Gay Marriage Ban?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:28 am

Please tell me you didn't just call gays defective Sirian.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:37 am

cops u know I <3 u

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:50 am

Gooberman wrote:cops u know I <3 u

cool.
let's get back to sodomy.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:44 pm

TheCops wrote:the whole thing could be settled if no one was “rewarded” for their personal relationships.

The whole thing could be settled if no one was "rewarded" for stimulating their sexual organs.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

- Sirian

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:24 pm

Sirian wrote:Nature can't make a defect? That's absurd. You are experiencing Political Correctness run amok.

Did I say so? ... checking ... no, I didn't. I just pointed out that your statement (something is a defect if the person would change it if he only could) is not necessarily true. Counterexamples were provided. But I guess it was easier to address this point by reading something into my post that I didn't say.

If you could give them the choice, even if only in hypothetical form, then it becomes a choice.

Who says so?
I might agree that it becomes a hypothetical choice, but not more. And you cannot read anything out of it. Those that would not change have, for instance, had much time to adjust to their "condition", they have changed their live accordingly, are in a happy long-term relationship, and so on. So why should they change *again* and go through all this pain a second time?

Those who are "proud" of being gay are making a choice. Those who are "ashamed" of being gay are making a choice. The choice lies in what they believe, what they think, what they feel, and how they live. Maybe they do not get to choose their urges and attactions, but they can and do choose whether to view their condition as a defect or as an asset.

So? What's the point in this? How i read you: You would rather have that the gays live in shame for the rest of their live than that they find joy in the way they are. I hope I got you wrong ... if yes, then please correct me.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:51 pm

Fusion pimp wrote:I can't speak for most(any?) other married couples.....

I am with Shawn on this one. I have never been seduced by the dark side either........and I'm speaking for 3 married couples since I have been married 3 times.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:29 pm

Pandora wrote:I just pointed out that your statement (something is a defect if the person would change it if he only could) is not necessarily true.

You are arguing with the dictionary. Go back and reread the definition of defect.

Pandora wrote:So why should they change *again* and go through all this pain a second time?

Missing the point.

Pandora wrote:You would rather have that the gays live in shame for the rest of their live than that they find joy in the way they are.

So now you're going to play the victim card for them and pretend that I've launched an assault on their human dignity? Ferno pulled the same stunt.

Pose straw men if you wish. I made my arguments. I see no need to make them again.

- Sirian

Gavotte · Post by **Gavotte** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:09 pm

Avder wrote:I think its a choice. A disturbing choice, but a choice none the less.

Then again, some might say the Christan faith is a disturbing choice.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:12 am

Pandora wrote:
"You would rather have that the gays live in shame for the rest of their live than that they find joy in the way they are."

Many people live in what they may consider shameful circumstances.
Some live in extreme poverty yet we are not expected to give them money.
Some are born with bodily defects that they may consider shameful yet we are not expected to cater and make overt concessions to them.
Some are caught comitting humiliating illegal acts (like stealing from little old ladies) yet we are not expected to show sympathy for their feelings.
Gays lead a lifestyle that is unacceptable to most people. Like other people, gays will have to deal with their circumstances and make the most of it just like other people. In your face activism will not win many supporter nor will it make people sympathetic to their cause.

THE GAME · Post by **THE GAME** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:07 am

Everythin in life is a choice even if its not yours. Like being born is not anyone's choice but the parents and their parents befor them. Your not born to love men and have the disere to marry a men. Every thing in life is choice made of given. Its simple you like girls like girls you like boys like boys dont say your born like that and dont teach that ★■◆● in schools.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:06 am

Uhm... riiiiight...

THE GAME · Post by **THE GAME** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:24 am

I know im right. I know it must be hard for you to understand.

SSX-Thunderbird · Post by **SSX-Thunderbird** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:37 am

That attitude is definitely not a good thing to have in this forum.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:41 am

THE GAME wrote:Everythin in life is a choice even if its not yours. Like being born is not anyone's choice but the parents and their parents befor them.

A totally irrelevant point.

Every thing in life is choice made of given. Its simple you like girls like girls you like boys like boys dont say your born like that and dont teach that **** in schools.

Is english your second language?

I know im right. I know it must be hard for you to understand.

You are right about that, it is hard to understand...you.

KlubMarcus · Post by **KlubMarcus** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:31 am

Zuruck wrote:What's the big deal with it? You people against it, why?

Gays do not continue humanity, they do not create new worshippers, they do not create new customers, they do not create new taxpayers. All gays do is die earlier without children. If you're gay and you have kids, then you are you really gay or indecisive?

Gays are useless from a biological, religious, commercial and governmental standpoint. All they do is take up space. If you're a human who wants your line to end with your generation, then go back into the closet and allow the rest of us to get on with our lives.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:40 am

The more I read here the more convinced I am that we are doomed.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:03 am

KlubMarcus wrote:If you're gay and you have kids, then you are you really gay or indecisive?

i doubt your conceptual definition of "gay" is correct if you are asking this question.

Gays are useless from a biological, religious, commercial and governmental standpoint. All they do is take up space.

religious, commercial, and governmental? that's rediculous. the only enigma in their lives is reproduction, that's it.

and yep, gay ppl are composed of matter - they take up space. i read it in a science journal.

If you're a human who wants your line to end with your generation, then go back into the closet and allow the rest of us to get on with our lives.

yeah, a bit backwards there. it's actually the comming OUTOF the closet which signifies being open about your sexuality. going back into the closet would actually mean forcing yourself to be sexually non-deviant, meaning that secretly-gay people would be having male-female sex (*insert descriptive gestures here*), and making babies.

someone being gay does not infringe on YOUR ability to "get on with your life". if it does, then something is wrong with you.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:59 pm

I would hardly call gays useless from a "biological, religious, commercial, and governmental standpoint".

1) Biology - Are they human beings? Yes. As far as reproduction goes, homosexuality itself does not further the human race, but gays are still living beings that can function on the same intellectual level as the rest of the world (and most definitely higher than yours).

2) Religious - What about being gay makes one religiously useless? If you are so deplorable as to think of it this way, they could be a pariah pointing the way to damnation... but most of us (read: everyone but you) think that gays are perfectly capable of having a fulfilling relationship with God. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, as they say.

3) Commercial - Gays don't buy things? News to me. Dolt.

4) Governmental - All things considered many people believe that the government shouldn't give two shi!ts about someone's sexual orientation. I myself think that sexual orientation matters none, except in the case of marriage, but only because marriage also relies on the biological sex (or gender, but that brings up a whole OTHER topic). Regardless your heterosexuality is just as (ir)relevant to the government as someone's homosexuality.

KlubMarcus, do the rest of the world a favor and keep your trolling mouth shut. I seriously want to believe that you're merely trolling the forums, but I know there are people out there who espouse just the viewpoint you possess, and you make all of us on this side of the fence look like anti-gay-crusading Bible-thumping shotgun-toting tooth-missing Jesus-freaking right-wing fascist-loving nose-picking ignoramuses. I'd prefer not to be labeled as such.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:00 pm

KlubMarcus wrote:Gays do not continue humanity, they do not create new worshippers, they do not create new customers, they do not create new taxpayers.

Who let this idiot into the forum? I thought we had adminstrator approvals for a reason, Xciter.

Go away, little troll. You give Republicans and Texans a bad name.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:17 pm

Why, oh why, did the trolls resurrect this?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:28 pm

Right on, THE GAME!

DCrazy wrote:2) Religious - What about being gay makes one religiously useless? If you are so deplorable as to think of it this way, they could be a pariah pointing the way to damnation... but most of us (read: everyone but you) think that gays are perfectly capable of having a fulfilling relationship with God. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, as they say.

You contradict the Bible, DCrazy: it clearly states that God is against homosexuality. Have you read about the cities of Saddom and Gomorrah? Maybe He made them man and woman just for the heck of it? Homosexuality is a perversion of God's creation.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:09 am

but religion is not limited to christianity.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:35 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Homosexuality is a perversion of God's creation.

or a by-product of dating too many fat chicks.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:36 am

roid wrote:but religion is not limited to christianity.

What does that have to do with anything? Did my show of conviction hurt your delicate sensitivities?

sheepdog · Post by **sheepdog** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:01 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You contradict the Bible, DCrazy: it clearly states that God is against homosexuality. Have you read about the cities of Saddom and Gomorrah? Maybe He made them man and woman just for the heck of it? Homosexuality is a perversion of God's creation.

Thorne,
Do you believe everything that the bible says? Do you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale or that Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt?

I'm sure that there's a kazillion things in the bible that you would think was bunk, so why this selection of Soddom and Gommorah and gays as god's own truth? I think you are going to the bible for this because it conveniently supports your homophobia.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:48 am

no thorne, the original troll from KlubMarcus was that gays and religion don't go together.
but you guys are talking about the bible and stuff as if she said "christianity and gay's don't go together".

which she didn't.

are you also going to assume that "governmental" means democratic?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:56 am

More to the topic. Seems two lesbians got "married". One was artificially insemminated and had a child. Now the two adults are "divorced". Here's where it gets interesting. The non biological partner wants custodial rights of the child based on the fact she was married to the bilogical mother even though she is not biologically related. So you be the judge and figure out what to do regarding the child.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:06 am

haha, wow.

well i guess this is why they have evidence at the trial and don't make the desision based on our uneducated guesstimate posts to a forum

.

with nothing else to go on, i think the biological mother should have a little more "right" to keep her biological child. i'm a believer that blood relations are very important. but in reality i'm sure the evidence presented at the case will (and should) sway the matter more than just my little preference.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:20 am

sheepdog wrote:Thorne,
Do you believe everything that the bible says? Do you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale or that Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt?

I'm sure that there's a kazillion things in the bible that you would think was bunk, so why this selection of Soddom and Gommorah and gays as god's own truth? I think you are going to the bible for this because it conveniently supports your homophobia.

Anyone who calls themself a Christian and doesn't believe everything the Bible/word of God says is in a very unusual, and, by definition, unstable position.
I really cringe at your last sentence, where you assume that my position is based soley on a fear of homosexuality, and that I'm foolish enough to take a convenience in an arguement (that really goes against my grain). I decided a long time ago that I didn't want to win an argument just to win--I'd rather be right than right, if you know what I mean. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. And maybe there is fear there, but it's not unreasoning fear, it's not a fear of the unknown or of change (you know what I mean)... homosexuality is a place where people just shouldn't go... I'm afraid for a society that legitimizes something as backwards as same-sex relationships. A women was meant for a man, and a man for a woman... if people learn and teach the compromisation of something so basic, what hope is there for anything else?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:54 am

roid wrote:no thorne, the original troll from KlubMarcus was that gays and religion don't go together.
but you guys are talking about the bible and stuff as if she said "christianity and gay's don't go together".

which she didn't.

are you also going to assume that "governmental" means democratic?

Ok, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I take it back! I was only answering DCrazy, and I thought you were answering me.

I might ask--and I'm not targetting roid with this--what is the point of arguing multiple sides of a subject? I believe I've noticed that it's a tendency with some people to move around and argue something from various positions... what the hell? Is there a multiple personality disorder going around? Someone will probably make me regret posing this as a question, but there you have it.

sheepdog · Post by **sheepdog** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:01 pm

Anyone who calls themself a Christian and doesn't believe everything the Bible/word of God says is in a very unusual, and, by definition, unstable position.

Seriously? You believe every word of the bible to be literally true? I thought that was a sort of liberal urban myth created to scare children into voting, "Listen son, you better turn off the TV and vote or the people whe believe that Noah put all the animals in the ark are going to elect the next president."

C'mon Thorne quitcha kiddin' around!

sheepdog · Post by **sheepdog** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:04 pm

woodchip wrote:More to the topic. Seems two lesbians got "married". One was artificially insemminated and had a child. Now the two adults are "divorced". Here's where it gets interesting. The non biological partner wants custodial rights of the child based on the fact she was married to the bilogical mother even though she is not biologically related. So you be the judge and figure out what to do regarding the child.

Same as I would with the children of different gender partners. My kids are adopted so neither one of us can lay any genetic claim to them. What would you do with them if we got divorced? Set them free on open range?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:59 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I might ask--and I'm not targetting roid with this--what is the point of arguing multiple sides of a subject? I believe I've noticed that it's a tendency with some people to move around and argue something from various positions... what the hell? Is there a multiple personality disorder going around? Someone will probably make me regret posing this as a question, but there you have it.

It's called analysis, Thorne. When making rational judgments, you consider all points of view, and make critical statements against any position you can possibly take. The least damaged position wins.

Examples of bad (irrational, uninformed) thinking follow:
- Person X has white skin, therefore he must be better than Person Y who has black skin because "that's just the way it is." (Argument against: Why is it the way it is? It's because people like Person Y have created the environment in which Person X is inferior. -- Circular logic)

- Person X has black skin, which automatically makes him disadvantaged and deserving of aid, because everyone knows black people are poorer than white people. (Argument against: Are poor people black, or are black people poor? Are black people necessarily poor? Does their skin color affect their economic situation, or even vice versa? -- Causality)

- Homosexuals are bad, because the Bible tells me so. (Argument against: what if the Bible isn't what you think it is? What if it's completely wrong? What if there is no God?)

Before you say "but there must be a God!", what has caused you to believe that? Most likely, belief in God and being taught to believe in God have taught you that you must believe in God. That's called "blind faith." Here's the train of thought:

1. God said something, and God's word is infallible.
2. What if there is no God?
3. But there must be a God, because God said so. (Back to Step 1)

Analysis is dependent on the ability to free the thought process from the restraints formed by the process being criticized/analyzed. Believing that the Bible MUST be believed literally 100% because the Bible (or more accurately, interpreters thereof) says so is simply self-serving and ultimately useless. Even if you don't -- at the moment -- agree with a certain viewpoint, you must be able to escape your own mindset in order to truly validate your own feelings. Sometimes this means temporarily abandoning the idea of God. If that scares you, just think about why.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:24 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I might ask--and I'm not targetting roid with this--what is the point of arguing multiple sides of a subject? I believe I've noticed that it's a tendency with some people to move around and argue something from various positions... what the hell? Is there a multiple personality disorder going around?

It's called keeping an open mind. Closed-minded people are the bane of human existence, not homosexuals. People who let a book dictate their every belief, or who believe "I'm right because I'm right" subscribe to an unbelievably simple logic that gracefully ignores the complexity of the real world.

Maybe you'd like to live in a world where your God is the only God and where everyone treats the Bible as gospel and the truth. Unfortunately, you don't live in such a world. There are many competiting religions and not everyone agrees with the Bible. That doesn't make them heathens, it makes them different. At some point, it boils down entirely to tolerance. Do you accept that things may be different, or do you go on pretending that you're right, they're wrong, and that's just the way it is?

The rampant polarization of this country politically is because people have become increasingly like you. Just replace "I'm" with "My party's." We don't have nearly enough people in the country who can analyze arguments. Instead, they seek refuge in simple binary logic.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:28 am

Banning gay marriage makes absolutely no sense. at all. you gotta wonder about people who support this. I tend to believe they're homophobic. but of course they won't admit to it. they'll look bad to their peers and church groups if they do.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:47 pm

It seems everyone on here has the smug view that they know it all. WE DON'T.

There is oodles of evidence that there IS a God. Mountains of it. A universe of it. Dcrazy, if you're gonna complain about circular logic, how about this:

There is matter. How did it get there? It's always been there. But how did it get to always be there? It's always been there.

Eh? Am I the only one that sees that both of these points of view are using somewhat circular logic?

I do not let a "book" dictate my every belief. My every belief is founded on God's Word. If you believe it's "just another book", I'm sorry for you. It is not just a book; it's the most-sold, most-published, most-produced, most-translated "book" in the world.

About everyone's smug little "different, not bad" theology: People who kill others are different. Does that make them bad?

Also, everyone on this earth is "different". Thus, by simple logic, we all have something in common: we are different. Therefore, we are similar in that respect.

I believe every word of the Bible. There are a few parts, such as many of Jesus' parables, that are figurative because HE TOLD THEM AS FIGURATIVE STORIES. The rest is quite clearly literal. The story of "Jonah and the whale" is quite clearly misnamed. The Bible never said Jonah was swallowed by a whale; it said he was swallowed by a "giant fish". There's a difference.

Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? Why the heck not? You're dealing with an infinite God that created the universe. He can probably make salt statues.

Kazillion things in the Bible that you would think was bunk? Bad grammar, (;)) bad theology. The Bible is the Word of God; it has no reason or need to lie.

I'm with Thorne on this one. But I think both sides need to step back and smell the hypocrasy--it's emanating from some of you like the smell of dead fish. Neither is pleasant.

I don't claim to know it all. I do the best I can with my own logic. But sheepdog, if you believe in one part of the Bible, how can you not believe in another? The whole purpose of the Bible is to tell a story--the story of Jesus' death, resurrection, and the future glory to come. If you do not believe in one part of this story, the entire story seems to become very unstable. If one part of the Bible is wrong, who's to say that one of the gospels isn't wrong? Genesis? Romans? Once you start thinking that "well, this part can't be right" you put yourself on a slope that eventually leads to the conclusion that none of it can be right.

Homophobia? Get over it guys. I don't think any of us are afraid of gays because of their sexuality--if anything, gays are to be feared because of the militant radicalism that rewrites out school textbooks, attempts to erase our national heritage, and threatens to destroy the whole concept of democracy. Gays need to get over their heterophobia, if anything. They have freedom to do whatever they like--just don't thrust yourself in front of us and tell us that you need special privilidges and rights because you perform unnatural acts with another homo.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:06 pm

Stryker, your kind isn't taken to kindly around these parts.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:36 pm

jesus loves you everyone else thinks youre an ★■◆●.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:43 pm

Stryker wrote:It is not just a book; it's the most-sold, most-published, most-produced, most-translated "book" in the world.

When it comes down to it the bible was written by man and interpreted by man which ultimately makes it fallible. All those things you listed does not add up to making any book a more factual document.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:51 pm

And thus, I garner the typical hoard of liberal, anti-christian, and/or "you're an idiot" posts.

At least tyranny makes an attempt to dispute my points... It's kinda fun arguing with him.

About that... yes, it was written by men--but by men the likes of which have never been seen since. These people were filled with the Holy Spirit when they wrote their books--and the Holy Spirit was telling them what to write. When a table saw cuts a 2x4, do we say the table saw has built our fence for us? No, the table saw was a tool used to build the fence. So we say it is with the Bible--the humans who wrote it are the tools of God.

Gay Marriage Ban?

Re: Gay Marriage Ban?

Re: Gay Marriage Ban?

Re: Gay Marriage Ban?