Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 6, 2004, 2:17 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Lynks wrote:Adex, what if the Jews said they would marry gay people, would you then accept it as marriage?
My philosophy and moral code are independant of the jewish faith.

If you are asking "What if your moral code was not agreed upon by a majority of other religions?" I'd answer that I don't base my moral code on religous consensus, but rather from common sense, what I read from the bible, and from what God reveals in response to my prayers.

So, you would be willing to force your religion's ideas on others?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 6, 2004, 2:35 pm

ROFLMFAO....
Proved a point many have shared on this board for a long time. It is all well and good to label Christians as "Bigotted, Jesus Freaks, Jesus Crispies et al" and you make no comment. However I throw out the one term that is taboo and you get morally outraged? Kindly fuck off.

Now as to the other side of the argument... it is only a word.

Well now lets call all the people who desert or go AWOL courageous or heroes, after all they are just words.

Just a word hrmm lets change the definition of democracy to communism because your type lost the US election. (I realize you are not a citizen so shaddap)

Lets call all people that are "liberal" enlightened and tolerant.

The english language and all the words in it have meaning. Yes some words get bastardized over time and new meanings are added and that is all that changing the definition of marriage would do is bastardize the word.

I admire you and your incredible intelligence. You are someone I respect greatly. Further I wish I could meet you in person and get a picture of just you and me. I would love it if you would allow me to call you on Sundays and tell everyone you are my friend.

The above paragraph is written in the new language you are subscribing to.

What the fucking fuck? Every time you post you enter another dimension of idiocy.
Would you have typed this? After all it's just a word:

For fuck sakes it is all about you niggers pouting over a word. So don't preach down to the Jesus Freaks that all you really want is the same rights. What you want is to undermine the meaning of racial purity and cleanliness as it has been described for centuries.

Yes? No? The actual words you use don't offend me in the slightest because I'm a grown up. I was marvelling at your naked hatred and comtempt being expressed so openly.
Marriage is just a word. It's perfectly possible for people to get married not have any gods mentioned or any kind of religious crap. Yet it's still a marriage even though it doesn't conform to your religious definition.
The meaning of words changes over time. Sometimes this is because we as a species become more enlightened. Its called evolution. Try it sometime.

I can't even begin to address the rest of your post because I can't underclock my brain that far.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » December 6, 2004, 2:50 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
ROFLMFAO....
Proved a point many have shared on this board for a long time. It is all well and good to label Christians as "Bigotted, Jesus Freaks, Jesus Crispies et al" and you make no comment. However I throw out the one term that is taboo and you get morally outraged? Kindly fuck off.

Now as to the other side of the argument... it is only a word.

Well now lets call all the people who desert or go AWOL courageous or heroes, after all they are just words.

Just a word hrmm lets change the definition of democracy to communism because your type lost the US election. (I realize you are not a citizen so shaddap)

Lets call all people that are "liberal" enlightened and tolerant.

The english language and all the words in it have meaning. Yes some words get bastardized over time and new meanings are added and that is all that changing the definition of marriage would do is bastardize the word.

I admire you and your incredible intelligence. You are someone I respect greatly. Further I wish I could meet you in person and get a picture of just you and me. I would love it if you would allow me to call you on Sundays and tell everyone you are my friend.

The above paragraph is written in the new language you are subscribing to.
What the fucking fuck? Every time you post you enter another dimension of idiocy.
Would you have typed this? After all it's just a word:

For fuck sakes it is all about you niggers pouting over a word. So don't preach down to the Jesus Freaks that all you really want is the same rights. What you want is to undermine the meaning of racial purity and cleanliness as it has been described for centuries.
Yes? No? The actual words you use don't offend me in the slightest because I'm a grown up. I was marvelling at your naked hatred and comtempt being expressed so openly.
Marriage is just a word. It's perfectly possible for people to get married not have any gods mentioned or any kind of religious crap. Yet it's still a marriage even though it doesn't conform to your religious definition.
The meaning of words changes over time. Sometimes this is because we as a species become more enlightened. Its called evolution. Try it sometime.

I can't even begin to address the rest of your post because I can't underclock my brain that far.

You bring a preschool intellect to any debate and you will be lost so I will not fault you on this.

Now you will note I have never used the term FAG or HOMO or any other remark on any of my posts regarding this topic, or any other for that matter. The word was used in this to contrast the descriptions many of you have for Christians. Ah was that a light bulb going on?

Now as to your theory on evolution or enlightenment. How do you see this as becoming a more enlightened society? Why is compromise not a part of your vocabulary?

Why is it so hard to understand that I and many others agree with the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That the relationships you are describing DO NOT fall into that category and therefore need to be called something else. WHAT the hell is up with all this same bullshit? Rights I understand and agree with. But as a man I would not for one second blur the distinction because a group of woman wanted to be called Men because they felt discriminated against.
A marriage is a description of a union before God and Man between a man and a woman period.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 6, 2004, 2:56 pm

Marriage has always been about 2 people who love each other and want to spend their lives together and let the world know that they are together.

The Christians marriage is between a man and a women before God, but what about other religions, do you dismiss their marriage because it wasn't under your God?

Why is it so hard to understand that I and many others agree with the definition of marriage as being between 2 people, not necesarilly a man and a women?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 6, 2004, 2:58 pm

Atokal wrote: Now as to your theory on evolution or enlightenment. How do you see this as becoming a more enlightened society? Why is compromise not a part of your vocabulary?

Good let's talk about compromise. Compromise is about finding the least harmful solution for everyone involved. This is why the solution of only making civil unions for everybody is the best. It doesn't set the groundwork for a double standard, and it only offends the vocabulary of the most hardcore raging Christian fundamentalists. In fact it's the most balanced solution and makes sense. For Christians, marriage is the job of a priest. Since when does the government have any say in spiritual matters?

Why is it so hard to understand that I and many others agree with the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That the relationships you are describing DO NOT fall into that category and therefore need to be called something else.

Call them Trollikupkins for all I care. Just don't enact legislation that sets us up for 'separate but equal' or even blatant discrimination.

A marriage is a description of a union before God and Man between a man and a woman period.

That you have to understand is your definition of Marriage, and not mine.

-=Lohrno

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » December 6, 2004, 3:00 pm

Lynks wrote:Marriage has always been about 2 people who love each other and want to spend their lives together and let the world know that they are together.

The Christians marriage is between a man and a women before God, but what about other religions, do you dismiss their marriage because it wasn't under your God?

Why is it so hard to understand that I and many others agree with the definition of marriage as being between 2 people, not necesarilly a man and a women?

Umm no marriage has not always been about 2 people who love each other etc. It has always been about a man and a woman who love each other etc. Historically show me one instance previous to 1950 where two men or two women got married. Also where did I mention the God of Christianity in reference to my marriage statement.

As a matter of fact take out the reference to God entirely if you wish.
It does not change the definition of the word marriage.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 6, 2004, 3:04 pm

Atokal wrote: Umm no marriage has not always been about 2 people who love each other etc. It has always been about a man and a woman who love each other etc. Historically show me one instance previous to 1950 where two men or two women got married. Also where did I mention the God of Christianity in reference to my marriage statement.

It's well known that Greek society was at one point pretty gay friendly.

What about Harems? A man who has 30 wives and keeps them around in the same general place. What do you think they all did? It's not like he can satisfy all of them at all times... And yes they were all married...So see I have shown that there was a time with not only homosexuality in such a relationship, but polygamy!

Your definition of Marriage is not the only one.

If you don't think other cultures 'count' then just look at the mormons. They're part of our culture, and polygamy is part of their religion as well. They are Christians who do not accept your defintion.

-=Lohrno

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » December 6, 2004, 3:23 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Atokal wrote: Umm no marriage has not always been about 2 people who love each other etc. It has always been about a man and a woman who love each other etc. Historically show me one instance previous to 1950 where two men or two women got married. Also where did I mention the God of Christianity in reference to my marriage statement.
It's well known that Greek society was at one point pretty gay friendly.

What about Harems? A man who has 30 wives and keeps them around in the same general place. What do you think they all did? It's not like he can satisfy all of them at all times... And yes they were all married...So see I have shown that there was a time with not only homosexuality in such a relationship, but polygamy!

Your definition of Marriage is not the only one.

If you don't think other cultures 'count' then just look at the mormons. They're part of our culture, and polygamy is part of their religion as well. They are Christians who do not accept your defintion.

-=Lohrno

Mormons?

When the church abandoned plural marriage with the second manifesto, existing polygamists were granted amnesty by the government, and were allowed by the church and the state to continue living polygamy until they died. The last practicing polygamist LDS prophet died in 1918. It is believed that the last church sanctioned polygamist died in 1976.

Harems? well what these women did when the hubby was not around is debatable. If in fact they pleasured each other it still in no way constitutes a marriage. The fact that Greek society was very gay friendly at some point also does not imply marriages taking place between people of the same sex.

But you are missing the point. I have no issues whatsoever with Gays having a union that affords them the same rights as married people. What I have an issue with is redefining what the word marriage means.

When are people going to be truly proud of who they are.

Actresses no longer want to be called this instead they want to be known as actors. WHY? What the hell is wrong with being a female. There are other examples but I fear I am wasting my time explaining this. If gays are truly proud of their lifestyle why would they want to be defined by a word that is uniquely for a man and a woman?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 6, 2004, 3:44 pm

Right but this just shows you that yours is not the only definition of Marriage.

I bet there were some gay greek marriages, but I don't have the time to do that kind of research.

Dictionary.com agrees with both of us. It has a same sex definition of Marriage, and a husband and wife definition.

This is where that compromise part comes in. You'll have to concede that your views are not the only ones out there. Perhaps in your mind they are the 'right' views, but you have to realize that having the government have any type of separate definitions of marriage for gay and straight people would be discrimination. So: you have a choice (if you don't want to just ban the whole thing and admit you like to impose your views on others in an unamrican way). You can accept that other people have a different definition of Marriage, and let the government "Marry" gay people; or get rid of Marriage from government documents entirely. Let Priests "Marry" people, and let the government confer civil unions to everyone who wants it.

Those are the only two solutions that would not lead to discrimination or hypocrisy of some kind. Unless you have another suggestion?

-=Lohrno

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » December 6, 2004, 5:01 pm

Lynks wrote:Marriage has always been about 2 people who love each other and want to spend their lives together and let the world know that they are together.

The Christians marriage is between a man and a women before God, but what about other religions, do you dismiss their marriage because it wasn't under your God?

No, you should not speak about what you don't know. First, marriage has never had anything to do with love until modern times. Second, the purpose of marriage has always been to form the basis and foundation for procreation and family.

The only thing God had to do with marriage was to make you scared of retribution in the afterlife if you broke your covenant with your new spouse.

The crux of the disapproval of gay marriage is that it has nothing to do with family, just acceptance and tax status. The ONLY way the gay community will win this battle is if you can prove to the rest of us that you want marriage to raise a family.

However, that's not your message at this time.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 6, 2004, 5:11 pm

Then I guess people that can't have children can't get married ?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » December 6, 2004, 6:18 pm

Rekaar. wrote:
Thess wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:And so, in the dar hierarchy of values, what holds the top rung of importance if not life?
I would think you'd be against the war in Iraq. Love the fetus, hate the already born?
The already born have choice. Who is more in need of protection - those with or without a voice?

I think you're confusing open minded with liberal.
bam

What are you talking about? You think every Iraqi choose to be in this war? Or do you just blindly see it one sided as the americans choose to be in the military.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 6, 2004, 6:23 pm

Atokal wrote:Umm no marriage has not always been about 2 people who love each other etc. It has always been about a man and a woman who love each other etc. Historically show me one instance previous to 1950 where two men or two women got married. Also where did I mention the God of Christianity in reference to my marriage statement.

Pueblo Indians at the time of the arrival of the Europeans.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » December 6, 2004, 6:24 pm

Again, you're desperately trying to find a crack rather than form your argument around what will work. Resorting to first grade logic is not going to win anyone over.

You don't know if you can have children or not until you already are married and trying to have them. Since you tried, failed, then got tested - adoption is the natural progression. Your intent was to raise a family the entire time.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » December 6, 2004, 6:28 pm

Thess wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:
Thess wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:And so, in the dar hierarchy of values, what holds the top rung of importance if not life?
I would think you'd be against the war in Iraq. Love the fetus, hate the already born?
The already born have choice. Who is more in need of protection - those with or without a voice?

I think you're confusing open minded with liberal.
bam
What are you talking about? You think every Iraqi choose to be in this war? Or do you just blindly see it one sided as the americans choose to be in the military.

This is not brain surgery thess. While beliefs may differ between you and I you cannot debate the simple fact that we are not in Iraq for genocide. If no one was shooting at us, we wouldn't be shooting back. Each combatant opposing the US had and has the choice to lay down their arms. Those that choose to fight and die were given the decision. A baby was not.

See? Simple.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 6, 2004, 6:37 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Again, you're desperately trying to find a crack rather than form your argument around what will work. Resorting to first grade logic is not going to win anyone over.

You don't know if you can have children or not until you already are married and trying to have them. Since you tried, failed, then got tested - adoption is the natural progression. Your intent was to raise a family the entire time.

Hahahahahahaha, of course you can find out before you get married, what about old people who know they can't anymore. And even if you adopt, what's stopping gay people from adopting aswell and starting a familly. You're probably opposed to that too.

Ddesperately trying to find a crack? I don't think so, I'm just trying to shove information in your homophobic head that any 2 people should have every same right as anyone else without fear of discrimination.

you should not speak about what you don't know

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 6, 2004, 8:01 pm

Rekaar. wrote: You don't know if you can have children or not until you already are married and trying to have them. Since you tried, failed, then got tested - adoption is the natural progression. Your intent was to raise a family the entire time.

Marriage is not a prerequisite for sex.

-=Lohrno

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 6, 2004, 8:05 pm

Rekaar. wrote: This is not brain surgery thess. While beliefs may differ between you and I you cannot debate the simple fact that we are not in Iraq for genocide.

Well I certainly haven't heard a good reason for the occupation.

If no one was shooting at us, we wouldn't be shooting back.

Why do you think they're shooting at us in the first place?

Each combatant opposing the US had and has the choice to lay down their arms. Those that choose to fight and die were given the decision. A baby was not.

A baby != a Fetus. Maybe you don't believe that, but many do, and banning abortion would be a crime against civil rights, the American dream, and women's health.

-=Lohrno

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » December 6, 2004, 8:25 pm

Rekaar. wrote: You don't know if you can have children or not until you already are married and trying to have them. Since you tried, failed, then got tested - adoption is the natural progression. Your intent was to raise a family the entire time.

Wow lol. Do you honestly think that is true?

I don't know why I'm suprised considering the source of the comment, and I can't believe I even have to point out the obvious to you, but many people know they are infertile before considering marriage. There are certain medical issues that lead to infertility and those medical issues are not dependent on marriage and/or sex, Dr. Rekaar.

Then there are people who CHOOSE not to have children. I guess you believe they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Marriage should be a life-long commitment between two adults who love each other. Children should not be a requirement.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 6, 2004, 8:36 pm

I wonder if Atokal and Rekaar ever secretly admit to themselves how retarded they know they are but simply liek being ignorant.

This one stood out: Atokal Wrote:

A marriage is a description of a union before God and Man between a man and a woman period.

Wrong. A marriage is whatever 2 people together fucking feel like it is.

Only ignorant pathetic hatemongers would deny the right for everyone to have the chance to be accepted and capable of practising the right to a union with another soul.

Claiming you dont want it called marriage for whatever bullshit reason your fucking ego has ordered you to vomit forth is embarrasing to watch.

If however, like Adex, this is a religious thing and you were capable of normal discussion without complete verbal felchery then I urge you to realise that at the end of the day a book 2000 years old written by mortal men is open to interpretation as a species evolves....or do we just stagnate?

To the twin fucknuts - Gay people are not wrong, you may think they are, but then...what the fuck would you know? Your opinions are based on a weak mind that is scared of change and is not open to learning new concepts.

Btw....my thoughts are marriage for humans, all humans, if they want/need it. Times change, the shift of acceptance has started (would we have discussed this 50 years ago?) If you are actually going to defend this, ask yourself.......would you appreciate millions of shithead rednecks who have 3 brains cells in their entire family trees mindlessly bleating on and on and actively going out of their way to stop you........that sounds like a civil rights violation by a crowd of hysterical zealots.

There is no fucking right and wrong in terms of who we fuck, Grown up people have the right to a freedom of choice, expression and acceptance without fear of fucking reprisal or ignorance from morons (YES THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHT!) . Who are you protecting here? Your fucking moral concepts by the looks of things (which are bullshit anyway btw)

Wake the fuck up, until then your on ignore.....both of you...for your fucking stupidity.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » December 7, 2004, 12:24 am

Lalanae wrote:
Rekaar. wrote: You don't know if you can have children or not until you already are married and trying to have them. Since you tried, failed, then got tested - adoption is the natural progression. Your intent was to raise a family the entire time.
Wow lol. Do you honestly think that is true?

I don't know why I'm suprised considering the source of the comment, and I can't believe I even have to point out the obvious to you, but many people know they are infertile before considering marriage. There are certain medical issues that lead to infertility and those medical issues are not dependent on marriage and/or sex, Dr. Rekaar.

Then there are people who CHOOSE not to have children. I guess you believe they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Marriage should be a life-long commitment between two adults who love each other. Children should not be a requirement.

Says you. The difference in credibility between your statement and mine is history. On one hand you call me blinded by my own value system and on the other hand do it in your own way.

The current thread in the discussion is the purpose of marriage, not it's current uses/misuses. That's the whole problem with the gay advocacy. All you do is bash on marriage and your stance is "well look, it's already been drug through the mud - what's a little more?" How you can be shocked that those of us that still place a value on marriage get upset I dunno.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » December 7, 2004, 12:32 am

Lohrno wrote: A baby != a Fetus. Maybe you don't believe that, but many do, and banning abortion would be a crime against civil rights, the American dream, and women's health.

-=Lohrno

That's the whole fucking point numbnuts. If it's a baby then I'm right. If it's nothing then you're right.

So when is it a baby and not a fetus (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean to you)? The legality is subject to intepretation. So when the legality changes, so do your morals. Suddenly the baby that was aborted at 6 months - while fine before - is now illegal. Was it murder then? Subjective morality - a wonderful thing for you?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » December 7, 2004, 12:35 am

I was just waiting for someone to say marriage belongs to a certain religion.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » December 7, 2004, 12:42 am

it's mine actually!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » December 7, 2004, 12:46 am

GIVE ME BACK MY HONEYMOONS!

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 7, 2004, 2:49 am

Rekaar. wrote: That's the whole fucking point numbnuts. If it's a baby then I'm right. If it's nothing then you're right.

So when is it a baby and not a fetus (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean to you)? The legality is subject to intepretation. So when the legality changes, so do your morals.

I for one do not base my morals on legality.

Suddenly the baby that was aborted at 6 months - while fine before - is now illegal. Was it murder then? Subjective morality - a wonderful thing for you?

Now you're talking about something else, limits on the age. I personally would probably put the limit at around 3 months. I think that subject is open to debate while still not being unamerican. Banning abortion is debatable, but I would put it on about the same level as "Should we instate a dictatorship." As long as we're not banning abortion, I have no problems. =D

-=Lohrno

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » December 7, 2004, 8:06 am

Why is compromise not a part of your vocabulary?

Duh:

Personally I think the marriage-in-all-but-name is a good compromise (although I couldn't give a monkey's what you call it. There's nothing so special about the word "marriage" IMO) and will satisfy almost everybody

Why is it so hard to understand that I and many others agree with the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That the relationships you are describing DO NOT fall into that category and therefore need to be called something else. WHAT the hell is up with all this same bullshit?

I understand it fine. I have objections to your use of this definition to circumscribe the rights and happiness of a section of society.

A marriage is a description of a union before God and Man between a man and a woman period

Only to you and your ilk. I'm married and god had fuck all to do with it. God is mentioned nowhere on the legal documentation and any religious reading, music or other mention was specifically banned by law from being used in the ceremony.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 7, 2004, 8:15 am

OMG U R GOING TO HELL TANC LOL U LOSSER

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 7, 2004, 11:05 am

That's the whole fucking point numbnuts. If it's a baby then I'm right. If it's nothing then you're right.

So when is it a baby and not a fetus (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean to you)? The legality is subject to intepretation. So when the legality changes, so do your morals. Suddenly the baby that was aborted at 6 months - while fine before - is now illegal. Was it murder then? Subjective morality - a wonderful thing for you?

I recommend that you go back and, one more time, read one of 'Dars many explanations regarding why the baby/fetus distinction is completely irrelevant.

If you're not interested in arguing against the actual logic that explains the legality of abortion, why even bother?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » December 7, 2004, 12:27 pm

Lynks wrote:...that any 2 people should have every same right as anyone else without fear of discrimination.

I don't think too many have argued against this point. Words reflect thought though, and wanting to call it marriage is an attempt to gain mainstream acceptance\approval of what most consider to be a deviant lifestyle.

Other than taxes and some adoption issues, all the other legal issues can be taken care of with proper planning (AFIK). Just like unmarried hetro couples (should) do.

I'd guess most folks fall into the "Don't care, don't want to know" category. What you do at home is your business, why would you need my approval?

Call it anything you want, but don't try redefine the language to further your political agenda.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » December 7, 2004, 12:51 pm

Teenybloke wrote:I wonder if Atokal and Rekaar ever secretly admit to themselves how retarded they know they are but simply liek being ignorant.

This one stood out: Atokal Wrote:
A marriage is a description of a union before God and Man between a man and a woman period.
Wrong. A marriage is whatever 2 people together fucking feel like it is.

Only ignorant pathetic hatemongers would deny the right for everyone to have the chance to be accepted and capable of practising the right to a union with another soul.

You are correct you hatemongering asswipe. I have never said that they should be denied a union with another soul or the rights inherent in that union.

Teenybloke wrote:Claiming you dont want it called marriage for whatever bullshit reason your fucking ego has ordered you to vomit forth is embarrasing to watch.

What the hell does ego have to do with anything?
I am almost positive I didn't stutter when I said I only disagree with changing the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Teenybloke wrote:If however, like Adex, this is a religious thing and you were capable of normal discussion without complete verbal felchery then I urge you to realise that at the end of the day a book 2000 years old written by mortal men is open to interpretation as a species evolves....or do we just stagnate?

This is a religious disagreement. However you and those like you are so willing to cater to anything but the so called "religious right" that you are blinded by your own bigotry and obviously incapable of normal discussion.

Teenybloke wrote:To the twin fucknuts - Gay people are not wrong, you may think they are, but then...what the fuck would you know? Your opinions are based on a weak mind that is scared of change and is not open to learning new concepts.

Yes it is a weak mind indeed that stands up for what they believe in.
Good God man you would cower to the needs of anyone if it was popular.

Teenybloke wrote:Btw....my thoughts are marriage for humans, all humans, if they want/need it. Times change, the shift of acceptance has started (would we have discussed this 50 years ago?) If you are actually going to defend this, ask yourself.......would you appreciate millions of shithead rednecks who have 3 brains cells in their entire family trees mindlessly bleating on and on and actively going out of their way to stop you........that sounds like a civil rights violation by a crowd of hysterical zealots.

Mindless rednecks?
Hahaha you stupid fuck just because someone has an opinion that differs from yours you label them. Ask yourself why you are so attached to the word marriage, shit boy you are not gay nor I suspect married. So what the fuck do you know. I am not resistant to change at all.

Teenybloke wrote:There is no fucking right and wrong in terms of who we fuck, Grown up people have the right to a freedom of choice, expression and acceptance without fear of fucking reprisal or ignorance from morons (YES THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHT!) .

Now you keep arguing that marriage is just a word. That it should be available to gays instead of the compromise of a union that gives them the same rights as married people. Now read your stupid dumbass statement above and see how important words really are. "there is no right and wrong in terms of who we fuck" Dumbest statement I have ever read.
Fortunately for you I read stupid very well after years of reading your posts on the vault, and I know what you meant. Others would not.

Teenybloke wrote:Who are you protecting here? Your fucking moral concepts by the looks of things (which are bullshit anyway btw)

Yes having some form of moral code is fucking bullshit. WTG genius

Teenybloke wrote:Wake the fuck up, until then your on ignore.....both of you...for your fucking stupidity.

Wow on ignore from a fucking retard. If we are on ignore how will you know when we wake up to be a pandering, retarded, conformist like yourself?

Fuck you

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 7, 2004, 1:19 pm

I guarantee Atokal is an intelligent man!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 7, 2004, 1:56 pm

Shut the fuck up about gay marriage already. The people across the states voted....you are outnumbered 3 to 1 on average. No one cares how loud you whine about it, you are in a very decided minority.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 7, 2004, 2:29 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Shut the fuck up about gay marriage already. The people across the states voted....you are outnumbered 3 to 1 on average. No one cares how loud you whine about it, you are in a very decided minority.

Then I will submit that we as a nation are abandoning our ideals of land of the free, equality and justice for all. Anyone here talking about banning abortion and/or gay marriage has no right to talk about freedom anymore.

-=Lohrno

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » December 7, 2004, 2:36 pm

Shut the fuck up about gay marriage already. The people across the states voted....you are outnumbered 3 to 1 on average. No one cares how loud you whine about it, you are in a very decided minority.

lohrno kind of beat me to it, but what would hte outcome be if we decided to vote on wether homosexuality should be illegal or not?

a vote amongts 3 pedophiles and 1 child can only end one way, it does not mean its right

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 7, 2004, 2:45 pm

60 million nazis cant be wrong!

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » December 7, 2004, 2:54 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Shut the fuck up about gay marriage already. The people across the states voted....you are outnumbered 3 to 1 on average. No one cares how loud you whine about it, you are in a very decided minority.
Then I will submit that we as a nation are abandoning our ideals of land of the free, equality and justice for all. Anyone here talking about banning abortion and/or gay marriage has no right to talk about freedom anymore.

-=Lohrno

What is freedom to you Lohrno?

Is freedom the ability to do whatever a person wishes without consequence?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 7, 2004, 3:03 pm

Atokal wrote: Is freedom the ability to do whatever a person wishes without consequence?

You've got half my definition there.

It would be more like:

Freedom is the ability to do whatever a person wishes without consequences from the government so long as it does not harm society. Freedom is also freedom from discrimination.

-=Lohrno

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » December 7, 2004, 4:55 pm

Kilmoll wrote:Shut the fuck up about gay marriage already. The people across the states voted....you are outnumbered 3 to 1 on average. No one cares how loud you whine about it, you are in a very decided minority.

Nice to see another moron that does not understand the proper ballancing between democratic "majority rule" and constitutional rights "minority protection." This is not a totalitarian society, Kilmoll, in spite of all the attempts of the current administration to the contrary. It never has been. Spounting off "we voted, you lost" just displays either your ignorance or your stupidity, or both.

You are right about the bigots being a huge majority, but all that indicates is that this is not a struggle that will be won at the polls. It will be (and slowly is being) won in the courts, as has been the case, sadly, with every civil rights issue in this country's history.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 7, 2004, 4:59 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Nice to see another moron that does not understand the proper ballancing between democratic "majority rule" and constitutional rights "minority protection." This is not a totalitarian society, Kilmoll, in spite of all the attempts of the current administration to the contrary. It never has been. Spounting off "we voted, you lost" just displays either your ignorance or your stupidity, or both.

Sad to see another moron that thinks he and/or others need to be 'protected' from gay marraige.

I lump this issue in with abortion. You dont like abortion? Don't have one. You don't like gay marraige? Don't get one.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 7, 2004, 5:08 pm

Atokal wrote:What is freedom to you Lohrno?

Is freedom the ability to do whatever a person wishes without consequence?

Seriously, what's the consequence? How does it effect you or anyone that's not homosexual in any way shape or form? Is it going to turn homosexuals into heteros all of the sudden?

There's no logical reason to be against homosexual marriage. The only reason this is an issue is because of religiously taught beliefs that it's bad. The problem is that religion has Always been interpretive. Some don't buy into the "agenda" at all yet find the teachings of what is truly moral behavior to be soothing and even something to cherish. Judging homosexual marriage in the same sentence as judging rape or murder or any number of other moral issues is ridiculous, plain and simple.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 7, 2004, 5:19 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:
Kilmoll wrote:Shut the fuck up about gay marriage already. The people across the states voted....you are outnumbered 3 to 1 on average. No one cares how loud you whine about it, you are in a very decided minority.
Nice to see another moron that does not understand the proper ballancing between democratic "majority rule" and constitutional rights "minority protection." This is not a totalitarian society, Kilmoll, in spite of all the attempts of the current administration to the contrary. It never has been. Spounting off "we voted, you lost" just displays either your ignorance or your stupidity, or both.

You are right about the bigots being a huge majority, but all that indicates is that this is not a struggle that will be won at the polls. It will be (and slowly is being) won in the courts, as has been the case, sadly, with every civil rights issue in this country's history.

ROFL

Label away you pathetically predictable one trick pony.

No one is stripping any minorities of any rights when it comes to gay marriage. They never had the right to marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. People in government have continually expressed the desire to let them have civil unions which would allow them many of the same exact benefits they would recieve under marriage, they just don't get to say they are married. STFU already. If you truly gave a shit you would get behind (pun intended) the efforts to grant civil unions so that the poor persecuted gay ones get the protections and benefits they so desire.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 7, 2004, 5:28 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: No one is stripping any minorities of any rights when it comes to gay marriage. They never had the right to marriage.

Hence the current debate.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to you and Atokal and whoever else believes this. Rest assured though, you guys don't have the monopoly on the definition of marriage though, sorry.

People in government have continually expressed the desire to let them have civil unions which would allow them many of the same exact benefits they would recieve under marriage, they just don't get to say they are married.

Why have the double standard? Why not just eliminate the word marriage, and make them all civil unions? To make it otherwise would mean we are treating them differently. That means it's discrimination at least lexically if not opening the door up for some other kinds.

STFU already. If you truly gave a shit you would get behind (pun intended) the efforts to grant civil unions so that the poor persecuted gay ones get the protections and benefits they so desire.

Sorry I don't have the time to get involved in politics. Just to bitch about them on Internet messageboards. =D If I was given the opportunity to vote here though on this issue, I would.

-=Lohrno

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 7, 2004, 5:29 pm

Key word asshole....you DENY THEM RIGHTS.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 7, 2004, 5:33 pm

Lynks wrote:Key word asshole....you DENY THEM RIGHTS.

RIF

A civil union was "GRANT" them new rights they haven't had to this point. Celebrate it. Don't be such a negative CUNT.

There's a couple keywords for you, mmmkay?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 7, 2004, 5:36 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: RIF

A civil union was "GRANT" them new rights they haven't had to this point. Celebrate it. Don't be such a negative CUNT.

There's a couple keywords for you, mmmkay?

I still don't understand, why the double standard?

-=Lohrno

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 7, 2004, 5:37 pm

Ohh I get it, you're afraid. You're afraid that if they use the same word as you, you might turn gay! I get it, you fucking homophobe.

BTW, since these people are birth defects according to you, wouldn't that mean its not their fault? I mean, would you deny the right to a couple with down syndrome from getting married?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 7, 2004, 5:41 pm

Lynks wrote:Ohh I get it, you're afraid. You're afraid that if they use the same word as you, you might turn gay! I get it, you fucking homophobe.

BTW, since these people are birth defects according to you, wouldn't that mean its not their fault? I mean, would you deny the right to a couple with down syndrome from getting married?

ROFL

Just keep going back to the old well of questions, acusations and labels. You only show what a hypocrit you are. It's just so damn sad to see a grown up act like this. /shrug

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 7, 2004, 5:44 pm

You never really answered my question, you just keep dancing around it and change the subject whenever you are about to be proven wrong.

hypocritE...hoked on fonics wrkdeded 4 me.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 7, 2004, 5:48 pm

If you refuse to accept progress toward your stated goal, you're fucked.

I 100% support gay marraige. I'm not crazy about civil unions being a psuedo-marraige... but it is progress, from no gay pairing, to civil unions.

Eventually, and it is inevitable, Gay Marraige will be legal and common...

You must be reasonable and rational and accept progress in the right direction.