This goes for both Republican and Democrat, so I'm not picking sides...but what is the deal with not allowing homosexuals to get married? Nobody is saying that the church has to let them in...but the last time I checked, you can get married at City Hall.

Unless you're gay, that is.

So what's up with ignoring the whole separation of Church and State?

Nobody is saying that the church has to let them in...

I thought they were, and that was part of the problem?

Regardless, the President has been trying to push a bill through that would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, effectively making same-sex marriages invalid and illegal.

Doesn't matter if a church allows them to or not. The point was that nobody was saying the church had to...all that was being asked was that they be legally allowed to get married.

Why is our own government so against it? Why, in a world where people can literally get married in a DRIVE-THRU should marriage be held as such a sacred thing?

People build their comfort zones around paradigms. There exists this paradigm that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and, by allowing that paradigm to adjust, it forces whatever unbending person to accept that THEIR world isn't permanent. Nothing brings us greater satisfaction than the notion of permanence of those things we define as good and important. The sad thing is, no one is forcing Christians and Muslims to marry same sex couples in thier houses of worship any more than divorce effects their concepts of marriage. It's just another way to force their concept of civility on the world around them and exhert control, and the illusion of control brings the greates satisfaction a human being can attain. (thus: the pursuit of wealth & power, since both generally equate to control... or at least the illusion of it)

~String

Why is our own government so against it?

Because the American peope are against it, and they're the voters.

Baron Max

String, excellent analysis. I made a comment in another thread about how one of humanity's worst traits is the desire to make other people conform to our own beliefs in order to validate them. Many people think it's a direct attack on their own worldview if someone else has a different view. The effort to have your views codified into law is the ultimate validation. And that is exactly what is at work in relation to this issue.

Because the American peope are against it, and they're the voters.


Here you go again, Baron. So do you just not believe in the concept of individual freedom at all? Is everything to be subject to majority opinion?

Because the American peope are against it, and they're the voters.

Baron Max

Indeed, and despite my disappointment at (what I percieve as) American prejudice; the American people are the foundation of this Republic. This is why this decision needs to be made in the varios legislatures of the country and NOT the court system.

Here you go again, Baron. So do you just not believe in the concept of individual freedom at all? Is everything to be subject to majority opinion?

I'm goint to have to agree with Baron on this one. Although I do NOT believe in the tyrany of the majority, but denying gay people the right to marry is hardly "tyrany of the majority". As I see it, there is no possible way to extrapolate a right to gay marriage (except by jurisprudence of the court system regarding the IX Ammendment, something I am opposed to). I'm not arguing against gay marriage, quite the opposite, I just want it to come about as a result of legislative action. I'm a patient man... young Americans are, in their heard, progressive people. History's crawl is just that... a crawl.

~String

I as a Mormon ask: why no polygamist marriages? Consenting adults and such...

I as a Mormon ask: why no polygamist marriages? Consenting adults and such...

Because it's illegal in the USA (except, I think, in parts of Utah?).

Baron Max

String,

Dude, that was excellent. Thanks for the response. I agree with your take on a lot of this, but I'm going to respond to some points that I don't.

Although I do NOT believe in the tyrany of the majority, but denying gay people the right to marry is hardly "tyrany of the majority"

Yes it is. Marriage, which is a legal status, should not be denied to anyone who wants it. There are exceptions, of course--such as an adult who wishes to marry a minor, or an adult who wishes to marry an animal, and the reason for that is an animal can't approve the union, and a minor isn't legally able to make the decision.

But for two consenting adults, there is no foundation for the argument against it. The reason they aren't allowed is as you stated--people trying to force their own beliefs on others, and that simply cannot be accepted, because it isn't constitutional. By depriving gays the right to marry is the same as depriving them the right to vote--you're essentially taking away their rights as an American citizen.

I can only hope that more evidence is found that being gay is no more of a choice than being straight is a choice. Maybe that will persuade people. But even if it doesn't, and even if 99% of Americans don't agree with it, it should not be illegal, because there is nothing wrong with it.

I find the thought of homosexual marriage repulsive. So do most of the rest of Americans.

So don't have one.

I find the thought of homosexual marriage repulsive. So do most of the rest of Americans.

So your opinion means that they should not be allowed to? And for that matter, don't you find the idea of marriage between a man and a woman in a quick-stop chapel in Las Vegas just as repulsive? Don't you find "Who wants to marry a millionaire" repulsive?

Why is straight marriage considered such a sacred institution, when the divorce rate is more than 50%? Why is it held in such high regard when it is made into a game show on TV?

It has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with people who don't like the idea of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) having sex. Rather than just letting them be, they impose a law against them! How is that fair? How is that American?

And why should gay marriage--which has no effect on your personal life whatsoever--be any of your concern?

Although I do NOT believe in the tyrany of the majority, but denying gay people the right to marry is hardly "tyrany of the majority". As I see it, there is no possible way to extrapolate a right to gay marriage (except by jurisprudence of the court system regarding the IX Ammendment, something I am opposed to).


It certainly IS tyranny of the majority. When the majority stops a minority from doing something that doesn't harm or affect the majority in any way, that is pretty much the very definition of "tyranny of the majority." And I'm sure you'd agree that the overblown rhetoric from many conservatives about gays trying to "destroy marriage" is nothing but a delusion. There is no way two gay people enjoying the benefits of marriage could harm straight couples in any way whatsoever (and offending their sensibilities doesn't count as harm). Therefore, this is a matter of personal freedom, not something that should be subject to majority opinion.

Also, I do believe the 9th Amendment applies here as to so much else. The proper question is not "where does the Constitution say you have the right to do X?" The proper question is always, "where does the Constitution give the government the power to prevent X?" I don't recall anything in there about a governmental power to define relationships, or to prevent certain people from having a relationship.

Now, you might reply that no one is prevented from having a relationship, and it is only the legal priveledges that are in question. But I believe if the government is going to grant certain legal priveledges to certain romantic relationships, I don't see any possible principle by which it could deny them to other romantic relationships. Conversely, if it were assumed that there is no basis for granting those legal priveledges to gays, then there is also no basis for granting them to anyone else. It is not the government's place to define personal relationships. Which is why all the rhetoric about a small minority "redefining marriage" is so ridiculous -- no government and no group of people ever had the right to define it for everyone else in the first place. It is the ultimate example of a personal matter that is not the business of the majority or government.

And why should gay marriage--which has no effect on your personal life whatsoever--be any of your concern?

A murder in California isn't likely to have any effect on the personal life of someone in New York City, but my guess is that most New Yorkers wouldn't want California to change their laws so as to make murder legal. See? Things have an effect on us all, regardless of distance.

We, the American citizens, vote to elect our governmental officials to represent us in matters of national and international importance. I.e., the majority of voters is a meaningful thing, whether you want to believe it or not. If the majority of voters don't want homos to marry, then so be it. And if they don't want it to happen, then it's obviously of some concern to them ....whether you believe it or not.

Baron Max

I find the thought of homosexual marriage repulsive. So do most of the rest of Americans.


There are numerous things in life I find repulsive. A few examples: obnoxious people who talk too much or too loud; country music; fundamentalist tv engangelists, so-called psychics and their gullible followers; internet trolls..... and well, the list could go on and on.

However, the ONLY proper reason for me to expect my government to prohibit things I find repulsive, or to pressure my legislators to prohibit them, is if they actually HARM me.

However, the ONLY proper reason for me to expect my government to prohibit things I find repulsive, or to pressure my legislators to prohibit them, is if they actually HARM me.

What's "harm" in your view? I mean, for example, if your neighbor plays music too loud at night and you can't sleep, and that causes problems for you at work, is that "harming" you?

If a husband goes out and gets AIDS from a prostitute, then brings it home and gives it to his wife, did the prostitute "harm" anyone? Or did the husband "harm" the wife?

Some people have differing views of "harm", so be careful how you answer that question or ones similar to it. There's direct "harm", then there's indirect "harm", and it's not always so simple as you seem to make it out to be.

Baron Max

A murder in California isn't likely to have any effect on the personal life of someone in New York City, but my guess is that most New Yorkers wouldn't want California to change their laws so as to make murder legal. See? Things have an effect on us all, regardless of distance.

You're comparing gay marriage...to murder? Wow. OK. First, wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Second, if a gay couple gets married, nobody dies. Life isn't ended unjustly when a man marries another man. And there is no negative effect on the lives of anyone else. In the day-to-day routine of people, gay marriage will have no effect. Hey, gay people have already gotten married in some states! Are you any worse off?

We, the American citizens, vote to elect our governmental officials to represent us in matters of national and international importance. I.e., the majority of voters is a meaningful thing, whether you want to believe it or not. If the majority of voters don't want homos to marry, then so be it. And if they don't want it to happen, then it's obviously of some concern to them ....whether you believe it or not.


I believe it. I never said I didn't. But that doesn't make it any more right. I suppose when black people were forced to sit on the back of the bus, that was OK, too, because the majority of people wanted it that way? And slavery was cool, because the majority of people wanted it that way? And not allowing women the right to vote was awesome, because the majority of people wanted it that way?

The "Majority Rule" mentality is a bad one. We are supposed to have equal rights, and certain groups of people are not supposed to be excluded or given more rights than others. By denying gays the right to get married, you are doing the same thing as not allowing women to vote, or not allowing black people to drink from the same fountain as a white person. There simply is no difference.

A murder in California isn't likely to have any effect on the personal life of someone in New York City, but my guess is that most New Yorkers wouldn't want California to change their laws so as to make murder legal. See? Things have an effect on us all, regardless of distance.


A highly disingenious answer (and what's more, I think you know it is). A murder is a direct act of harm against another person. A gay marriage is not. It is not the case that for a gay couple to get married, a straight marriage must be dissolved. It is not the case that for a gay couple to have legal rights, the legal rights of straight couples are somehow diminished. Your example doesn't hold water. Try again.

We, the American citizens, vote to elect our governmental officials to represent us in matters of national and international importance. I.e., the majority of voters is a meaningful thing, whether you want to believe it or not.


Certainly it's a meaningful thing, but the way I see it, it should only be relevant in situations that can only be resolved through a vote. Situations where there is no middle ground and we must make a choice one way or the other. But gay marriage is not such a case. It is not a zero-sum game in which for gays to win, others must lose. It's a win/win situation: everyone marries who they want, and it harms no one else.

You seem to be a huge admirer of majority opinion. Do you believe that the majority should be able to get legislation passed to prohibit anything that is not liked by most voters? What if the majority doesn't like a certain genre of literature? Or a certain color of clothing? Or certain models of vehicle? What if the majority of people don't like your favorite tv show? How would you react to an effort to outlaw it? Where does imposition of majority opinion stop? And if you think there is such a line, by what principle do you define it?

I find the thought of homosexual marriage repulsive. So do most of the rest of Americans.

I may suggest, then, never marrying a fellow woman.

If I may add, Sandy, you're normally a bit more driven in your commentary than this. It goes without being said, that you aren't enamored with homosexuality-- you need not even bother saying so as EVERYBODY on this website knows--before you say it--exactly what you think. Why not elaborate your point a little more and contribute to the discussion at hand.

A murder in California isn't likely to have any effect on the personal life of someone in New York City, but my guess is that most New Yorkers wouldn't want California to change their laws so as to make murder legal. See? Things have an effect on us all, regardless of distance.

Dear Lord, Baron... does everything come back to being compared to murder with you? Have you no other tune to play? On this issue, I'm generally of the mind to agree with the process of your thinking (not necessarily the result), but you have to do better than that. Again, the two concepts don't mesh because ONE is civil law governing sanctioned institutions the other is criminal law govering penalties for crimes and such.

For starters, Article IV, Section I of the Constitution (also known as the "Full Faith and Credit" section) states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." It has been argued that if one state recognizes gay marriage, all others have to as well because of this act, NO MATTER WHAT federal or state laws declair. Do you know why this is? Because the Supreme Court, back in the middle of the last century, stated that southern states couldn't refuse to recognize the interracial marriages of the north (they didn't like the idea of "black men marrying our white women"). The same arithmetic, if applied to this case, would indeed protect the institution of marriage no matter where the gay couple went.

We, the American citizens, vote to elect our governmental officials to represent us in matters of national and international importance. I.e., the majority of voters is a meaningful thing, whether you want to believe it or not. If the majority of voters don't want homos to marry, then so be it. And if they don't want it to happen, then it's obviously of some concern to them ....whether you believe it or not.

You may actually be making sense there.

And Liege-- I definately see where your logic is coming from. And I do like the line of thinking that we sholdn't ask the question, "Is this a right granted in the Constitution?" but "Is this a power expresly granted to the government by the Constitution?". But, even if that is the way of thinking, I am still of the mind that THIST particular issue is one which states are granted to power to regulate. Is it uneven? Yes. Would I weep if the Supreme Court held that NO government in the USA could show a disparity of treatment towards heterosexuals over homosexuals? No. In fact, I think it comes close to denying people equal protection under the XIV Ammendment. But I am trepedatious about constantly having the Supreme Court make decisions that should be allowed to the citizens of each state and not to a group of nine aging justices.

~String

You're comparing gay marriage...to murder? Wow. OK.

Nope, I was comparing the effects of laws. And since you're so fuckin' ignorant that you couldn't see that, then I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post. As stupid as that first line, the remainder could only be more of the same.

Baron Max

A murder is a direct act of harm against another person.

But it has no effect on someone thousands of miles away. See? No direct affect, so why should they care about laws in California?

... It is not the case that for a gay couple to have legal rights, the legal rights of straight couples are somehow diminished.

Couples do not have rights! Only individuals have rights according to the Constitution. And in the case of marriage, homo males and females have exactly, precisely the same rights as straight males and females ......neither can marry members of the opposite sex. Yet you want homos to have SPECIAL rights, above and beyond that of regular, normal males and females.

It's a win/win situation: ...

No, it's a lose situation for the greater majority of American voters who do not want gays and lezzies to marry. We're the voters of this great nation, and the voters should have the right to vote as they choose.

What if the majority doesn't like a certain genre of literature? Or a certain color of clothing? Or certain models of vehicle? What if the majority of people don't like your favorite tv show?

That and more has happened, and will continue to happen. TV shows are cut off because enough people don't watch. Ditto for authors. Ditto for fashions. Ditto for models of cars. ....and most anything else you can think of. Yet you want something special for homos, you want rights that none of the rest of us have:

Straight males nor females can marry members of the same sex ....see, the rights for homos and straights are precisely equal.

Baron Max

Dear Lord, Baron... does everything come back to being compared to murder with you?

Since you, too, can't make the connection that I was comparing the creation of laws, I'll say the same to you ......I didn't bother reading the remainder of your post.

Baron Max

Wow, is gay marriage still not legal over there 0_o
Get wiv teh times amoerica <3

Wow, is gay marriage still not legal over there 0_o Get wiv teh times amoerica <3

What? Ya' mean you want us to change America into the same asshole mess that Europe is in? Oh, heaven forbid!!!

Baron Max

Nope, I was comparing the effects of laws. And since you're so fuckin' ignorant that you couldn't see that, then I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post. As stupid as that first line, the remainder could only be more of the same.


Way to avoid losing a discussion, dude. I wish I could let you off that easy, considering the effort you've put into avoiding me.

But I can't.

neither can marry members of the opposite sex. Yet you want homos to have SPECIAL rights, above and beyond that of regular, normal males and females.


Marriage is a legal institution because people tend to partner-up with one another, and the union provides benefits to those who have chosen to be together. Why should those benefits only be allowed to those who partner up with the opposite sex? Were you born straight, or did you make that decision? Of course you were born straight, so there's no reason to assume that gay people aren't born gay--thus the denial of marriage to people who aren't born with the ability to be attracted to the opposite sex is denying gay people the very same rights that are afforded to straight people!

No, it's a lose situation for the greater majority of American voters who do not want gays and lezzies to marry. We're the voters of this great nation, and the voters should have the right to vote as they choose.


But does losing a vote ruin your life? Again, it comes back to the fact that allowing homosexuals to get married has no ill effect on society, or an individual's wellbeing.

And I've noticed how you've ducked my comments about how the "majority" ruling the nation doesn't always mean that they're right.

Way to avoid losing a discussion, dude. I wish I could let you off that easy, considering the effort you've put into avoiding me.

But I can't.

Tough shit, Jack ....I ain't readin' no more of your bullshit. You're too stupid for me to converse with.

Baron Max

Yep. That's what I thought. Ducking me.

Yep. That's what I thought. Ducking me.

Not "ducking" you, just ain't botherin' to read something that someone as stupid as you might write. That ain't "ducking" you ....I read enough to see that you're stupid, so now that I've learned that, I don't want to read anything that you're writing.

Baron Max

But it has no effect on someone thousands of miles away. See? No direct affect, so why should they care about laws in California?


Remind me again why this is relevant?

Yet you want homos to have SPECIAL rights, above and beyond that of regular, normal males and females.


Oh, the "special rights" rhetoric again, right on cue. If someone you don't like gets the same rights you already have, then they are "special" rights... right?


That and more has happened, and will continue to happen. TV shows are cut off because enough people don't watch. Ditto for authors. Ditto for fashions. Ditto for models of cars. ....and most anything else you can think of.


I'm not talking about economic decisions made by businesses, which are inarguably their right. I'm talking about laws. No one with an IQ above 5 could mistake the two, so I must assume you are intentionally obscuring the distinction in order to score points (what a surprise). So what if the majority got a LAW passed outlawing YOUR favorite book or tv show or food or whatever? Would you revel in this example of the greatness of majority vote? I want you to directly answer that question, please.

Yet you want something special for homos, you want rights that none of the rest of us have


Hmmmm.... the rest of us (i.e. straight people) don't have the right to marry the consenting adults we love? I had no idea. Is this some new law?

What? Ya' mean you want us to change America into the same asshole mess that Europe is in? Oh, heaven forbid!!!

Baron Max

I dont think ive ever seen anyone manage to combine the words 'asshole' 'mess' and 'europe' before in my life, or with such eloquence for that matter.
Im going to email your sentence to Chomsky and put to him that this is a linguistic first and needs upmost priority of his attention.

Oh, the "special rights" rhetoric again, right on cue. If someone you don't like gets the same rights you already have, then they are "special" rights... right?

Rights? Straight males can't marry other males - homo males can't marry other males. Therefore, the rights of straight males and homo males are the same, exactly, precisely the same.

But if homo males get to marry other males, then those will be special rights above and beyond the rights of other males. That, dear sir, ain't right.

So what if the majority got a LAW passed outlawing YOUR favorite book or tv show or food or whatever? Would you revel in this example of the greatness of majority vote? I want you to directly answer that question, please.

I think that's happened many times in my life ....and I've accepted it as the way things are in this great nation. Seatbelts, is a good example. Drinking and driving is another example. Banning smoking in restaurants and bars is another example. Now they're planning to ban smoking anywhere within city limits. Banning transfats is another one. Giving welfare to people who keep having more and more children that they can't feed. ....oh, there have been many. But ya' know something? I've obeyed the laws to the best of my ability, realizing that the greater majority of voters is the way this great nation has become great.

Banning my favorite books? If I couldn't find them at the library, I wouldn't read them and I sure wouldn't go seeking them on the black market.

Hmmmm.... the rest of us (i.e. straight people) don't have the right to marry the consenting adults we love? I had no idea. Is this some new law?

"Love" ain't got nothin' to do with anything. There is nothing in the marriage laws that state one must "love" the other person.

Baron Max

Homosexuals are some of History's most proponent people. Take Alexander the Great, Socrates, Michelangelo ect... Not to mention that sexuality can be determined biologically. Also, 1 in every 100 people have some sort of sexual ambiguity. This can range from not having testis drop to carrying an extra chromosome or containing both sex organs.

The fact is sex is much more gray than people like to think

Also, people with the most repulsion towards homosexuality tend to be the people the most "turned on" by the same sex. Actually, it is the combination of their involuntary sexual arousal (a purely biological phenomena) together with their cultural or religious teachings that says homosexuality is evil that leads to their inner feeling of repulsion. They are both turned on and feel bad for it thus repulsed by the mere thought of it....

Not "ducking" you, just ain't botherin' to read something that someone as stupid as you might write. That ain't "ducking" you ....I read enough to see that you're stupid, so now that I've learned that, I don't want to read anything that you're writing.


No, it's just that you have no answer to my argument. You can't effectively debate me, so you decide not to. I get it. But you can drop the name-calling, because I never called you a name, not once.

That right there is more of a display of one's intelligence level than me misreading your post.

did you know homosexuality was still classed as a disorder by the association of psychiatry even up untill the early 70s.
Scary eh.

Who the **** is involving the church?

The legal right to marry a person of the same gender does not exist. It's that simple. No right = no discrimination.

Are you baron signed in under a new name? if not then you'll make great bed-fellows, he uses the same tautological arguments to tackle complex issues as well.

Are you baron signed in under a new name?

I highly doubt that.

....people with the most repulsion towards homosexuality tend to be the people the most "turned on" by the same sex. Actually, it is the combination of their involuntary sexual arousal (a purely biological phenomena) together with their cultural or religious teachings that says homosexuality is evil that leads to their inner feeling of repulsion. They are both turned on and feel bad for it thus repulsed by the mere thought of it....

Bull. I don't know any other women who are turned on by other women. That's disgusting. Eww...:(
We have no "involuntary arousal." We are just repulsed at homosexuality. We find it abomination just like God does.:(

Bull. I don't know any other women who are turned on by other women. That's disgusting. Eww...:(
We have no "involuntary arousal." We are just repulsed at homosexuality. We find it abomination just like God does.:(

Let's see what God says on the topic of women then:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
They could not testify in court.
They could not appear in public venues.
They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes.

That's old testament. Born-again Christians have the New Testament (New Covenant.) No more door mats.

The Bible does say in numerous places that homosexuality is wrong/abomination/ and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Good enough reason for me.

That's old testament. Born-again Christians have the New Testament (New Covenant.) No more door mats.


Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..."

Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands."

Bull. I don't know any other women who are turned on by other women. That's disgusting. Eww...:(
(

you're kidding me right?there is nothing more beautiful than a hot woman munching some rug.

Rights? Straight males can't marry other males - homo males can't marry other males. Therefore, the rights of straight males and homo males are the same, exactly, precisely the same.

But if homo males get to marry other males, then those will be special rights above and beyond the rights of other males. That, dear sir, ain't right.


Baron Max

it wont be a special right,straight males will also be allowed to marry other males.

http://galleries.smut.com/hotlesbianpics02/178019/fhg/5/1/free/images/content/13081/011.jpg


nothin but love

you're kidding me right?there is nothing more beautiful than a hot woman munching some rug.

:puke:

chomp chomp chomp

Bull. I don't know any other women who are turned on by other women. That's disgusting. Eww...

I know dozens, they're regular drinking companions.

Bull. I don't know any other women who are turned on by other women. That's disgusting. Eww...:(


You say "like" a lot when you speak, don't you?

Now to shatter that tiny little brain of yours. Women can and are also homosexual. :eek: Shocking... I know... But there is such a term called lesbian. Look it up.

We have no "involuntary arousal."
Oh dear lord.

We are just repulsed at homosexuality. We find it abomination just like God does.
"We"? Who is this "we" of which you speak?

So you think you speak on good authority by proclaiming yourself to be the representative of the female species, do you?

Amendment IX: Existence of other rights for the people.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What's that mean?

Baron Max

That means you have to also allow polygamy and incest

Oh, okay ....I was just wondering 'cause those big words threw me a little.

Baron Max

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it only protects them.

The Bible does say in numerous places that homosexuality is wrong/abomination/ and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Good enough reason for me.


Isn't there also something in your religion about a concept called "free will"? If you restrict people from doing things you consider sinful, then they're not really excersicing free will, are they? I don't mean this to sound snide; I'm simply curious about how you reconcile these matters.

But if homo males get to marry other males, then those will be special rights above and beyond the rights of other males. That, dear sir, ain't right.


I must strive to remember that you use a different definition of "rights" than I do. For you, a right is a gift bestowed upon you, much like a treat given to a dog. For me, a right is whatever the hell you want to do as long as it harms no one else (in which case the phrase "special rights" is meaningless). Rights don't have to be given to you; you are born with them, they are natural. Some of them have to be given up in order to co-exist in a society. When society demands more than is necessary, that's when the problems start.

I think that's happened many times in my life ....and I've accepted it as the way things are in this great nation. Seatbelts, is a good example. Drinking and driving is another example. Banning smoking in restaurants and bars is another example. Now they're planning to ban smoking anywhere within city limits. Banning transfats is another one. Giving welfare to people who keep having more and more children that they can't feed. ....oh, there have been many. But ya' know something? I've obeyed the laws to the best of my ability, realizing that the greater majority of voters is the way this great nation has become great.


So you really DO believe that EVERYTHING is subject to majority opinion, and you have no problem with that? I get the strong impression you would feel right at home in a totalitarian society, since you seem fine with letting other people have power over every little detail of your life and what you can and can't do.

Furthermore, if you think the greatness of our nation comes from majority voting, you seriously misunderstand a fundamental aspect of our government and Constitution. Our Founders were very concerned with providing protections for the individual against the majority. They recognized that without such protections, the majority could run rampant and have their way in all matters, trampling anyone in their path. Majority rule can easily lead to mob rule. This is the basis for the Bill of Rights. This is why one person can stand up and speak an opinion that millions of others find offensive, and he is protected in doing so.

Banning my favorite books? If I couldn't find them at the library, I wouldn't read them and I sure wouldn't go seeking them on the black market.


Right.... you would never break a law, any law, would you? If Washington and his pals had had your attitude, there never would have been a revolution against England.

But if homo males get to marry other males, then those will be special rights above and beyond the rights of other males. That, dear sir, ain't right.I don't think the law would differentiate between males of different sexualities. It would simply state that any adult can marry any other adult, regardless of gender.

I as a Mormon ask: why no polygamist marriages? Consenting adults and such...

your a moron?

peace.

:puke:


sandy god accepts lesbians, he is just against male homosexuality, seriously god likes female on female action, i have read the bible cover to cover more than once. trust me god doesent say anything about women bieng gay,


but god does say a man should not lay with anouther man or beast,


but god loves some hot lesbian action, i share his view also.


peace.

I must strive to remember that you use a different definition of "rights" than I do. For you, a right is a gift bestowed upon you, much like a treat given to a dog.

Yep, that's correct. Society bestowed those rights with laws and legal authority. Or are you one of those who believes that humans were born with those rights? And if so, that must mean that you don't believe that humans are animals in the world of evolution. It also means that all animals were born with those rights, huh?

For me, a right is whatever the hell you want to do as long as it harms no one else ....

So I can play music so loud and so late at night that my neighbors can't sleep? I ain't harming them, am I?

So you really DO believe that EVERYTHING is subject to majority opinion, and you have no problem with that?

Yeah, with restrictions, of course, relative to the Constitution. That's what a democratic republic means. But you seem to think that anyone can do anythig that they want, without any concern for the thoughts/opinions of others in that same society. Well, you're wrong.

Baron Max

I don't think the law would differentiate between males of different sexualities. It would simply state that any adult can marry any other adult, regardless of gender.

Fathers could marry their daughters? Mothers marry their sons? Fathers marry their sons? Mothers marry their daughters? Brothers .....well, you get the picture, right?

Baron Max

Sandy,

We have no "involuntary arousal."

So you just decided that you would be attracted to men? You can control who you are attracted to? When you see a man walking down the street, you make the conscious decision to find him attractive?

Ignorance. All arousal is involuntary. That is why women stay with men who abuse them, why men stay with women who abuse them, why marriages are broken by infidelities, even when they are happy. And it's why young Timmy is so confused about getting all tingly around young Mark, when all of his guy friends get tingly about Jenny.

There is a difference between choosing your mate, and being attracted to someone. You cannot choose who you find attractive.

All of this bigotry stems from the misguided belief that homosexuality is a chosen practice. Of course, it is all supported by those who blindly follow the Bible...which I find hysterical, because Sand, for example, believes with all her heart that the Bible's take on homosexuality is correct, yet she doesn't even know that that very same book considers her as a second-rate citizen!

But oh no, that's can't be right...can it, Sandy?

Homosexuality is an abomination. God said it first.

Homosexuality is an abomination. God said it first.

Yeah, but the American people said it second ...which was then converted into laws for this great nation. And now, a few malcontents and misfits want to force their opinions and ways onto the rest of us by changing laws that they don't like.

Baron Max

Fathers could marry their daughters? Mothers marry their sons? Fathers marry their sons? Mothers marry their daughters? Brothers .....well, you get the picture, right?

There is a huge difference, and you know it. Sexuality isn't a choice--it's how you are born. You're talking about incest now. And if a brother and sister have a child, there is a great chance that the child will be deformed.

You've got to stop thinking of homosexuality in the same vein as these other things. It isn't.

Like, in your first post, you likened a murder taking place in California...and you got mad at me for saying that you were comparing gay marriage to murder...but in essence, that's what you were doing. You were comparing how the public would react if murder were legal, to how the public would react to gay marriage being legal...that just isn't a fair comparison. Of course people aren't clamoring for California to change their laws on murder!

Gay Marriage can't even be compared to the Mormon folk with 12 wives. That is about religion-sanctioned dominance by men of women. Polygamy is simply Man showing his control over women, and should be illegal, because it places women far below men. On the other hand, gay marriage is simply about two consenting adults wanting to have all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

Homosexuality is an abomination. God said it first.

God also said that women should be silent, and obey their husbands like they obey the Lord. What do you say about that, Sandy?

Or are you selective in what you believe from your God?

I've said it a dozen times: that's old testament. Born-again Christians have the New Testament/New Covenant since Jesus died for us.

Women are not second class citizens anymore.:)

There is a huge difference, and you know it. Sexuality isn't a choice--it's how you are born. You're talking about incest now. And if a brother and sister have a child, there is a great chance that the child will be deformed.

You think that someone who's sexually attracted to his own daughter is a choice??? Or that the daughter reciprocates that attraction??

As to the possible deformities, there's also the worry of the spread of AIDS in homo sex ...which is proven to be much, much more promiscuous than regular, normal people.

You've got to stop thinking of homosexuality in the same vein as these other things. It isn't.

Sure it is ...it's deviant sexual practices, plain and simple.

And just because you're born with some "deformity" doesn't mean that you should try to force it upon the rest of us as a ...normality.

Baron Max

I don't buy that anyone is born homosexual. It's a choice. A disgusting choice.

I don't buy that anyone is born homosexual. It's a choice. A disgusting choice.

I have to agree, Sandy.

But since there's no way to prove it, ....? We seem to be stuck having to take the homos' word for it.

Baron Max

Homosexuality is an abomination. God said it first.

god didnt say that. the bible said a man should not lay with another man or a beast.


the bible did not say a woman should not lay with another woman.


and fyi the bible is not god, it is the word of men.


peace.

No. I'm not taking their word for it. They make up the lame excuse that they were born that way as a pathetic attempt to justify their disgusting choices. Hell no, they're NOT born that way. They're just perverted freaks.:(

howcomes most gay men all have that same gay voice then? i think if you have that voice then you might turn out gay,


peace.

[QUOTE=EmptyForceOfChi;1405583]god didnt say that. the bible said a man should not lay with another man or a beast. the bible did not say a woman should not lay with another woman. and fyi the bible is not god, it is the word of men. peace.[/QUOTE

The Bible is the Word of God.

[QUOTE=EmptyForceOfChi;1405583]god didnt say that. the bible said a man should not lay with another man or a beast. the bible did not say a woman should not lay with another woman. and fyi the bible is not god, it is the word of men. peace.[/QUOTE

The Bible is the Word of God.


maybe some of it is, but dont you think that any of it got twisted by the hand of man anywhere along the line?


peace.

I don't buy that anyone is born homosexual. It's a choice. A disgusting choice.


Believing that it is a choice simply because you prefer to believe it is a choice (rather than on the basis of empirical evidence), seems a bit irrational. Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that it is an innate quality, rather than a simple matter of choice. Do you have sources that demonstrate otherwise?

Bull. I don't know any other women who are turned on by other women. That's disgusting. Eww...:(
We have no "involuntary arousal." We are just repulsed at homosexuality. We find it abomination just like God does.:(Sandy - you can not speak for all women.

Maybe you are a lesbian? Ever thought of that?

Anyway, like I said, 1 in 100 people are born with obvious signs of sexual ambiguity. I teach a section on sexual health and reproduction and the simple fact is sexual orientation is gradient.

What do you think about people born with both sex organs?

Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that it is an innate quality, rather than a simple matter of choice.

"Suggests"??? What, now we have scientific evidence so damned sure and certain that they can only ....suggest???

It's a choice, plain and simple.

Baron Max

I've said it a dozen times: that's old testament. Born-again Christians have the New Testament/New Covenant since Jesus died for us.

Ah.

So a re-write to suit your needs and purposes is deemed acceptable?

Women are not second class citizens anymore.
Do you know why that is sandy?

Could it be because women fought, and continue to do so, for equal rights? It was not given to them with the new testament. Women had to fight for many, many years to not be classified as second class citizens.

Could it be because women fought, and continue to do so, for equal rights? It was not given to them with the new testament. Women had to fight for many, many years to not be classified as second class citizens.

Hmm, I think I disagree there, Bells. It was men who kept women in their place, not the Bible. Men interpreted it in such a way as to keep women at home where they belong!! And men fucked up big time when they gave women equal rights and the right to vote! Worst mistake in the history of mankind.

Baron Max

Hmm, I think I disagree there, Bells. It was men who kept women in their place, not the Bible. Men interpreted it in such a way as to keep women at home where they belong!! And men fucked up big time when they gave women equal rights and the right to vote! Worst mistake in the history of mankind.

Baron Max
So you're saying that men used the bible as a tool to deny women rights in society? Gee... who'd have thought that.:p Let me see, you don't think sandy should be allowed to vote because she is a woman?

Hmmm.. do I sense a contradiction between you, and our paragon of virtues:rolleyes: and god, the dear Miss sandy?

"Suggests"??? What, now we have scientific evidence so damned sure and certain that they can only ....suggest???

It's a choice, plain and simple.

Baron Max

In the end, the data can point one way or another, but cannot conclusively prove it; hence "the data suggest" is the best way to phrase it.

As for it being a choice, there is clearly (feel better?) a genetic component to sexual orientation. If it is genetic, then it is not simply a matter of choice. For a religious (but balanced) discussion, see this source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus1.htm

Which says, "All of the studies show that genes play a significant role in determining homosexual orientation. None of the studies show that the environment is solely responsible."

As for it being a choice, there is clearly (feel better?) a genetic component to sexual orientation. If it is genetic, then it is not simply a matter of choice.

One thing that bothers me (and many people), is that even if the homos are actually born that way, they still have the choice of not engaging in such activities. I.e., it's their CHOICE.

It's the same with pedophiles ...they're attracted to little girls, but we throw their asses into prison if they act on those desires. Right?

Now, please, tell me why we shouldn't change all of our laws so as to accommodate those poor, poor pedophiles' natural feelings and desires???

Baron Max

Baron, you're clueless. I realized that you are totally homophobic, and it is certainly your perogative to believe what you want, but to even insinuate that my sexual repulsion to women and sexual attraction to men is a choice is ridiculous. I may have a choice to NOT act upon those desires, but you base your statements on, SURPRISE, people (mostly religious sources) that support your homophobia. Why not ask, SURPRISE, the millions of people around the world who ARE gay (better yet, ask all the straight people you know) if their sexuality was a choice. It isn't. It never was. At the earliest possible age, like 11 when puberty hit me, I can remember thinking that something was wrong with me because I just didn't get what all the fuss was about girls and for some reason, I seemed to be only attracted to guys. YOU are telling me that I chose to be that way? Honestly, you're an idiot then. Plain and simple. How can you base pretty much all of your beliefs on sound evidence, but in this area hold on to hatred for the sake of hating someone with little more evidence than a few passages in a millenia old book? You're no better than a muslim terrorist who justifies his/her beliefs based upon the Koran, quoting, "Allah said so..."

The real question is, why should I live myself in denial and misery (and I would easily call my "closeted" years miserable) because you don't like my lifestyle? And, you may be right that predestination towards homosexuality is the same a predestination towards pedophelia, but there is one major difference-- when a pedophile acts upon his/her desires someone innocent is horrifically harmed. When a homosexual acts upon his desires with a consenting individual, the same thing happens as when a heterosexual acts upon his desires with a consenting individual-- he gets off.

~String

And, you may be right that predestination towards homosexuality is the same a predestination towards pedophelia, but there is one major difference-- when a pedophile acts upon his/her desires someone innocent is horrifically harmed.

Horrifically harmed??? Oh, bullshit, she just got fucked, that's all. And besides, all we have to do is to change the laws about pedophilia just like you and the other homos want us to change the law for you!!

I don't want homos to be miserable or depressed. And I don't want them to not act on their desires is they so choose. What I don't want is for them to throw it up in my face and try to make me change to accommodate their "sickness" and to try to make me accept it as normal. If you want to suck some guy's cock, or stick your dick in his asshole, fine ...do it, but don't go marching in the streets acting all proud of such behavior and expect me and other normal people to accept it with open arms.

How many men do you know who go marching in the streets advocating the act of sucking a woman's pussy? When was the last time you saw a march for women's rights to suck her man's cock?

Do you dirty deeds if you must, but keep me out of it!! Do it in the privacy of your own homes, but don't go around proudly proclaiming your sickness as a wonderous thing to the rest of the world. Or demanding that we accept the fact that you suck cocks or fuck male assholes!!

Baron Max

Now, please, tell me why we shouldn't change all of our laws so as to accommodate those poor, poor pedophiles' natural feelings and desires???

That's not really worth serious discussion, imo, but since you seem to earnestly equate the to situations, I'll respond.

First, I think there is no problem legislating against rape and sexual assault. Those include not only non-consensual sex, but also sex between partners where one (or both) are incapable of fully and fairly evaluating the situation well enough to give informed consent.

Children have well known deficiencies in life experience that make it difficult to trust their ability to make sound long term judgments for themselves. That includes their inability to fully weigh the consequences of their decisions and their general difficulty in refusing the commands of adults. That's why we have laws against pedophilia. That's also why we have laws criminalizing "statutory rape" even where the younger partner consents (even where, in many states, the sex is consensual and between a 15 year old and an 18 year old).

A consensual homosexual relationship between adults is another matter entirely. There is no "abuse of authority" as there may be when considering an adult-child relationship. When there is an abuse of authority, we do have laws that make that abuse legally wrongful (for example, sexual harassment laws). In the case of children, it may be hard for them to seriously stand up to an adult figure and tell them "no." So, even if the child consents, it is not clear that the power differential between the adult and child doesn't render that consent legally void.

There is also no reason to assume any "lack of capacity" on the part of either of the partners in an adult homosexual relationship. When there is a lack of capacity to make a decision, we have laws to deal with that (rape laws make it illegal to have sex with an intoxicated or unconscious person, for example).

Add to that that early sexual activity is widely believed to be harmful to children, even when it is consensual. Children are thus especially vulnerable to coercion and especially vulnerable to harm in sexual situations in a way that adult homosexuals are not.

Your argument, that legalizing adult homosexuality logically leads one to having to legalizing pedophilia (even if we limit that to consensual pedophilia), is as flawed as arguing that licensing adults to drive logically means that we should have to license children to drive too. It's the difference between adults and children that is the salient factor in differentiating the two, in each argument.

I vote this thread gets locked, and Baron Max gets banned. There is a severe difference between seeing homosexuality as wrong, and just plain hatred.

And besides, there's no point to this argument. Sandy will simply ignore whatever is written, and quote what her pastor told her about the Bible; Baron Max will call gay people "Homos" and "Lezzies", and claim straight people are "normal" while gay people are "deviant," "dirty," and "sick".

And through it all, neither are willing to discuss this matter. They join in the conversation, but outright refuse to listen to the fact that there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is a trait a person is born with, rather than something that is chosen. If they don't want to listen, and just simply gay-bash, then this thread needs to be closed. I come to this forum to read opinion, not to read trash. And that is all this Baron Max kid can offer up. Disgusting.

THIS, is a perfect example of Baron's complete ignorance, and detachment from the real world:

Horrifically harmed??? Oh, bullshit, she just got fucked, that's all

Saying that a child isn't scarred by getting raped...you are a fucking sick human being, Baron. A sick, ignorant, bigot who doesn't deserve to breathe. I swear, you are a perfect example of a person who is only alive because it is illegal to commit murder.

I'm gone. This has been a horrible waste of time, and has really turned me off to this forum. Trolls and scumbags like this are free to spout hatred without being checked...disgusting.

You're mad because we disagree with you? Baron Max is not a "kid." He's a 63 year-old man for God's sake. He's been around. He's seen a lot. I'm 41. I've seen a lot. We both have opinions that are opposite of yours. Mine is because of what I know to be true. So is Baron's.

Calling for someone to be banned because they disagree with you is immature.
Baron argued his side very well--better than I did.:)

Calling us trolls and scumbags is just further proof of liberals resorting to name-calling. I didn't call YOU anything.:(

You're mad because we disagree with you? Baron Max is not a "kid." He's a 63 year-old man for God's sake. He's been around. He's seen a lot. I'm 41. I've seen a lot. We both have opinions that are opposite of yours. Mine is because of what I know to be true. So is Baron's.

Calling for someone to be banned because they disagree with you is immature.
Baron argued his side very well--better than I did.:)

Calling us trolls and scumbags is just further proof of liberals resorting to name-calling. I didn't call YOU anything.:(

You are agreeing with Baron that when a little girl is the victim of paedophilia, she is not raped or harmed, merely "fucked"? And you actually say he made a good argument in that post? Is THAT the kind of argument you wished to make? As a 63 year old man, Baron should know better. If he was a 'kid', his disgusting stance might have been forgiven, up to a point. However he is a grown man.

I would advise you to tread carefully and to re-read his post. If Baron's stance is the kind of argument you wish to attribute to conservatives, I would suggest you ask them first. I would imagine that many would disagree with Baron, as well as with you.

No I didn't say that. Quit twisting my words. I'm tired of it.:mad:

You can slam me all you want. I don't care. I'm used to it.:rolleyes:

I still say homosexuality is wrong and a choice.:(

No I didn't say that. Quit twisting my words. I'm tired of it.:mad:

You can slam me all you want. I don't care. I'm used to it.:rolleyes:

I still say homosexuality is wrong and a choice.:(

Twisting your words? No you prat, you twisted it all on your very own. Baron said:

Horrifically harmed??? Oh, bullshit, she just got fucked, that's all.

And then you come out with this:

Baron argued his side very well--better than I did

I'm not mad that Baron disagreed. I'm just sickened by the way he's spoken.

He's a 63 year-old man for God's sake. He's been around. He's seen a lot

He apparently has not seen homosexuality anywhere else but on TV. He's never known a gay person, or heard their story. No, he's 61 and refuses to believe anything other than what he wants to believe. Scientific evidence be damned, he's going to believe what he wants!

Calling for someone to be banned because they disagree with you is immature.
Baron argued his side very well--better than I did.


Comparing homosexuality to murder, calling homosexuals "sick", and "not normal", is arguing a point well? He didn't offer up one single shred of evidence that stated homosexual could be a choice! All he did was say that homosexuals were "sick!" That's it! That isn't arguing a point, it's hate-mongering! He's no better than the KKK for that!

At least they admit that they don't NEED a reason to hate.

Mine is because of what I know to be true. So is Baron's.


No, it's what you believe to be true. I asked why we ban gay marriage, and all you contribute is religious rhetoric. You don't even belong in this conversation, because you haven't contributed. All you've said is "Eww," and "Gross".

The thing is that you people don't actually discuss anything. You spit what you believe at us, and refuse to answer questions. I asked why you ignore the New Testament, and you just flat-out won't answer me. I say "What about this thing about women being doormats for their husbands?" to which you reply "We're not doormats anymore!" ...which is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Bible!

You pick and choose.

This is pointless. I'm arguing with an ignorant middle-aged woman, and an ignorant, bigoted old man.

I didn't say I specifically agreed with the pedophile post. Baron is smart and well-spoken. Call us names. We don't care. It's like arguing with children. You just don't see how we are repulsed by homosexuality. You never will. You think it's ok. It's not. It's an abomination.

It's like arguing with children.

Yes, arguing with you and the Baron is like arguing with children. Whenever anyone makes a point you cannot refute, you put your fingers in your ears and hum LO LO LO LO LO, CAN'T HEAR YOU!

How many men do you know who go marching in the streets advocating the act of sucking a woman's pussy? When was the last time you saw a march for women's rights to suck her man's cock?

Why would they need to? There was a time, fairly recently actually, when you could still get arrested and get jail time for doing this to your own wife. But we've moved past that.


Do you dirty deeds if you must, but keep me out of it!! Do it in the privacy of your own homes, but don't go around proudly proclaiming your sickness as a wonderous thing to the rest of the world. Or demanding that we accept the fact that you suck cocks or fuck male assholes!!

Baron Max

Yes, those who fuck male assholes are sick fucks. But guys who regularly fuck female assholes are either porn stars, or the envy of most of their friends.

I'm really not into guys. But if I were forced to choose between having to watch two good looking guys do it, or watching some guy fuck some 300+ pound Wal Mart special woman - I think I'd find watching the guys go at it the less repulsive option. Just because it's sex between a man and a woman doesn't mean it can't be repulsive. Imagine watching George Bush and Barbara going at it. Or, just for you Max, Bill and Hillary!

I didn't say I specifically agreed with the pedophile post. Baron is smart and well-spoken. Call us names. We don't care. It's like arguing with children. You just don't see how we are repulsed by homosexuality. You never will. You think it's ok. It's not. It's an abomination.

No sandy. You just said you agreed. Period.

Baron is so "smart and well-spoken" he thinks a girl who is a victim to paedophilia is not damaged, just someone who's had sex. I would not call any individual who makes such a statement "smart". I don't think any person with even an ounce of decency would.

We see how you are repulsed by homosexuality. How can we not? You and Baron have made yourselves quite clear on the matter. However you do not seem to be repulsed by the comments he made about paedophilia. Yes I think being a homosexual is "ok". No I do not see it as an abomination. What I do not see as being "ok" and what I DO see as an abomination is paedophilia. Something that you seem to have overlooked in his post. That you could merely overlook what he said, in fact, agreed with his statement as a whole, even went so far as defending him, says a lot about you as a person.

sandy,

I am still curious of what you think about people born with both sex organs.
Male and Female.

Michael

Wow - Went back to read the last posts and jesus this thread turned pretty nasty. And Baron, raping a child is horrendous for the child. Surely you agree to that?

Also, Baron, what do you think about people born with both sex organs. Lets say you found out a grandchild was born with both sex organs, born as a man and a woman - would you love them any less than another grandchild? Would you be able to accept them as having both sex?

Fathers could marry their daughters? Mothers marry their sons? Fathers marry their sons? Mothers marry their daughters? Brothers .....well, you get the picture, right?

Baron MaxThere are already existing laws against incestuous marriage.
You just don't see how we are repulsed by homosexuality. You never will. You think it's ok. It's not. It's an abomination.According to your religious views. Why should your religious views affect other peoples lives?

It's not just my "religious views", it's the Bible--the Word of God. I obey it. It's my handbook for everyday life. It says homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of Heaven. That's enough for me. I accept His word and don't question it. I find homosexuality revolting so I have no desire to question/explore the whole issue.

And the number of people born with both sex organs is so rare it's not even worth mentioning. The parents of said child would have to decide which ones to remove.

It's not just my "religious views", it's the Bible--the Word of God. I obey it. It's my handbook for everyday life.
No obey what you want to obey, and disregard anything else in it.

And the number of people born with both sex organs is so rare it's not even worth mentioning. The parents of said child would have to decide which ones to remove.
You could most likely fill an entire city with intersex people actually.
Applying Sax's approximation to the population of the U.S. yields about 54,000 intersex people.Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexual)That's ~1/6000 of the population I think. I'm fairly sure that less people than that have AIDS in the US.

If men would stop sodomizing each other we would have less AIDS.

If men would stop sodomizing each other we would have less AIDS.

Or if we killed everyone with AIDS. Or gave them special tatoos that marked them as tainted. Or flew them to the moon. Or ban any form of intercourse. Oh, and bleeding.

It's not just my "religious views", it's the Bible--the Word of God. I obey it. It's my handbook for everyday life. It says homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of Heaven. That's enough for me. I accept His word and don't question it. I find homosexuality revolting so I have no desire to question/explore the whole issue. It is what you believe to be the word of God, translated through many different languages. That is not a good thing to base laws (or in this case, the opposition to a law) on. Let it be the handbook for your life, but let others live as they see fit so long as they don't affect you.

And you're passing judgement without having explored the whole issue?

It's not just my "religious views", it's the Bible--the Word of God. I obey it. It's my handbook for everyday life. It says homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of Heaven. That's enough for me. I accept His word and don't question it. I find homosexuality revolting so I have no desire to question/explore the whole issue.

And the number of people born with both sex organs is so rare it's not even worth mentioning. The parents of said child would have to decide which ones to remove.

You are not married. And also not a virgin. You constantly are obsessed with yourself and vanity. You hate large portions of the population. They are all god's children. Don't come here and pretend you live by the bible.

No. They are not all God's children. That's like saying they're all Allah's children. They're not. They choose their spiritual Father. I choose Jesus Christ.

So if you don't choose god he disowns you? Surely if god exists he's the creator of all, or is there more than one god?

No. They are not all God's children. That's like saying they're all Allah's children. They're not. They choose their spiritual Father. I choose Jesus Christ.

The Jesus Christ who said(something to the extent of) we are all children of the Lord?

When you diss/reject Him you have committed the unpardonable sin and are destined for hell.

When you diss/reject Him you have committed the unpardonable sin and are destined for hell.

Does that mean you can't be forgiven? Then why did Jesus die?

So he doesn't love us any more? Sounds like petulance to me.

When you diss/reject Him you have committed the unpardonable sin and are destined for hell.

Please point me to the section of the Bible that names the unforgivable sins. I seem to get stuck on that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" part.

Horrifically harmed??? Oh, bullshit, she just got fucked, that's all. And besides, all we have to do is to change the laws about pedophilia just like you and the other homos want us to change the law for you!!

What? Are you even awake when you say that, And what's better is, Sandy (aka- "the christian") agrees with your sentiment! So, I just want to clarify: to rape a five year old girl is the same as me having consentual sex with my ADULT boyfriend?

Let me tell you how to tell if it's REALLY wrong: are your acts consentual, or do they violate someone's wishes? Are you acts with an adult or a child? Even if you are with a, say, consenting 15 year old girl, the issue there is the fact that few 15 year old girls are developed enough mentally to make an informed and mature decision regarding sex, especially when it's with a fully experienced and mature man. You may not, indeed, cause her harm if it's what she wanted; however, because of the disparity of power you hold (as an adult) over the girl (a child) the ability for abuse is SO overwhelming that for the safety of the child, it is accepted moral practice to NOT engage in EVEN consentual sexual acts with said child. But, leave it to you, Baron, to need this spelled out.

How many men do you know who go marching in the streets advocating the act of sucking a woman's pussy? When was the last time you saw a march for women's rights to suck her man's cock?

None. How many laws are you aware of that discriminate against men who stick their penises in vaginas? None. How many laws exist to discriminate against men who stick their penises in the asses of other men? Many. In fact, our federal government sanctions such discrimination. THUS, Baron, it is the United States government who made that distinction into law, and thus people who feel discriminated against will march and protest until such discriminations are removed.

Do you dirty deeds if you must, but keep me out of it!! Do it in the privacy of your own homes, but don't go around proudly proclaiming your sickness as a wonderous thing to the rest of the world. Or demanding that we accept the fact that you suck cocks or fuck male assholes!!

Really now? Because gay people parade around most cities, day and night, proclaiming the greatness of gayness. You poor thing, how do you manage?

I still say homosexuality is wrong and a choice.:(

And you are allowed to believe anything you want... no matter how unfounded in fact it is. And, Sandy, I do implore you to provide any independently confirmed statistics portraying the virtues Christian "conversion processes" or those of any respectable psycological organization saying it's a choice, because outside of the muslim world, you won't find one.

If men would stop sodomizing each other we would have less AIDS.

Yes... because AIDS has so effected your upstanding, Christian life.

I vote this thread gets locked, and Baron Max gets banned. There is a severe difference between seeing homosexuality as wrong, and just plain hatred.

I disagree.

I may disagree with Baron and even think less of him for his oppinions, but you don't lock a thread just because someone doesn't spout an ideology that is unattractive to you. Alas, that seems to be the result on this website whenever someone of a liberal persuasion doesn't like what someone else says.

Why not just let him say what he wants and either respond to the comments or just plain ignore him if you don't like what he says.

~String

JDawg is now a liberal? Wow.

If men would stop sodomizing each other we would have less AIDS.
See the problem with comments like that is youre giving away the fact that youre a troll, youve got to rein it in abit more.
Walk the fine line between reasonable assertion and hemmed-in lunacy for best trolling results!

If men would stop sodomizing each other we would have less AIDS.

the church has contributed to aids more than homosexuality has sandy and thats a fact, do you know how many people contract aids because they wont wear condoms?


peace.

When you diss/reject Him you have committed the unpardonable sin and are destined for hell.

And it is also said that when you 'fornicate' outside of marriage, you are destined for hell. So I'm guessing you're packing your suntan lotion for your afterlife? I wonder what your precious bible says about women are vain and so far up themselves that they can't see the sunlight?

If men would stop sodomizing each other we would have less AIDS.
Are you actually that stupid and ignorant?

You only come here to make down right moronic statements that have no basis in fact. When questioned or challenged, you act like the Christian you are and run like a coward, refusing to answer or provide proof from reputable resources (as in resources that do not stem from the backside of christian rhetoric and fear mongering). In short, you're a dumbarse.

No sandy, if gay men stopped "sodomising" each other, we would not have less AIDS. We'd have less AIDS if Christian organisations and religions started teaching sex education and the use of condoms and safe sex measures in schools. We'd have less AIDS if Christians did not hold poor and poverty stricken countries to ransom, denying them aid if they taught safe sex to their populace. We'd have less AIDS if people such as yourself shut the hell up.

Damn, you actually turn my stomach.

Bells, can I give you an infraction for such blatantly personal name-calling and personal attacks against Sandy?? If so, would you explain to me how to do that ...I don't know how to give infractions!

Baron Max

I think Baron has a interesting point, but with a bad analogy. Pedophiles are different because it involves a victim (in some cases, it doesn't, i.e., willing teenagers... but it is a can of worms best avoided). However, there are a lot of other things he could substitute in that most people also find horribly disgusting. Incest, beastiality... Imagine if a small, but noticeable chunk of the population wanted to indulge in that.

It kind of makes me understand the perspective of these conservatives. I wouldn't want to live in a society where incest or beastiality are going on, but I don't really have a right to tell people they can't do that anymore than conservatives have a right to tell people they can't be gay.

I guess the other things are more disgusting than homosexuality, though I don't rank them, because I can't rank what disgusts me more like some people can't choose between two sunsets, but for a different emotion.

Should tolerance have limits? Would you buy into tolerance if it meant living in a society that disgusted you? And I mean *really* disgusted. Also imagine if they had pride parades all the time and you hear about it every other day (like you do with gays). I think anyone who claims to be tolerant of anything is being disingenuous.

IMO, almost everyone has the same type of morality exhibited by these conservatives when it comes to protecting society. The only difference is different values, i.e., homosexuality does not disgust liberals, which is the real reason they don't care.

You really have to wonder about people who spend a disproportinate amount of their time worrying what other men get upto in the bed-room, doth they protest too much perhaps?
In any case the thing about disgust is, what you get squeamish over generally says far more about you than it does anyone else.

But of course the irony is, the gay sex thing is complete red-herring, to think all gay couples have anal sex is just laughable.
Yes that right, alot of gay couples really just do-not-enjoy it, or feel that they have to have that form of sex to be a couple.
I thinK what its really all about is closer to what String was saying on the first page, its fear of the unfamiliar coupled with a creeping anxiety of the world changing around you in ways that you have no real control over.
Id imagine that by the time im in my 70s gay couples will seem no more strange than black people working as integrated members of western society.
Its just the early teething stages of social change, alot of people are inevitably going to resist and try and kick back against it all purely because it represents a shift in tradition and nothing more.

If men would stop sodomizing each other we would have less AIDS.Huh? Where do you get your news? The Watchtower? AIDS appears to have started in Africa and Africa today has the worst AIDS epidemic on earth--and it's virtually all from heterosexual contact.

I thinK what its really all about is closer to what String was saying on the first page, its fear of the unfamiliar coupled with a creeping anxiety of the world changing around you in ways that you have no real control over.


So is that what you'd feel if 10% of your population's sexual preference was incest?? Be honest.

I don't think it goes all that deep. It is simply nasty and something others hate to be in the same society as.

I thinK what its really all about is closer to what String was saying on the first page, its fear of the unfamiliar coupled with a creeping anxiety of the world changing around you in ways that you have no real control over.


Thank you. That is, indeed, what it all comes down to. If racism were still politically exceptable, the same people would all be talking about how we needed to stop the colored men from steeling our white women.

Id imagine that by the time im in my 70s gay couples will seem no more strange than black people working as integrated members of western society. Its just the early teething stages of social change, alot of people are inevitably going to resist and try and kick back against it all.

Generally, I am loath to even mention the Netherlands for any comparative reason; however, I will bring it up in this case because it is so germain to the discussion at hand. Back in the early 80's when conservatives were decrying the liberalization of most issues concering gay people (gay unions... later gay marriage) as something that would undermine good social order, gays were peacefully granted the same rights (to get married, adopt, etc) as straight people. Surprisingly, the institution of marriage STILL endures, and the divorce rate isn't staggeringly higher (as predicted). People who value marriage, still do... those who won't... don't. And, no one bats and eye at a lesbian couple walking down the street with their kid. And, SURPRISE, the kids grow up just fine... no brain tumors... no extra limbs... no wrath of god, vishnu or allah... no suicidal tendencies... and surprisingly, the same percentage of kids with gay parents grow up to be gay as kids with straight parents. Life goes on... and, regarding the gay thing, Holland is no worse for wear.

~String

So is that what you'd feel if 10% of your population's sexual preference was incest?? Be honest.

DUH... no. I have no idea what the percentage of incestual (is that a word?) tendencies are... but since, AND HERE IT IS AGAIN FOLKS, incest GENERALLY involves a non-concenting party, there needs to be strict laws governing such actions. However, if a brother and sister, who are adults, want to get it on, and then get married... so be it. It totally grosses me out, but if that's what they wanna' do, that's what they wanna do.

~String

DUH... no. I have no idea what the percentage of incestual (is that a word?) tendencies are... but since, AND HERE IT IS AGAIN FOLKS, incest GENERALLY involves a non-concenting party, there needs to be strict laws governing such actions. However, if a brother and sister, who are adults, want to get it on, and then get married... so be it. It totally grosses me out, but if that's what they wanna' do, that's what they wanna do.

~String

Of course I was not talking about a non-consenting party. No reason to assume that I was anymore than to assume gays refers to a catholic priest abusing an altar boy.

I never said I supported the pedophile comment.

I stand by my statement that if homosexuals stopped sodomizing each other WE'D have less AIDS. I wasn't talking about Africa. Those people need to stop having sex altogether.

I stand by my statement that if homosexuals stopped sodomizing each other WE'D have less AIDS. I wasn't talking about Africa. Those people need to stop having sex altogether.

That applies to every single person who has AIDS, not just homos.

Huh? Where do you get your news? The Watchtower? AIDS appears to have started in Africa and Africa today has the worst AIDS epidemic on earth--and it's virtually all from heterosexual contact.

i heard aids may have came from humans having sex with animals in africa, and living in close quatars with animals, i dont know if it is true or not but i have heard this from a nymber of sources.


is there any truth in this statement?


peace.

I never said I supported the pedophile comment.

I stand by my statement that if homosexuals stopped sodomizing each other WE'D have less AIDS. I wasn't talking about Africa. Those people need to stop having sex altogether.

"those people" ? everybody in africa needs to stop having sex? thats how i took that comment, was that how you implied it?


peace.

Those people need to stop having sex altogether.

LOL. I don't know if that was your intent... but your comment made me giggle. A little.

~String

AIDS started in this country, almost for a medical certainty, with "world-traveling" homosexuals who brought it into San Francisco. It spread through the gay communities until it spread to the bi-sexuals, who then transferred it to the hetero communities.

Baron Max

People who value marriage, still do... those who won't... don't. And, no one bats and eye at a lesbian couple walking down the street with their kid. And, SURPRISE, the kids grow up just fine... no brain tumors... no extra limbs... no wrath of god, vishnu or allah... no suicidal tendencies... and surprisingly, the same percentage of kids with gay parents grow up to be gay as kids with straight parents. Life goes on... and, regarding the gay thing, Holland is no worse for wear.

Exactly, ultimately gay marriage just lets the people who act like theyre already married anyway, marry officially.
It really doesnt change society in such a way that heterosexuals start thinking 'hmm gay marriage eh, maybe i should get in on the action too!' and start defering. :roflmao:

In all seriousness though, it shocks me that people my age (late 20s to early 30s) have a problem with all this.
My parents are in their 60s, very middle class very conversative, and even they think its crazy for countries to discriminate against same sex couples marrying!

Exactly, ultimately gay marriage just lets the people who act like theyre already married anyway, marry officially.
It really doesnt change society in such a way that heterosexuals start thinking 'hmm gay marriage eh, maybe i should get in on the action too!' and start defering. :roflmao:

In all seriousness though, it shocks me that people my age (late 20s to early 30s) have a problem with all this.
My parents are in their 60s, very middle class very conversative, and even they think its crazy for countries to discriminate against same sex couples marrying!

But don't you see? If gays get married, that threatens traditional marriage...somehow. Okay, the Republicans with a bug up their ass over this issue were a little unclear on the mechanism that supports this, but just because there is no logical reason to think it, doesn't mean it's not true. You have to have faith, not reasons.

...Perhaps when married straight people see gays getting married they think, "Hey, I'd like to gay marry too," so they get divorced from there opposite sex spouses.

...Perhaps special "gay rays" come off the gay married couples that make heterosexual couples break up.

In any event, one thing is perfectly clear, if you support gay marriage, then you support incest, pedophilia, and the murder of puppies. (Remember, have faith, not logic.)

We don't support homo marriage because it's disgusting. So is homosexuality. Most Americans feel this way. We do not want anymore freakshows than we already have.

We don't support homo marriage because it's disgusting. So is homosexuality. Most Americans feel this way. We do not want anymore freakshows than we already have.Sandy, again, What is your opinion of people born with both male and female sex organs?

I answered that 6 posts ago.

Cheney's lesbian daughter just gave birth to a baby boy. She said it was a gift from God. I don't think so. Neither does God.

We don't support homo marriage because it's disgusting. So is homosexuality. Most Americans feel this way. We do not want anymore freakshows than we already have.

We already have these "freakshows;" recognizing their already-existing relationships doesn't make them any "more here." In any event, your psychological dislike of them is no reason to deny them rights if they are not otherwise harming you. Plenty of Americans dislike blacks too, surely that's not a good reason to prevent their getting married or otherwise living their lives (and the legacy of laws preventing blacks from exercising their freedoms or marry is well chronicled). Even more people dislike seeing interracial marriages, and those were illegal too for a long time.

That's the good thing about liberalism, it drags conservatives, often kicking and screaming, into a better world. You may hate liberals for it, but you only hate them for their freedom.

A better world:confused: Two sodomists marrying is a better world:confused: Not in MY country.:(

A better world(

You guys disowned all the homosexuals in America?;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

No. We still like Ellen Degenerate. She's kind of funny.

Cheney's lesbian daughter just gave birth to a baby boy. She said it was a gift from God. I don't think so. Neither does God.


Because YOU know what God thinks. Oh yeah... a millenia old book says so. I'm the last person who would demean a person's religious belifs, but you know absolutely NOTHING of what God thinks... only what you BELIEVE God thinks.

~String

We don't support homo marriage because it's disgusting. So is homosexuality. Most Americans feel this way. We do not want anymore freakshows than we already have.

And you feel that you are in the position to speak for "most Americans" do you? Tell me something sandy. Who made you the spokesperson for your fellow citizens? Do "most Americans" know you are speaking for them? Or are you saying what you think most Americans should be feeling?

And you say you don't hate homosexuals, but you now call them freakshows?

Do you know that there are many homosexuals who are members of these boards?

Cheney's lesbian daughter just gave birth to a baby boy. She said it was a gift from God. I don't think so. Neither does God.
So now you know what God thinks as well? My, aren't you the little gem. Or could it be, you just don't like it, so attribute your thoughts and feelings on the matter to God, thereby attempting to justify your bigotted feelings?

Two sodomists marrying is a better world
Two homosexuals marrying makes for a better world than bigotry such as yours sandy.

Not in MY country.
It's their country too.

They have just as much a claim to it as you do.

Just for the record, Sandy--you are pushing your religious views on us, and we do not appreciate it. You said we choose our spiritual fathers, and I do not choose Jesus.

And not everybody believes in your god. You presume that they do--but they don't. I believe that people are born either heterosexual or homosexual--or with tendencies for both--and I'll take scientific evidence over the word of your god.

...which brings up a funny point...considering that your god is said to have created everything, wouldn't he have created the evidence for homosexuals being born as such? Or are the scientists who say this all heathens?

I was mad at one point, because of the total garbage being spouted by Max and Sandy...but now it's just funny.

The bottom line here is that gay marriage will eventually be legalized in America. It's only a matter of time. Then all of the people like Sandy and Max, who wish to convert us back to 100 B.C., will have to live next door to Bob and Tom, the newlyweds.

I don't think the churches should allow homosexuals to marry if they don't want them to; that is their right to believe what they want, and to be as exclusive as they want. But the country was founded on the idea of keeping religious beliefs and the operations of the government separate, meaning that if heterosexual couples are allowed to be legally married, then homosexual couples should be allowed to be legally married. It should have no bearing on religious beliefs.

Anyway, there's no point in trying to debate with Sandy. She's steadfast in her beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with that. If she finds comfort in them, then fine. Unfortunately, she has also found a reason to hate certain groups--but thankfully, she's not in a position to oppress those people. So she's basically harmless.

And the number of people born with both sex organs is so rare it's not even worth mentioning. The parents of said child would have to decide which ones to remove.So it is rare, that is besides the point, people are born with both sex organs.

So you think it is up to the parents to pick the child's sexual orientation? I don't even think that is possible. So you think it is moral to dictate a child's sexual orientation?

By suggesting that the parents have the moral right to pick a child's sexual identity, and thereby direct tat child's future sexual orientation in a willy-nilly flip of a coin, boy or girl, scenerio (obviousl neither parent could know what that child would pick and so it's bascially up to which ever sex that they had hoped for) you also suggest that the sexual direction of the child is moral. God obviously doesn't care one way or the other? Is this correct? I mean, it is after all, as you just said, up to the parents. It's their decision.

Is this correct?

Why do you suppose God would make a biological system where some children are born with both sex organs?
How are you so sure that God doesn't want the child to have sex with either males or females?

Also, what if the parents decide they are not going to pick their child's sexual orientation.
Then what?

Question: Why no gay marriage?

Answer: Because America is a tyranny and an evil empire.

Question: Why no gay marriage?

Answer: Because America is a tyranny and an evil empire.

You're clueless. Most nations on earth have no gay marriage. In fact, I think it's only Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and about ten other countries have civil unions. Are you telling me that the entire democratic world is really a bunch of tyranical regimes because gay people can't get married?

Whatever limited credibility you may have had just vanished. Why not post something a little more concrete than your ridiculous statements which really amount to nothing at all.

~String

I dont think he was being serious.

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20040412amendment.gif

I know what God says by His word. It's enough for me. He says homosexuality is wrong. And that homos will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. If I was a homo that would stop me in my tracks, throw me to my knees in sincere repentance, make me renounce my choice, and start living for God instead of my own selfish/evil desires.

I'm not "pushing" my views on anyone. Some people just can't stand to read anything about Jesus Christ. They cringe at his name. It's the whole darkness/light thing.

I answered that 6 posts ago.

Cheney's lesbian daughter just gave birth to a baby boy. She said it was a gift from God. I don't think so. Neither does God.

lol! wow how can you say something like that, are you like gods spokeswoman? tell me where in the bible that god forbids lesbians? i want to see the scripts, because as far as i remember the bible only goes against male homosexuality.


where does the bible say women should not be lesbian?


peace.

I know what God says by His word. It's enough for me. He says homosexuality is wrong. And that homos will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. If I was a homo that would stop me in my tracks, throw me to my knees in sincere repentance, make me renounce my choice, and start living for God instead of my own selfish/evil desires.

I'm not "pushing" my views on anyone. Some people just can't stand to read anything about Jesus Christ. They cringe at his name. It's the whole darkness/light thing.


the bible does not say the word homosexuality in its pages. all it says is that a man should not lay with another man or beast like he does a woman,


show me where the bible forbids lesbians.

peace.

Lesbianism is homosexuality. God hates homosexuality and all sin.

If I was a homo that would stop me in my tracks, throw me to my knees in sincere repentance, make me renounce my choice,

So can you renounce your choice of being heterosexual? Did you actively make the choice to be heterosexual sandy?

and start living for God instead of my own selfish/evil desires.

So are you living for god when you are vain?

I'm not "pushing" my views on anyone.
Yes you are.

Some people just can't stand to read anything about Jesus Christ. They cringe at his name. It's the whole darkness/light thing.
Don't you get it yet? It's not god that is the issue. It's you.

Lesbianism is homosexuality. God hates homosexuality and all sin.

lol are you a robot? i said show me where in the bible it states that lesbians are wrong. the bible does not use the word homosexuality, that is a modern word. where does it say 2 women sleeping together is a sin?


im asking you a straight forward question can i have an answer please.


peace.

Being hetero is not a sin/abomination in God's eyes. Homo is.

I'm not vain. Just hot. Big diff.

No, it's Jesus Christ that's the issue. Here and all over the world. People in darkness cringe at His name. People in the light rejoice in it.

Being hetero is not a sin/abomination in God's eyes. Homo is.

I'm not vain. Just hot. Big diff.

No, it's Jesus Christ that's the issue. Here and all over the world. People in darkness cringe at His name. People in the light rejoice in it.

your still not showing me where in the bible that it states 2 women sleeping together is wrong.

can you produce and back up your claims or not?


peace.