Homophobia and You

[SFS04]

Why do people care if two dudes go at it?

i just never got the point of hating gay people.

[PlaySumFnJurny]

i dont hate gay people. i just dont want 2 walk into the public restroom and see 2 creepy guys stroking. keep it behind closed doors, por favor

[samram]

I think there's a difference between hating gays and not wanting to see two guys go at it. Homophobes are the ones who think hanging around gay people can turn them gay and that gay people are actively trying to do so, which is just dumb.

[CaptainBallz]

guys are hairy and nasty..
I think it's telling that many females are rather grossed out by the male anatomy...

doubling the fun doesn't make it much better.

[Spider_Pig]

I have no problem with them. :shrug:

[SFS04]

I think the assumption that gays like to bone in public bathrooms is a little over the top :shrug:

[samram]

I think the assumption that gays like to bone in public bathrooms is a little over the top :shrug:

Probably true. My guess would be the guys who do that are in the closet.

[CaptainBallz]

I think the assumption that gays like to bone in public bathrooms is a little over the top :shrug:

I doubt it's their preference

[StockdaleforVeep]

Apparently disagreeing with 2 men being together makes you a homophobe?(as people have stated before about me and on other topics)

Nobody is obligated to accept or need to be ok with lifestyles

[SFS04]

I'm not accusing anyone of being anything.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I'm not accusing anyone of being anything.

Just saying we live in a society that casts names

If you like spending time by yerself, you are a creepy loner who will do something bad
If you dislike the concept of homosexuality, you are a bigot
If you make any reference to crime involving any minority, you are a racist
etc etc

[Timmy D's]

Paul Newman as Reggie Dunlop answered this question in Slapshot when he was in bed w/ Oglethorpes wife pretty well I thought.

For me, it's I dont hate gay people, I just dont think they should be having sex in public!!! It is fucking gross, and and socially unacceptable behavior IMHO! In private they can do whatever they want, I just dont wanna know about it, nor let alone SEE it!!!

[JohnBasedowYoda]

I think I have a nice unit

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I agree with what the Bible says about homosexuality.

I have no problem with homosexuals, just with their "activities". I work with several gay men and women and we get along fine. I think the problems come along when I am forced to confront and/or accept the lifestyle. But that should not really be an issue as long as it doesn't come up for discussion. And at work, it doesn't-- which is how it should be.

But I will say that living in SF, it is just about always "in your face". It is the one thing I dislike about living here. The line used to be "we just want to have the freedom to be ourselves" but the envelope gets pushed more and more each day to the point that if you are not accepting of it, you are labeled an homophobe. And now there is an agenda and indoctrination of our children- it just doesn't seem to stop...

[JohnBasedowYoda]

How come in gay pride parades they get to basically walk around buck naked?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

It is not considered nude if you use body paint apparently

[1951Campbell]

guys are hairy and nasty..
I think it's telling that many females are rather grossed out by the male anatomy...

doubling the fun doesn't make it much better.

Indeed. It's an aesthetic issue that spills into politics.

[StockdaleforVeep]

How come in gay pride parades they get to basically walk around buck naked?

because if u complain, u are intolerant to gay culture

[JohnBasedowYoda]

I'm planning my natural born citizen parade.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I'm planning my natural born citizen parade.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/serial4.jpg

[JohnBasedowYoda]

^great soundtrack to that

[StockdaleforVeep]

^that it does, except for peter gabriel and dr dre

is juliett lewis' band any good?

[JohnBasedowYoda]

I actually don't have the soundtrack.

But one of my favorite NIN songs is from that movie (Burn).

So it must be good, right?

[StockdaleforVeep]

I actually don't have the soundtrack.

But one of my favorite NIN songs is from that movie (Burn).

So it must be good, right?

I like "something i can never have"

[JohnBasedowYoda]

:dance:

[McDoofus]

I agree with what the Bible says about homosexuality.

I have no problem with homosexuals, just with their "activities". I work with several gay men and women and we get along fine. I think the problems come along when I am forced to confront and/or accept the lifestyle. But that should not really be an issue as long as it doesn't come up for discussion. And at work, it doesn't-- which is how it should be.

But I will say that living in SF, it is just about always "in your face". It is the one thing I dislike about living here. The line used to be "we just want to have the freedom to be ourselves" but the envelope gets pushed more and more each day to the point that if you are not accepting of it, you are labeled an homophobe. And now there is an agenda and indoctrination of our children- it just doesn't seem to stop...

So it's okay to be homosexual...just as long as no one talks about it, shows it, or does anything even remotely gay. I mean, you and everyone else has the right to dislike or disagree with the "lifestyle", but to say that you're okay with it when you're really not is just...I don't know. It sounds hypocritical to me, is all I'm saying.

I still don't understand what a gay "activity" is. If you really think about it, homosexuals are just regular people that just so happen to like the same sex. I don't and I never did see what the big deal is. Gay people exist. Get over it.

[StockdaleforVeep]

So it's okay to be homosexual...just as long as no one talks about it, shows it, or does anything even remotely gay. I mean, you and everyone else has the right to dislike or disagree with the "lifestyle", but to say that you're okay with it when you're really not is just...I don't know. It sounds hypocritical to me, is all I'm saying.

I still don't understand what a gay "activity" is. If you really think about it, homosexuals are just regular people that just so happen to like the same sex. I don't and I never did see what the big deal is. Gay people exist. Get over it.


It tends to be the role of the gay community to want to be recognized and deliberately set themselves apart. The whole identifying themselves as different and whatnot. I dont ask if people are homosexual just like i dont ask if people are strait, its the homosexuals that ive seen and know who tend to be the ones who feel the need to declare it, either fashion wise or vocally

[Pick a name, Buddy]

If I could sum it up in a sentence "Love the sinner, hate the sin"

Nothing hypocritical there. A hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

[JohnBasedowYoda]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ksm0227l.jpg

[gbergman]

I don't agree with homosexuality. Penis and Vagina it makes so much sense. I am against gay marriage. Once your gay though you cant not be gay like that senator said. I do not hate gays though and I would hang out with them with no problems as long as they don't try and hit on me.

[Dan Mega]

:classicbergman:

[getonbckthr]

- Why do they need their own Olympics? Are they not good enough to make the real olympics?
- If men were supposed to fuck other men why is there women and why are women only able to have children and not men? Bingo because only women can have children and they need men do fuck em.
- Stop flaunting your goddamn shit around. Your gay fine keep it in house.
- I want a straight parade.
- If gays have the rainbow what do us straightens have?

[Michelle]

But I will say that living in SF, it is just about always "in your face". It is the one thing I dislike about living here.
Come live in Canada for awhile ;)

So it's okay to be homosexual...just as long as no one talks about it, shows it, or does anything even remotely gay. I mean, you and everyone else has the right to dislike or disagree with the "lifestyle", but to say that you're okay with it when you're really not
I would much rather hear someone say "I disagree with homosexuality" than "I'm okay with it as long as they don't hit on me" or "I just don't want to see it".

I wish people would realize that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice. It's not like being a vegan, or a certain religion. It's not a choice you make. It's who the person is, and how they're wired.

I don't want to see anyone having sex in a bathroom, gay or otherwise. Who does that anyway, and what kind of places are you going to? Canada is Gay Central, and I've never seen any public shows of sexuality beyond hand-holding and kissing. Big whoop.

It tends to be the role of the gay community to want to be recognized and deliberately set themselves apart. The whole identifying themselves as different and whatnot.
You'll disagree with me, but I believe this comes from being told they CAN'T be a legitimate couple (marriage). Protests only happen when people can't do something they want to do. As much as people oppose gay marriage, it's not an issue here. They can get married just like everyone else, therefore they fall under the same rules as normal couples. It levels the playing field is what it does. No special treatment for anyone.

[SABRSox]

The best thing about whether on not you "agree with homosexuality" is that nobody gives a flying fuck what you agree or disagree about.

[3D23]

Why do people care if two dudes go at it?




Because I don't want the competition.

;)

Seriously though, I don't get it either, Karin. I really believe that, to a certain extent, men (or women) that are extremely intolerant of gays have a deep seeded fear of something that has actually crossed their mind a time or two.

Hello, American Beauty anyone?

[SABRSox]

Yup, the most homophobic are usually self-loathing gays themselves.

[3D23]

Homophobes are the ones who think hanging around gay people can turn them gay and that gay people are actively trying to do so, which is just dumb.

Well, they do have that quarterly quota to meet.

[1951Campbell]

So it's okay to be homosexual...just as long as no one talks about it, shows it, or does anything even remotely gay.

That's what social conservatives say. Don't talk, don't show, don't do anything remotely gay. The funny thing is, social liberals tend to think the exact same way about religious people, just putting "religious" in the place of "gay."

[itsnotrequired]

- Why do they need their own Olympics? Are they not good enough to make the real olympics?
- If men were supposed to fuck other men why is there women and why are women only able to have children and not men? Bingo because only women can have children and they need men do fuck em.
- Stop flaunting your goddamn shit around. Your gay fine keep it in house.
- I want a straight parade.
- If gays have the rainbow what do us straightens have?

Are you for real?:jagoff:

That's what social conservatives say. Don't talk, don't show, don't do anything remotely gay. The funny thing is, social liberals tend to think the exact same way about religious people, just putting "religious" in the place of "gay."

What about that splinter group "Gay Boners for Christ"?

My biggest beef is with gay marriage. If they are allowed to marry, the institution will be ruined and striaght people won't get married anymore. Then it's curtains for us all...

[1951Campbell]

My biggest beef is with gay marriage. If they are allowed to marry, the institution will be ruined and striaght people won't get married anymore. Then it's curtains for us all...

Ah, black is the color for sarcasm here. :thumbsup:

Like I've said before, the death knell for marriage wasn't gay marriage, it was the no-fault revolution in the 70's.

[maurice]

If you have gay marriage, I predict that like half of all straight marriages will fail and result in divorce.

[itsnotrequired]

If you have gay marriage, I predict that like half of all straight marriages will fail and result in divorce.

I bet if gay marriage is strictly banned, there will be no more divorces ever.

Spin your robe, wizard-sage...

[Pick a name, Buddy]

That's what social conservatives say. Don't talk, don't show, don't do anything remotely gay. The funny thing is, social liberals tend to think the exact same way about religious people, just putting "religious" in the place of "gay."

Campbell FTW!

There is discussion here in the state capital about removing the words "man and woman" from the state marriage laws, which is in direct opposition to Prop 22 that the voters of California passed in 2000.

Maybe I am daft or something, but I thought you could get homophobia only from mosquitos...

[Michelle]

If the US allowed gay marriage, Canada's immigration rate would decrease substantially.

The best thing about whether on not you "agree with homosexuality" is that nobody gives a flying fuck what you agree or disagree about.
Was that for me?

[SABRSox]

That was for everyone in this thread. Who are any of us to stand in the way of two people who love each other?

[Michelle]

That's my stance, too. I always said people who feel uncomfortable or threatened by gays are insecure in their own sexuality. Even if a gay person hit on you, something would only happen if you allowed it to....

[StockdaleforVeep]

That was for everyone in this thread. Who are any of us to stand in the way of two people who love each other?

If its about love then why give a flying fuck about gay marriage? If you love each other, be with each other. No, as in all things, comes down to money. With marriage comes tax benefits and other benefits that result in more money

That's my stance, too. I always said people who feel uncomfortable or threatened by gays are insecure in their own sexuality. Even if a gay person hit on you, something would only happen if you allowed it to....

Im uncomfortable watching people take a shit, does that mean i have a secret wanting to be myrtles fave image bf?

[Michelle]

If its about love then why give a flying fuck about gay marriage? If you love each other, be with each other. No, as in all things, comes down to money. With marriage comes tax benefits and other benefits that result in more money
People in love want to be married. You're essentially saying all straight couples marry for tax benefits, because there's no difference. At least I think that's what you're saying, because it really doesn't make any sense.

Im uncomfortable watching people take a shit, does that mean i have a secret wanting to be myrtles fave image bf?
Do you watch people take a shit often?

[StockdaleforVeep]

People in love want to be married. You're essentially saying all straight couples marry for tax benefits, because there's no difference. At least I think that's what you're saying, because it really doesn't make any sense.



No what i am saying is if tax benefits and legal standards werent involved, the issue of gay marriage would not be a major concept. Marriage is not a right, its a religious sacrament to bond two people together, its done in all religions in one form or another. I believe i had consensus with some of the people i argue with here, would be much better if the govt got its hands out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches

[CaptainBallz]

That's what social conservatives say. Don't talk, don't show, don't do anything remotely gay. The funny thing is, social liberals tend to think the exact same way about religious people, just putting "religious" in the place of "gay."

the difference is, as Michelle pointed out, that one is a "choice" while the other is a biological inclination.

whereas religion is as abstract as abstract can be to the point where religious people can't even agree on what to disagree about, there's no confusion that gay people are attracted to the same sex. For convenience purposes, there's only two sexes.

I would say the two intolerances serve completely different functions..

[Myrtle]

No what i am saying is if tax benefits and legal standards werent involved, the issue of gay marriage would not be a major concept. Marriage is not a right, its a religious sacrament to bond two people together, its done in all religions in one form or another. I believe i had consensus with some of the people i argue with here, would be much better if the govt got its hands out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches

Marriage used to be a religious right... but dude, that was hundreds of years ago. I can think of at least 5 personal friends of mine who got married sans the religious aspect. Getting married today is a social norm, it doesn't matter what religion you are or who you are marrying, most people still expect to get married at some point in their lives.

Hell, I personally don't believe in god and I'd like to get married some day. Are you saying that I don't have the right to because I am not affiliated with any religion?

[samram]

I think the government should get its hand out of the marriage business altogether. You live with who you want to live with as long as it is consensual. Contracts determine property distribution, etc. If you feel the need to have it recognized by a religious institution, feel free, but it would make no difference in terms of rights (not that there is much now- my wife and I were married by a JOP on the beach in Hilton Head).

[Erik The Red]

Hell, I personally don't believe in god and I'd like to get married some day. Are you saying that I don't have the right to because I am not affiliated with any religion?

Of course not, he only has a problem with it if you try to marry one of your own sex. Religious hypocrisy at work.

[maurice]

Wait a second; there are tax benefits to being married in the US?

Legal benefits include things like the right to be with your loved one while they're lying in a hospital bed dying.

Not sure how that negatively affects anybody else in society.

[Prope]

I always thought if you combined income between spouses it bumps you up to the higher tax bracket. Please tell me I'm right because that is my main reason for not getting married.







that's a joke.

[JohnBasedowYoda]

One can also say the same thing about the Irish

If you have gay marriage, I predict that like half of all straight marriages will fail and result in divorce.


Don't most marriages fail anyway?

[3D23]

Here is why I don't really give a flying fuck who gets married and who doesn't.

Millions and I MEAN MILIONS of morons who are hetero 'think' they ae in love, get married, bring kids into the world, then fuck it all up with an affair, or decide they just really don't love each other, or want 'more' than what they have. They get divorced, and start the insanity all over again.


I believe the last studies I saw suggest that 2/3 of all marriages end in divorce, which is what really pisses me off about the holier-than-thou miscreants that proclaim "If we allow homosexuals to marry, they will only find that marriage isn't what they thought it would be, and will end up in divorce". What kind of insane argument is that? Same can be said for the whacked theoligical argument that God said marriage is between a man, woman, and God. What about the people that go to the justice of the peace to get married? There is no God involved, only them, the judge or representative of the courts, and the state in which they are married. How about Aetheists? They get married, but God has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. So do we now decide that only people that believe in a specific God can get married?

Who are heterosexuals to decide that homosexuals can not experience the same misery that is nurtured prosperously within the heterosexual community?

Thousands, or hell even hundreds of years ago entire societies of people beleived that the elctro-magnetic fields that bounced off and penetrated the earth's atmosphere were signs from God, (which we now know as Aurora Borealis) or that a sacred dance created rain.

It's called evolution, why do people have to be so dense, and beat you over the head with a bible to say that a lifestyle or way of living is wrong? Give me a solid argument that actually says homosexuality is wrong and I might listen. Something other than "Well, God says so."

Heterosexual sex is for procreation purposes, at least in the intelligent design theories. Yet how many people use birth control? How many couples have had anal, masturbated, stimulated, etc. So should they be buried in dirt to their necks and stoned?

You can't have it both ways, and I refuse to live in "Little House on the Prairie" days. Although Tee would make a cute little half-pint.

[Myrtle]

Triple D, FTW

And also:

You can't have it both ways, and I refuse to live in "Little House on the Prairie" days. Although Tee would make a cute little half-pint.


:thumbsup:

[SABRSox]

I imagine our children will view us as very backwards thinking in about 50 years time. This is another civil rights struggle, and I have no doubt in my mind that gay men and women will be victorious. The ultra-conservative religious types almost always lose out on these issues in the end.

[Michelle]

What about the people that go to the justice of the peace to get married? There is no God involved, only them, the judge or representative of the courts, and the state in which they are married.
I find people usually pull out the religion card when they don't have the basis of a valid argument. Somehow everything is justified if the Bible says it's so.... albeit selectively.

Heterosexual sex is for procreation purposes, at least in the intelligent design theories. Yet how many people use birth control? How many couples have had anal, masturbated, stimulated, etc. So should they be buried in dirt to their necks and stoned?Hell, my daughter was conceived in a glass tube, in an infertility clinic with a doctor and two nurses present. Her 'father' wasn't even there for the event. There's nothing in the bible about that, but because I was in a hetero marriage, it's somehow acceptable. If it were two women with a donor, or a two men with a surrogate, it becomes an ordeal. DNA alone doesn't make anyone a 'parent'.

A marriage is a union of 2 people who want to formally vow lifetime commitment. I was also married in a civil ceremony. There was nothing religious about it.

[3D23]

I find people usually pull out the religion card when they don't have the basis of a valid argument. Somehow everything is justified if the Bible says it's so.... albeit selectively.

Hell, my daughter was conceived in a glass tube, in an infertility clinic with a doctor and two nurses present. Her 'father' wasn't even there for the event. There's nothing in the bible about that, but because I was in a hetero marriage, it's somehow acceptable. If it were two women with a donor, or a two men with a surrogate, it becomes an ordeal. DNA alone doesn't make anyone a 'parent'.

A marriage is a union of 2 people who want to formally vow lifetime commitment. I was also married in a civil ceremony. There was nothing religious about it.


http://www.brandonms.vbschools.com/images/animbolt.gif

Blasphemous Blasphemer!!!


:D

[Michelle]

I know I know.. I'm going straight to hell ;)

[3D23]

I always wanted my user name to be Helen A Handbasket. :shrug:

If I am going to hell, I am at least going to make it a fun ride.

Damn you Fuller, and your nine year moratorium!!!

[samram]

The reason I don't give a flying fuck who gets married is it's none of my fucking business. Nor is it the business of the state. Leave people the fuck alone.

I realize my other posts probably say the same thing, but I like saying the same thing different ways.

[Spider_Pig]

^Agreed completely. I don't care enough to worry about other people's business.

[Prope]

:samramispissed:

[3D23]

The reason I don't give a flying fuck who gets married is it's none of my fucking business. Nor is it the business of the state. Leave people the fuck alone.

I realize my other posts probably say the same thing, but I like saying the same thing different ways.

Wel and you are so eloquent.

Unlike other posters who shall remain nameless, but his username initials are s.p.i.d.e.r.p.i.g.


:rolling:

[Michelle]

Here's a cute article (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1837112.php) I just came across. Can you imagine how much of their lives this couple missed out on because it was deemed 'wrong', and they had to hide who they really were? I'm glad society has evolved.. well, for the most part ;) Live and let live....

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Here is why I don't really give a flying fuck who gets married and who doesn't.

Millions and I MEAN MILIONS of morons who are hetero 'think' they ae in love, get married, bring kids into the world, then fuck it all up with an affair, or decide they just really don't love each other, or want 'more' than what they have. They get divorced, and start the insanity all over again.


I believe the last studies I saw suggest that 2/3 of all marriages end in divorce, which is what really pisses me off about the holier-than-thou miscreants that proclaim "If we allow homosexuals to marry, they will only find that marriage isn't what they thought it would be, and will end up in divorce". What kind of insane argument is that? Same can be said for the whacked theoligical argument that God said marriage is between a man, woman, and God. What about the people that go to the justice of the peace to get married? There is no God involved, only them, the judge or representative of the courts, and the state in which they are married. How about Aetheists? They get married, but God has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. So do we now decide that only people that believe in a specific God can get married?

Who are heterosexuals to decide that homosexuals can not experience the same misery that is nurtured prosperously within the heterosexual community?

Thousands, or hell even hundreds of years ago entire societies of people beleived that the elctro-magnetic fields that bounced off and penetrated the earth's atmosphere were signs from God, (which we now know as Aurora Borealis) or that a sacred dance created rain.

It's called evolution, why do people have to be so dense, and beat you over the head with a bible to say that a lifestyle or way of living is wrong? Give me a solid argument that actually says homosexuality is wrong and I might listen. Something other than "Well, God says so."

Heterosexual sex is for procreation purposes, at least in the intelligent design theories. Yet how many people use birth control? How many couples have had anal, masturbated, stimulated, etc. So should they be buried in dirt to their necks and stoned?

You can't have it both ways, and I refuse to live in "Little House on the Prairie" days. Although Tee would make a cute little half-pint.

I want to know if you consider yourself a tolerant or an intolerant person. Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from yours?

This response capitalizes on the fact that there's no morally neutral ground. Everybody has a point of view they think is right and everybody judges at some point or another. The Christian gets pigeon-holed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging, too. It's an inescapable consequence of believing in morality.

[3D23]

I consider myself to be very open-minded. I beleive in listening to all points of view, and determining if it is a new idea I might want to implement, or cast it aside as useless; you never know where nuggets of knowledge lie.

I am very tolerant, and beleive that is how compromise comes about, when you have open dialect between diagreeing parties.

I think the problem that lies herein is where your (as a person, not you Fuller, per say) definition of morality lies.

Except in my house, this is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. :D

[Michelle]

I want to know if you consider yourself a tolerant or an intolerant person. Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view?
The question wasn't for me, but you do bring up a good point. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on anything, my only thing was I'd rather hear someone just say they're not comfortable with homosexuality rather than pretend to be okay with it, as long as they don't have to 'see' it, or as long as they don't hit on them. It's the ones who make every argument under the sun that have no validity in order to justify the simple fact they're not okay with it that I have problems with. That's all I was saying, anyway.

[Myrtle]

I consider myself to be a tolerant person... but there are a few things I will not tolerate and one of those is intolerance of the personal life of Joe Shmoe. :omg:

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with homosexuality and homosexual marriage as long as they don't interfere with the rights of said homosexuals.

[Ziggy]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0701/borat_lebanon0109.jpg

You mean the man who tried to put a rubber fist in my anus was a homosexual?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

^What a complete idiot loser he turned out to be.

[Ziggy]

But his sister is number four prostitute in all of Kazahstan.

[Erik The Red]

...The Christian gets pigeon-holed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging, too...

Except that the christian judgment involves denial of basic civil rights based on a first-century-world perspective of what is "moral". That is something that you cannot say about those with whom you disagree.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

You just made my point for me.

Erik FTW!

[BURGH]

I just wish I could call the Browns a bunch of fags and no one cared.

That is my dream.

[CaptainBallz]

I really don't believe the decision should be left up to the states either, since the issue falls firmly into a broad "civil rights" category. Allowing the segregation of rights between gay and straight couples is another form of Jim Crow...

Advocates of state's rights can only lose this one as well, since I don't believe institutionalized bigotry in all its forms can last in the U.S. system. The push towards inclusion always wins in the end.

[Erik The Red]

You just made my point for me.

Erik FTW!

:rolleyes:


At least you're spelling my name right, now. :shrug:

[StockdaleforVeep]

I just wish I could call the Browns a bunch of fags and no one cared.

That is my dream.

if i made this comment id be banned

burgh is a Titan who had zeus pop out of his face

[3D23]

if i made this comment id be banned

burgh is a Titan who had zeus pop out of his face

I was under the impression he was referring to Brown's, as in last name, you racist bastard.

;)

[SABRSox]

I assumed he was referring to the Cleveland Browns, being a Steelers fan.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I was under the impression he was referring to Brown's, as in last name, you racist bastard.

;)

Ha, maybe, but ive seen burgh post for a while so i assume it was his natural venomous spite

[Pick a name, Buddy]

:rolleyes:


At least you're spelling my name right, now. :shrug:

Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes my stupidity is exceeded only by my poor speeling skillz... ;)

[BURGH]

if i made this comment id be banned

burgh is a Titan who had zeus pop out of his face


I am the Alpha and the Omega.


And yes I was referring to the Cleveland Browns.. fags.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I am the Alpha and the Omega.


And yes I was referring to the Cleveland Browns.. fags.

http://www.amazingcomics.it/thor5web.jpg would kill you

[itsnotrequired]

I am the Alpha and the Omega.


And yes I was referring to the Cleveland Browns.. fags.

Didn't you have one of my other quotes as a sig back on WSI?

[1951Campbell]

I really don't believe the decision should be left up to the states either, since the issue falls firmly into a broad "civil rights" category. Allowing the segregation of rights between gay and straight couples is another form of Jim Crow...

Advocates of state's rights can only lose this one as well, since I don't believe institutionalized bigotry in all its forms can last in the U.S. system. The push towards inclusion always wins in the end.

With all due respect, I the above is wrong for two reasons.

First, I'm big on federalism (for which you purposely use the scary term "states' rights"). Traditionally there are few areas of law that are so state-specific and non-federal as marriage. To inject the feds into marriage is to invite even more governmental stupidity than we already have. If we're going to have marriage, it should be the province of the states, as it has been.

Second, as a tactical matter, gay marriage is only going to happen through the states and not through Congress. Here's my theory: Congress passed DOMA; states, cities, and local trial-court-level judges are the ones saying "well, we've checked our statutes, and there's no reason why two gays can't get a marriage license." So gays get legally married. After so many gay couples get legally married, and get the legal benefits marriage confers, it would simply affect too many areas that state government touches if all those marriages were voided overnight. Inertia wins in the end; no judge wants to up-end thousands upon thousands of pensions, alimony and support arrangements, etc. It's just too much.

[Ziggy]

And yes I was referring to the Cleveland Browns.. fags.

Insulting the Browns and calling them butt pirates is like picking on a mentally disabled five year old. I know you're a Steelers fan, but c'mon, dude.

[BURGH]

Insulting the Browns and calling them butt pirates is like picking on a mentally disabled five year old. I know you're a Steelers fan, but c'mon, dude.

Have you seen the Mary they drafted to play quarterback?


Loves the cock.

[CaptainBallz]

With all due respect, I the above is wrong for two reasons.

First, I'm big on federalism (for which you purposely use the scary term "states' rights"). Traditionally there are few areas of law that are so state-specific and non-federal as marriage. To inject the feds into marriage is to invite even more governmental stupidity than we already have. If we're going to have marriage, it should be the province of the states, as it has been.

Second, as a tactical matter, gay marriage is only going to happen through the states and not through Congress. Here's my theory: Congress passed DOMA; states, cities, and local trial-court-level judges are the ones saying "well, we've checked our statutes, and there's no reason why two gays can't get a marriage license." So gays get legally married. After so many gay couples get legally married, and get the legal benefits marriage confers, it would simply affect too many areas that state government touches if all those marriages were voided overnight. Inertia wins in the end; no judge wants to up-end thousands upon thousands of pensions, alimony and support arrangements, etc. It's just too much.

I agree with you...
I wasn't advocating that marriages be the responsibility of the federal government, I was simply saying that I don't think the issue of gay marriage in the United States should be relegated to the states.
I don't know enough about the varying rights alotted married couples in all of the different states around the union, but I don't see any legitimate reason that the United States should condone, or allow to exist in any form, institutionalized bigotry within its borders.
Without discussing all the gray areas that might allow such bigotry to continue, it is simpy an issue of human decency (which *shocker* most organized religions are on the wrong side of), akin to the abolition of Jim Crow, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc., that needs to be standardized on a slightly more overarching federal level...

IMHO, of course...

[Iwritecode]

I don't agree with homosexuality. Penis and Vagina it makes so much sense. I am against gay marriage. Once your gay though you cant not be gay like that senator said. I do not hate gays though and I would hang out with them with no problems as long as they don't try and hit on me.

I was just talking about this with a friend of mine. He said that he went to a gay bar with another friend of his and had this same fear. The basic response was that they can pretty much tell if your gay or straight and are not going to hit on you unless they are just messing with you.

[CaptainBallz]

I don't know about this "they can just tell" business. On the street, maybe, but I have to believe that if I were in a gay bar, they have to assume that I bat that way too. Once the gay guy in question started talking to me, then he'd know, mainly because I'd tell him that I'm in fact straight, and shortly leaving this hypothetical gay bar which I'm at for unknown reasons.

tooling for anus?

[JohnBasedowYoda]

I imagine our children will view us as very backwards thinking in about 50 years time. This is another civil rights struggle, and I have no doubt in my mind that gay men and women will be victorious. The ultra-conservative religious types almost always lose out on these issues in the end.


quoted for :bump:

[SFS04]

Skrip for Pres.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I was just talking about this with a friend of mine. He said that he went to a gay bar with another friend of his and had this same fear. The basic response was that they can pretty much tell if your gay or straight and are not going to hit on you unless they are just messing with you.

apparently wearing blue jeans and my leather jacket(a regular one, like a typical pollack) in the student bowling alley tells some i am gay?

[fquaye14ten]

i agree with sabr--how can you "Agree" with homosexuality? you might as well agree with people having brown hair--

"I think morally, they ought to dye it blonde"

apparently wearing blue jeans and my leather jacket(a regular one, like a typical pollack) in the student bowling alley tells some i am gay?

dude, no offense, but you are a slobby looking, homely motherfucker. i am fucking shocked that anyone would hit on you, man or woman, and if i were you i'd thank my fucking lucky stars anyone even gave you the time of day

but no offense.

Marriage used to be a religious right... but dude, that was hundreds of years ago. I can think of at least 5 personal friends of mine who got married sans the religious aspect. Getting married today is a social norm, it doesn't matter what religion you are or who you are marrying, most people still expect to get married at some point in their lives.

Hell, I personally don't believe in god and I'd like to get married some day. Are you saying that I don't have the right to because I am not affiliated with any religion?

bingo--marriage also used to be a pragmatic function that had nothing to do with romance or religion

but, you know, details...

I find people usually pull out the religion card when they don't have the basis of a valid argument. Somehow everything is justified if the Bible says it's so.... albeit selectively.

yeah--i don't see a lot of the moral majority "giving up their belongings and following Christ"....or "waiting for he who is without sin to cast the first stone," or not eating pork zomg!

I am the Alpha and the Omega.


And yes I was referring to the Cleveland Browns.. fags.

BRADY QUINN RULES

we knew this day would come--quaye v. burgh--for all de marbles

I don't know about this "they can just tell" business. On the street, maybe, but I have to believe that if I were in a gay bar, they have to assume that I bat that way too. Once the gay guy in question started talking to me, then he'd know, mainly because I'd tell him that I'm in fact straight, and shortly leaving this hypothetical gay bar which I'm at for unknown reasons.

tucker max went to a gay bar (TO TRY TO GET SOME PUSSY HE SWEARS) and according to him they can tell. although, it probably helps that tucker max is a fat, ungroomed, spiewak

[Palehose13]

Wow. It sure is fun to watch a bunch of heteros discussing what I should or shouldn't have. The fact that this thread exists and had serious discussion shows that not everyone is viewed as equal and some of the majority are quite comfortable "telling" a minority what they can or cannot do. What's next, segregation?



Paul Newman as Reggie Dunlop answered this question in Slapshot when he was in bed w/ Oglethorpes wife pretty well I thought.

For me, it's I dont hate gay people, I just dont think they should be having sex in public!!! It is fucking gross, and and socially unacceptable behavior IMHO! In private they can do whatever they want, I just dont wanna know about it, nor let alone SEE it!!!

I agree with what the Bible says about homosexuality.

I have no problem with homosexuals, just with their "activities". I work with several gay men and women and we get along fine. I think the problems come along when I am forced to confront and/or accept the lifestyle. But that should not really be an issue as long as it doesn't come up for discussion. And at work, it doesn't-- which is how it should be.

But I will say that living in SF, it is just about always "in your face". It is the one thing I dislike about living here. The line used to be "we just want to have the freedom to be ourselves" but the envelope gets pushed more and more each day to the point that if you are not accepting of it, you are labeled an homophobe. And now there is an agenda and indoctrination of our children- it just doesn't seem to stop...

It tends to be the role of the gay community to want to be recognized and deliberately set themselves apart. The whole identifying themselves as different and whatnot. I dont ask if people are homosexual just like i dont ask if people are strait, its the homosexuals that ive seen and know who tend to be the ones who feel the need to declare it, either fashion wise or vocally

These are all fucking beautiful. It's the very original "It's okay for someone to be gay as long as I don't have to see it." I ask you then, how do you feel about heterosexual displays of affection? I you don't like to see that either, you are fine, but sometime take a look around you. Check out ads, TV shows, movies, people in public. Most people are fine with some small displays of affection by heterosexuals. Why is it "flaunting" if a gay couple do the same thing?

- Why do they need their own Olympics? Are they not good enough to make the real olympics?
It's for solidarity. Why is there an Irish parade, or Greektown, etc? People are comfortable with people who have something in common with them. Oh, and for the record, you don't have to be homosexual to be in the gay olympics. SO if you are jealous and think that you can take some gold, sign up!

- If men were supposed to fuck other men why is there women and why are women only able to have children and not men? Bingo because only women can have children and they need men do fuck em.

Actually, no. Women need sperm to get pregnant, not to be fucked. I'm sure that if all the heterosexuals died and only homosexuals were left, we would be just fine continuing with civilization. In fact, all pregnancies would be planned and every child would be wanted. But thank you so much for contributing to the overpopulation of this planet. :rolleyes:

Basically, the "natural" thing is ridiculous. You know why? Homosexuality does occur "naturally" among other species. Why do you think gay people want the whole world to be gay? EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT!!!!

Stop flaunting your goddamn shit around. Your gay fine keep it in house.
See above.

I want a straight parade.
Organize it. :shrug:


If gays have the rainbow what do us straightens have? Basically everything else, but go ahead and get a symbol going. I don't think we would care.


That was for everyone in this thread. Who are any of us to stand in the way of two people who love each other?

Thank you.

If its about love then why give a flying fuck about gay marriage? If you love each other, be with each other. No, as in all things, comes down to money. With marriage comes tax benefits and other benefits that result in more money

Im uncomfortable watching people take a shit, does that mean i have a secret wanting to be myrtles fave image bf?

You are ridiculous also.

Would it make you more comfortable if it was labeled a "civil union" instead of "marriage". Most homos don't care either way. They just want all the rights of marriage. And for those who don't think there are rights, here they are:

Rights and Benefits of marriage

(http://www.pflag.org/Rights__Priviledges_and_Benefits_of_Marriage.175.0 .html)

[SFS04]

Good link Val, that's pretty much what I've referenced here before with the legal rights.

These are all fucking beautiful. It's the very original "It's okay for someone to be gay as long as I don't have to see it." I ask you then, how do you feel about heterosexual displays of affection? I you don't like to see that either, you are fine, but sometime take a look around you. Check out ads, TV shows, movies, people in public. Most people are fine with some small displays of affection by heterosexuals. Why is it "flaunting" if a gay couple do the same thing?

That's how I feel too. I mean who cares if two guys are holding hands as they walk down the street?

Gay people practice tact too. Are there gonna be gay people who do gross stuff in public? Absolutely. But there's a fair number of straight people who act tactlessly around members of the opposite sex as well and that shouldn't be encouraged either (honk honk). Decorum is decorum regardless of the genders involved.

[3D23]

Wow. It sure is fun to watch a bunch of heteros discussing what I should or shouldn't have. The fact that this thread exists and had serious discussion shows that not everyone is viewed as equal and some of the majority are quite comfortable "telling" a minority what they can or cannot do. What's next, segregation?
Careful Val, you don't know who you are suggesting this to. ;)

These are all fucking beautiful. It's the very original "It's okay for someone to be gay as long as I don't have to see it." I ask you then, how do you feel about heterosexual displays of affection? I you don't like to see that either, you are fine, but sometime take a look around you. Check out ads, TV shows, movies, people in public. Most people are fine with some small displays of affection by heterosexuals. Why is it "flaunting" if a gay couple do the same thing?

I can't stand PDA's, from anyone. I don't want to see someone trying to swallow someone else's tongue, I don't care what sex you are. Get a fucking room.





Actually, no. Women need sperm to get pregnant, not to be fucked. I'm sure that if all the heterosexuals died and only homosexuals were left, we would be just fine continuing with civilization. In fact, all pregnancies would be planned and every child would be wanted. But thank you so much for contributing to the overpopulation of this planet. :rolleyes:
It has become a proven fact that homosexual are better foster parents than their hetero counterparts. Example, see Val.







Would it make you more comfortable if it was labeled a "civil union" instead of "marriage". Most homos don't care either way. They just want all the rights of marriage. And for those who don't think there are rights, here they are:

Rights and Benefits of marriage

(http://www.pflag.org/Rights__Priviledges_and_Benefits_of_Marriage.175.0 .html)

But does it make you comfortable to have to consider a 'less' alternative because a bunch of bible pounders or homophobes can sleep easier at night? If it does, it shouldn't.

[Palehose13]

Yeah but Val, it's just not natural. :S

Tell that to them. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)

[cheeses_h_rice]

People should mind their own fucking business, is my take on it.

:shrug:

[BURGH]

It's like, we get it, you're gay!

[Palehose13]

But does it make you comfortable to have to consider a 'less' alternative because a bunch of bible pounders or homophobes can sleep easier at night? If it does, it shouldn't.

I don't see a civil union as "less than". In my world, anyone who wants to become a "legal couple" gay or straight would get a civil union. Civil Unions with a religious twist would then be "marriage". Sure, it's a semantic twist, but that seems to be an issue with people. They are sensitive about the word marriage. Take the fucking word, I just want to be legally recognized as partners.

[3D23]

I don't see a civil union as "less than". In my world, anyone who wants to become a "legal couple" gay or straight would get a civil union. Civil Unions with a religious twist would then be "marriage". Sure, it's a semantic twist, but that seems to be an issue with people. They are sensitive about the word marriage. Take the fucking word, I just want to be legally recognized as partners.

I get what you're saying, it just seems so condescending for anyone to say "Well, we will let you be joined, but you can't have our word". Chrissakes, like heteros have done such a banner job with marriage in the past. We kind of suck at it, actually.

[maurice]

But what about all the gay guys who keep hitting on Stockdale?

He's not giving off a gay vibe!

[samram]

These are all fucking beautiful. It's the very original "It's okay for someone to be gay as long as I don't have to see it." I ask you then, how do you feel about heterosexual displays of affection? I you don't like to see that either, you are fine, but sometime take a look around you. Check out ads, TV shows, movies, people in public. Most people are fine with some small displays of affection by heterosexuals. Why is it "flaunting" if a gay couple do the same thing?

I don't want to see PDA from anyone. Honestly, I don't see how you can read my comment in light of the first post in the thread and see how I'm saying it's OK for heteros, but not so much for gays.

[Palehose13]

But what about all the gay guys who keep hitting on Stockdale?

He's not giving off a gay vibe!

I'm starting to think that the type of guys who hit on Stockdale are the "I'm straight, but I like blowjobs form guys" or that sort and think that he's a hustler. He must give off the vibe. :shrug:


I don't want to see PDA from anyone. Honestly, I don't see how you can read my comment in light of the first post in the thread and see how I'm saying it's OK for heteros, but not so much for gays.

Accidental quote? sorry.

[fquaye14ten]

Yeah but Val, it's just not natural. :S

maybe someday val will be normal and stop hating herself, but until then let's patronize her and tell her it's "ok with us what lifestyle she chooses"

[Pick a name, Buddy]

That was for everyone in this thread. Who are any of us to stand in the way of two people who love each other?


"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.

But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.

As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.

[maurice]

I'm starting to think that the type of guys who hit on Stockdale are the "I'm straight, but I like blowjobs form guys" or that sort and think that he's a hustler. He must give off the vibe.

Good point.

What do these guys say to you, Stockdale? Are they all like, "Hi, I'm a red-state legislator who is totally not gay. Care to join me in the bathroom?"

[fquaye14ten]

Yeah but, the thing is, all these gays are always out flaunting it. Guess what, we don't care!! You're gay big whoop!! You can be as gay as you want as long as it's never in public. Just like every time I've kissed a girl in a bar, it was to announce to everyone that I'm a heterosexual. Oh, and can I just once walk into a bathroom without two gays going at it like animals in the middle of the floor?! Nobody wants to see that!!

one time i was at a bowling alley with a heavy metal tshirt on and i weighed 300 pounds and all these gay guys kept trying to suck my dick and i was just like "let me be straight in peace"

[SABRSox]

one time i was at a bowling alley with a heavy metal tshirt on and i weighed 300 pounds and all these gay guys kept trying to suck my dick and i was just like "let me be straight in peace"
now there's some :classicstockdale:

[Palehose13]

maybe someday val will be normal and stop hating herself, but until then let's patronize her and tell her it's "ok with us what lifestyle she chooses"

:thumbsup: You got it!

I agree. No church has to honor anything they don't want to, but it's ridiculous that our secular government doesn't. It's kind of an embarrassing pock on our society if you ask me.

:clap:

"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.

But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.

As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.

I don't follow your logic at all. I don't see giving a gay couple the same rights to a civil union as "special standing". Maybe if gay couples got special rights like say...reduced taxes for being gay or affirmative action or quotas, I would agree with you.

[maurice]

The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.

Pro-gay marriage folks like me would gladly extend to you the right to gay-marry. Then you too could enjoy the benefits of having the same freedoms gays have, even if you just don't want to exercise them.

As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.

Again, where gay marriage is permitted, homosexuals have the very same rights that every other person in that jurisdiction has, and as homosexuals, they don't have any special standing by law.

[samram]

"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.

But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.

As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.

Well, you would have the right to marry a man too, so they wouldn't have any special standing.

[Palehose13]

Well ass jockeys, I would love to stay and chat but I have to catch a flight to Millie wau-kay. Toodles!

[CaptainBallz]

"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.

But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.

As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.

You have ten minutes to think this over a bit more thoroughly before you get thrashed...

[fquaye14ten]

I agree. No church has to honor anything they don't want to, but it's ridiculous that our secular government doesn't. It's kind of an embarrassing pock on our society if you ask me.

it's just so fucking retarded that people are making "marriage" into a religious thing.

and fact of matter, making it into a CHRISTIAN religious thing.

It's not. Marriage is just the fucking union between two people. Since homosexuality has been ILLEGAL until about 80 years ago, those people have traditionally been a man and a woman.

But do you mean to tell me that the Greek form of marriage was some sort of spiritual binding that transcended any other binding?

Or the kind that abounded in Shakespearean time?

Up until a while ago (and to this day perhaps in some societies) in many cases marriage had very little to do with what we consider marriage to mean right now.

Marriage as an institution has historically been significant because of

--necessity of dual parental responsibility

--dowrys and political posturing

--convenience

--love? I guess

Hell, in Elizabethan times, even, it was common to respect your wife, LOVE your mistress (or your male friends). Ask Socrates, too, about that one.

Clearly this isn't uniformly and unequivocally the case, but the fact is, marriage is a muddled institution and claiming

a.) the spiritual aspect

b.) the traditional aspect

strictly demands marriage is b/t a man and a woman is misguided at best

[3D23]

You have ten minutes to think this over a bit more thoroughly before you get thrashed...


That sounds kinda gay Ballz.

;)

[SABRSox]

You have ten minutes to think this over a bit more thoroughly before you get thrashed...
He's already getting thrashed. His position is terribly shaky and without any merit other than a theological one which, in our government, does not apply.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

You have ten minutes to think this over a bit more thoroughly before you get thrashed...

As Pleasantville as that sounds, I am going to stand on my beliefs. I know they are overwhelmingly unpopular, but what can I say...

[maurice]

I believe in the Biblical form of marriage. In other words, I want a hot young concubine. I assume that the religious right is okay with a law allowing this.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Concubines are terribly underrated!

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Nice evade! :thumbsup:

[fquaye14ten]

having said all this, i like eminem

[CaptainBallz]

As Pleasantville as that sounds, I am going to stand on my beliefs. I know they are overwhelmingly unpopular, but what can I say...

Try saying, "I'm a complete ignoramus"...

You do realize that you equated homsexuality with incest, right?

[fquaye14ten]

I thought he was against teh gayz0rz communities. :ohmy:

try to understand, i do want you as a fan

[CaptainBallz]

That sounds kinda gay Ballz.

;)

there's nothing gay about a man tongue-thrashing another man...online..



:bolt:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Try saying, "I'm a complete ignoramus"...

You do realize that you equated homsexuality with incest, right?

I don't think I did. I said that I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. You are making some value judgments on the examples I chose to illustrate boundaries of traditional marriage. And you are entitled to do so, but your conclusions are your own.

[BURGH]

try to understand, i do want you as a fan

Nobody listens to techno.

[StockdaleforVeep]

i agree with sabr--how can you "Agree" with homosexuality? you might as well agree with people having brown hair--

"I think morally, they ought to dye it blonde"



dude, no offense, but you are a slobby looking, homely motherfucker. i am fucking shocked that anyone would hit on you, man or woman, and if i were you i'd thank my fucking lucky stars anyone even gave you the time of day

but no offense.



bingo--marriage also used to be a pragmatic function that had nothing to do with romance or religion

but, you know, details...



yeah--i don't see a lot of the moral majority "giving up their belongings and following Christ"....or "waiting for he who is without sin to cast the first stone," or not eating pork zomg!



BRADY QUINN RULES

we knew this day would come--quaye v. burgh--for all de marbles



tucker max went to a gay bar (TO TRY TO GET SOME PUSSY HE SWEARS) and according to him they can tell. although, it probably helps that tucker max is a fat, ungroomed, spiewak


and all this is your worthless opinion that no one asked for

Also, pretty shallow that you can make an arbitrary judgement from online
but needless to say, if that was said to my face, you would be bleeding

[fquaye14ten]

I don't think I did. I said that I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. You are making some value judgments on the examples I chose to illustrate boundaries of traditional marriage. And you are entitled to do so, but your conclusions are your own.

except you fail to acknowledge that incest is illegal for a different reason than homosexuality is

a better example would be bigamy, but that analogy wouldn't stand up to scrutiny either

and all this is your worthless opinion that no one asked for
good point.

Also, pretty shallow that you can make an arbitrary judgement from online
that judgment is bolstered by the testament of those who've met you in real life

but needless to say, if that was said to my face, you would be bleeding
you going to sit on me, tons of fun? :rolleyes:

online tough guys are funny...but rest assured stockdale, i would most likely beat you within an inch of your life if you tried any of your fatboy shit

[StockdaleforVeep]

Good link Val, that's pretty much what I've referenced here before with the legal rights.



That's how I feel too. I mean who cares if two guys are holding hands as they walk down the street?



Cuz maybe some people think its gross?

You bitch at us for judging about gay people, yet if we have reservations against homosexuality, we are judged for that. Stop being a hypocrit




I can't stand PDA's, from anyone. I don't want to see someone trying to swallow someone else's tongue, I don't care what sex you are. Get a fucking room.



A woman who speaks my mind

[SABRSox]

All right children, settle down.

[fquaye14ten]

eh. he's on ignore now, like he should have been a long time ago.

[Hangar18]

All right children, settle down.

I can't even finish reading this thread, this is a dumb topic and all we got was people getting hostile with each other..... Stop with the stupid threads please .....

[SABRSox]

Dumb topic? Are you nuts? We're talking about civil rights. I'm re-opening, so long as it stays civil.

[maurice]

There's lots of incest in the Bible, so I guess it's okay.

The bottom line is that the Bible shouldn't inform our secular laws, any more than our secular laws inform the Bible. Our laws need to have a much better basis than "Jesus told me so," particularly where (1) Jesus actually didn't have much to say about the topic and (2) Jesus said a lot of explicit things that you ignore.

Disclaimer: This is not directed at anybody here. It's just my standard rant against fundies.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Dumb topic? Are you nuts? We're talking about civil rights. I'm re-opening, so long as it stays civil.

Right, but civil rights go out the window when people make petty attacks on the oppositions opinion

I mean i could just go the simple way and call everyone who disagrees with me as communist faggots, but i dont

[fquaye14ten]

bible and so on
well the bible shouldn't...but it does.

having said that, the marriage of the old testament doesn't resemble marriage of today, and paul's letters detailing marriage seem a tenuous source at best of doctrine informing what our marriage legislation shoudl be (the woman must be subservient to the man, for one, according to st. paul)

[BURGH]

I am okay with getting a blowjob in the movie theatre. Not from guys though, that would be gay.

[CaptainBallz]

I don't think I did. I said that I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. You are making some value judgments on the examples I chose to illustrate boundaries of traditional marriage. And you are entitled to do so, but your conclusions are your own.

No, the post I was referring to actually had nothing to do with the bible or religious beliefs.
You were talking about people's rights and stated that gay people should just deal with the fact that they can't marry because, hey, incestual couples can't get married either and if they weren't gay, then they could marry whoever.

I won't digress on the homosexuality vs. incest thing because it's dumb, but you still fail to explain why if you believe that homosexuality is wrong from your moral position, that it should not be a right afforded to anybody, even in situations where religion is not involved at all and it merely comes down to a legal arrangement.
And even if a certain church decides to oversee the exchanging of vows, what in god's name (pun intended) does this have to do with anybody else?

[StockdaleforVeep]

I am okay with getting a blowjob in the movie theatre. Not from guys though, that would be gay.

Thats intolerant of you

[SABRSox]

Is this going to be like the time when you kept insisting you were doing nothing wrong by illegally downloading music and movies?

By definition, Stockdale, you are a homophobe if you are afraid of homosexuals, and from what I understand, you live in constant fear of getting hit on by guys. You're also a homophobe if you "disagree with homosexuality." Like fquaye said, it's like disagreeing with brown hair or blue eyes.

Now, if you disagree with gay marriage, in legal terms, that does not make you a homophobe, in and of itself. (If the reason why you disagree with gay marriage is because you disagree with homosexuality, that would make you a homophobe.) That's a position you are entitled to hold.

I disagree with that position, because there should be, under the law, no difference if a man and a woman want to be legally bound, or a man and man, or a woman and a woman. I don't see why religion has anything at all to do with state laws regarding marriage. A marriage license issued by a government has nothing to do with the religious ceremony of marriage.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I am okay with getting a blowjob in the movie theatre. Not from guys though, that would be gay.

No, the post I was referring to actually had nothing to do with the bible or religious beliefs.
You were talking about people's rights and stated that gay people should just deal with the fact that they can't marry because, hey, incestual couples can't get married either and if they weren't gay, then they could marry whoever.

I won't digress on the homosexuality vs. insect thing because it's dumb, but you still fail to explain why if you believe that homosexuality is wrong from your moral position, that it should not be a right afforded to anybody, even in situations where religion is not involved at all and it merely comes down to a legal arrangement.
And even if a certain church decides to oversee the exchanging of vows, what in god's name (pun intended) does this have to do with anybody else?

In nature, two male animals cannot reproduce, nor can 2 female animals reproduce. It requires one of each unless they are animals\insects that have both sex organs and can reproduce by themselves.

The purpose of sex is for reproduction but it feels good so thats why there is BC and condoms(god bless em and yes i get the irony\hypocrisy of that but im not perfect\flawless) So how is it wrong? You cant get someone pregnant by pluggin their butt with semen.
All this hence why I, and maybe others, would say its unnatural, its natural to procreate and continue the species, its extinction if society was Gay, its simple animal kingdom concepts

[fquaye14ten]

the issue of precedence is probably a pretty important one here, as well, i think. correct me if i'm wrong, maurice ?

[SABRSox]

In nature, two male animals cannot reproduce, nor can 2 female animals reproduce. It requires one of each unless they are animals\insects that have both sex organs and can reproduce by themselves.

The purpose of sex is for reproduction but it feels good so thats why there is BC and condoms(god bless em and yes i get the irony\hypocrisy of that but im not perfect\flawless) So how is it wrong? You cant get someone pregnant by pluggin their butt with semen.
All this hence why I, and maybe others, would say its unnatural, its natural to procreate and continue the species, its extinction if society was Gay, its simple animal kingdom concepts
And this has what to do with the laws our government pass?

[StockdaleforVeep]

Is this going to be like the time when you kept insisting you were doing nothing wrong by illegally downloading music and movies?

By definition, Stockdale, you are a homophobe if you are afraid of homosexuals, and from what I understand, you live in constant fear of getting hit on by guys. You're also a homophobe if you "disagree with homosexuality." Like fquaye said, it's like disagreeing with brown hair or blue eyes.

Now, if you disagree with gay marriage, in legal terms, that does not make you a homophobe. That's a position you are entitled to hold.

I disagree with that position, because there should be, under the law, no difference if a man and a woman want to be legally bound, or a man and man, or a woman and a woman. I don't see why religion has anything at all to do with state laws regarding marriage. A marriage license issued by a government has nothing to do with the religious ceremony of marriage.

I dont have fear, i have annoyance and disgust by it. Its not an irrational fear or hatred, its an opinion,and who is anyone to say it is right or wrong.
If i am a homophobe, then alert the friends i have that are gay about this, also, alert hangar for being a cubphobe, yourself for being a bush\republicanphobe and burgh for being a niceguyphobe

And this has what to do with the laws our government pass?

I wasnt discussing it there

I have already stated that i have no problem with civil unions but i have problems with gays marrying in the church.

This convo went from gay marriage to the issue of homosexuality itself.

[3D23]

There's lots of incest in the Bible, so I guess it's okay.


I know you didn't mean it that way, but this made me spit Diet Mt. Dew at work. :rolling:

[BURGH]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/kent_brockman.jpg

It's in Revelations people!

[SABRSox]

Are we talking about gay marriage within churches? I don't think we were. We were talking about granting gay people the same rights straight people enjoy in regard to marriage laws strictly within a framework of local government.

Churches are private institutions, and have the right to make whatever rules they wish. Our government is in the public sphere, and as such there should be no discrimination on marriage based upon sexual orientation.

[StockdaleforVeep]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/kent_brockman.jpg

It's in Revelations people!

93r0PmtjoS8

[1951Campbell]

For Team Stockdale: if incest is such an issue, how do you feel about the fact that first cousins can marry in many states?

For Team SABRSox: Should people in polygamous marriages be granted the same rights and responsibilites as in a two-person marriage?

Show your work.

[3D23]

Start the clock..........................NOW.

[StockdaleforVeep]

For Team Stockdale: if incest is such an issue, how do you feel about the fact that first cousins can marry in many states?

For Team SABRSox: Should people in polygamous marriages be granted the same rights and responsibilites as in a two-person marriage?

Show your work.

I never brought up the incest topic, so i'll let fuller make his stance on that

[SABRSox]

Hmm... I could see potential problems when it comes to pensions and health insurance in regard to someone having multiple partners. That's not exactly fair to whomever is paying those benefits to have to pay for all the partners.

There's also the issue with a lot of polygamous marriages where the wives are nothing but slaves that are bartered and traded, or the relationships are incestuous.

I really don't know a lot about the topic, but I suppose if it were a group of consenting adults, and it was an egalitarian family, I'd have no problem with that. I'm sure, from a legal standpoint, it's complex, specifically in regards to the previously mentioned benefits those wives would be entitled, but like I said, if it's consenting and egalitarian, I have no real issue with it.

Then again, how do you guarantee consent and egalitarianism?

[Unregistered]

http://debate.msu.edu/TeamPics2006/1/Trophy1-web.JPG

Team Stockdale just shit his pants on that one...

[StockdaleforVeep]

http://debate.msu.edu/TeamPics2006/1/Trophy1-web.JPG

Team Stockdale just shit his pants on that one...

You are too funny, and i mean that with all seriousness

[3D23]

In nature, two male animals cannot reproduce, nor can 2 female animals reproduce. It requires one of each unless they are animals\insects that have both sex organs and can reproduce by themselves.


Liar, liar, plants for hire.

Reproductive sciences have come a long way since you last read a science book apparently.

I am surprised no one else busted you on this statement first.

It's called parthenogenesis.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I guess the 400 pound gorilla siiting in this thread is the legislation of morality. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as immoral behaviour. Today, that view has changed. For people who hold the view of absolute truth, that is a problem. Many folks today are moral relativists, so there is no problem with any absolute truths. I concede that gay marriage will become a reality in the very near future. I also concede that in my lifetime, it will be legal to have sex with a consenting child that has reached puberty. The folks who would drop their monocle at such a thought are the same folks who felt the same way about homosexuality 50 years ago. But times will change and so will social mores...

[3D23]

I guess the 400 pound gorilla siiting in this thread is the legislation of morality. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as immoral behaviour. Today, that view has changed. For people who hold the view of absolute truth, that is a problem. Many folks today are moral relativists, so there is no problem with any absolute truths. I concede that gay marriage will become a reality in the very near future. I also concede that in my lifetime, it will be legal to have sex with a consenting child that has reached puberty. The folks who would drop their monocle at such a thought are the same folks who felt the same way about homosexuality 50 years ago. But times will change and so will social mores...


But, 50 years ago, it was perfectly accpetable to force Jim Crowe down our throats......and it was decried as morality. However, I would soundly disagree with your assessment of children as consenting sexual partners.

Hmm... I could see potential problems when it comes to pensions and health insurance in regard to someone having multiple partners. That's not exactly fair to whomever is paying those benefits to have to pay for all the partners.

There's also the issue with a lot of polygamous marriages where the wives are nothing but slaves that are bartered and traded, or the relationships are incestuous.

I really don't know a lot about the topic, but I suppose if it were a group of consenting adults, and it was an egalitarian family, I'd have no problem with that. I'm sure, from a legal standpoint, it's complex, specifically in regards to the previously mentioned benefits those wives would be entitled, but like I said, if it's consenting and egalitarian, I have no real issue with it.

Then again, how do you guarantee consent and egalitarianism?

Hey, I watch Big Love, and they aren't like that at all. ;)

[1951Campbell]

Hmm... I could see potential problems when it comes to pensions and health insurance in regard to someone having multiple partners. That's not exactly fair to whomever is paying those benefits to have to pay for all the partners.

There's also the issue with a lot of polygamous marriages where the wives are nothing but slaves that are bartered and traded, or the relationships are incestuous.
I really don't know a lot about the topic, but I suppose if it were a group of consenting adults, and it was an egalitarian family, I'd have no problem with that. I'm sure, from a legal standpoint, it's complex, specifically in regards to the previously mentioned benefits those wives would be entitled, but like I said, if it's consenting and egalitarian, I have no real issue with it.

Then again, how do you guarantee consent and egalitarianism?

How do you guarantee consent in a conventional marriage? It's a contract, you agree to it.

And egalitarianism? In what regard?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

But, 50 years ago, it was perfectly accpetable to force Jom Crowe down our throats......and it was decried as morality.

But there is no Biblical basis for racism.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Liar, liar, plants for hire.

Reproductive sciences have come a long way since you last read a science book apparently.

I am surprised no one else busted you on this statement first.

It's called parthenogenesis.
Last i heard, it was unproven\unfounded in mammals, only in reptiles, insects and plants

Also i addressed it that animals that are hermaphrodite or self reproduce

[SABRSox]

I was referring to legal egalitarianism. All parties still equal.

As for the contractual part, sounds good to me.

[StockdaleforVeep]

I guess the 400 pound gorilla siiting in this thread is the legislation of morality. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as immoral behaviour. Today, that view has changed. For people who hold the view of absolute truth, that is a problem. Many folks today are moral relativists, so there is no problem with any absolute truths. I concede that gay marriage will become a reality in the very near future. I also concede that in my lifetime, it will be legal to have sex with a consenting child that has reached puberty. The folks who would drop their monocle at such a thought are the same folks who felt the same way about homosexuality 50 years ago. But times will change and so will social mores...

Id agree with that perception, we already have states where age of consent is 16 and such, how much lower will that go

[3D23]

But there is no Biblical basis for racism.

Well, I would have to think Jews/Egyptians was racist, and referenced in the bible, yes?

I also have the same problem with the anglo-saxon view of JC as white. But that's another argument for another day.

[gbergman]

Ha Fags

1C0OloJXUp0

[StockdaleforVeep]

Well, I would have to think Jews/Egyptians was racist, and referenced in the bible, yes?

I also have the same problem with the anglo-saxon view of JC as white. But that's another argument for another day.

One voice, many faces

[3D23]

Last i heard, it was unproven\unfounded in mammals, only in reptiles, insects and plants

Also i addressed it that animals that are hermaphrodite or self reproduce

Well, there is evidence that sharks can do so, as well as turkeys. I am sure there is more if I bothered to search. :shrug:

[Unregistered]

Id agree with that perception, we already have states where age of consent is 16 and such, how much lower will that go

Yeah... how much lower?

:fap:


:bolt:

[StockdaleforVeep]

Well, there is evidence that sharks can do so, as well as turkeys. I am sure there is more if I bothered to search. :shrug:

Sharks are mammals? :omg: :eek:

[3D23]

:rimshot:

For Jeans.

Sharks are mammals? :omg: :eek:


No, but they are not plants, reptiles, or insects as you specified.

[SABRSox]

Why should the Bible be used as reference when making laws? Why not use the Qur'an?

[Dan Mega]

Sheesh people if you're going to present an argument back it up with some references, not just "go read a book" bullshit.

Link (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061223/fob1.asp)

[StockdaleforVeep]

:rimshot:




No, but they are not plants, reptiles, or insects as you specified.

But the issue if its not mammals doing this. Human beings are mammals

Also, if the more efficient way to reproduce would be thru parthenogenesis, then we would have evolved to it by now and not with crude fluid transfer

but its fun!

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Why should the Bible be used as reference when making laws? Why not use the Qur'an?

Check your history

[SABRSox]

Oh, I see. Well, in history, Christians went Crusading in the Holy Land. So that justifies the Iraq war, right?

Once again, why the Bible? Why not the Qur'an, or TV Guide, or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

[3D23]

Sheesh people if you're going to present an argument back it up with some references, not just "go read a book" bullshit.

Link (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061223/fob1.asp)


http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_68.gif

Someone willing to do the leg work. I just remember it from biology and anatomy.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Sheesh people if you're going to present an argument back it up with some references, not just "go read a book" bullshit.

Link (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061223/fob1.asp)

Solo moms have turned up in only 70 vertebrate species. Mammals never reproduce this way, according to the scientific literature.

Never disputed reptile

[3D23]

Criminy.

Slate (http://slate.com/id/2168092/)

Mammals are different. We have a mechanism called imprinting, which foils parthenogenesis. But we've also developed an organ that can foil imprinting: the human brain. A few years ago, scientists produced 10 mice, two of them apparently normal, by manipulating a couple of genes so that eggs could fertilize each other. The scientists predicted "even greater improvements in the efficiency of parthenogenetic development in mice," and they vowed to try next with pigs.

Will we try parthenogenesis in humans? We already have. Biotech companies are rushing to industrialize it, with one claiming "a dominant patent position in the production of human embryonic stem cells by parthenogenesis." The stem-cell version of parthenogenesis can't make babies, but the mouse version might. Theoretically, it would enable two lesbians to create a child—not a clone, but a mixture of genes from each parent, just like you or me.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Criminy.

Slate (http://slate.com/id/2168092/)

Interesting

In my original statement though i was not discussing biotech advances and whatnot. Sure same sex couples can have kids thru technology but in nature it doesnt happen. If you have a pack of wild dogs that are all male, that pack will die off unless a female dog is introduced into the pack. No species of mammal has evolved or shown any form of natural progression to prove same sex reproduction

[gbergman]

I garuntee you have all done something completley gay and this includes you stockdale. When you were younger you tucked your balls and dick between your legs so you could see what it looked like without them

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Oh, I see. Well, in history, Christians went Crusading in the Holy Land. So that justifies the Iraq war, right?

Once again, why the Bible? Why not the Qur'an, or TV Guide, or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Again, Skrip check your history (http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm). There are a lot of resources out there that discuss the truth of The Crusades (http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html)

Don't make me do all of your homework for you. ;)

[3D23]

I garuntee you have all done something completley gay and this includes you stockdale. When you were younger you tucked your balls and dick between your legs so you could see what it looked like without them

Ah, the infamous "hide-a-peetey"

[fquaye14ten]

For Team Stockdale: if incest is such an issue, how do you feel about the fact that first cousins can marry in many states?

For Team SABRSox: Should people in polygamous marriages be granted the same rights and responsibilites as in a two-person marriage?

Show your work.

polygamy is a different situation, but personally i think they should have the right to marry as many people as they want.

we'll cross THAT bridge when we get to it

[Dan Mega]

I'd like the right to marry Wong but I can't :gloomy:

[fquaye14ten]

I guess the 400 pound gorilla siiting in this thread is the legislation of morality. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as immoral behaviour. Today, that view has changed. For people who hold the view of absolute truth, that is a problem. Many folks today are moral relativists, so there is no problem with any absolute truths. I concede that gay marriage will become a reality in the very near future. I also concede that in my lifetime, it will be legal to have sex with a consenting child that has reached puberty. The folks who would drop their monocle at such a thought are the same folks who felt the same way about homosexuality 50 years ago. But times will change and so will social mores...

legislation doesn't legislate "morality"...at least not when the morality at issue is dependent on an appeal to a specific religion's authority

[SABRSox]

Again, Skrip check your history (http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm). There are a lot of resources out there that discuss the truth of The Crusades (http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html)

Don't make me do all of your homework for you. ;)
You're still not answering my question. Is it because there is NO FUCKING REASON why the Bible should ever be consulted or thought of when making laws?

Let me drop some history on you, Fuller: the 1st Ammendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html), specifically:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[3D23]

I'd like the right to marry Wong but I can't :gloomy:


You can't anyhow, we are already bequeathed. We could adopt you though.

[fquaye14ten]

I garuntee you have all done something completley gay and this includes you stockdale. When you were younger you tucked your balls and dick between your legs so you could see what it looked like without them

:rolling:

bergman is fucking awesome!!!!!

[Dan Mega]

You can't anyhow, we are already bequeathed. We could adopt you though.

:dance:

[GaelicSoxFan]

Dunno if this has been mentioned before (and I'm too lazy to go back and check), but the title of this thread sounds like a category on the old "You Don't Know Jack" trivia game.

[fquaye14ten]

You're still not answering my question. Is it because there is NO FUCKING REASON why the Bible should ever be consulted or thought of when making laws?

Let me drop some history on you, Fuller: the 1st Ammendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html), specifically:

well to be frank, that doesn't necessarily say that the bible can't influence legislation (and as a matter of fact, the bible does influence legislation).

nevertheless, to argue that gay marriage should not be legalized because it's a moral issue, you have to prove a moral authority besides

a.) the bible

b.) this asinine bullshit that "gays aren't meant to have children therefore they shouldn't marry"

[StockdaleforVeep]

I garuntee you have all done something completley gay and this includes you stockdale. When you were younger you tucked your balls and dick between your legs so you could see what it looked like without them

no dice

[3D23]

well to be frank, that doesn't necessarily say that the bible can't influence legislation (and as a matter of fact, the bible does influence legislation).

nevertheless, to argue that gay marriage should not be legalized because it's a moral issue, you have to prove a moral authority besides

a.) the bible

b.) this asinine bullshit that "gays aren't meant to have children therefore they shouldn't marry"

a) Why would you want to be Frank? Who is he and he can't possibly be smarter than you. ;)

b) Many, MANY times the Bible has proven to be more of a 'story book' than a literal sense of what actually happened.

c) How about infertile couples who adopt? Does that mean they shouldn't have children either, and therefore should not be married, because they can not procreate?

I don't disagree with Quaye, quite the contrary. Just elaborating with my own thoughts.

[SABRSox]

I was just trying to make the point that using only the Bible as your frame of reference is bullshit. The Qu'ran is just as good, along with Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, the Talmud, etc.

The 1st amendment guarantees that laws will not favor one religion over another.

[Dan Mega]

b) Many, MANY times the Bible has proven to be more of a 'story book' than a literal sense of what actually happened.


Link? Source?

[3D23]

Link? Source?

Actually, when I converted over to Catholicism, the monsignor I did my classes with was really cool, and I asked him everything I could think of. Revelations, Genesis, etc. That was his answer to me; that the Bible is more of a story of the time, some of it social commentary of the time, some of it literal, some of it more derived as a story for lessons that needed to be learned (Revalations). I found his candor to be honest and open, and I appreciated it greatly.

[fquaye14ten]

I was just trying to make the point that using only the Bible as your frame of reference is bullshit. The Qu'ran is just as good, along with Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, the Talmud, etc.

The 1st amendment guarantees that laws will not favor one religion over another.

not necessarily

[Michelle]

I don't think I did. I said that I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. You are making some value judgments on the examples I chose to illustrate boundaries of traditional marriage.
For what it's worth, I understood what you meant by that.

online tough guys are funny...but rest assured stockdale, i would most likely beat you within an inch of your life if you tried any of your fatboy shit
I would pay good money to see that ;)

I won't digress on the homosexuality vs. insect thing because it's dumb
Having sex with insects would be quite dumb.... :D

In nature, two male animals cannot reproduce, nor can 2 female animals reproduce. It requires one of each unless they are animals\insects that have both sex organs and can reproduce by themselves.
This is the basis of your argument? I was wrong. You should be wearing the tinfoil hat, not Henry.

Sure same sex couples can have kids thru technology but in nature it doesnt happen.
Hetero couples have kids through technology too, but in nature that doesn't happen. As 3D23 pointed out, does that mean that couple should never have gotten married, and if so, should they accept to be childless because it's 'God's or Nature's will"? If that's what you're saying, that's a crock. And the last I checked, there was nothing about InVitro Fertilization in the bible. As I said 20 pages back, my own daughter is the product of Assisted Reproduction. Would you tell me it was wrong to mess with Mother Nature?

[Dan Mega]

:rolling:

[StockdaleforVeep]

We've all done gay things when we were kids, most likely. I had a friend with whom showed pee-pees when we were five. I also peed on another one when I was seven.

...and on that note

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/misawa4life/roflbot.jpg

[SABRSox]

not necessarily
Yes, necessarily. Jefferson confirmed as much in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

[maurice]

Infanticide is common among mammals.

Take THAT, anti-abortion activists!

[Dan Mega]

Infanticide is common among mammals.

Take THAT, anti-abortion activists!

So what you're saying is since babies get eaten in nature, its ok for humans to do it.

Gotcha.

[maurice]

Stockdale has shown me the light. Anything a non-human mammal does should be the law and anything a non-human mammal doesn't do should be illegal.

In other news, non-human mammals don't shop at Trader Joes, so that's out.

BTW, don't knock baby-eating until you've tried it. I hear they're delicious.

[Dan Mega]

Stockdale has shown me the light. Anything a non-human mammal does should be the law and anything a non-human mammal doesn't do should be illegal.

In other news, non-human mammals don't shop at Trader Joes, so that's out.

BTW, don't knock baby-eating until you've tried it. I hear they're delicious.

Ah ha, I see what you're saying.

Stockdale, dogs poop on the sidewalk. Can I?

[1951Campbell]

polygamy is a different situation, but personally i think they should have the right to marry as many people as they want.

we'll cross THAT bridge when we get to it

It's 100% inevitable. Book it.

First you couldn't marry interracially. That fell.

Then you couldn't marry someone of the same sex. That will fall.

It is but a short logical leap to conclude that the kind of person you marry is of no more legal importance than the number.

[MSquad]

Jerry Lewis is next for sensitivity training.

[1951Campbell]

I was just trying to make the point that using only the Bible as your frame of reference is bullshit. The Qu'ran is just as good, along with Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, the Talmud, etc.

The 1st amendment guarantees that laws will not favor one religion over another.

But the religious background of We the People influences what laws are passed. The Bible is responsible for a lot of stuff in Anglo-American legal history.

You don't have to like it, but you have to acknowledge the utility of much of it.

Yes, necessarily. Jefferson confirmed as much in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:

Great, a Danbury Baptists letter-quoter. :rolleyes: Is that letter a statute? Part of the Constitution? Part of a Supreme Court decision?

The Northwest Ordinance was passed the same time as the First Amendment in 1789, from the beginning of Article III:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

That certainly seems to "privilege",as they say, religion over atheism, and I wonder if they were thinking of Christians or Hindus?

Anyway, Massachusetts had a taxpayer-supported state religion well into the 1830's. The idea that the Founders intended to "separate" church and state in the exact same manner that is commonly advanced today by secularists and First Amendment hawks is bull. Again, don't have to like it, but don't go all revisionist.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

You're still not answering my question. Is it because there is NO FUCKING REASON why the Bible should ever be consulted or thought of when making laws?

Let me drop some history on you, Fuller: the 1st Ammendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html), specifically:

Are you so naive as to not realize that the Founding Fathers had the Bible as their guiding text? Before each meeting and especially during the Constitutional Convention which deity do you think they prayed to? A) Allah; B) Douglas Adams or C) Jesus Christ

I will give you a few moments to answer.

While you are thinking, I be linking (http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html)

[Prope]

Stockdale has shown me the light. Anything a non-human mammal does should be the law and anything a non-human mammal doesn't do should be illegal.

In other news, non-human mammals don't shop at Trader Joes, so that's out.

BTW, don't knock baby-eating until you've tried it. I hear they're delicious.

Ah ha, I see what you're saying.

Stockdale, dogs poop on the sidewalk. Can I?


Usually don't the fatter, slower animals get eaten first? :thinking:

[SABRSox]

Well Campbell, Danbury did enter jurisprudence in Reynolds v. United States. Ironically enough, that's the same case that upheld the ruling that its constitutional to ban polygamy.

[SABRSox]

And to answer Fuller, considering this is now 2007, and we're beyond the puritan birthing of this nation, why not use the Qu'ran to make laws? Is it not good enough? You're dodging my question, Fuller. If you are so in favor of church involvement in state affairs, why limit it strictly to Christianity?

[gbergman]

Stockdales views represent the far right not the majority of republicans

[maurice]

Are you so naive as to not realize that the Founding Fathers had the Bible as their guiding text?

Guiding what? The text of the constitution obviously was not guided by the text of the Bible.

Yes, most of them were nominally Christians, and so was everybody else in that society (as opposed to our society). Yes, their conception of church-state separation was different than ours, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

It's important to recognize that Jefferson's concept of "Christian" is extremely different from the modern right-wing American's definition of "Christian." By fundie standards, Jefferson was buddies with the anti-Christ.

While you are thinking, I be linking (http://www.creationists.org/churchandstate.html)

This is a link to an article on the homepage of "The Young Earth Creation Club."
:confused:

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1796):
the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

[Pick a name, Buddy]

And to answer Fuller, considering this is now 2007, and we're beyond the puritan birthing of this nation, why not use the Qu'ran to make laws? Is it not good enough? You're dodging my question, Fuller. If you are so in favor of church involvement in state affairs, why limit it strictly to Christianity?

I think I have been very forthright in my answers. But your last sentence is really the stickler. In a secular world, where do you draw the line? Of coors, I know what my answer is, but would I really want to "enforce" that? And that answer, alas, is no...not in this life, anyhow...

Guiding what? The text of the constitution obviously was not guided by the text of the Bible.

Yes, most of them were nominally Christians, and so was everybody else in that society (as opposed to our society). Yes, their conception of church-state separation was different than ours, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

It's important to recognize that Jefferson's concept of "Christian" is extremely different from the modern right-wing American's definition of "Christian." By fundie standards, Jefferson was buddies with the anti-Christ.



This is a link to an article on the homepage of "The Young Earth Creation Club."
:confused:

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1796):

Nominally? You are gonna have to do better than that to slide that one past me, kind sir...

[maurice]

Nominally? You are gonna have to do better than that to slide that one past me, kind sir...

What?

[1951Campbell]

Well Campbell, Danbury did enter jurisprudence in Reynolds v. United States. Ironically enough, that's the same case that upheld the ruling that its constitutional to ban polygamy.

That was about 100 years after the First Amendment.

[3D23]

That was about 100 years after the First Amendment.

Makes mental note- do not argue law with a lawyer.

[1951Campbell]

Makes mental note- do not argue law with a lawyer.

I took a Religious Liberty seminar my last year of law school. :D

[SABRSox]

All I know is I prefer logic and reason when it comes to making laws, not morality based on some religious dogma. That's why gay people should have the right to get married just like straight people do.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Logic and reason are highly over-rated. :cool:

[BURGH]

Campbell's Legal and Shoe Repair

[1951Campbell]

Campbell's Legal and Shoe Repair

I've appeared before every judge in the Commonwealth--often as a lawyer.

[BURGH]

I've appeared before every judge in the Commonwealth--often as a lawyer.


:rock:

I am laughing aloud yet again.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

All I know is I prefer logic and reason when it comes to making laws, not morality based on some religious dogma. That's why gay people should have the right to get married just like straight people do.

I am NEVER voting for you for King!

[SFS04]

I can't believe a topic of mine has garnered this much legitimate discussion!

What about straight couples who marry and plan on NOT having kids ever? Are they just as wrong as gays?

RE: polygamy, I can't wait to see how tax law changes to now rape and pillage the marrieds rather than give them benefits.

[3D23]

I can't believe a topic of mine has garnered this much legitimate discussion!
What about straight couples who marry and plan on NOT having kids ever? Are they just as wrong as gays?

RE: polygamy, I can't wait to see how tax law changes to now rape and pillage the marrieds rather than give them benefits.


Don't bust your arm patting yourself on the back, Kar, it is only due to the idiocy and insanity of Fuller and Stock that it continues.

;)

[SFS04]

There has been some great replies here! :clap:

[SoxFan76]

I'm sorry, I had to skip some posts but this is always a hot topic of discussion so I had to put my 2 cents in.

I don't like the concept of homosexuality. That's what I think. That shouldn't make me a bad person, that's just my opinion. You got a penis and a vagina. Rod A goes into slot B, that is the ways of the world. I know it always hasn't been like this, for example I believe it was the Greeks who exclusively bonded with members of the same sex, only having hetero sex for procreation purposes. But when it all comes down to it, male-female. Animals are the same way, mammals, sea creatures, that's just how it is.

But guess what, gay people are around. They are always going to be around. Maybe not always as out in the open as much as today in our "hip to be gay" society, but it's not going away. So why waste so much time telling people how much you hate it? And this argument guys make "I just don't want them to hit on me", well I have been hit on many gay guys in my time and I find it quite flattering. I politely turn them down and they understand. They're not going to rape me because I'm straight.

Here's my issue though: what's with this flaunting of homo-ness? Metrosexuals, the accent, the clothing, the whole thing. You're gay: fine. But then a lot of gays get pissed how they're singled out and treated like animals because they're gay, yet they purposely make themselves stand out of a crowd practically setting themselves up for ridicule. Why? The gay pride parade doesn't bother me because every group has their parade. Hell, the biggest one of them all is the south side Irish parade.

In conclusion, don't be a faggy homo fag bag. ;)

[soxwon]

All I know is I prefer logic and reason when it comes to making laws, not morality based on some religious dogma. That's why gay people should have the right to get married just like straight people do.

Nope !!!

[SFS04]

what about straight people who :anal:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I'm sorry, I had to skip some posts but this is always a hot topic of discussion so I had to put my 2 cents in.

I don't like the concept of homosexuality. That's what I think. That shouldn't make me a bad person, that's just my opinion.

No, apparently it only makes you an idiot.

So much for tolerance, eh? :rolleyes:

In a world of moral relativism, you can apparently plant your feet firmly in mid-air!

[itsnotrequired]

There has been some great replies here! :clap:

I've kissed a bunch of different dudes in my days Walking the Earth. Now look at how rad I am.

Coincidence?

[SoxFan76]

No, apparently it only makes you an idiot.

So much for tolerance, eh? :rolleyes:

In a world of moral relativism, you can apparently plant your feet firmly in mid-air!

Why, I have to accept everything and if I don't that makes me dumb? Seriously, I know I come off as the dumb college poster and you're Mr. Political, but that was a dumb fucking post.

I am free to disagree with whatever I want.

[3D23]

Why, I have to accept everything and if I don't that makes me dumb? Seriously, I know I come off as the dumb college poster and you're Mr. Political, but that was a dumb fucking post.

I am free to disagree with whatever I want.


Disagree with me and die.

[SFS04]

:classicloftus:

[SoxFan76]

I know people give Stockdale a lot of shit, but he had a legit point earlier in saying I shouldn't be considered some monster because I don't agree with the concept of homosexuality.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Why, I have to accept everything and if I don't that makes me dumb? Seriously, I know I come off as the dumb college poster and you're Mr. Political, but that was a dumb fucking post.

I am free to disagree with whatever I want.

Patrick, that was not directed at you, rather 3D. It was sarcasm (I used black to denote such)

[SoxFan76]

Well for the sake of me still sounding like I'm pissed, let's just keep with teh story that your post was directed at me.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Sounds like a plan!

So like, yeah! Duh!!

[3D23]

I know people give Stockdale a lot of shit, but he had a legit point earlier in saying I shouldn't be considered some monster because I don't agree with the concept of homosexuality.

I am not a MONSTAH!
http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_03_img1147.jpg

[SoxFan76]

Fuller Schettman went from my shit list to the top of my list in a matter of 9 minutes.

[3D23]

Patrick, that was not directed at you, rather 3D. It was sarcasm (I used black to denote such)


I have 9 years to contemplate the ways in which to murder you.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Fuller Schettman went from my shit list to the top of my list in a matter of 9 minutes.

I get that a lot, except in reverse...

[StockdaleforVeep]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/383019753_00ad3ac481_m.jpg
"I'm not offended by homosexuality. In the 60's I made love to many, many women - often outdoors, in the mud and the rain...and it's possible a man slipped in. :shrug: There'd be no way of knowing."