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

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 5:48 pm

Dregor Thule 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.

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?

Dregor, you simple minded dolt. I really don't have the time to keep connecting all the dots for you.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » February 9, 2004, 5:50 pm

http://www.gaysouthafrica.org.za/homosexuality/civilmarr.asp wrote:Why do gays want the legal right to marry? Why don't they just live together?
Gay couples desire to marry for the same reasons heterosexuals couples do: love, companionship, shared interests, common goals, emotional and financial security, and in some cases to raise a family. Millions of gay men and lesbians are living in long term committed relationships despite the fact that homosexual unions lack many of the financial, legal and social benefits which are automatically provided for heterosexual couples upon marriage.

Currently, gay couples do not have the automatic right to make medical, legal, or financial decisions on behalf of their partner should the need arise. They may be denied access to visit their spouse in intensive care units and other hospital departments. Gay and lesbian couples do not have the automatic right to make funeral arrangements, or to assume ownership of property (even jointly owned property) when a partner dies.

Gay couples also lack many of the financial benefits of marriage. They may not have access to their spouses' employee health insurance, retirement or death benefits. They are not eligible for tax breaks heterosexual couples receive, nor are they eligible for insurance discounts which are frequently provided for married couples. Gays and lesbians would like to see same-sex marriages legalized so that they could provide the same type of legal, financial, and emotional security for their loved ones that heterosexual couples currently enjoy.

See also: The Benefits of Marriage

Can't same-sex couples obtain legal benefits without being married?
With the help of an attorney, some of the benefits of legal marriage can be obtained by same-sex couples, but many cannot. A valid will and power of attorney can provide some protection, but this takes time and money, and is subject to challenges from biological family members and the government. Until same-sex couples are allowed to marry, their rights and benefits will not be equal to, or as secure as the rights and benefits granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage.

Tradition defines marriage as a union between a man and a women, for the purpose of raising children.
Tradition alone is not a sufficient reason to deny gay and lesbian couples the legal, financial, and emotional benefits of a civil union. Not long ago, the thought of abolishing slavery, allowing women to vote, interracial marriage, and women serving in the military, were also met with strong opposition because they went against tradition. One purpose of marriage is to raise children (as some gay couples do), but the opportunity to have and raise children is not the only reason people choose to marry. Companionship, love, shared interests, common goals, financial and emotional security are also reasons couples choose to wed.

Won't granting homosexuals the right to marry devalue heterosexual marriage?
The belief that allowing gays to legally marry would devalue heterosexual marriage is absurd. This attitude operates under the assumption that the value of heterosexual marriage is dependent upon the deprivation of a certain group of people in our society. Giving gay couples the right to marry would not take away any of the rights heterosexual couples currently enjoy, it would only extend those rights and responsibilities to everyone in our society.

If gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, where will it end?
Some hypothesize that marriage between gays and lesbians will lead to men marrying boys and fathers marrying daughters. They even go so far as to say that people will fight for the right to marry their pets. These same arguments were used by those who opposed interracial marriage. They were not valid then, and they are not valid now. Same-sex marriage, like heterosexual marriage, would consist of two consenting adults. There's no reason to believe that same-sex marriage will lead to legalized incestuous relationships or the abuse of animals anymore so than heterosexual marriage already does.

Isn't homosexuality abnormal or unnatural; after all, they can't have children?
Homosexuality is not the sexual orientation of the majority of people, but that in itself does not make it abnormal. If we were to use that type of logic, then we would have to consider left handed people to be abnormal also. To a heterosexual person, an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex might seem abnormal or unnatural, but not any more so than heterosexual relations would seem to someone who is gay. Furthermore, there is nothing abnormal or unnatural about wanting to share your life and love with another person. Having the ability to produce offspring is not a prerequisite. If it were, we would have to deny marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who did not wish to, or for some reason could not have children.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 5:54 pm

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?

I have 10 cats and 2 parrots. Of course animals fuck. That's an entirely different issue than giving consent to sex.

Children below a certain age are not allowed to have sex in every state in this country. This is because children below a certain age are thought to not be mentally capable of consenting to sex. Thus, anyone of legal age who has sex with that child is exploiting them. In the same way, other animals do not have the mental capacity (or communication skills) to issue informed consent to sex with a human. Keep in mind that 12 year old children are more intelligent than animals, and are still legally defined as unable to issue consent.

Do you agree?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 5:56 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.

and the pursuit of happiness...is as close as you will find

Jefferson clearly thought government had no business dictating how one should go about pursuing their happiness unless it infringed on the rights of others...So he didn't bother to list all inalienable rights one by one...In fact he says that the Constitution is NOT intended to be a list of all rights

masteen wrote: 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.

I am just stunned that you cannot see the difference between the two...it's pretty straightforward removal of rights of others...asking for fundamental rights...

edited: typing sucks,,,

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 9, 2004, 5:56 pm

ab·nor·mal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-nôrml)
adj.
Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 9, 2004, 5:58 pm

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

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

Ahh, but isn't your population mostly towards the coasts? I thought the US was a democracy..

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 6:01 pm

Most of the population is coastal, yes.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 9, 2004, 6:04 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Dregor, you simple minded dolt. I really don't have the time to keep connecting all the dots for you.

Translation: This has gone beyond the scope of my ability to argue, therefore I'm going to pretend I'm better than you and try and sneak out the back door.

Here, I'll do you the service of pointing out how you contradict yourself. You say that homosexuality is something that can't be helped, just like someone being black, or, if you'll allow me to assume, mentally handicapped, blind, deaf, etc. It's just a fact of life, some people are inclined to like the cock. You also say that being "forced" to associate with thems black folks made people realize that hey, what do you know, they aren't the devil incarnate, they're people just like you. But then you say that it's just not normal for homosexuals to join together in matrimony. Does that mean it shouldn't be normal for black people to get married? Should marrying a blind person be disallowed?

I think you're just hung up on church. Marriage is something that is permitted by your States, the church is just a fancy locale. Is a judge marrying 2 people together a representative of your god? Or are those 2 not actually married? Is it just that you don't want some dirty cock loving men getting married at your church? Chances are, neither does your church (unless you live in Massachusetts maybe!)

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 9, 2004, 6:22 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Now tell me this, oh great wise liberals:

Why is it ok to have a gay marriage, yet you STILL argue against polygamy? Why do you find it unproper for someone to have the RIGHT to marry more than one person? Why are you such fucking hypocrites?
Polygamy is a system that can be easily abused. If it could be kept in check by some means, the wise and understanding liberals wouldn't have a problem with it. It's called putting a little thought into a policy. Nothing hypocritical about it, flapjack

heh.. yea, would be slightly expensive to support 10 women on welfare with 5 kids each, food stamps wic all that junk when they don't work and the 'husband' can't provide for them

what if you have thousands of 'married peoples' like this? welfare/medicaid/medicare/foodstamps and other free money programs compromise like 80% of our tax spending or some shit, its retarded

i swear to god if i see one more fucking white trash piece of shit standing in line at a store with 40 frozen pizzas and 24 packs of pop, candy and ice cream and to pay for it with food stamps, then buy their cigarettes with cash, im going to .. get really mad

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 6:36 pm

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

They tend to be white, middle-class, Christian, and conservative.
Ahh, but isn't your population mostly towards the coasts? I thought the US was a democracy..

Just because the populations of CA, NY, FL, ect. are larger does not entitle them to tell the people of those states how to live.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 6:39 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Dregor, you simple minded dolt. I really don't have the time to keep connecting all the dots for you.
Translation: This has gone beyond the scope of my ability to argue, therefore I'm going to pretend I'm better than you and try and sneak out the back door.

Here, I'll do you the service of pointing out how you contradict yourself. You say that homosexuality is something that can't be helped, just like someone being black, or, if you'll allow me to assume, mentally handicapped, blind, deaf, etc. It's just a fact of life, some people are inclined to like the cock. You also say that being "forced" to associate with thems black folks made people realize that hey, what do you know, they aren't the devil incarnate, they're people just like you. But then you say that it's just not normal for homosexuals to join together in matrimony. Does that mean it shouldn't be normal for black people to get married? Should marrying a blind person be disallowed?

I think you're just hung up on church. Marriage is something that is permitted by your States, the church is just a fancy locale. Is a judge marrying 2 people together a representative of your god? Or are those 2 not actually married? Is it just that you don't want some dirty cock loving men getting married at your church? Chances are, neither does your church (unless you live in Massachusetts maybe!)

In honor of the no child left behind program, I will continue, even though futile to explain myself to you.

The color of ones skin has nothing to do with being gay or not.

We are all human beings. A small percentage, some say it is around 6% are gay. Being born gay is abnormal.

Your tactic of changing around the conversation by obvious misinterpretations of my words is a very typical liberal way of debating a topic. It is a very destructive and limiting way to speak to people. By arguing this way, two people can never come to soften parts of their position and come to a consensus, because they are always re-explaing themselves and disputing ridiculous claims. It is what happens during presidential campaigns. Many of the candidates have decent ideas but they all get washed away behind the rhetoric.

I'm in favor of government allowing official civil unions. I want gay couples to be able to have normal access to medical benefits, life insurance, etc. I think gay couples should have the right to adopt children if they have established a civil union together. If two people want to share their love with a child, I would rather that child get raised by two loving people than in an orphanage or bounded about from foster home to foster home.

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 9, 2004, 6:59 pm

Sueven wrote:Drinsic: Just so you know, I have no idea what the legal definition of marriage is. I can tell you that it is not the definition that you have been quoting. Legal definitions come from law, not dictionaries.

Kilmoll: The two institutions are entirely different when it comes to such nitpicky details, and thus the analogy is really entirely irrelevant. Employment compensation is largely a performance-based thing, and there is absolutely no such element in marriage. However, yes, I am saying that it is OK that female athletes are generally paid less than men, for a variety of reasons, most of which stem from, but are not directly, the physical abilities of the women.

Your insurance/children argument would be meritorious if there was not so much inherent hypocrisy in denying the rights of marriage to gay couples, but giving those rights to hetero couples where both spouses work. Your argument would lead to me to believe that there are a few acceptable conclusions:
1. Insurance and related benefits should be eliminated for all couples, and then homosexual marriage would be acceptable.
2. Insurance and related benefits should only be available when the couple is having children, and one member is staying home to care for the children. This means that gays should be allowed to marry, since they will not receive any of the benefits that you claim are applicable only to child-producing, stay-at-home mom families.
3. Gays should be allowed to marry and all married couples should receive all benefits.
I view any other conclusion based on your arguments to be entirely hypocritical.

well, what if a gay couple has adopted kids?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 7:00 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:We are all human beings. A small percentage, some say it is around 6% are gay. Being born gay is abnormal.

You are correct. Being born albinistic is also abnormal. The question at point is why you choose homosexuals as a group which does not merit civil rights? Leave the "pseudo-statistical' arguement alone.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 7:01 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:We are all human beings. A small percentage, some say it is around 6% are gay. Being born gay is abnormal.
You are correct. Being born albinistic is also abnormal. The question at point is why you choose homosexuals as a group which does not merit civil rights? Leave the "pseudo-statistical' arguement alone.

I don't know. Is being albino the same as being gay? I'll have to think about that.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 7:03 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:We are all human beings. A small percentage, some say it is around 6% are gay. Being born gay is abnormal.
You are correct. Being born albinistic is also abnormal. The question at point is why you choose homosexuals as a group which does not merit civil rights? Leave the "pseudo-statistical' arguement alone.
I don't know. Is being albino the same as being gay? I'll have to think about that.

No being born albinistic is substantially rarer (more abnormal) than homosexuality.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 7:04 pm

well, what if a gay couple has adopted kids?

It would depend on whether adoptive heterosexual parents were granted such benefits of marriage. If hetero adopters would be given insurance rights and so on, then the homo adopters should too.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 9, 2004, 7:05 pm

Sanaelya wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Now tell me this, oh great wise liberals:

Why is it ok to have a gay marriage, yet you STILL argue against polygamy? Why do you find it unproper for someone to have the RIGHT to marry more than one person? Why are you such fucking hypocrites?
Polygamy is a system that can be easily abused. If it could be kept in check by some means, the wise and understanding liberals wouldn't have a problem with it. It's called putting a little thought into a policy. Nothing hypocritical about it, flapjack
heh.. yea, would be slightly expensive to support 10 women on welfare with 5 kids each, food stamps wic all that junk when they don't work and the 'husband' can't provide for them

what if you have thousands of 'married peoples' like this? welfare/medicaid/medicare/foodstamps and other free money programs compromise like 80% of our tax spending or some shit, its retarded

i swear to god if i see one more fucking white trash piece of shit standing in line at a store with 40 frozen pizzas and 24 packs of pop, candy and ice cream and to pay for it with food stamps, then buy their cigarettes with cash, im going to .. get really mad

heh i see that all the time .. i love it ... or when they pull out their EBT CASH side of their card and use it to pay for their ciggs .. that kinda blew my mind....

but anyways ... off of the fucking butt sex / twat licking subject .. its none of your fucking business what im doing in my bed ... do i ask you about how you and your wife or girl friend have sex? is it any of my business? do you want it to be my business ? (i hope not) do i want it to be my business, no.

why do you want to deny a group of people rights that everyone else has?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 7:08 pm

Albinoism is definitely a physiological thing. Being gay is questionable. It doesn't matter though, until we understand homosexuality fully and what causes it, and until it becomes a problem (I doubt it will, like some people think that it spreads like a virus, consuming the whole planet, making everyone not wanting to have kids. Sorry I don't buy that.), let's not treat them differently. There is some physiological evidence, but it's not yet compelling...

-=Lohrno

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 9, 2004, 7:10 pm

Atokal wrote:A question for everyone who believes that the "defination" of Marriage should be changed.

Where does this stop?

How many special interest groups are going to be applying for a change in status to the defination?

The slippery slope theory should have some bearing on this discussion.

Does allowing every single group the rights to marriage define us as an enlightened society?

Just some questions I would like to see answered.

i could give two shits about the definition of marriage, dictionary companies put the common definitions that the word is used as, they don't care if one person thinks its one thing and one another, if 1,000,000 gay couples are married then im sure they will add to the definition including them because that is now partly what the word means

the real issue at hand is the president himself wanting to BAN the actual marriage licensure, civil union, and other legalities from taking place and overriding any states supreme courts decisions on the matter

there are states already that see gay married couples as legal marriages under the law, if bush writes up this amendment and somehow manages to get it passed, those marriages will become null and void under the legal system and any other gay couples that wish to marry will not be allowed under the law.

life liberty and the persuit of happiness? doesn't seem like thats what he is going for to me

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 9, 2004, 7:11 pm

do you honestly think we like to fight for our rights? i don't wake up in the morning go woo .. today i might be treated like a normal person ... it would be a lot easier if i was straight but ya know what? i like the cock

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 9, 2004, 7:14 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Sueven wrote:Mid: Explain it to me then: What exactly does gay marriage have to do with the man who was arrested for dealing heroin down the street?
The continuing loss of any sort of morality. Not really that hard to figure out what I'm saying. It's not encrypted.

your views on morality are your opinions, meanwhile the supreme court will have to decide if this should be allowable based on the constitution, not on their personal opinions

Galdraith EQ · Post by **Galdraith EQ** » February 9, 2004, 7:18 pm

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

It is a way of calling you (or whoever he was referring to) intolerant. When someone is intolerant of a group of people for no reason other than ignorance (most common) or hate (thankfully not as common), it is a decent indication that they will also be intolerant of other groups.

I'd be willing to bet that most anti-gay and generally intolerant people are that way because of lack of exposure to a diverse environment so far in their lives, lack of education, or both. Diversity is a great thing. It is one of the things that made the U.S. a great country, in spite of the closed-mindedness of some Americans.

Sanaelya · Post by **Sanaelya** » February 9, 2004, 7:24 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Drasta wrote:im wanting to see how mid replies to my ... am i fucked up should i be smiten am i a devient and a defect question ...
I was at lunch sorry for the delay.

Drasta, I do not consider you a deviant. Nor do I consider homosexuals deviant. They cannot help who they are, no more than a straight man can help who he is. I just don't like how the media machine is trying to force everyone to accept it as normal.

(Answering the "what is normal" question) Normal is a man and a woman. If you argue that, then you are an asshole who cannot see simple truths.

Why is a man and a woman normal? Well, how the fuck did you come to exsist? hmmmm, well a man and a woman had sex and reporoduced is how.

If homosexuality were to grow beyond 6% of the population to lets say 50%, how small would the world become you think? Where would the babies come from? Use your fucking heads.

To answer previous comments...no I am not religious, in fact, I am anti-religion. I find it humorous that millions of people pray to invisible men in the sky and believe in some all powerful being, yet they have not one shred of proof. Not a sliver.

And someone mentioned the KKK. I do not subscribe to such violent, prejudice groups. I only speak and feel and think in common sense and truths.

My religion and philosophy is what I call Realism.

did you ever see jurassic park? there is some frog in the rain forest that when there are too many of one sex around can change into the alternate sex

i know that doesn't really apply to humans as we know it

but i think its interesting to note none the less

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 7:25 pm

Drasta wrote:do you honestly think we like to fight for our rights?

Actually I think some of you probably do. There are attention whores everywhere. All those parades are like a big gathering of attention whores.

Just put it in the constitution that Marriage is a union of people and be done with it. The homophobes will be happy that there aren't so many attention whores, and the homosexuals will be treated like they should be -- full equal working citizens of our society.

-=Lohrno

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 7:42 pm

Drasta wrote:do you honestly think we like to fight for our rights? i don't wake up in the morning go woo .. today i might be treated like a normal person ... it would be a lot easier if i was straight but ya know what? i like the cock

Drasta, you have confirmed my point. It must be difficult. Probably more so in the beginning. I'm glad you have reached acceptance and are proud of who you are. You should be. The year or so I knew you in game you were nothing short of a great person, as far as I can remember anyway

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 7:42 pm

Sanaelya wrote: did you ever see jurassic park? there is some frog in the rain forest that when there are too many of one sex around can change into the alternate sex

i know that doesn't really apply to humans as we know it

but i think its interesting to note none the less

Yeah Protogynous Hermaphroditism is not uncommon in fish, reptiles and amphibians...and while its clearly not exactly what we are seeing here (especially since its always the female that converts to male and they are actually developing into males physiologically) there are certainly some good analogies in nature...

Most animals when experimentally overcrowded will begin to exhibit homosexual behaviors...Basically there seems to be a genetic component triggered by overcrowding and some other environmental stressors...It's pretty adaptive since there is as a result a net decrease in population...

But homosexuality in humans seems to have been occuring right along through recorded history...Perhaps we are actually seeing an increase in the homosexual population as a result of overcrowding...but some amount of homosexuality in the population seems to be statistically normal

PS: Just please don't tell the females about Parthenogenisis!

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » February 9, 2004, 8:06 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.

Or you could, oh I dont know, own a dictionary or something.... If only as a leftover from school where you were very likely required to have one, were you not? I know I was. Honestly, what household doesnt have basic reference materials like a dictionary, atlas, basic cookbook, local city map etc? Lordy....

*Hugs*
Varia

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 9, 2004, 8:28 pm

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

They tend to be white, middle-class, Christian, and conservative.
Ahh, but isn't your population mostly towards the coasts? I thought the US was a democracy..
Just because the populations of CA, NY, FL, ect. are larger does not entitle them to tell the people of those states how to live.

a) Indeed it does.

b) They're not asking you to change your lifestyle.. meerly to tolerate someone else's..

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » February 9, 2004, 8:32 pm

VariaVespasa wrote:
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.
Or you could, oh I dont know, own a dictionary or something.... If only as a leftover from school where you were very likely required to have one, were you not? I know I was. Honestly, what household doesnt have basic reference materials like a dictionary, atlas, basic cookbook, local city map etc? Lordy....

*Hugs*
Varia

OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of households actually...my family used to have one but over the time they have been lost, outdated, destroyed, ect and really they aren't needed anymore, thanks to the internet.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 9, 2004, 9:35 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Drasta wrote:do you honestly think we like to fight for our rights? i don't wake up in the morning go woo .. today i might be treated like a normal person ... it would be a lot easier if i was straight but ya know what? i like the cock
Drasta, you have confirmed my point. It must be difficult. Probably more so in the beginning. I'm glad you have reached acceptance and are proud of who you are. You should be. The year or so I knew you in game you were nothing short of a great person, as far as I can remember anyway

I doubt Drasta has the same feelings about you - a person that has made fun of the word Faggot

That is the exact same thing as making fun of the word Nigg-r and other horrible racist terms..

You sir are a sick individual and it is people like you that make living in America a dream I wish to end after college

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » February 9, 2004, 10:04 pm

i don't understand why people are getting angry with masteen. he never said he was against gay marriage or anything. i believe marriage laws have always been handled at the state level.

some states already recognize gay marriage, some states don't, some require a blood test in order to get a license, some (like nevada) pretty much just require you show up and have id. divorce laws differ just as much. masteen has a point, maybe this issue shouldn't be in the hands of the federal govt.

btw, is the right to marry really considered a civil right? it can't possibly be, otherwise i'd have to believe that states would have been forced to recognize gay marriage, and that it would have happened a loooooong time ago.

and before people threaten to slay me irl, i don't care if gay marriage is recognized. if it showed up on a ballot, i'd vote in favor of it. my parents, on the other hand, and i'm guessing a good chunk of their generation, would sooner claw their eyes out than vote in favor of gay marriage. they about took my head off when they found out i voted for legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

this is all just a little game to get bush re-elected. by proposing this, he's going to secure most, if not all of the conservative vote. he needs voters like my parents on his team, and this will help. and i'd bet my right boob that there's no way in fucking hell the amendment will pass anytime soon. in fact, iirc he can't even directly propose an amendment. it has to be done by congress.

edit: yeah, has to be proposed by congress, although i'm sure bush can throw his weight around and at least bring it to the floor amendment process

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 10:10 pm

Sunserae wrote: btw, is the right to marry really considered a civil right? it can't possibly be, otherwise i'd have to believe that states would have been forced to recognize gay marriage, and that it would have happened a loooooong time ago.

Yup it is a civil right

Normally I would agree that the legislation has devolved to the states...but See Article IV section 2 of the constitution...

When one state makes same sex marriages legal and another doesn't, it becomes a constitutional issue...

Identical to the reason the issue of slavery went from a state regulated issue to a federally regulated issue

Edit actually Articles 1 and 2

laneela · Post by **laneela** » February 9, 2004, 10:57 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:We are all human beings. A small percentage, some say it is around 6% are gay. Being born gay is abnormal.

Actually, homosexuals and bisexuals account for about 10% of the US population, about the same as the Hispanic population (10.6%) and slightly less than the black population (13%). I assume that you don't mean to say that blacks and hispanics are abnormal too so why population is even a factor in your argument is beyond me.

Now for those of you saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married by law and have the audicity to speak of morality: how do your morals allow you to deny any human being the joy of marrying (or being legally united for those of you bringing the church into it) a person they love and want to spend their lives with. All they want to do is the same as anyone who is in love with their partner - declare their love for each other infront of the people in their lives and have the same legal rights of a spouse that you or I are given when we get married. They're not asking for special rights, they're asking for equal rights...

From the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This has been used as an argument several times in the history of our country when anyone's civil rights are being violated. Notice that there is no clause to exclude blacks, orientals, jews, muslims or gays from the word "men". We are all allowed to pursue happiness (as long as it doesn't injure another). In fact, it's our "unailenable right".

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 10, 2004, 12:33 am

hey it says men .... we should exclude women right?

Deneve · Post by **Deneve** » February 10, 2004, 1:00 am

Arborealus wrote:
Deneve wrote: I can go look up several fucking passages if you want, but the relationship between David and Jonathan was consistently refered to as, "brotherly"...
Then do so

yeah, aranuil was right, it is the NIV version that refers to their "loved the other's soul" bit as "loved as a brother" If you want to contest that it is a sexual relation go ahead, but it isn't going to fly...and the "going out into the field" quote was out of context because they were running from Saul and didn't want to get caught in the cave so they were running away...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 10, 2004, 1:38 am

Deneve wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Deneve wrote: I can go look up several fucking passages if you want, but the relationship between David and Jonathan was consistently refered to as, "brotherly"...
Then do so
yeah, aranuil was right, it is the NIV version that refers to their "loved the other's soul" bit as "loved as a brother" If you want to contest that it is a sexual relation go ahead, but it isn't going to fly...and the "going out into the field" quote was out of context because they were running from Saul and didn't want to get caught in the cave so they were running away...

I didn't use it to begin with I thought it was equivocal and not germain to the argument to begin with I just hate assertions in argument without foundation...All the english translations of the bible are pretty crappy anyway from what a friend of mine who does hebrew and aramatheic translations regularly tells me...

thanks for the update...

Deneve · Post by **Deneve** » February 10, 2004, 2:14 am

np, and i'm calling you on thread camping! i want a # of Arborealus posts in this thread!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 10, 2004, 2:19 am

Fundamental rights are very much in my mind right now. I am very wary of the actions of the current regime....

laneela · Post by **laneela** » February 10, 2004, 3:46 am

Drasta wrote:hey it says men .... we should exclude women right?

Only if you're an idiot.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 10, 2004, 4:13 am

First, I'm a homophobe (sp?). In the extreme actually, my friends make fun of me because I don't like even being touched by another guy. I have no gay friends irl. In fact I know more gay people in game than irl. Not that I hate gays, just don't touch me or tell me about your lovelife. It creeps me out. But to be honest I would probably avoid someone I knew was gay.

However, I fully support gay marriage. It does no harm to me or anyone else I can think of but can do a lot of good for those involved. Same deal with polygamy. If all parties consent to it how does it harm anyone? I can't imagine having to deal with more nagging and having to "talk" more than I have to now but whatever rocks your boat.

But back to the original purpose of this thread... I don't think this will ever get to any serious stage of a constitutional amendment. The war on steriods will be time consuming.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 10, 2004, 5:55 am

Midnyte, here, you get totally pwned

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Dregor Thule 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.

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?
Dregor, you simple minded dolt. I really don't have the time to keep connecting all the dots for you.

then you come back with this...

Your tactic of changing around the conversation by obvious misinterpretations of my words is a very typical liberal way of debating a topic. It is a very destructive and limiting way to speak to people. By arguing this way, two people can never come to soften parts of their position and come to a consensus, because they are always re-explaing themselves and disputing ridiculous claims.

hahahahahah. You directly contradict yourself, and he points it out and then you call it a "typical" liberal tactic. Then by god I sure am glad I'm a liberal, because contradicting yourself is obviously a conservative debate tactic.

Actually, it is you who is using a destructive and limiting way to speak when you try to weasel out of this situation by accusing your opponent of misinterpreting your words. It is obvious what you meant by both of those statements, and they are obviously contradictory, and instead of defending either statement, you attack your opponent for not knowing how to debate. What a fucking nut job you are.

kahunPE · Post by **kahunPE** » February 10, 2004, 6:03 am

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

They tend to be white, middle-class, Christian, and conservative.
Ahh, but isn't your population mostly towards the coasts? I thought the US was a democracy..
Just because the populations of CA, NY, FL, ect. are larger does not entitle them to tell the people of those states how to live.
a) Indeed it does.

b) They're not asking you to change your lifestyle.. meerly to tolerate someone else's..

maybeui misread this but
a) each state has a constitution of their own, what is not required my the federal gov't is regulated thru the states(make their own laws), and or make up thier own minds. on a state by state law, hence the recent Mass supreme court ruling.
b) i don't have to tolerate shit ! i don't mind gays mariage but don't force shit on me, just because u feel that me or someone else has violated ur civil liberties.
I have enough shit to worry about in my own life to worry about who is licking/sucking who.
sorry for the vulgar refrences but hey , u push shit on me and i push back.
so live the way u want to live and and be happy gay , strait or BI
i am married in RL to a woman(SO!!) be happy !! who u are with

ps cart put ur avatar back up

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 10, 2004, 11:02 am

a) Correct, but there's nothing stopping a federally mandated law covering this, so in fact, the majority can tell you what to do.

b) It's a good thing there's not an english test for a marriage licence.

Rasspotari · Post by **Rasspotari** » February 10, 2004, 11:15 am

Rekaar. wrote:For those that claim religion "should have no place in our government," keep in mind that this country and it's values as expressed in the Constitution and related documents were not just thought up out the blue by some smart white guys. Every one of the precepts and guidelines they developed our charter from come directly from the Bible. There has been no new information on how to be a "good person" since it was written. The only errors lie in the interpretation.

you do realize that this bible book you speak of, wasn't dropped from the sky by some higher beeing for us to read up on how to be a nice person, we sorta figured it out by ourselves long before that book ever got published, thought up or christianism was an itch in god's crouch. the human beeing is endowed with something called common sense and we dont need any bible to tell us that killing another beeing is "bad"

thinking we NEED GOD to tell us what to do is the typical belief of a fanatical religious person, have some faith .... in yourself and smile more. i heard that helps

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 10, 2004, 11:40 am

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

They tend to be white, middle-class, Christian, and conservative.
Ahh, but isn't your population mostly towards the coasts? I thought the US was a democracy..
Just because the populations of CA, NY, FL, ect. are larger does not entitle them to tell the people of those states how to live.
a) Indeed it does.

No, it doesn't. Community standards are not something that the federal government gets to dictate. This isn't some socialist shithole where a majority (people who are OK with gay marriage) can tell a minority (people who aren't) what is and isn't acceptable.

Zaelath wrote:b) They're not asking you to change your lifestyle.. meerly to tolerate someone else's..

And Inbred Jed, the JOP and pastor of Podunk, Arkansas? I'm sure he's having trouble just tolerating, now he has to preside over the vows between man and man? Do you think this will lead to more tolerance, or more hate filled speech from his pulpit on Sundays?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 10, 2004, 11:49 am

They can, and do, refuse to marry people on whatever grounds they see fit now. What makes you think giving a gay couple legal status will mean they'll get married in a fucking church that preaches how much they're despised?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 10, 2004, 11:53 am

JOP means Justice of the Peace, and that position is a state one, not related to the church.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 10, 2004, 12:00 pm

Only person I've ever heard of at gunpoint at a wedding was the groom; they'll find someone willing to sign off a marriage contract.

Unless you can show me the federal statute that says a JOP can't refuse to marry anyone your point is moot. Besides, the same thing still holds, I can't imagine anyone wanting someone that hates them doing the job.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 10, 2004, 12:10 pm

Zaelath wrote:Only person I've ever heard of at gunpoint at a wedding was the groom; they'll find someone willing to sign off a marriage contract.

Unless you can show me the federal statute that says a JOP can't refuse to marry anyone your point is moot. Besides, the same thing still holds, I can't imagine anyone wanting someone that hates them doing the job.

If the federal gov't made gay marriage a right, then that's exactly what would happen. Not as shitty an idea as Dubya has trying to make it unconstitutional, but it's in the same ballpark. My point in all this is that the Fed needs to keep out of state and city affairs.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » February 10, 2004, 12:23 pm

Lynxe wrote: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.

Finally an opinion from someone not frothing at the mouth about the evil Christians. Lynxe the problem with this whole agenda that I see is the impact decisions permitting same sex marriages will have on Churches and therefore on people with religious beliefs.

For instance how long will it be before some gay activist group sues a fundamental church for refusing to marry them?
How long before legislation is written so it makes it illegal for Churches to refuse to marry gays?
How long will it be before the bible is declared as hate literature because it decries homosexuality as a sin. Whose rights will be trampled then?