to the news!! Or to the crime stats! Or the gang violence! Or the pregnancy rates in teenagers! Or the number of black, single mothers in the USA! Or the poverty rates of blacks in the USA! Or the violent riots by blacks that occur regularly!
Regularly is a bit much don't you think?

So you think colour is cause of all crime? So all blacks are criminal? You don't think other factors also come into play? Fair enough. You are free to have your views.

Large group? How many gays and lezzies are there in the USA, Bells?
Big enough that when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot", Republican Presidential candidates jumped from her sinking ship in droves, condemning her comments all the way and trying to put as much distance between her and their campaigns as possible. I wonder why that could be?

And, yes, I think the issue should be addressed ...which it is being addresssed. But by the same token, I think the members of the society should have their say ...by voting! NOT BY HAVING IT CRAMMED DOWN THEIR THROATS BY LIBERAL POLITICIANS!
You really have an obsession with liberals don't you?

Well of course you do, they were the ones who fought for more equality in the US, freeing the slaves, giving blacks and women the right to vote, etc.:rolleyes:

And yes, it should come to a vote. As I said, I hope it does and I hope they win. Because such discriminatory practices that exist at present will only end up being detrimental to society in the long run.

Just remember, Bells, my views may well change again when I have lunch with one of my black friends. (Oh, my god! Do I actually have black friends??? Ain't that a scary fuckin' thought! ...LOL!) In fact, I might come back and do a complete 180 on you! ....LOL!
You would not be Baron if you did not do a 180. After all, you are known for always taking the opposing view.

Why should I be surprised that you have black friends? I am however amazed they consider you their friend. I guess you do not tell them of your participation in forums.;)

Bells, hommos affect us all, those with kids anyways, in that they bring to the podium the fact that being one is okay, thanks to some of our governing bodies. That I don't think is right. I don't want my kids to go to school and have to learn how it is okay to be gay.
I guess you still have not come to the realisation that it is ok to be gay.

I truly hope for your kids that one of them does not turn out to be homosexual, because I would imagine having you as a parent and with your views, they would end up being very unhappy people if they were gay.

Because it might be better for older people to live in company of other people instead of alone - more cost-effective, safer, healthier. Since these benefits would ...

If their savings can't take care of them or their families won't or can't, then let 'em starve to death ....they won't live much longer anyway. there's no need to strap the taxpayers with more fuckin' unwanted expenses ..they pay enough now to take care of lazy bastards who won't take care of themselves.

Baron Max

If their savings can't take care of them or their families won't or can't, then let 'em starve to death ....they won't live much longer anyway. there's no need to strap the taxpayers with more fuckin' unwanted expenses ..they pay enough now to take care of lazy bastards who won't take care of themselves.

Baron Max

In India we say older people are ones who pass on the values, cos they've already made all the mistakes you and I have still to make.

I think older people are sorely under appreciated. I know I learned a lot more from my grandmother than I did from my parents.

Regularly is a bit much don't you think?

Perhaps. But I like exaggeration and over-exaggeration to prove my points ...it's fun.

So you think colour is cause of all crime? So all blacks are criminal?

I think that the crime stats all over the world prove that beyond any reasonable doubt ....except to you and James R. (and perhaps a few others).

You don't think other factors also come into play?

No, those "other factors" just make the "normal" crime worse, that's all. You don't see the same rates of crime with poor, uneducated whites as that of the poor, uneducated blacks, do you? Why not? If race ain't got nothin' to do with it, then it should be the same .....which it ain't.

Big enough that when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot",...

Naw, just news media sensationalism, that's all. Of course you believe all that shit, so....?

You really have an obsession with liberals don't you?

Yeah, 'cause they won't actually DO what they're trying to push onto me and others! If liberals want to help so fuckin' much, let 'em do it, but leave me and others out of it. That's what I object to!!

You would not be Baron if you did not do a 180. After all, you are known for always taking the opposing view.

Actually, Bells, I've found that it helps me learn, helps me see the opposing sides of issues. I do that in my own mind, too. It helps to keep an open mind and not leap so quickly to judgement like you and so many others do.

Why should I be surprised that you have black friends? I am however amazed they consider you their friend.

I don't know if it helps you to understand, but they're all cops. And they also hate the fuckin' blacks! ...lol! Yes, I'm kidding ...but not by too much. They've said on numerous ocassions that if it weren't for the blacks, their shift would be sooooo much easier and so much less violent.

I guess you still have not come to the realisation that it is ok to be gay.

Well, it's also not okay to be a fuckin' psychopath, so what? No, Bells, in my view it's NOT okay to be gay. They're sick, and I feel the same way about people who are sick ....it's not okay to be sick!

I truly hope for your kids that one of them does not turn out to be homosexual, ....

If that were to ever happen, he'd know enough to keep his sickness to himself and not proudly proclaim that he likes to stick his dick into another man's asshole!

Hey, Bells, what would you think of some husbands who got together and formed a group, then had a parade around your town ....proclaiming loudly how much they loved fuckin' their wives in the asshole? Maybe your husband might join that group??? How would that make you feel? Proud? Happy that everyone in town knew?

Baron Max

I think older people are sorely under appreciated. I know I learned a lot more from my grandmother than I did from my parents.

I think that's fine, Sam, and for once I think I agree with you. ...tho' it truely pains me to say so!

But the bigger question here is ....when she's so old that she can't take care of herself, are you going just throw her to the government to take care of? Or are you going to take care of her yourself?

Baron Max

I think that's fine, Sam, and for once I think I agree with you. ...tho' it truely pains me to say so!

But the bigger question here is ....when she's so old that she can't take care of herself, are you going just throw her to the government to take care of? Or are you going to take care of her yourself?

Baron Max

She died young and made that question redundant. In fact her mother outlived her and was looked after by a cousin of mine (her granddaughter).

I've always felt that after a certain age the roles get reversed, you know the children become the providers and the parents become the dependents.

The tragedy of modern life, as we say in India, is that parents can bring up several children, but several children find two parents a burden. Its a sad reality today, for many older people in India.

My parents looked after their parents with respect and affection. I have no mother now, but I hope I can do my bit for my father, aggravating as he is.

No, those "other factors" just make the "normal" crime worse, that's all. You don't see the same rates of crime with poor, uneducated whites as that of the poor, uneducated blacks, do you? Why not? If race ain't got nothin' to do with it, then it should be the same .....which it ain't.

Oh race has everything to do with it. But not as you might think or assume.

Naw, just news media sensationalism, that's all. Of course you believe all that shit, so....?
Find me one Republican or Conservative Presidential candidate that has come out in support of her and what she said.

Yeah, 'cause they won't actually DO what they're trying to push onto me and others! If liberals want to help so fuckin' much, let 'em do it, but leave me and others out of it. That's what I object to!!
You do realise is that the whole point of the argument is to just let them do it. As you said yoursel