just when i think bush can't possibly get anymore retarded..

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 9, 2004, 4:03 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynxe wrote:Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
man + 3 women = ok?
Are you at all in touch with the world you live in? In some cultures not only is it ok, it is (to use your own word) "normal" and the idea of having one wife is absurd. So does that mean their entire belief structure and way of living should change because of YOUR beliefs? Does that make them wrong and you right? Fuck no. It just means you have different beliefs, respect that and don't assume yours is right for everyone just because it is YOURS.

Your belief that marriage existing between only 2 members of the opposite sex is based on religion. I don't BELIEVE in religion, I believe "normal" is whatever works for two consenting adults. Many others either don't believe in a religion, might follow a different religion or have totally different ideas of "normal". We are all governed by the same LAWS so stop trying to get the "law" to govern the rest of us according to YOUR beliefs.
Yeah....no.

Your philosophy is often shared by people who have fucked up views on life. There is a normal. You mgiht not like, but there is. Yes, there are cultured who think multiple wives is normal, but they are wrong. Let's try not to talk about fucked up third world countries cultures when discussing a topic in an advanced society such as America. Should we really compare what the fucking mormons do to our society? Should we really compare what Iraqi's, Iranians or whatever other fucked up third world countries beleieve in that, to our society? They live in fucking huts and torture people to death for having premarital sex. Come on man, use your fucking head.

Dude, you really have NO grasp on reality. Why don't you step outside of your little ethnocentric box and take a good look at the realities of the world. Just because you don't agree does not make it wrong. Polyamorous relationships can be just as healthy and productive (in many cases, more so, because the parties involved usually have a greater understanding of mutual respect). Saying that people who choose "alternative" lifestyles have "fucked up views on life" only shows how truly fucked up your views are. Your last couple sentences also clearly show how ignorant you are of different cultures. I'd say "use YOUR head" but its apparent that its been in the toilet too long to be of any use.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 4:05 pm

Sirensa wrote: So don't watch those shows. Being retarded/handicapped isn't normal either. Sometimes it's even a genetic defect. Do handicapped people sicken you too? Should they be disallowed marriage?

I never said they can't be married. Typical of this board. I should know by now there are few poeple who come to this board who can talk deeper beyond the face of the question.

My source of discontent is that the media and power structure continue to force upon everyone that this activity is normal. When the powers that be try to make me say something is normal when it is not, angers me. Obviusly, many of you have fallen for the brainwashing. I believe in gay couples having unions and being able to receive health benefits. A legal marriage? nope. I don't believe we should continue this fascade(sp?) that being gay is normal. Therefore, they get unions, not marriage.

... And you can keep having your views - without fear of being beaten, abused and dominated by our government.

Actually you are wrong once again. Thanks to political correctness we are only allowed to express our true selves behind closed doors.

It really amazes me that some of you people don't see the flipside.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 4:11 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynxe wrote:Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
man + 3 women = ok?
Are you at all in touch with the world you live in? In some cultures not only is it ok, it is (to use your own word) "normal" and the idea of having one wife is absurd. So does that mean their entire belief structure and way of living should change because of YOUR beliefs? Does that make them wrong and you right? Fuck no. It just means you have different beliefs, respect that and don't assume yours is right for everyone just because it is YOURS.

Your belief that marriage existing between only 2 members of the opposite sex is based on religion. I don't BELIEVE in religion, I believe "normal" is whatever works for two consenting adults. Many others either don't believe in a religion, might follow a different religion or have totally different ideas of "normal". We are all governed by the same LAWS so stop trying to get the "law" to govern the rest of us according to YOUR beliefs.
Yeah....no.

Your philosophy is often shared by people who have fucked up views on life. There is a normal. You mgiht not like, but there is. Yes, there are cultured who think multiple wives is normal, but they are wrong. Let's try not to talk about fucked up third world countries cultures when discussing a topic in an advanced society such as America. Should we really compare what the fucking mormons do to our society? Should we really compare what Iraqi's, Iranians or whatever other fucked up third world countries beleieve in that, to our society? They live in fucking huts and torture people to death for having premarital sex. Come on man, use your fucking head.
Dude, you really have NO grasp on reality. Why don't you step outside of your little ethnocentric box and take a good look at the realities of the world. Just because you don't agree does not make it wrong. Polyamorous relationships can be just as healthy and productive (in many cases, more so, because the parties involved usually have a greater understanding of mutual respect). Saying that people who choose "alternative" lifestyles have "fucked up views on life" only shows how truly fucked up your views are. Your last couple sentences also clearly show how ignorant you are of different cultures. I'd say "use YOUR head" but its apparent that its been in the toilet too long to be of any use.

Your ignorance is the one that shines. You say "alternative" lifestyle as if the have a choice. They don't have a choice. That is another term pushed by the polically correct cult that controls our information. It's homosexuality. Plain and simple.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 4:13 pm

[quote="Midnyte_Ragebringer] Yes, there are cultured who think multiple wives is normal, but they are wrong. [/quote]

Wrong...in what way? Sorry but this is the part I stop taking you seriously. You just are appealing to the moral codes of the majority of your own location. Start giving us some logical responses pronto.

-=Lohrno

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » February 9, 2004, 4:14 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lalanae wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynxe wrote:Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
man + 3 women = ok?
Are you at all in touch with the world you live in? In some cultures not only is it ok, it is (to use your own word) "normal" and the idea of having one wife is absurd. So does that mean their entire belief structure and way of living should change because of YOUR beliefs? Does that make them wrong and you right? Fuck no. It just means you have different beliefs, respect that and don't assume yours is right for everyone just because it is YOURS.

Your belief that marriage existing between only 2 members of the opposite sex is based on religion. I don't BELIEVE in religion, I believe "normal" is whatever works for two consenting adults. Many others either don't believe in a religion, might follow a different religion or have totally different ideas of "normal". We are all governed by the same LAWS so stop trying to get the "law" to govern the rest of us according to YOUR beliefs.
Yeah....no.

Your philosophy is often shared by people who have fucked up views on life. There is a normal. You mgiht not like, but there is. Yes, there are cultured who think multiple wives is normal, but they are wrong. Let's try not to talk about fucked up third world countries cultures when discussing a topic in an advanced society such as America. Should we really compare what the fucking mormons do to our society? Should we really compare what Iraqi's, Iranians or whatever other fucked up third world countries beleieve in that, to our society? They live in fucking huts and torture people to death for having premarital sex. Come on man, use your fucking head.
Dude, you really have NO grasp on reality. Why don't you step outside of your little ethnocentric box and take a good look at the realities of the world. Just because you don't agree does not make it wrong. Polyamorous relationships can be just as healthy and productive (in many cases, more so, because the parties involved usually have a greater understanding of mutual respect). Saying that people who choose "alternative" lifestyles have "fucked up views on life" only shows how truly fucked up your views are. Your last couple sentences also clearly show how ignorant you are of different cultures. I'd say "use YOUR head" but its apparent that its been in the toilet too long to be of any use.
Your ignorance is the one that shines. You say "alternative" lifestyle as if the have a choice. They don't have a choice. That is another term pushed by the polically correct cult that controls our information. It's homosexuality. Plain and simple.

We were speaking of polyamorous relationships, but I shouldn't expect you to follow any train of thought when I use big words you don't understand. Dumb ass.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 4:24 pm

Re The slippery slope effect or domino effect...Numerous countries have given homosexual marriage full recognition...please show an example of those countries showing any sign of legalizing bestial/paedophilic marriage...Because it simply hasn't happened...

RE: Polygamous/Polyamorous marriages...Ermmm damned If I have an issue with that if every one involved is aware and gives consent...

Re: The horrid decline in population...Errrmmm you are aware that the world is horribly overpopulated now aren't you?...Homosexuality may be a very adaptive change...

It will come to this folks seperate is inherently unequal...You cannot in a free country have seperate rights for any group of people...It is discriminatory (in the perjorative sense).

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 4:25 pm

1 entry found for polyamorous.
polyamorous

( P ) polyamorous: log in for this definition of polyamorous and other entries in Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.

Gosh I sure wish I had a membership to Dictionary.com, then I could understand the meaning of this so frequently used word that you have to fucking pay to get a definition. I sure am a moron.

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » February 9, 2004, 4:27 pm

Atokal, I don't think we are saying that people who have religious beliefs should not carry those beliefs outside their church or home. I wasn't. The USA (and Canada for that matter) is not purely populated by Christians and my point is that those beliefs have no place in laws that govern people of different race, religion, sexual preference and ideals. Better stated?

I actually have a lot of respect for folks who can believe in a religion, I just don't myself.

I was going to reply to Midnyte but Fesuni and Lalanae said it perfectly. Besides, there is no point arguing with a closeminded individual who believes they are right and the rest of the world is "fucked up", not "normal" and "wrong" because they don't share his beliefs.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 4:27 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: My source of discontent is that the media and power structure continue to force upon everyone that this activity is normal.

Okay so what?
I'm discontent that Limp Bizkit is considered normal music, and it's being forced down all our throats. It's simple, if you don't like it, don't watch. Your definition of normal is different than many other peoples'. If you fail to realize that, you are just being closed minded. You know what? I agree with you actually. Honestly, I don't like seeing gay people on TV, or kissing in public... What I disagree with is taking away their freedom to do so. I'm sure they don't like to see us kissing our wives that much either...Or some of em don't care. There are straight people who don't care either.
We're all just people really. Oppression is really the problem. Just because they are gay to take away their rights to have the same benfits we do is wrong. Whether or not being gay is socially acceptable is up to the society to decide, not the government.

A legal marriage? nope. I don't believe we should continue this fascade(sp?) that being gay is normal. Therefore, they get unions, not marriage.

Then make normal marriages 'unions' too. Look, as soon as we stop treating them like they're different, these issues will diminish greatly. The bigger a deal you make of it, the more of it you will see.

Actually you are wrong once again. Thanks to political correctness we are only allowed to express our true selves behind closed doors.

Who is forcing you to be politically correct?
I'll agree, PC is a problem...but it's not a legal problem that forces you to express your opinions only in dark cave meetings with your bretheren. It's just a social fad. It's good to not use hate words, but it's bad when you start doing things like calling the handicapped 'Disabled persons.' Sorry but that term is not better than handicapped. Or even: Black people - African Americans. Maybe their roots are not from Africa hmm? Maybe they've mixed for 200 years, and are not really very much African anymore. Black works for me...just as long as you don't start calling them niggers, and handicapped people crips.

-=Lohrno

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » February 9, 2004, 4:30 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: When the powers that be try to make me say something is normal when it is not, angers me. Obviusly, many of you have fallen for the brainwashing. I believe in gay couples having unions and being able to receive health benefits. A legal marriage? nope. I don't believe we should continue this fascade(sp?) that being gay is normal. Therefore, they get unions, not marriage.

Arguing the difference between union and marriage is just semantics. And the media isn't forcing you to accept something as normal - just accept it. Tolerance.

If a gay couple wants to get "married" and a church will marry them - then they are married. But not legally. It's the legality that matters more than the word "marriage". There is much more at issue than semantics.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 4:33 pm

Lalanae wrote:Just because you don't agree does not make it wrong. Polyamorous relationships can be just as healthy and productive (in many cases, more so, because the parties involved usually have a greater understanding of mutual respect). Saying that people who choose "alternative" lifestyles have "fucked up views on life" only shows how truly fucked up your views are. Your last couple sentences also clearly show how ignorant you are of different cultures.

I can't believe that you'd use polygamous societies as an example of cultures where there is more "mutual respect." Most of these cultures are ones where women are just now becoming more than property. So is it wrong of us to scoff at the notion of women as mere chattel? I'd like to see how enlightened you'd feel if wearing anything less than a full body covering was grounds for stoning you.

But the point that both sides are missing is that IT IS NOT THE FUCKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO REGULATE THIS EITHER WAY.

It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 4:34 pm

Lohrno, you and I are beginning to understand each other. I brought up what I did to talk about the bigger meaning of it. If I just replaied the first time with, "Yes I think gay marriage is fine.", how fucking boring and un-progressive is that? I need to dig deeper and find out what it really means and what the long term affects can be. Plus I find it intriguing to see how many people spew the same media rhetoric that they see and hear everyday.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » February 9, 2004, 4:37 pm

masteen wrote:But the point that both sides are missing is that IT IS NOT THE FUCKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO REGULATE THIS EITHER WAY.

Well when there are legal issues intertwined into marriages/unions, things would only be worse if the government didn't enforce some form of regulation.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 4:40 pm

masteen wrote:
It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.

Exactly. I always liked you Masteen.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 4:40 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:1 entry found for polyamorous.
polyamorous

( P ) polyamorous: log in for this definition of polyamorous and other entries in Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.

Gosh I sure wish I had a membership to Dictionary.com, then I could understand the meaning of this so frequently used word that you have to fucking pay to get a definition. I sure am a moron.

Ah, it's been awhile since I've gotten to bandy words with the brain trust that is Midnyte_Ragebringer. First, yes, you are a moron. Second, polyamorous is hardly a complex word. It defines exactly what it means in the word itself. Look. Poly = multiple, many, etc. Amorous = Love, affection, etc. Now what do you think polyamorous might be? Why, sir, it must be some kind of urban slang for a grilled cheese sandwich.

I suggest investing in one of those premium memberships.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 4:42 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Lohrno, you and I are beginning to understand each other. I brought up what I did to talk about the bigger meaning of it. If I just replaied the first time with, "Yes I think gay marriage is fine.", how fucking boring and un-progressive is that? I need to dig deeper and find out what it really means and what the long term affects can be. Plus I find it intriguing to see how many people spew the same media rhetoric that they see and hear everyday.

Hehe...True there would not be much conversation then...The most intriguing aspect of this issue is gay adoption I think. Have you seen any studies on the psychological effects of kids having gay parents? Do they become gay?

Here's two pieces of info I have stumbled across, but I don't remember exactly where.

Brain scans have detected a certain pattern somewhat consistently in gay people.

Lesbians have been known to become that way from abuse.

The first is very slim evidence for it being physiological, which means that this would be genetic, and almost nothing to worry about.

The second would be psychological, and more research would need to be done.

To do anything now though would be premature, and possibly oppressive. Smoking has been shown to be bad, so only now are we starting to outlaw it. (Yes smoking laws are getting much stricter...in CA you can not smoke 20 feet from the entrance of any building, and not in any restaurant.) If gay adoption of children is shown to be bad, only then I think can we start down this road. Otherwise it would be oppression.

-=Lohrno

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 4:42 pm

masteen wrote:It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.

Wrong. The KKK was more than just a bunch of guys in funny hoods with a bunch of ideals. They took those ideals and pummeled and burned and murdered. When was the last time you were assaulted by a homosexual? Self-mutilation doesn't count.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 9, 2004, 4:43 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
masteen wrote:It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.
Wrong. The KKK was more than just a bunch of guys in funny hoods with a bunch of ideals. They took those ideals and pummeled and burned and murdered. When was the last time you were assaulted by a homosexual? Self-mutilation doesn't count.

Rofl

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 4:43 pm

Sirensa wrote:
masteen wrote:But the point that both sides are missing is that IT IS NOT THE FUCKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO REGULATE THIS EITHER WAY.
Well when there are legal issues intertwined into marriages/unions, things would only be worse if the government didn't enforce some form of regulation.

Yes, the STATE governments are and should be looking at this. The FEDERAL government needs to stay the fuck out of this.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 4:48 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:But considering you live in Canada - not sure why you care

He's already on the defensive considering it's already legal here. I fully endorse same-sex marriages if only for the simple fact it angers people like him. Well, that's not true, I don't endorse them ONLY for that reason. Just a nice perk.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 4:51 pm

masteen wrote: But the point that both sides are missing is that IT IS NOT THE FUCKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO REGULATE THIS EITHER WAY.

You are correct this is a power devolved to the states...which I mentioned in a previous post. But, Article IV Section 2 forces the Fed to ensure that a citizen in one state has the same privleges in another. So I anticipate that this will become a federal constitutional issue.

masteen wrote: It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.

Ok well the "rainbow boys" are asking for their basic civil rights...The KKK do have their rights (except for their gay members) and is asking for the removal of other peoples rights...Do you understand that those are radically different?

Edited: Spelling and subject verb agreement...

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » February 9, 2004, 4:52 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Fesuni Chopsui wrote:But considering you live in Canada - not sure why you care
He's already on the defensive considering it's already legal here. I fully endorse same-sex marriages if only for the simple fact it angers people like him. Well, that's not true, I don't endorse them ONLY for that reason. Just a nice perk.

Dregor endores them for 2 reasons..

1) Leaves more girls for him! And the ones that marry each other.. well what red-blooded male doesn't like lesbians!

2) Canada is just a state waiting to happen, we all know this ;P

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 4:55 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
masteen wrote:It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.
Wrong. The KKK was more than just a bunch of guys in funny hoods with a bunch of ideals. They took those ideals and pummeled and burned and murdered. When was the last time you were assaulted by a homosexual? Self-mutilation doesn't count.

Hello, reading comprehension? It was a hypothetical statement, and notice I specified the hypothetical behavior, and it did not include pummeling, burning, or murdering.

And I love how Fesuni is laughing at how you insulted me by calling me gay.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 4:56 pm

And for the record I am not for removing the rights of people in white hoods to marry other people in white hoods...

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 4:59 pm

Which amendment to the Constitution gave people the right to marry?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 5:00 pm

masteen wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:
masteen wrote:It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.
Wrong. The KKK was more than just a bunch of guys in funny hoods with a bunch of ideals. They took those ideals and pummeled and burned and murdered. When was the last time you were assaulted by a homosexual? Self-mutilation doesn't count.
Hello, reading comprehension? It was a hypothetical statement, and notice I specified the hypothetical behavior, and it did not include pummeling, burning, or murdering.

And I love how Fesuni is laughing at how you insulted me by calling me gay.

Once again, wrong. My reading comprehension is just fine, you just need to work on your ability to put forth examples for an argument, hypothetical or not. You were hypothetically arguing that it would be the same thing and I called you on it and gave an example of how you hypothetically may have been an idiot on the subject.

As for Fesuni laughing, I think it was not because I was calling you gay, but more because of what reaction he hypothetically thought you'd have from it.

Hypothetically

Just looks neat.

Melrin_Specclaster · Post by **Melrin_Specclaster** » February 9, 2004, 5:05 pm

'It's the ideology of separatism that is unjust'

But seperation of church and state is....needed? Which is it...needed...or unjust?

'but religion has no place in our government'

Says who? Religion plays a large role in many governments. Who are you to say if its right or wrong?

'Keep your fucking marriage separate from the state'

How can we do that? We have to go...the the federal government...to get a piece a paper....to get married? I would love to agree with it...but...its against the law. You alway's were a dumbass.

'IF marriage is defined in religious or sacred terminology, and any group of people is excluded, then it is patently illegal for the United States government to recognize marriage, or confer any benefits for it. '

In concept maybe, in reality, it happens...often.

'dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
The act of discriminating.
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

there is the definition ... read it'

Yeah, heard of QUOTA's before? Yeah, I know, thats not discrimination against the majority.....Or wait....affirmative action....thats not discrimination either....and yeah, blast me for saying it, but there are even minorities that dont believe affirmative action is right.

'yea and blacks were slaves forever '

Yes, blacks were slaves forever.....blacks were initially slaves to...guess who...BLACKS. Who created it....blacks....who stopped it in the US...a white man. I know I digressed a little bit, but your point has holes.

'being gay is just like being a christian, a jew, a white, a hispanic, a black'

Um...no, being a christian isnt even like being white or black. You're argument holds no weight because it makes no sense.

Realize this fact, the acceptance of gay relationships has gone DOWN in the past 5 years because people are willing to accept it, to a point. The more it is thrown in their face, the less they are willing to accept it.

'If I can get married without any restrictions imposed by the "church", then why should gay people should be prevented from getting married because of it?'

Because...its not legal (yet)? Has nothing to do with the 'church'.

'Amending the fucking constitution based around your own backwards religious morality is such a flagrant disregard for the way the country was founded that it very seriously should be grounds for impeachment'

Actually....its not a flagrant disregard....it will be voted on if it happens.

'In many Native American societies, homosexual marriages were acceptable. How's that for some old-time American tradition?'

Except..if you go back far enough, Native Americans....arent really natives. If you want to add to it...Native Americans were here before the settlers, so the land was theirs...right?

'and they kissed one another,'

Yes...if 2 people kiss each other....they must be in love....

' the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage '

Its in the dictionary it must be true! The dictionary goes on a reasonable amount of acceptance, not fact. Thats how ain't got in the dictionary.

'Which still doesn't address the fact that dictionary definitions (and laws for that matter) change over time to reflect the current usage of the word.'

By some.

'Not to mention that for years inter-religion marriages were not allowed either.'

Legally or religiously?

People are confusing laws, religion and conviction. Arguing laws here is retarded for 2 reasons. One, people here are from places with different countries and two, you argue laws by voting. Arguing religion is only done through semantics and interpretation. But most people here are arguing based on their own conviction and if you haven't learned a LONG time ago that you can rarely ever change someones conviction, then....learn to enjoy the sound of your own voice.

How do you argue man on man marriage, when man on man sex is still illegal in certain states?

Stopped mid page 4, not really taking a side, just pointing at bad arguments.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 5:05 pm

The KKK WAS a lot of things. Now they're just a bad joke perfectly suited for such hypothetical arguments as this. YOU projected YOUR preconceived notions into my statement. So STFU, faggort.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 5:09 pm

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: But seperation of church and state is....needed? Which is it...needed...or unjust?

We're talking about people, not government.

To allow the freedom of all Religions, the government must not endorse any.

Please tell me you don't equate the Separation of Church and State with Segregation.

-=Lohrno

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 5:10 pm

masteen wrote:The KKK WAS a lot of things. Now they're just a bad joke perfectly suited for such hypothetical arguments as this. YOU projected YOUR preconceived notions into my statement. So STFU, faggort.

You spelled faggot wrong. Oh yes, you also failed to make any kind of a point. But good try.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 5:19 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
masteen wrote:The KKK WAS a lot of things. Now they're just a bad joke perfectly suited for such hypothetical arguments as this. YOU projected YOUR preconceived notions into my statement. So STFU, faggort.
You spelled faggot wrong. Oh yes, you also failed to make any kind of a point. But good try.

Actually he made a point. Just because your feeble mind failed to see it, doesn't mean it is no there. You faggort! (It's the cool new way to spell it !)

Melrin_Specclaster · Post by **Melrin_Specclaster** » February 9, 2004, 5:22 pm

'An animal does not consent'

Animals like sex, ever seen a dog humping a leg....SURE...he doesnt know what he's doing.

'Big fucking deal, another show not aimed at your kkk mentality.'

Don't like gays....must hate blacks too? Wow, I missed that connection, glad you pointed it out to me.

'Re: The horrid decline in population...Errrmmm you are aware that the world is horribly overpopulated now aren't you?...'

Says...who? There are places where there are 4 people per square mile...that doesnt seem overpopulated. We aren't running out of food? That would be a good gauge of overpopulation.

'Please tell me you don't equate the Separation of Church and State with Segregation'

Nope, just making an argument. But, since you mention it....was it right for the government to FORCE whites and blacks to go to school together?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 5:28 pm

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: Nope, just making an argument. But, since you mention it....was it right for the government to FORCE whites and blacks to go to school together?

Normally I might agree, but I think during that time drastic change was needed to topple the society of separation and hate that was installed already. So yea I think it was right for that time.

I kind of agree with you about Affirmative Action though. It's something we should get rid of. Not only because it does not make people's chances of getting jobs/into college equal, but because it sends a message to minorities: "You need help to get anywhere."

-=Lohrno

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 9, 2004, 5:28 pm

I love how one can always count on a discussion like this to bring out the knuckle dragging crowd to "enlighten" us with their "wisdom."

At least it the bigots are easier to spot.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 5:29 pm

Melrin_Specclaster wrote:
Nope, just making an argument. But, since you mention it....was it right for the government to FORCE whites and blacks to go to school together?

Actually yes. The color of ones skin doesn't make someone different. Forcing us to be together helped the majority come around to realising that just because a person is black doesn't mean they are any less of a person. Just like gay people are no less of a person than a straight person.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 5:31 pm

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: Animals like sex, ever seen a dog humping a leg....SURE...he doesnt know what he's doing.

There's still the hygene issue then. But still it's known that cows' anus' have an automatic relaxation reflex if something is put in it (a stick, a dildo, etc.) This is so that they don't hurt themselves. How would you know if the cow was liking it, or being raped?

-=Lohrno

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 9, 2004, 5:31 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Actually yes. The color of ones skin doesn't make someone different. Forcing us to be together helped the majority come around to realising that just because a person is black doesn't mean they are any less of a person. Just like gay people are no less of a person than a straight person.

Except that they are abnormal genetic mutants, and oh so wrong.

EDIT: For the benefit of those that haven't read through the entire thread, my response is sarcasm directed at Midnyte, who argues that homosexuality is the abnormal result of a genetic defect, that don't deserve the same rights as the "normal" folk.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 5:31 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:
masteen wrote:The KKK WAS a lot of things. Now they're just a bad joke perfectly suited for such hypothetical arguments as this. YOU projected YOUR preconceived notions into my statement. So STFU, faggort.
You spelled faggot wrong. Oh yes, you also failed to make any kind of a point. But good try.
Actually he made a point. Just because your feeble mind failed to see it, doesn't mean it is no there. You faggort! (It's the cool new way to spell it !)

Sec, have to look up feeble. Just what was his point? Was it that homosexuals wanting to be treated equally is the same as the KKK wanting to kill non-whites? Or was his point that he can put forth an argument then totally retract it and say it wasn't actually an argument, just an imaginary one? Or was it that I was *mistaken* in thinking that the KKK wanted to kill non-whites, one of my preconceived notions? Seriously, spell it out for me, what was his point? Do you even know? Or are you just following his lead like a sheep?

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » February 9, 2004, 5:33 pm

why are we discussing it like it's about sex when it's really about legal benefits?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 5:33 pm

'An animal does not consent'

Animals like sex, ever seen a dog humping a leg....SURE...he doesnt know what he's doing.

hahahahaha WHAT? are you seriously saying this?

Melrin_Specclaster · Post by **Melrin_Specclaster** » February 9, 2004, 5:36 pm

Sueven wrote:
'An animal does not consent'

Animals like sex, ever seen a dog humping a leg....SURE...he doesnt know what he's doing.
hahahahaha WHAT? are you seriously saying this?

You're going to try to say with a straight face, that animals never know what they are doing? If so...you've never had a pet have you?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 5:36 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Actually yes. The color of ones skin doesn't make someone different. Forcing us to be together helped the majority come around to realising that just because a person is black doesn't mean they are any less of a person. Just like gay people are no less of a person than a straight person.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:My source of discontent is that the media and power structure continue to force upon everyone that this activity is normal. When the powers that be try to make me say something is normal when it is not, angers me. Obviusly, many of you have fallen for the brainwashing. I believe in gay couples having unions and being able to receive health benefits. A legal marriage? nope. I don't believe we should continue this fascade(sp?) that being gay is normal. Therefore, they get unions, not marriage.

I'm sorry, what was that?

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 9, 2004, 5:38 pm

Ennia wrote:why are we discussing it like it's about sex when it's really about legal benefits?

The real reasons that this issue matters have been stated repeatedly. Unfortunately, some of these guys would rather focus on the man sex than consider that there is a sizeable portion of the population being denied some very basic rights.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 5:39 pm

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any Amendment, that marriage is a right.

I'm also very amused that Dregor is so hung up on the semantics of my using the KKK as an antonym (that means opposite, dummy) of a pro-gay rights group.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 9, 2004, 5:39 pm

Sueven wrote:It is very fucking simple. The line is "consenting adults."

That's all there is to it. The only debate here should be over what the age of consent is and that applies as much to heterosexual unions as it does to homosexual, polygamy, etc.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 9, 2004, 5:40 pm

masteen wrote: It's just as wrong for the rainbow boys to try and force middle America to accept their lifestyle choice as both moral and legal as is would be for the KKK to lobby NY or CA for the opposite.

a) WTF exactly is middle America supposed to be? The middle of the bell curve between Stromm Thurmond and Michael Jackson? Those with IQs between 60 and 120?

b) Regardless, why do conservatives always claim middle America == them.

I find the 'average' American to be either progressive or complacent, they either think a gay couple should have legal rights, or they don't give a shit. Trouble is the conservatives are mouthy assholes who brow beat everyone else and the complacent don't speak up.

The religious angle is so much hoopla; I really don't think too many gay couples are going to be fighting your princess for a wedding date in a church, they just want the legal rights a couple gets when legally married. If you saved the clergy some embarassing discussions by drafting the law in such a way that excluded church ceremonies I don't think too many would complain.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 5:44 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Actually yes. The color of ones skin doesn't make someone different. Forcing us to be together helped the majority come around to realising that just because a person is black doesn't mean they are any less of a person. Just like gay people are no less of a person than a straight person.
Except that they are abnormal genetic mutants, and oh so wrong.

Genemic mutants? (yes) Mutant seems harsh, but ok.

Wrong? no. Is a man who was born with only one arm wrong? No. A genetic mutant? yes.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 5:44 pm

Melrin_Specclaster wrote:'It's the ideology of separatism that is unjust'

But seperation of church and state is....needed? Which is it...needed...or unjust?

We are discussing civil rights of individuals...The government has no civil rights (though all the individual members do)

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: 'but religion has no place in our government'

Says who? Religion plays a large role in many governments. Who are you to say if its right or wrong?

The Constitution...A Citizen protected by the Constitution

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: 'Keep your fucking marriage separate from the state'

How can we do that? We have to go...the the federal government...to get a piece a paper....to get married? I would love to agree with it...but...its against the law. You alway's were a dumbass.

Good luck with getting that paper from the federal government...States regulate the institution of marriage currently.

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: 'Amending the fucking constitution based around your own backwards religious morality is such a flagrant disregard for the way the country was founded that it very seriously should be grounds for impeachment'

Actually....its not a flagrant disregard....it will be voted on if it happens.

By the state legislatures not by the people directly

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: 'In many Native American societies, homosexual marriages were acceptable. How's that for some old-time American tradition?'

Except..if you go back far enough, Native Americans....arent really natives. If you want to add to it...Native Americans were here before the settlers, so the land was theirs...right?

Ummm ok but the point was there is precedence. Your addenda are entirely off point and quite vague

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: People are confusing laws, religion and conviction. Arguing laws here is retarded for 2 reasons. One, people here are from places with different countries and two, you argue laws by voting. Arguing religion is only done through semantics and interpretation. But most people here are arguing based on their own conviction and if you haven't learned a LONG time ago that you can rarely ever change someones conviction, then....learn to enjoy the sound of your own voice.

Heh arguing laws is good and healthy in any forum. I am not trying to change anyone's 'conviction'. I am trying to explain how I feel this issue relates to the laws as they exist in this country. And I welcome the thoughts of any others from any country on the issue...Basic Human Rights are universal not unique from country to country

Melrin_Specclaster wrote: How do you argue man on man marriage, when man on man sex is still illegal in certain states?

Funny the supreme court made it illegal to enforce those laws isn't it...

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 5:44 pm

Middle America is exactly that: the middle of America. Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, ect.

They tend to be white, middle-class, Christian, and conservative.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 5:48 pm

masteen wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any Amendment, that marriage is a right.

I'm also very amused that Dregor is so hung up on the semantics of my using the KKK as an antonym (that means opposite, dummy) of a pro-gay rights group.

Thanks for the vocab lesson! I'm not hung up on your choice, I'm just concerned that you think you can try and have a debate on a subject when you can't even put forth a proper argument. It's like stating that kangaroos have legs, therefore cheese isn't spelled with an X. It means jack and shit. I understand that you were trying to say one group trying to force a belief on you is as bad as another group trying to force the opposite belief on you. I *GET* that. You just need to come up with better reasons why you believe something.