Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

There are only two arguments against homosexuality.

Religion.
Nature.

The former is homophobic and the latter is uninformed.

At 4/8/09 07:06 PM, fli wrote:

Priests aren't being forced to marry gay couples.
The fight is for the secular marriage-- done at the courts.

Gays will still have their legal rights, and the organized religions will still have their right of religion-- by denying them in their own places of worship.

but under no circumstance should organized religions be allowed to extend their power of authority to a government that MUST be compelled to serve all citizens equally.

Is that a no? This is a big issue. Proposition 8 got blocked pretty much because the various groups said that gay rights activists would invade their churches and their schools, removing the tax exempt status of churches, closing down christian adoption services that refused to give children, and forcefully teaching their children about gay marriage against their will. What's your view on that? Should the government be compelled to support gay rights as they get what they desire from social organizations, and tax or fire anyone who disagrees?

I will attest, as a gay man, that gays do need marriage. Just the other day, a lesbian mother was going to be deported because she can't legally marry her wife of 20 years. And they've been raising children for 12 years.

And thought out the years, gays have been cheated of their inheritances, paid extra for insurance, not been able to be legal guardians to their families. All because they can't get married.

And, honey-- all men are dogs.
But that doesn't mean gay men can't be monogamous. I've seen marraiges between men last over 50 years and they've never cheated. I was in a monogamous relationship for almost 10 years before we parted our ways.

But abolishing gays because they may or may not be monogamous?
c'mon...........

The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States study gives a figure of 42.8 sexual partners on average for homosexual men, and 16.5 for heterosexual men. From psychological reports and surveys, there's ample evidence that gay men have a lot more sex. You yourself I can't take as an example, because you're a person on the internet, and people on the internet frequently lie about their sexual habits. I'm british, and from what I know of London, the gay scene is quite promiscuous. There are bath houses that you can just go into, look at a gay man, and have sex with him, and a host of swingers. I know I couldn't do that with the average woman, nor could most men.

I'd suggest they move to a state with more lax immigration laws. I don't really know much or care about whatever immigration laws various states have, nor do I know anything about her case. I support gay marriage for lesbians, and I believe it's probably wrong to deport anyone who's lived in the country for twenty years as they probably have a good grasp of how to be a citizen, though she should have applied for citizenship.

My heart breaks at your plight. Try writing clearer inheritances, reforming insurance law, and convincing everyone you know to stay with their partners for ten years like you.

I feel so indignant,
I'm gonna stop right here....

Bye then.

At 4/8/09 07:37 PM, Ytaker wrote: Is that a no? This is a big issue. Proposition 8 got blocked pretty much because the various groups said that gay rights activists would invade their churches and their schools, removing the tax exempt status of churches, closing down christian adoption services that refused to give children, and forcefully teaching their children about gay marriage against their will. What's your view on that? Should the government be compelled to support gay rights as they get what they desire from social organizations, and tax or fire anyone who disagrees?

First off,
a VARIETY of newspapers, including the Mercury News, said that many of their claims were false... and in fact, the proponents of Prop 8 were forced to stop spreading those lies-- although there was no way of them from manipulating children. They were about to get sued for saying false things-- their credibility went down hill.

What is more, they're mixing other issues that weren't even part of the gay marriage debate. For example, teaching children about gay marriage? That came from one specific case about a library who decided to keep King and King in the school library against their parents wishes.

That whole issue was about library school policies, censorship, and any other thing. But gay marriage? It was never that debate until the members of the Mormon churched mixed it up.

And why?
well, the debate works better for their side when you use emotional appeal, fear, and cute innocent children as the vocal piece of an exaggerated claim that borders on complete falsehood.

Forcing kids to learn gay marriage? Schools even said that they would do that thing!
However, these religious organizations get sooooo uptight when you say, "Don't discriminate anyone, not for their color of skin, gender, or sexuality..."

And then they exaggerate the claim to, "Schools are saying it's okay to be gay! And if you vote against prop 8, you vote for school's teaching children sodomy!"

Facts:
Voting against Prop 8 would had never done anything to the school. Even very head up, the people who write the curriculum that teachers have to teach, said the same thing.

Religious organizations would still have the right to not marry homosexual couples.
Religious organizations would never get fined or go to jail for speaking out against homosexuality in general.

In fact, that debate came from the passage of the Matthew Shepard's Law from last year or two-- where extended the law that said, "You can't discriminate based on sexuality." Many organized churches took this as a message that they're gonna be jailed. But guess what??? A year or two passed since then... no priest has gone to jail because of that. (Although, I'm sure many have been for either molesting children... or other misdeeds. But definitely not for saying gays will go to hell, that's for sure.)

The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States study gives a figure of 42.8 sexual partners on average for homosexual men, and 16.5 for heterosexual men. From psychological reports and surveys, there's ample evidence that gay men have a lot more sex. You yourself I can't take as an example, because you're a person on the internet, and people on the internet frequently lie about their sexual habits. I'm british, and from what I know of London, the gay scene is quite promiscuous. There are bath houses that you can just go into, look at a gay man, and have sex with him, and a host of swingers. I know I couldn't do that with the average woman, nor could most men.

Having an open or closed relationship in a marriage still doesn't change the fact that many gays still need a legal marriage to conduct their lives in a way that's normal to a heterosexual couple.

What baring does one promiscuous man hold to another guy who's faithful?
It shouldn't, but it does.

And guess what???
Promiscuous people, in general, don't want to marry and have families. Their minds are on other things. And even if they do marry, who cares.

Is that any of your business? Or anyone else???
It seems to me the matters and doings of private lives and relationships should be only belong to those who live them. Not you, or me.

So you're a Brit and have seen the gay scene from the side lines. Guess what?
I live in the second most populated gay city, San Jose, and I live south of San Francisco. I've worked in a gay bar, and been to a bath house.

But I also know you havn't seen the bigger pictures. Seeing a gay man go in a bar isn't the same thing as watching a gay family.

They raise children together. They cook, clean, argue, go to the movies, live, sleep, and die together. With one exception-- they don't have a law to help them. So when small ordeals for a hetero family happens... it's a big one for gay family.

For example, in the most recent news their is the situation with Shirley Tan and her lesbian wife, Jaylynn "Jay" Mercado. They've been together for 20 years, and are raising two children. They're married in the sense that they have a family and home. Problem-- ICE wants to deport Tan because she's not a citizen. But if she married her partner, she wouldn't be facing this problem.

And yet, if the same thing happened to a hetero couple... they could marry and that's that.
Why should the law discriminate against Shirley Tan???

Because a few statistics say that some gay people are very promiscuous (which, BTW, are out dated, and the journal doesn't exist anymore other than in yellowing rubbish piles, partly because other scientists consigned them to those places.)

I'd suggest they move to a state with more lax immigration laws. I don't really know much or care about whatever immigration laws various states have, nor do I know anything about her case. I support gay marriage for lesbians, and I believe it's probably wrong to deport anyone who's lived in the country for twenty years as they probably have a good grasp of how to be a citizen, though she should have applied for citizenship.

How can you have one set of laws for one sort of people, and then another for another sort of people? This is discrimination.

What is more, it's illogical.

My heart breaks at your plight. Try writing clearer inheritances, reforming insurance law, and convincing everyone you know to stay with their partners for ten years like you.

How clearer can you get?
Gays have spent several thousands of dollars for lawyers that specialize. Gays shouldn't be when the government has to treat everyone equally.

I feel so indignant,
I'm gonna stop right here....

Bye then.

At 4/8/09 08:53 PM, fli wrote: First off,
a VARIETY of newspapers, including the Mercury News, said that many of their claims were false... and in fact, the proponents of Prop 8 were forced to stop spreading those lies-- although there was no way of them from manipulating children. They were about to get sued for saying false things-- their credibility went down hill.

Their supposed lies that they were forced to stop spreading are still on the web, so I doubt they are lies. Irrelevant, as to whether you think it would be a good idea to withdraw government aid. From what I've seen, my view is that there are probably incidents where very young people are exposed excessively to some form of oversexualised propaganda, as a result of the individual initiative of teachers, and that most schools aren't that sympathetic of parents beliefs, because they want to prevent discrimination against gay people.

That whole issue was about library school policies, censorship, and any other thing. But gay marriage? It was never that debate until the members of the Mormon churched mixed it up.

I don't know who exactly was behind the various efforts. It probably wasn't only the mormon church. Substantially larger organizations were at the core, such as the catholic church. I know little of the exact details, but it seems unlikely that those things would be at the core of their argument if they were the only people who believed in it. Law orders like this come with attitudes, such as banning discrimination against those couples, which these people don't particularly want to do.

And why?
well, the debate works better for their side when you use emotional appeal, fear, and cute innocent children as the vocal piece of an exaggerated claim that borders on complete falsehood.

Or because they believe that it's true, and if you want to change their minds, perhaps calling them liars isn't that helpful, as hate isn't an effective way to convince people you are right.

Forcing kids to learn gay marriage? Schools even said that they would do that thing!
However, these religious organizations get sooooo uptight when you say, "Don't discriminate anyone, not for their color of skin, gender, or sexuality..."

And then they exaggerate the claim to, "Schools are saying it's okay to be gay! And if you vote against prop 8, you vote for school's teaching children sodomy!"

Given that one of the major organisations supporting the vote was black churches, they can't afford to discriminate on skin colour, and generally don't. While the catholic church mostly avoids placing women in leadership roles in the church, they otherwise don't discriminate against them. If they did make that extreme claim about sodomy, then they are clearly wrong.

:(truncated) Many organized churches took this as a message that they're gonna be jailed. But guess what??? A year or two passed since then... no priest has gone to jail because of that. (Although, I'm sure many have been for either molesting children... or other misdeeds. But definitely not for saying gays will go to hell, that's for sure.)

So you would oppose a gay man who sued a church for not marrying him? Good. I have heard gay friends of mine say that people like those that sued e-harmony for not letting them have gay dates were crazy. The more gay people who oppose other gay people who want to do these things the better.

I've checked the statistics, and they thankfully have a lower rate of pedophilia than the general populace. And most of their abuse was concentrated in the teenage age band.

I read an article on a catholic site recently. Someone did research, and they knew about the problem since the 1980s, I think. They thought the priests could be rehabilitated.

Having an open or closed relationship in a marriage still doesn't change the fact that many gays still need a legal marriage to conduct their lives in a way that's normal to a heterosexual couple.

What baring does one promiscuous man hold to another guy who's faithful?
It shouldn't, but it does.

The government doesn't care that you love your partner. It cares that you raise a child well, send them to school, and make a new good soldier or lawyer or whatever. Promiscuous relations are far less stable than monogomous ones, as either partner can easily fall in love with another.

And guess what???
Promiscuous people, in general, don't want to marry and have families. Their minds are on other things. And even if they do marry, who cares.

Is that any of your business? Or anyone else???
It seems to me the matters and doings of private lives and relationships should be only belong to those who live them. Not you, or me.

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Yes it is, because those people raise children, and get stds, and get partners that abuse said children.

So you're a Brit and have seen the gay scene from the side lines. Guess what?
I live in the second most populated gay city, San Jose, and I live south of San Francisco. I've worked in a gay bar, and been to a bath house.

But I also know you havn't seen the bigger pictures. Seeing a gay man go in a bar isn't the same thing as watching a gay family.

They raise children together. They cook, clean, argue, go to the movies, live, sleep, and die together. With one exception-- they don't have a law to help them. So when small ordeals for a hetero family happens... it's a big one for gay family.

For example, in the most recent news their is the situation with Shirley Tan and her lesbian wife, Jaylynn "Jay" Mercado. They've been together for 20 years, and are raising two children. They're married in the sense that they have a family and home. Problem-- ICE wants to deport Tan because she's not a citizen. But if she married her partner, she wouldn't be facing this problem.

And yet, if the same thing happened to a hetero couple... they could marry and that's that.
Why should the law discriminate against Shirley Tan???

It shouldn't, she's a lesbian, and known by the government to not be especially promiscuous. If she was a gay man, and commonly bringing men to her home who sexually abused his two children, it would be different. She should have gotten a citizen test, anyway. Silly lady. She's been very lucky.

Because a few statistics say that some gay people are very promiscuous (which, BTW, are out dated, and the journal doesn't exist anymore other than in yellowing rubbish piles, partly because other scientists consigned them to those places.)

I can feel your hate for the statistics. But the maths doesn't lie, I'm afraid. It's a very well respected piece. http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/FAQ .html Kinsey uses it, and they're really not homophobic.

How can you have one set of laws for one sort of people, and then another for another sort of people? This is discrimination.

What is more, it's illogical.

Discrimination is not inherently bad. Discrimination is bad when it's based on false characteristics, such as skin colour. Or, say, whether or not a fireman will rescue you depending on your sexuality. Otherwise, it's just a way of making society efficient, and optimising the limited resources, say, marriage.

My heart breaks at your plight. Try writing clearer inheritances, reforming insurance law, and convincing everyone you know to stay with their partners for ten years like you.

How clearer can you get?
Gays have spent several thousands of dollars for lawyers that specialize. Gays shouldn't be when the government has to treat everyone equally.

And you're trying to do the last, and most important bit, convince your gay friends that it's good to say no, right? Since you're very monogamous.

If people act differently, the government should treat them differently.

At 4/8/09 10:32 PM, Ytaker wrote: Their supposed lies that they were forced to stop spreading are still on the web [...]

First, to teach anti-discrimination is a far step from calling it support for gay marriage. And like I said, several major news papers and the whole education system said their claims were false.

If you can't believe what came out of the horse's mouth, then what can you?

Although now the initiative has passed, it wouldn't matter now if they said those claims... they were scared during the election about being sued and having the measure thrown out.

that tells people exactly what sort of people they were.

I don't know who exactly was behind the various efforts [...]

The money came from Utah mostly, from the Church of Latter Day Saints. Surely you had to hear about the protests, they were massive.

the Catholic Church also pushed for this, but they didn't any money (or at least, not on the massive scale like the LDS.)

Or because they believe that it's true, and if you want to change their minds, perhaps calling them liars isn't that helpful, as hate isn't an effective way to convince people you are right.

Believing what's true and know what's true are different things. Fact is that schools weren't going to be forced to teach gay marriage to children, and organized religions would still have their right to marry who they wanted to.

Calling them what they are is only fair when their campaign showed gay people as deviants who want to corrupt children-- in fact, that's going way light on them.

But gay people had a thing called dignity...

So you would oppose a gay man who sued a church for not marrying him? Good. I have heard gay friends of mine say that people like those that sued e-harmony for not letting them have gay dates were crazy. The more gay people who oppose other gay people who want to do these things the better.

We already got churches who accept gay people for their congregation like Metropolitan Community Church.

Like I said, the fight for marriage has always been for a secular marriage. Church fears about sued for not marrying gays is completely unfounded.

The government doesn't care that you love your partner. It cares that you raise a child well, send them to school, and make a new good soldier or lawyer or whatever. Promiscuous relations are far less stable than monogomous ones, as either partner can easily fall in love with another.

Like I said before. Promiscuous people do not neither marry nor have families on purpose. If you see the news, the people who push for gay marriage are couples who have been together for several years-- at times decades. And these are family people, a lot of them with children.

Why should they suffer for another person's faults?

It shouldn't, she's a lesbian, and known by the government to not be especially promiscuous. If she was a gay man, and commonly bringing men to her home who sexually abused his two children, it would be different. She should have gotten a citizen test, anyway. Silly lady. She's been very lucky.

And what if it were men instead?
Because there are men who are just like them. They've cultivated a relationship that's several years old, worked for a place to stay, and raise children together.

Whether one person is a lesbian and the other is gay should be irrelevant.

Discrimination is not inherently bad. Discrimination is bad when it's based on false characteristics, such as skin colour. Or, say, whether or not a fireman will rescue you depending on your sexuality. Otherwise, it's just a way of making society efficient, and optimising the limited resources, say, marriage.

And you're trying to do the last, and most important bit, convince your gay friends that it's good to say no, right? Since you're very monogamous.

Used to be monogamous. When I was with my ex-husband, I hadn't been with anyone else. And these were the prime years of my life... when I was very hot and very young.

If people act differently, the government should treat them differently.

I'm not sure how it's done in England, but in the US-- we have the Constitution, and it's supposed to uphold fundamental rights. And one of them is that all men are equal.

And maybe it's true on a technicality that not all people are equal. This man will be tall, the other will be short. That one will be poor, and the other rich.

But under the law, everyone is equal. Equal treatment, and equal punishment (if needed.)
And I could say it's just being compassionate and moral... but I go for what's most practical.

I pay taxes, and so does everyone else. Therefore, why should the government treat gays differently when they're taking their money to fund and expand their body?

At 4/9/09 01:42 AM, fli wrote: I'm not sure how it's done in England, but in the US-- we have the Constitution, and it's supposed to uphold fundamental rights. And one of them is that all men are equal.

Before anyone else pops in and tell the inevitable, yes--I KNOW--"All men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence.

I was trying to tell the fundamental rights that we believe in as a whole... and our laws in general should strive to show that principal.

There is nothing that should prevent Gays from getting married. If they want to be as miserable as every other Married Hetero couple, by all means LET 'EM! They are hurting no one. The Idea that it's the Christian Ideal is bullshit, the exact same thing was once said by the same bigots about slavery and interracial marriage. There is absolutely nothing in the new testament to indicate anything against gays. These statewide bans of gay marriage and pushing for a constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is Un American!

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is exactly what America was founded on. The purpose of a constitution is to give rights, not take them away.

At 4/9/09 01:42 AM, fli wrote:

First, to teach anti-discrimination is a far step from calling it support for gay marriage. And like I said, several major news papers and the whole education system said their claims were false.

If you can't believe what came out of the horse's mouth, then what can you?

Newspapers tend to be fairly biased. They normally appeal to a single type of reader, generally liberals. In recent years, it's been recognised that their quality of reporting has gone down substantially with cost cutting, with them having far less time to assemble their articles. They particularly failed in the Iraq war, just repeating what the government told them. And in the Y2000 bug reporting. Nor do I particularly trust schools with a vested interest in saying that they are good.

I doubt we can easily resolve this. My sources and news articles have focused mostly on negative incidents, such as teaching students to fist and tribald in outright vermont. I can't see any easy way to work out how prevalent or how uncommon such incidents are. Regardless, I suspect that parents who have an existing animus against gay marriage will probably have material to support their animus. As such, some efforts to make them happy would be useful. I've heard talk of trading gay marriage legislation support for religious freedom protection legislation by prominent members of both groups.

Although now the initiative has passed, it wouldn't matter now if they said those claims... they were scared during the election about being sued and having the measure thrown out.

that tells people exactly what sort of people they were.

I don't know who exactly was behind the various efforts [...]

The money came from Utah mostly, from the Church of Latter Day Saints. Surely you had to hear about the protests, they were massive.

Googling it, about 15 million, mostly from individuals. Quite interesting. The individual people supported it. Anyway, half of the money came from other sources. I know that mormoms are generally far more likely to donate money to charitable causes, from most sources. Regardless, they're only about 2-4% of voters. I have doubts about the effects of money on campaigning, to swing a vote more than a small percentage.

the Catholic Church also pushed for this, but they didn't any money (or at least, not on the massive scale like the LDS.)

They still donated quite a few million. Knights of colombus, on its own, donated a million, i know.

Believing what's true and know what's true are different things. Fact is that schools weren't going to be forced to teach gay marriage to children, and organized religions would still have their right to marry who they wanted to.

I suspect they'd teach gay marriage willingly, but again, know little about the precise details. And if the organized religions feared not being able to exercise their freedom, them some protection laws could be very helpful.

Calling them what they are is only fair when their campaign showed gay people as deviants who want to corrupt children-- in fact, that's going way light on them.

But gay people had a thing called dignity...

If you view homosexuality as a bad thing, it's understandable that they'd view the schools teaching it as bad. To my knowledge, they didn't claim that the majority of gay people were pedophiles, or anything like that.

I mean, here, where one pulled the hitler card. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_VZoqKQC Tw he didn't say the gay people were as bad as nazis, he just said that their church was being attacked in a nazi like manner. When they're worst, they're still not calling gay people pedophiles.

We already got churches who accept gay people for their congregation like Metropolitan Community Church.

Like I said, the fight for marriage has always been for a secular marriage. Church fears about sued for not marrying gays is completely unfounded.

hurrah, gay churches.

I doubt it's completely unfounded. One of my lesbian friends talked about her desire to end tax exemption for churches, because they spent too much on themselves. Quite a few seem to already have generally negative views on churches. I generally don't trust people to be mature. As such, I can understand their fears, and can see easy ways to resolve them. The fact that, after the campaign, mormon churches received terroristy threats like anthrax scares, and that people who donated got tracked down and hurt means I don't think gay rights activists are that mature.

Like I said before. Promiscuous people do not neither marry nor have families on purpose. If you see the news, the people who push for gay marriage are couples who have been together for several years-- at times decades. And these are family people, a lot of them with children.

Why should they suffer for another person's faults?

Marriage offers substantial financial and legal benefits. Why aren't these promiscuous people marrying? If I was to guess, if same sex marriage was legalized, some straight students may well marry each other for the financial benefits. My memory of the marriages in the news, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, who divorced two years after being granted the right to gay marriage. Their child is now in the hurly burly of short term girlfriends.

Anyway, many of the people suffering will be the children, who are suffering for other's desire for sex and lack of desire for monogomy.

And what if it were men instead?
Because there are men who are just like them. They've cultivated a relationship that's several years old, worked for a place to stay, and raise children together.

Whether one person is a lesbian and the other is gay should be irrelevant.

Should be, but sadly, the vast majority of gay men have made it relevant with high levels of sexual activity. I read a worrying report by a doctor a while back. He said that his gay patients were increasingly more willing to sleep outside and have bareback sex because of the prevalence of HIV antivirals. This affects me, as bisexuals sleep with them, and transmit the disease to the heterosexual population. In as much as they are in the media, it reflects on love badly.

Used to be monogamous. When I was with my ex-husband, I hadn't been with anyone else. And these were the prime years of my life... when I was very hot and very young.

You're not any more? That's unfortunate. Long term love has major benefits over short time sex.

And maybe it's true on a technicality that not all people are equal. This man will be tall, the other will be short. That one will be poor, and the other rich.

Short men can't be in parts of the army as all soldiers have to be tall and strong. In the UK, there have been several cases where tall people have wanted to enlarge their homes so they bump their heads less, and have been refused on health and safety grounds. 50% of poor people get more money from the government than they pay it. Poor people are punished for crimes more than rich people regardless of innocence because they're less good with the law. There's both bad and good discrimination against all of those groups.

But under the law, everyone is equal. Equal treatment, and equal punishment (if needed.)

Hahaha, good joke.

And I could say it's just being compassionate and moral... but I go for what's most practical.

I pay taxes, and so does everyone else. Therefore, why should the government treat gays differently when they're taking their money to fund and expand their body?

The government has to give you back money. As such, you have to justify that you'll be good with it. I suppose you could have some sort of bureaucratic wrangle. Survey the gay men on their number of sexual partners, check the length of their relationship (2 years minimum) and test for stds. That should weed out most bad apples.

With the high number of states legalizing gay marriage, it's becoming fairly obvious this has no sign of slowing down. The loss in California may have been a big blow to a lot of us, but I think it inspired many people to work harder to legalize gay marriage, which causes us to at least win victories over other states, even if their size/population is low at least compared to that of California.

At 4/9/09 12:04 PM, Ericho wrote: With the high number of states legalizing gay marriage, it's becoming fairly obvious this has no sign of slowing down. The loss in California may have been a big blow to a lot of us, but I think it inspired many people to work harder to legalize gay marriage, which causes us to at least win victories over other states, even if their size/population is low at least compared to that of California.

Only four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, have gay marriage laws. 30 have defined marriage in their constitutions, and a host of others have defense of marriage acts. As such, whatever your people are doing, it's not working that well.

There are religions that allow gay marriage(I don't know any by name,but I'm sure there's at least one)

Also,you can be married by a judge,and not a priest.

arguement invalid.

At 4/9/09 03:12 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: If they want to be as miserable as every other Married Hetero couple, by all means LET 'EM!

Grow up.

At 4/9/09 12:50 PM, Ytaker wrote: Only four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, have gay marriage laws. 30 have defined marriage in their constitutions, and a host of others have defense of marriage acts. As such, whatever your people are doing, it's not working that well.

Well, whatever is working, it's working well at least.

At 4/10/09 04:48 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 4/9/09 12:50 PM, Ytaker wrote: Only four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, have gay marriage laws. 30 have defined marriage in their constitutions, and a host of others have defense of marriage acts. As such, whatever your people are doing, it's not working that well.

Well, whatever is working, it's working well at least.

In Massachusetts, say, gay marriage happened not because of anything the people did, but because the judges liked gay marriage (goodridge v department of public health). In most places, the opposite is so. An effective well of public support for gay marriage hasn't materialized, and the american people have repeatedly voted against it. As such, it isn't working that well.

At 4/9/09 09:37 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Grow up.

Hey, FUCK YOU!!! You didn't even read the whole post! You are such an asshole! I reiterate:

The Idea that it's the Christian Ideal is bullshit, the exact same thing was once said by the same bigots about slavery and interracial marriage. There is absolutely nothing in the new testament to indicate anything against gays. These statewide bans of gay marriage and pushing for a constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is Un American!

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

That is exactly what America was founded on. The purpose of a constitution is to give rights, not take them away.

Now on to the next point: Anyone who's talking about pereserving the "Sanctity of marriage" there's a whole list of problems with that. First, There is absolutely nothing worse than sanctimony, and sanctimony will irrevocably arrive at bombings, Mossks, Gay Bars, Planned Parenthood, Always. Second, the institution of Marriage has only been about love for just over 100 years. Third, for those who wish to preserve any decency in the institution of marriage you should ban all reality TV shows that are the real mockery of marriage! You know the ones I mean: "Married by America" "Joe Millionaire" "Who wants to marry a Multimillionaire" and all that shit.

You actually think you preserving something of value? What are you trying to prove? You're only proving that you're a bigot, a fascist and an Asshole!

At 4/11/09 03:20 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: You actually think you preserving something of value? What are you trying to prove? You're only proving that you're a bigot, a fascist and an Asshole!

Skunky darling didn't say anything of the contrary-- if i remember her stance correctly, she's a proponent for gay marriage.

I believe the comment: "If they want to be as miserable as every other Married Hetero couple, by all means LET 'EM! They are hurting no one," just seems to be trite at this stage.

The joke has been done, over, and over, and over enough to get anyone sick of it.

Thank you fli, that is precisely my point.

Only immature assholes believe that marriage is an inherently miserable institution. The conclusion Iron-Claw jumped to simply reinforces that he is a jerk. If you truly believe that marriage makes people unhappy, why would you support anyone getting married, let alone gay couples?

I want everyone to have the opportunity to experience the kind of happiness, financial security, and legal protection that I myself enjoy. Marriage is one of the best things that has ever happened to me, and as a bisexual woman I realize that there was just as much chance I might have met and fallen in love with a woman. My path was a little easier because the person I fell in love with and married was a man, and I don't envy anyone who has to deal with the heartbreak of not being able to marry the person they love.

In short, don't be such a dick.

At 4/10/09 11:06 PM, Ytaker wrote: In Massachusetts, say, gay marriage happened not because of anything the people did, but because the judges liked gay marriage (goodridge v department of public health). In most places, the opposite is so. An effective well of public support for gay marriage hasn't materialized, and the american people have repeatedly voted against it. As such, it isn't working that well.

I was just trying to be optimstic, I guess. I just enjoy whatever success this movement gets.

At 4/11/09 03:20 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: You actually think you preserving something of value? What are you trying to prove? You're only proving that you're a bigot, a fascist and an Asshole!

...because stamping your feet and using continuous ad hominems against your opposition has always been considered a rational and logical form of political discourse, amirite?

At 4/11/09 11:44 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 4/10/09 11:06 PM, Ytaker wrote: In Massachusetts, say, gay marriage happened not because of anything the people did, but because the judges liked gay marriage (goodridge v department of public health). In most places, the opposite is so. An effective well of public support for gay marriage hasn't materialized, and the american people have repeatedly voted against it. As such, it isn't working that well.

I was just trying to be optimstic, I guess. I just enjoy whatever success this movement gets.

The biggest success that happened was the striking down of sodomy laws in 2003, and that was just because two gay men were having anal sex. In as much as the movement encourages anal sex, I suppose you could ascribe that success to the movement. It'd be a stretch though.

Things that it might help to pursue... add a don't pursue ruling to don't ask don't tell, so that dead lesbians can have lesbians arrange their funerals, and stuff. Obama has been friendly to that. Avoid threatening churches with disbandmant and destruction. Separate from the feminist movement as much as possible, and bondage movements. Those movements aren't that appealing to the average white male, and as such, cut you off from the majority of conservative voters, and don't bring on a large number of liberal voters.

That way, you can focus on convincing americans that gay marriage is good for gays, straights, and american, rather than, to use loaded terms, whining about how americans aren't giving you whatever crap you want. The legislatory branch of government is generally more powerful than the judiciary.

At 7/19/06 09:17 PM, C-Damage wrote: Marriage is not a "christian ceremony", and the christian bible says nothing about homosexuals.

1: Have you read the christian bible cover to cover? It does say something about homosexuals in the old testament it says that they are beyond salvation and should be stoned to death well in the standard king james version.
2: We AKA christians in the new testament are now told that no one is beyond salvation including gays so we try to convert gays I personally do not like gays but i keep my opinions to myself and avoid them I do not push my beleifs on anyone I am stating facts.
3: its a BLOG someone you dont know is posting his opinion if you arent interested in hearing it and it only gets you flaming mad dont read it this is very easy dont read something to comment poorly not stating references or even contributing at all.

At 7/19/06 09:17 PM, C-Damage wrote: Marriage is not a "christian ceremony", and the christian bible says nothing about homosexuals.

"If
a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13

At 7/20/06 01:06 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote: Actually no. Marages have been done before christianity such as in ancient Rome and also marrages are now considered a combining ceremony between two people to share responsibility legally. a christian marrages, homo sexuals cant do but a legal one they can.

This is the example of an unbiased opinion/facts christianity has been around the longest actually though it has gone under different name's such as catholocism and before that judaism basiccly all christianity has split off from judaism catholics were the first to split off then they split into 2 groups roman and greek orthodox and from them came the protestant religion which litterally means to protest and they broke off because at the time many if not all catholic churches were selling indulgences as in if you gave the priest 50 bucks you can commit any sin (just an example) anyways back on topic marriage has occured since the after the dark period in the bible after adam and eve so marriage has been around for at least 2500 years so yeah it has been adopted by all religions but the christian faith altogether as in all past and present forms of it have claimed marriage as their own other religions can perform the ceremony but they did not come up with the idea.

Btw: I love trolls

compnerd, use some fucking punctuation. It's impossible for me to even attempt to read your posts for more then like 2 seconds before my eyes start to hurt. Long run on sentences are awful. But then so are a lot of your facts.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...there's the religious institution of marriage, and the legal in this country. So with that in mind I see no reason why the legal can't recognize gay marriage and the religious make the choice of whether or not they'd like to as well. Seperation of Church and State should go both ways, both should stay out of each others business.

Homosexual couples should be allowed all the legal rights of heterosexual couples, they should be allow at act in their own celebrations and events of spritiual rite, and should be allowed to have children.

At 3/17/10 10:41 PM, Gunner-D wrote: Homosexual couples should be allowed all the legal rights of heterosexual couples, they should be allow at act in their own celebrations and events of spritiual rite, and should be allowed to have children.

Amen. The only reason people think gays shouldn't marry (in my opinion at least) is because the Bible says so. But isn't there separation of church and state? Just my own thoughts on why gays should have all rights that are given to others.

At 3/17/10 10:56 PM, Saxturbation wrote: Amen. The only reason people think gays shouldn't marry (in my opinion at least) is because the Bible says so. But isn't there separation of church and state? Just my own thoughts on why gays should have all rights that are given to others.

I don't know. I mean, I heard Mike Huckabee appear on "The Daily Show" as a guy who voted against gay marriage and the first thing he said was not about religion. It was about how scientifically, the purpose of life is to ensure the continuity of our species, by making the right chromosome combination. It is not religion that brings bigotry of homosexuals in this sense, it is science.

At 3/18/10 04:07 PM, Ericho wrote: I heard Mike Huckabee [...]. It was about how scientifically, the purpose of life is to ensure the continuity of our species, by making the right chromosome combination. It is not religion that brings bigotry of homosexuals in this sense, it is science.

Wouldn't be the first time a Christian invoked science to bolster his/her argument.

Not to mention, nature doesn't advocate morality unless well... you think nature was designed for some moral purpose. So, if you really want to put yourself in the shoes of an atheist, try to remember to take of your theist shoes first.

There is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships. Who cares if they can't have kids, the fertility police? The world is overpopulated enough. Let them take care of some of the abandoned ones.

And if you think of their sexual biology in terms of bedroom activity, you're a pervert and might possibly be gay yourself.

Bacc said what I was going to. Huckabee is a known devout Christian, someone who advocates the Bible as literal history and that the world is only 6,000 years old. So of COURSE I believe him when he says his religion effects him in no way when it comes to this issue...