# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage

## kfrost06

HARTFORD, Conn. - The state Supreme Court on Monday took up the issue of gay marriage in Connecticut, the first state in the nation to pass a civil unions law without court intervention. 

Eight gay and lesbian couples, unhappy with civil unions, are suing over the state's refusal to grant them marriage licenses. They want the court to rule that the state's marriage law is unconstitutional because it applies only to heterosexual couples and denies gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

The state argues that Connecticut's 2005 civil unions law gives the couples the equality they seek under state law.

In court Monday, the justices fired off questions at Bennett Klein, the attorney for the plaintiffs.

"How can it reasonably be done or logically be done to sort of delink the long-standing, deeply held institutional aspect of marriage, that it's a union between a man and a woman, and then define marriage as something other than that for purposes of this argument?" asked Justice Richard Palmer.

Klein replied that the fundamental principles of marriage are not based on gender.

"It is really a relationship of two legal equals based on mutual consent by which they take responsibility for each other, and that relationship is protected by the state," he said.

The justices aren't expected to issue a ruling until later this year.

Attorneys on both sides say a decision in the couples' favor could have nationwide implications for states that have adopted or are considering civil union-like legislation.

Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington have laws allowing either civil unions or domestic partnerships, with New Hampshire set to join in January. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs.

"What the state calls something does matter," Klein said. "The only possible reason that the legislature denied marriage here and created a separate institution just for one minority group was because they thought marriage meant something."

The hearing drew supporters, as well as opponents, including members of the Family Institute of Connecticut.

"We hope the court will realize that something this radical should be left to the people, that something this disruptive, divisive and controversial should be left to the people to decide and not handed down from above," said Peter Wolfgang, the group's director of public policy.

The Connecticut couples who sued have been together between 10 and 32 years and say civil unions are inferior to marriage and violate their rights to equal protection and due process.

Married couples have federal rights related to taxes, Social Security beneficiary rules, veterans' benefits and other laws that people in civil unions don't have. Because civil unions aren't recognized nationwide, other rights, such as the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, disappear when couples cross state lines.

The couples' claim was dismissed last year by a judge who said they received the equality they sought when Connecticut passed its civil unions law. The couples appealed. Their lawsuit names state ***artment of Public Health and the Madison town clerk's office, which denied marriage licenses to the couples based on state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's advice.

"Our basic argument is, the trial court correctly recognized that there is a rational basis for the state to use a different name for the same rights and benefits accorded same-sex couples," Blumenthal said. "The rights and benefits are identical, whether the union is called a civil union or a marriage."

A bill is pending in Connecticut's legislature to approve same-sex marriage, but leaders of the Judiciary Committee say they want to pull it from consideration this session because they do not believe enough lawmakers would vote to approve it. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who signed the civil unions bill into law in 2005, has said she would veto a gay marriage bill.

----------


## kfrost06

Here's how liberals work, if the people do not want something(e.g.gay marriage) they find a judge that will force it upon them, you disagree with them then you are a hate monger/bigot right wing fanatical. Why even bother with the process of making laws or voting, the liberals will simply find judges that will legislate law from the bench and force it on the masses against their will. Didn't communism fail? Do you think they will give up if the judges rule against them? It will not be over until there is no more morality left.

The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?

----------


## BgMc31

> Here's how liberals work, if the people do not want something(e.g.gay marriage) they find a judge that will force it upon them, you disagree with them then you are a hate monger/bigot right wing fanatical. Why even bother with the process of making laws or voting, the liberals will simply find judges that will legislate law from the bench and force it on the masses against their will. Didn't communism fail? Do you think they will give up if the judges rule against them? It will not be over until there is no more morality left.
> 
> *The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults*?



That's an ass backward argument!!! There is a load of difference between polygamy and same sex marriage. Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why? The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry. The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage.

----------


## kfrost06

> The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry.


Like I said, you don't agree with the liberals on their issue and they call you names.




> The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage.


What arguement are you referring to?




> There is a load of difference between polygamy and same sex marriage. Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?


Give me one good reason why a man can not marry more than one woman. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?

----------


## BgMc31

> Like I said, you don't agree with the liberals on their issue and they call you names.
> 
> 
> 
> What arguement are you referring to? *At one point in time 90% of the country opposed interrational marriage. They claimed it was unnatural and against the will of God. It was also stated that interracial children would end up retarded or disabled which was absurb*
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one good reason why a man can not marry more than one woman. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?*Why are you dodging the question?*


But as a person who doesn't dodge questions like you, here are some reasoning behind not allowing polygamy:

The problem with polygamy is that it is very likely to be an exploitative relationship where one person in the relationship (almost always the man) lords over the other members (almost always the women). It may sound very open and tolerant to think all members of a polygamous marriage would be 100% willing and not at all disadvantaged, but thats pretty much ignoring that the history of polygamy is tied fairly directly into the subjugation of women.

Furthermore, allowing polygamy would lead to a fairly radical reordering of society in a way gay marriage simply wouldnt. Gay marriage is still a traditional marriage, albeit between two people of the same sex. But its still about two people in a consensual relationship. Even now, without gay marriage, many gay couples are living together in committed, healthy relationships. So, in many ways, gay marriage is just making official something that already exists.

Now it's your turn to answer the question!!!!

----------


## kfrost06

> But as a person who doesn't dodge questions like you, here are some reasoning behind not allowing polygamy:
> 
> The problem with polygamy is that it is very likely to be an exploitative relationship where one person in the relationship (almost always the man) lords over the other members (almost always the women). It may sound very open and tolerant to think all members of a polygamous marriage would be 100% willing and not at all disadvantaged, but thats pretty much ignoring that the history of polygamy is tied fairly directly into the subjugation of women.
> 
> Furthermore, allowing polygamy would lead to a fairly radical reordering of society in a way gay marriage simply wouldnt. Gay marriage is still a traditional marriage, albeit between two people of the same sex. But its still about two people in a consensual relationship. Even now, without gay marriage, many gay couples are living together in committed, healthy relationships. So, in many ways, gay marriage is just making official something that already exists.
> 
> Now it's your turn to answer the question!!!!


I did not answer you the first time because you defined the debate with the following, "*The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry.*" Based on that definition I simply could not win any argument, if I took the opposing view I am a bigot so why waste my time?

I do appreicate that you answered the second time with out calling me names however you did quote me and inserted into the quotes your own words which again is you re-defining to fit your needs, well just like the original arguement, redifining marriage.

Your question, "Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?"

My answer, marriage is a *natural right* for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes. None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement. Now redefining marriage to include same sex is NOT a natural right but rather argued to be a civil right. By redefining marraige to accomadate same-sex couples will reduce marriage to nothing more then a means test for social benefits.

There are a million legitamate arguements for AND against same sex marriages, to simply say that anyone oppossed to gay marriage is a bigot speaks of your level of intelligence in debating but being on the wrong side of the issue you will have to resort to name calling at some point or you will be forced to listen to reason, a no-no for liberals.

----------


## Carlos_E

> I did not answer you the first time because you defined the debate with the following, "*The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry.*" Based on that definition I simply could not win any argument, if I took the opposing view I am a bigot so why waste my time?
> 
> I do appreicate that you answered the second time with out calling me names however you did quote me and inserted into the quotes your own words which again is you re-defining to fit your needs, well just like the original arguement, redifining marriage.
> 
> Your question, "Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?"
> 
> My answer, marriage is a *natural right* for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). *To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes. None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement.*


Do your research this is incorrect. Dolphins, peniguins and birds that mate for life have shown they will pair in a homosexual relationship for life. So gay monogmous relationships do exist in nature.





> [/B] Now redefining marriage to include same sex is NOT a natural right but rather argued to be a civil right. *By redefining marraige to accomadate same-sex couples will reduce marriage to nothing more then a means test for social benefits.*
> 
> There are a million legitamate arguements for AND against same sex marriages, to simply say that anyone oppossed to gay marriage is a bigot speaks of your level of intelligence in debating but being on the wrong side of the issue you will have to resort to name calling at some point or you will be forced to listen to reason, a no-no for liberals.


Marriage IS for social benefits. Marriage hasn't meant anything for a long time. Striaght people destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own. Look at the divorce rate.

----------


## kfrost06

> Do your research this is incorrect. Dolphins, peniguins and birds that mate for life have shown they will pair in a homosexual relationship for life. So gay monogmous relationships do exist in nature.


If this is true it is news to me. Could you please reference it, thank you. As for Dolphins, here;s what I found http://www.answers.com/topic/dolphin...logical-family

here is a pertinent excerpt from the above reference:

"Data for defining mating systems are difficult to collect for dolphins, but genetic studies are now allowing some of the first dolphin paternity testing, and continued work should clarify understanding. *Available evidence suggests that monogamy is not a practice in which dolphins engage*. Bottlenosed dolphin paternity tests indicate that females may use different sires for subsequent calves. For the better-studied dolphins, associations between breeding males and females tend to be brief, lasting days to weeks, and one male or male coalitions may associate with one receptive female at a time, sometimes battling with other males for access to the female. Males may move between female groups during a breeding season. This pattern has been referred to as serial polygyny or promiscuity."




> Marriage IS for social benefits. Marriage hasn't meant anything for a long time. Striaght people destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own. Look at the divorce rate.



Yes, I agree the divorce rate is high and the sanctity of marriage is on the decline however many and I argue even most, still believe in marriage and respect it so because some "straight people have destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own" is no excuse for the government to "put the nail in the coffin of marriage."

----------


## Carlos_E

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp




> Wendell and Cass, two penguins at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, Brooklyn, live in a soap opera world of seduction and intrigue. Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm. These birds mate for life. But given the disproportionate male-female ratio at the aquarium, some of the females flirt profusely and dump their partners for single males with better nests.
> 
> Wendell and Cass, however, take no part in these cunning schemes. They have been completely devoted to each other for the last eight years. In fact, neither one of them has ever been with anyone else, says their keeper, Stephanie Mitchell.


I'll give you the link about the dolphins when I get back from the gym.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Yes, I agree the divorce rate is high and the sanctity of marriage is on the decline however many and I argue even most, still believe in marriage and respect it so because some "straight people have destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own" is no excuse for the government to "put the nail in the coffin of marriage."


You are mixing your moral/social beliefs and trying to frame it as a legal issue. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a legal issue. Straight couples receive tax breaks. Gay couples do not. That is the issue and why they are suing. If you want to reserve marriage for straight couples then grant the same legal rights to couples who have civil unions.

----------


## Carlos_E

> http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you the link about the dolphins when I get back from the gym.


From national geographic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

Headed to the gym...

----------


## DSM4Life

I can understand why so many people are against gay marriage. I mean i don't want "us gays" to cripple this sacred bond between a man and a women. 

Oh wait, what is this ? oh, the current divorce rate. Doesn't look to sacred to me. 


Divorce Rate
Welcome to divorcerate.org, the resource for providing information on the divorce rate in America and around the world. 
What is the current divorce rate in America?
It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that *"Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue*.", which is actually a projection. 

"50% of all marriages in the America end in divorce."
The above statement about the divorce rate in America hides all the details about distribution, however. 

Age at marriage for those who divorce in America Age Women Men 
Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7% 
20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8% 
25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3% 
30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6% 
35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5% 


The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri. 

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
_

ref http://www.divorcerate.org/_

----------


## kfrost06

> http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp
> I'll give you the link about the dolphins when I get back from the gym.


This thread talks about penguins in captivity, it is not relevant. Animals(including humans) behave differently in captivity. As for the dolphins link you posted, I can not view youtube at work so I have no clue what it shows.




> *You are mixing your moral/social beliefs and trying to frame it as a legal issue.* As far as the state is concerned marriage is a legal issue. Straight couples receive tax breaks. Gay couples do not. That is the issue and why they are suing. If you want to reserve marriage for straight couples then grant the same legal rights to couples who have civil unions.


In case you did not see the title of the thread, here it is again "Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage". Carlos, it is a legal issue. In Conn. civil union between same sex couples is regonized and ALL state tax and health benefits apply the same as to married couples, did you read the article? They are going to court to force people to recognize the marriage and then they can force other states and the federal government to recognize the marriage. I beleive this is the strongest arguement for gay marraige and warrents open debate. I was hoping that the issue could be discussed with out name calling but the PM you sent me proved otherwise. Someone that has a different opinion then you does not make them narrow minded. I respect your opinions and though I disagree can do so with out getting personal but I refuse to engage in a mud slinging debate. Good bye.

----------


## Carlos_E

> This thread talks about penguins in captivity, it is not relevant. Animals(including humans) behave differently in captivity. As for the dolphins link you posted, I can not view youtube at work so I have no clue what it shows.
> 
> 
> 
> In case you did not see the title of the thread, here it is again "Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage". Carlos, it is a legal issue. In Conn. civil union between same sex couples is regonized and ALL state tax and health benefits apply the same as to married couples, did you read the article? They are going to court to force people to recognize the marriage and then they can force other states and the federal government to recognize the marriage. I beleive this is the strongest arguement for gay marraige and warrents open debate. I was hoping that the issue could be discussed with out name calling but the PM you sent me proved otherwise. Someone that has a different opinion then you does not make them narrow minded. I respect your opinions and though I disagree can do so with out getting personal but I refuse to engage in a mud slinging debate. Good bye.


I did not call you a name in PM. I replied to your PM and said I think you're being narrow minded with a  :Smilie:  after it. Apparently that offended you. If so I apologize.

----------


## BgMc31

> I did not answer you the first time because you defined the debate with the following, "*The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry.*" Based on that definition I simply could not win any argument, if I took the opposing view I am a bigot so why waste my time?
> 
> I do appreicate that you answered the second time with out calling me names however you did quote me and inserted into the quotes your own words which again is you re-defining to fit your needs, well just like the original arguement, redifining marriage.
> 
> Your question, "Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?"
> 
> My answer, marriage is a *natural right* for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes. None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement. Now redefining marriage to include same sex is NOT a natural right but rather argued to be a civil right. By redefining marraige to accomadate same-sex couples will reduce marriage to nothing more then a means test for social benefits.
> 
> *There are a million legitamate arguements for AND against same sex marriages, to simply say that anyone oppossed to gay marriage is a bigot speaks of your level of intelligence in debating but being on the wrong side of the issue you will have to resort to name calling at some point or you will be forced to listen to reason, a no-no for liberals.*


You claim that you are above name calling and mud slinging but use the same tactics you speak against. You may not be a bigot, but you are a hypocrite!!!

Homosexuality isn't only practiced by human. That natural right comment is assisine. If that's the case why not campaign against contraception because it goes against the natural reason for sex which is procreation. What about campaigning against masterbation, or oral sex because neither lead to the 'natural right' of procreation. Let's face it, the only reason to campaign against same sex marriages is simply because you do not agree with their lifestyles. I'm not gay, but like I stated earlier, two consenting adults (whether their same sex or not) should have the same opportunities as everyone else to marry and be happy. Isn't the pursuit of happiness part of the constitution?

----------


## Carlos_E

> You claim that you are above name calling and mud slinging but use the same tactics you speak against. You may not be a bigot, but you are a hypocrite!!!


Logan, he said it. Not me! 


 :LOL:

----------


## Tock

> This thread talks about penguins in captivity, it is not relevant. Animals(including humans) behave differently in captivity. As for the dolphins link you posted, I can not view youtube at work so I have no clue what it shows..


Here's a little something that will, I hope, expand your zoological knowledge . . . It's just the tip of the iceberg, as far as this sort of information goes . . . 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
*Oslo museum opens world's first gay animals exhibition*


The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals. 

With documentation of gay or lesbian behaviour among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural". 

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear - homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said. 

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature", told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them." 

The museum said the exhibition, opening on Thursday despite condemnation from some Christians, was the first in the world on the subject. Soeli said a Dutch zoo had once organised tours to view homosexual couples among the animals. 

"The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex," Soeli said of the reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality among animals. 

One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest - birds sometimes raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males. 

One photograph shows two giant erect penises flailing above the water as two male right whales rub together. Another shows a male giraffe mounting another for sex, another describes homosexuality among beetles. 

One radical Christian said organisers of the exhibition - partly funded by the Norwegian government - should "burn in hell", Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a "crime against nature" are still on the statutes in some countries. 

Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behaviour among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule. 

Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said. 

Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end. 

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said. 

And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said.

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by BgMc31
The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage. 




> What arguement are you referring to?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws


Anti-miscegenation laws
Laws banning interracial marriage were enforced in several US states until 1967, in Nazi Germany and in South Africa during the Apartheid era.


[edit] United States
In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage. Although an Anti-Miscegenation Amendment was proposed in United States Congress in 1912 and 1913, [1] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 17 states that at the time still enforced them.

The term miscegenation, a word invented by American journalists to discredit the Abolitionsit movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of white-black intermarriage after the abolition of slavery, was first coined in 1863. Yet in British North America laws banning the intermarriage of whites and blacks were enacted as far back as the late seventeenth century. During the colonial era, Virginia (1691) was the first colony in British North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry. This was the first time in world history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or servitude. [2]

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking controversial interpretations of the Bible, particularly the story of Phinehas. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead.

While this aspect of the U.S. history is often discussed in the context of the South, many northern states had anti-miscegenation as well. In 1776, 12 out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their in***endence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Some of these laws were repealed after in***endence. However, later the new slave states as well many new free states such such as Illinois[1] and California[2]. A number of northern and western states repealed them during the nineteenth century. This, however, did little to halt anti-miscegenation sentiments in the rest of the country. Newly established western states continued to enact laws banning interracial marriage in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. [3] Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never enacted them.

----------


## DSM4Life

Guys why do you even waste your time with this simple minded person? I normally dont try to offend other members but I made an exception tonight since your statements are offensive to me. You are not trying to understand what others are saying but rather you are stuck in your redneck ways. Why dont you stop being so negative and listen to what others have to say, walk away from your computer, and then when you come back reply with something intelligent.

----------


## Logan13

> Do your research this is incorrect. Dolphins, peniguins and birds that mate for life have shown they will pair in a homosexual relationship for life. So gay monogmous relationships do exist in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage IS for social benefits. Marriage hasn't meant anything for a long time. Striaght people destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own. Look at the divorce rate.


What specific social value is there in gay marriage?

I know that you are just responding to the "there are not gays in the wild" post, but let's not try to generate credence for your argument by pointing to the animal kingdom. There are animals who eat their own as well, others who throw feces, still others who eat bugs off of each other. Not exactly the kind of behavior I would emulate.......

----------


## mcpeepants

> Here's how liberals work, if the people do not want something(e.g.gay marriage) they find a judge that will force it upon them, you disagree with them then you are a hate monger/bigot right wing fanatical. Why even bother with the process of making laws or voting, the liberals will simply find judges that will legislate law from the bench and force it on the masses against their will. Didn't communism fail? Do you think they will give up if the judges rule against them? It will not be over until there is no more morality left.
> 
> The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?


Marriage is just a contract in the eyes of government and it shouldn't matter whether the contract is between people of the opposite sex, same same, polygamists, etc. if there consenting adults, what's the big deal. if the make up of married couple or couples in your neighborshood is effecting your marriage, you have bigger issues to look into.

----------


## mcpeepants

> What specific social value is there in gay marriage?
> 
> I know that you are just responding to the "there are not gays in the wild" post, but let's not try to generate credence for your argument by pointing to the animal kingdom. There are animals who eat their own as well, others who throw feces, still others who eat bugs off of each other. Not exactly the kind of behavior I would emulate.......


You could ask the same question of heterosexual marriage. Does it matter why other adults get married? Plus it rings hollow for conservative to talk about being for personal responsibility and individual freedom but want the government to prevent two men or two women from marrying.

----------


## gixxerboy1

I really can't understand why so many people are against it. Does what other people do in their life effect you that much? If you have a gay couple living next door to you and they have a civil union. Whats going to change inside your home if its called a marriage? 

Our country is supposed to be about equal rights and freedom. Lets not be hypocrites.

----------


## kfrost06

First, I am sorry if you are offended by my views, they are my views and I hope we can discuss and even debate with out becoming overly emotional.

Second, I NEVER said homosexuality was not natural to humans or animals. In fact the inverse is true. My statement was and is




> marriage is a *natural right* for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right *other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes.* None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement.


The point is, the reason for pairing in opposite sex relationships in nature is for the survival of the species. Opposite sex pairs are biologically able to procreate where as same sex pairs are not hence nature(not me) dictates this. No one has shone me a reference otherwise, remember reference a monogamous homosexual pairing between animals in their natural environment.

----------


## Carlos_E

I gave you the national geographic youtube link which you obviously did not watch.

----------


## kfrost06

> Marriage is just a contract in the eyes of government and it shouldn't matter whether the contract is between people of the opposite sex, same same, polygamists, etc. if there consenting adults, what's the big deal. if the make up of married couple or couples in your neighborshood is effecting your marriage, you have bigger issues to look into.


*This is what will happen when the definition of marriage is redifined by a government!!!* 

but BgMc31 said this...




> The problem with polygamy is that it is very likely to be an exploitative relationship where one person in the relationship (almost always the man) lords over the other members (almost always the women). It may sound very open and tolerant to think all members of a polygamous marriage would be 100% willing and not at all disadvantaged, but thats pretty much ignoring that the history of polygamy is tied fairly directly into the subjugation of women.
> 
> Furthermore, allowing polygamy would lead to a fairly radical reordering of society in a way gay marriage simply wouldnt. Gay marriage is still a traditional marriage, albeit between two people of the same sex. But its still about two people in a consensual relationship. Even now, without gay marriage, many gay couples are living together in committed, healthy relationships. So, in many ways, gay marriage is just making official something that already exists.


So the question is, who gets to define marriage? and re-define? Politicians? You think it's o.k. for any consenting adults to engage in marriage, BgMg doen't agrre but it's o.k. for gays. The bottom line is mariage has been defined for 1,000s and 1,000s of years by many different religions, societies, civilizations and ALL have defined it as between a man and a woman(s). It's important to some people and having a government come in and relegate marriage to nothing more the a means for benefits is a disservice to those that still honor the institution.

"What's the big deal?" To most, marriage is a big deal and it should be.

----------


## kfrost06

> Originally Posted by BgMc31
> The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage. 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
> 
> 
> Anti-miscegenation laws
> Laws banning interracial marriage were enforced in several US states until 1967, in Nazi Germany and in South Africa during the Apartheid era.
> ...


I don't get it Tock? I know as everyone here does that it was against the law to marry outside your race in some areas over time. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

"the fundamental understanding of marriage has always been, by definition, a man and a woman. Never did Websters dictionary define the term marriage in terms of the races. There is an inherent difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage because homosexuals cannot procreate." Focus on the Familys Glenn Stanton told the Baptist Press that knocking down bans on interracial marriage did not redefine marriage, it affirmed marriage by saying that any man has a right to marry any woman under the law. But what same-sex marriage proponents seek to do is to radically redefine the very definition of marriage to say its not about gender. Marriage is about bringing the genders together, not keeping the races apart.Michael Foust. "Bans on interracial marriage, same-sex marriage -- parallels?

----------


## gixxerboy1

> *This is what will happen when the definition of marriage is redifined by a government!!!* 
> 
> but BgMc31 said this...
> 
> 
> 
> So the question is, who gets to define marriage? and re-define? Politicians? You think it's o.k. for any consenting adults to engage in marriage, BgMg doen't agrre but it's o.k. for gays. The bottom line is mariage has been defined for 1,000s and 1,000s of years by many different religions, societies, civilizations and ALL have defined it as between a man and a woman(s). It's important to some people and having a government come in and relegate marriage to nothing more the a means for benefits is a disservice to those that still honor the institution.
> 
> "What's the big deal?" To most, marriage is a big deal and it should be.


But I'm not religious at all. So is it right that religious leaders or tradition dictate what I'm able to do? Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works. 

Technically my girlfriend and i never want to have kids. When we get married ill'' probably fixed. Our marriage wont be about procreation at all. So does that effect or change our definition of marriage.

If you ask ask me the definition of marriage i dont think i would have ever used the words a man and a women. I know i would have used 2 people.

----------


## kfrost06

> But I'm not religious at all. So is it right that religious leaders or tradition dictate what I'm able to do? Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works. 
> 
> Technically my girlfriend and i never want to have kids. When we get married ill'' probably fixed. Our marriage wont be about procreation at all. So does that effect or change our definition of marriage.
> 
> If you ask ask me the definition of marriage i dont think i would have ever used the words a man and a women. I know i would have used 2 people.


I agree that it should not be a religious arguement, that certianly would not be fair to non-religious people and have not used religion as an arguement. but you say "Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works." and to further that fact the politicians have banned homosexual marriage and that is why the gay couples are going to court to overturn that. Based on that statment you should except the laws the politicians have made. So do you wish to change that statment?

----------


## Carlos_E

How does a gay couple getting married personally effect you?

----------


## gixxerboy1

> I agree that it should not be a religious arguement, that certianly would not be fair to non-religious people and have not used religion as an arguement. but you say "Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works." and to further that fact the politicians have banned homosexual marriage and that is why the gay couples are going to court to overturn that. *Based on that statment you should except the laws the politicians have made. So do you wish to change that statment?*


Yes but we also have the right to try and get laws changed. And they are going about it the legal way so i dont see a problem with it. I dont agree with protest and marches. But taking up in court yes. I may not agree with the courts decision but it is what it is.

BTW. I didn't mean you were bringing up the religious argument. I was just saying in general some people have used that to make their point.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> How does a gay couple getting married personally effect you?


I'll have to go to more weddings and buy more gifts :Wink/Grin:

----------


## kfrost06

To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.

----------


## BgMc31

> To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.



No matter how elequently you attempt to present your argument, you are still dodging the question, just like you did before!

I won't answer for Carlos, but I will give a logical answer to you redirect. How does keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect a gay couple? The answer is obvious, gay couple will not have the rights as straight couples. They can't will assets, they can't share health plans from most employers, etc. The list goes on and on. So again, how does same sex marriage effect you?

----------


## Carlos_E

> To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.


It effects me because when I get married I will not have the same rights that you have. If we decide to move to another state our marriage will not be recognized. So yes, it will personally effect me.

----------


## Hoggage_54

> To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. *How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before.* Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.


It's legal in Canada, and our society is doing just fine.

----------


## Carlos_E

> It's legal in Canada, and our society is doing just fine.


It's legal in Spain and there fine over there to.

----------


## kfrost06

> It's legal in Canada, and our society is doing just fine.


Civil Marriage Act was passed in July 20, 2005. Do you think 22 months is enough time to make a fair judgement on the implacations? The things people who are against it feared would happen are happening even in the short 22 months since the law. 

A human rights complaint was filed against The Bishop of Calgary, Fredrick Henry after voicing the Catholic Churchs opinion on gay marriage, using Section 319 (Hate Propaganda) section of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition they are also forcing military chaplians to marry gay soldiers. It is breaking churches apart over the issue of giving a wedding to same sex couples. It will not be long before Churches will be FORCED to marry gays or charged with descrimmination. It will not stop at marriage, they will never be satisfied until everyone is forced to except it even if it contradicts their own deeply held religious beliefs.

P.S. Did you know the age of consent in Canada is 14? FACT. but your country is doing just fine with that. Yes, a grown man can legally marry a 14 year old boy in Canada because they are viewed as consenting adults. Hoggage_54, I speak for myself as well as the majority of Americans, we do not want that in this country.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Civil Marriage Act was passed in July 20, 2005. Do you think 22 months is enough time to make a fair judgement on the implacations? The things people who are against it feared would happen are happening even in the short 22 months since the law. 
> 
> A human rights complaint was filed against The Bishop of Calgary, Fredrick Henry after voicing the Catholic Churchs opinion on gay marriage, using Section 319 (Hate Propaganda) section of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition they are also forcing military chaplians to marry gay soldiers. It is breaking churches apart over the issue of giving a wedding to same sex couples. It will not be long before Churches will be FORCED to marry gays or charged with descrimmination. It will not stop at marriage, they will never be satisfied until everyone is forced to except it even if it contradicts their own deeply held religious beliefs.


So it goes back to the Church. Have you ever heard of separation of Church and State? The Church has no business setting laws. I thought you were not going to make this a religious issue.




> P.S. Did you know the age of consent in Canada is 14? FACT. but your country is doing just fine with that. Yes, a grown man can legally marry a 14 year old boy in Canada because they are viewed as consenting adults. Hoggage_54, I speak for myself as well as the majority of Americans, we do not want that in this country.


The legal age of consent for females in Canada is 14. A grown man can legally marry a 14 year old girl. Age of consent is a separate issue and unrelated to gay married. In Alabama, New Hampshire, New York, North & South Carolina you can marry a 14 girl. Why aren't you complaining about that?

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Civil Marriage Act was passed in July 20, 2005. Do you think 22 months is enough time to make a fair judgement on the implacations? The things people who are against it feared would happen are happening even in the short 22 months since the law. 
> 
> A human rights complaint was filed against The Bishop of Calgary, Fredrick Henry after voicing the Catholic Churchs opinion on gay marriage, using Section 319 (Hate Propaganda) section of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition they are also forcing military chaplians to marry gay soldiers. It is breaking churches apart over the issue of giving a wedding to same sex couples. * It will not be long before Churches will be FORCED to marry gays or charged with descrimmination*. It will not stop at marriage, they will never be satisfied until everyone is forced to except it even if it contradicts their own deeply held religious beliefs.
> 
> P.S. Did you know the age of consent in Canada is 14? FACT. but your country is doing just fine with that. Yes, a grown man can legally marry a 14 year old boy in Canada because they are viewed as consenting adults. Hoggage_54, I speak for myself as well as the majority of Americans, we do not want that in this country.


I find that hard to believe. I know a church didn't want to marry me because i wasn't going regularly. I'm Catholic and did all my communion and stuff when i was little. But since i wasn't active they didn't want to marry us. So seeing them forced to do anything is hard for me to believe.

----------


## kfrost06

> I find that hard to believe. I know a church didn't want to marry me because i wasn't going regularly. I'm Catholic and did all my communion and stuff when i was little. But since i wasn't active they didn't want to marry us. So seeing them forced to do anything is hard for me to believe.


It is hard to believe very hard to believe however the precedents been set in 
Massachusetts with gay adoption. You see gay marriage is legal in Mass so they(the state) forced the Catholic Church charties to give babies to gay couples even though it opposes their beliefs and the beliefs of the natual mother. Here's a link

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...nds_adoptions/

It's not a huge leap, rather it's no leap at all to also force the Church to marry gay couples or be charged with the anti-decrimmination laws. That will force the church to stop preforming marriage altogether just like it forced them to stop adoptions, sad very sad. This is what ay marriage is doing and will do to our society.

----------


## BgMc31

KFrost06 you still haven't answered the question, how does gay marriage personally affect you?

----------


## gixxerboy1

> It is hard to believe very hard to believe however the precedents been set in 
> Massachusetts with gay adoption. You see gay marriage is legal in Mass so they(the state) forced the Catholic Church charties to give babies to gay couples even though it opposes their beliefs and the beliefs of the natual mother. Here's a link
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...nds_adoptions/
> 
> It's not a huge leap, rather it's no leap at all to also force the Church to marry gay couples or be charged with the anti-decrimmination laws. That will force the church to stop preforming marriage altogether just like it forced them to stop adoptions, sad very sad. This is what ay marriage is doing and will do to our society.


I don't think it forced the church to do anything. They chose to stop. They would rather marry no one then have to marry gays. That's like the kid getting mad on the basketball court and taking his ball and going home

----------


## Logan13

> You could ask the same question of heterosexual marriage. Does it matter why other adults get married? Plus it rings hollow for conservative to talk about being for personal responsibility and individual freedom but want the government to prevent two men or two women from marrying. *I do not want the gov't to force it down my throat either, your arguement goes both ways.........*.


My question was in reply to Carlos statement :"Marriage IS for social benefits"

----------


## kfrost06

> KFrost06 you still haven't answered the question, how does gay marriage personally affect you?


I believed I answered it. However, I will answer it again. It does NOT personally effect me. I can not see it personally effecting someone unless you are a gay couple that is trying to get married. You know what, cutting down the rain forrest does not personally effect me either but it still bothers me. It has larger implications then personal implications.

----------


## BgMc31

> I believed I answered it. However, I will answer it again. It does NOT personally effect me. I can not see it personally effecting someone unless you are a gay couple that is trying to get married. You know what, cutting down the rain forrest does not personally effect me either but it still bothers me. It has larger implications then personal implications.


Thanks for the answer. But comparing the overall implications of cutting down the rainforests isn't comparable to gay marriage. Also comparing gay marriage isn't comparable to polygamy, beastiality, or anything else that is considered perverted. The only reasoning behind disallowing gays to marry is simply a non-exceptance of what they do in the bedroom. Otherwise allowing gays to marry and/or have the same rights as opposite sex couples won't cause the world to end or bring about the mythical armageddon.

----------


## DNoMac

> I can understand why so many people are against gay marriage. I mean i don't want "us gays" to cripple this sacred bond between a man and a women. 
> 
> Oh wait, what is this ? oh, the current divorce rate. Doesn't look to sacred to me. 
> 
> 
> Divorce Rate
> Welcome to divorcerate.org, the resource for providing information on the divorce rate in America and around the world. 
> What is the current divorce rate in America?
> It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that *"Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue*.", which is actually a projection. 
> ...


I personally don't care if a gay couple wants to get married, so long as it's a healthy relationship. However, most divorce statistics are flawed. Here's why:

When calculating the divorce rate, they take the number of couples married in the calender year and divide that by the number of divorces during that calender year. This could be from marriages that are 1 10 or 50 years old. 

"In the United States, in 2005 there were 7.5 new marriages per 1,000 people, and 3.6 divorces per 1,000, a ratio which has existed for many individual years since the 1960s.[1] As many statisticians have pointed out, it is very hard to count the divorce rate, since it is hard to determine if a couple who divorce and get back together in that same year should be considered a divorce, so there is in fact no predictive relationship between the two annual totals. This method does not take account of the length of marriage, just the fact that a certain percentage of people were divorced and a certain number of people are married, rendering the statistic almost meaningless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce

----------


## mcpeepants

> My question was in reply to Carlos statement :"Marriage IS for social benefits"


*I do not want the gov't to force it down my throat either, your arguement goes both ways..........*

How's the government showing it down your throat? currently the government is preventing gays from marrying and therefore are preventing gay couples from having there individual liberty.

----------


## Carlos_E

> *I do not want the gov't to force it down my throat either, your arguement goes both ways..........*
> 
> How's the government showing it down your throat? currently the government is preventing gays from marrying and therefore are preventing gay couples from having there individual liberty.


Logan's afraid the government will make him marry a man.

----------


## Lexed

my opinon on this is who the hell are we tell tell them who they can love or not. I mean I dont want to see two guys kissing but thats not up to me to decide that.

----------


## Tock

Well, the Catholic Church is a very different organization from Catholic Charities. One is a church, and the other is a tax-exempt corporation that solicits and accepts money from local, state, and federal government to fund its activities. So while the government of Massachusetts cannot tell the Catholic church how to set its doctrines and policies, it can (and does) tell Catholic Charities, as a social service contractor, that it must comply with the laws of the State of Massachusetts if it wants to do work for the state. Of course, they don't have to work for the state government, and in this case, they chose not to.



So, look closely at what you wrote: 




> . . . gay marriage is legal in Mass so they (the state) forced the Catholic Church charties to give babies to gay couples


I'm sure that you will be gratified to know that there is no such thing as "Catholic church charities." There is a Catholic church, and there is a tax-exempt charitiable organization named "Catholic charities" that contracts with governments to provide social services to people. They get government $$$ to do child care, deal with drug addicts, homeless people, etc. 
They are two entirely different organizations. 

You will be happy to know that the government of the state of Massachusetts did not tell the Catholic church to modify its religious doctrine regarding gays and charity. It did, however, tell the tax-exempt corporation known as Catholic charities that if it wanted to receive money from the Massachusetts State Treasury for doing adoption work, it would have to play by the state's rules. 
In fact, if the Catholic church wanted to pay a few priests to help heterosexual Catholics adopt children, they are free to do so. What the Catholic church wanted, however, was to use the government's money to do this, instead of using its own cash. 

Anyway, neither the Catholic Church nor Catholic Charities wanted to do adoptions for gay couples, so they got out of that business. The Church could use its own $$$ to do adoptions, but I'm pretty sure they're strapped for cash these days with lawsuits from all their childmolesting priests, so they're gonna let the orphans go without adoptive parents. 











> It's not a huge leap, rather it's no leap at all to also force the Church to marry gay couples or be charged with the anti-decrimmination laws.


In some countries, they have "Official State Churches," and since they get taxpayer money from the government, they are obliged to preach what the government tells them, and marry who the government tells them. 
Churches aren't set up that way in the USA, so it won't be an issue.

----------


## BgMc31

> *In some countries, they have "Official State Churches," and since they get taxpayer money from the government, they are obliged to preach what the government tells them, and marry who the government tells them. 
> Churches aren't set up that way in the USA, so it won't be an issue*.


At least not yet!!!!!!

----------


## Coop77

Two men want to get married. Ok. Let 'em. Who gives a f*&%. This affects me how? Seriously, why is this even an issue?

All you "conservatives" who are so vehemently opposed to gay marriage need to stop trying to argue and use logic and just admit to yourselves and everyone else that you're against gay marriage 'cause you just _don't like the gays_. You think they're gross and would prefer they didn't exist and would go back in the closet. and not be recognized by the government.

----------


## BigLittleTim

> Here's how liberals work, if the people do not want something *(e.g. abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, inter-racial marriage, labor unions, forty hour work-week, desegregated schools)* they find a judge that will force it upon them, you disagree with them then you are a *hate monger/bigot right wing fanatical.* Why even bother with the process of making laws or voting, the liberals will simply find judges that will legislate law from the bench and force it on the masses against their will. Didn't communism fail? Do you think they will give up if the judges rule against them? *It will not be over until there is no more morality left.*
> 
> The people have spoken again and again, *we do NOT want your abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, inter-racial marraige, labor unions, forty hour work-week, and desegregated schools* shoved down our throat. What's next, gay marriage? Why not? They are consenting adults?



Just putting this thread in the old "way back" machine, Mr. Peabody.

-BigLittleTim

----------


## BgMc31

> Just putting this thread in the old "way back" machine, Mr. Peabody.
> 
> -BigLittleTim



Very nicely done BigLittleTim!!!!

----------


## kfrost06

Note: post #54 is made to look like I said the things quoted within. I did NOT say any such things. Misquotes and name calling is a very weak and poor way to debate. It will only lead to getting the thread closed. The topic will obvisously raise emotions especially to those that are directly effected, i.e. gay couples seeking to get married. However, it is a current topic and warrents debate, debate can only occur when people have differing views. Insinuating (by false quotes) someone is a racist serves no purpose.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Note: post #54 is made to look like I said the things quoted within. I did NOT say any such things. Misquotes and name calling is a very weak and poor way to debate. It will only lead to getting the thread closed. The topic will obvisously raise emotions especially to those that are directly effected, i.e. gay couples seeking to get married. However, it is a current topic and warrents debate, debate can only occur when people have differing views. Insinuating (by false quotes) someone is a racist serves no purpose.


It servers a purpose as to why you care. Unlike deforestation, gay marriage does not cause global warming or the polar caps to melt.

You never replied to this. Why are you not complaining about the fact that a 14 year old girl can legally marry in the states listed below?



> P.S. Did you know the age of consent in Canada is 14? FACT. but your country is doing just fine with that. Yes, a grown man can legally marry a 14 year old boy in Canada because they are viewed as consenting adults. Hoggage_54, I speak for myself as well as the majority of Americans, we do not want that in this country.


The legal age of consent for females in Canada is 14. A grown man can legally marry a 14 year old girl. Age of consent is a separate issue and unrelated to gay married. In Alabama, New Hampshire, New York, North & South Carolina you can marry a 14 girl. Why aren't you complaining about that?

----------


## gixxerboy1

> It servers a purpose as to why you care. Unlike deforestation, *gay marriage does not cause global warming or the polar caps to melt.*


Are you sure because it IMO 2 women together is HOT :LOL:

----------


## DNoMac

> Are you sure because it IMO 2 women together is HOT


I agree, you read the article about the California-sized glacier that broke of Antarctica? Gay marriage is surely the end of mankind...

----------


## Logan13

> *I do not want the gov't to force it down my throat either, your arguement goes both ways..........*
> 
> How's the government showing it down your throat? currently the government is preventing gays from marrying and therefore are preventing gay couples from having there individual liberty.


Since "WE THE PEOPLE" have voted it down over a dozen times on state ballets, they have been trying to side-step the people and get activist judges to force it on us. I know that I did not have to tell you that mcpee, you knew this already.

----------


## Logan13

> Logan's afraid the government will make him marry a man.


You could only be so lucky........

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by Carlos_E
It servers a purpose as to why you care. Unlike deforestation, gay marriage does not cause global warming or the polar caps to melt.




> Are you sure because it IMO 2 women together is HOT


Ya, I was thinking the same thing about 2 guys together . . .  :7up:  . . . it melts my ice, anyway . . .

----------


## mcpeepants

> Since "WE THE PEOPLE" have voted it down over a dozen times on state ballets, they have been trying to side-step the people and get activist judges to force it on us. I know that I did not have to tell you that mcpee, you knew this already.


people in those states are voting to prevent the individual freedom of marriage to gay couples and it is no different than when interracial marriage was illegal. how long do you think interracial marriage would of been illegal if it wasn't struck down in the courts?

----------


## mcpeepants

> Logan's afraid the government will make him marry a man.


 :AaGreen22:

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Originally Posted by Carlos_E
> It servers a purpose as to why you care. Unlike deforestation, gay marriage does not cause global warming or the polar caps to melt.
> 
> 
> Ya, I was thinking the same thing about 2 guys together . . .  . . . it melts my ice, anyway . . .


See gays are causing global warming.  :Wink/Grin:  Everything is the gays fault. See they were right

----------


## BgMc31

> Since "WE THE PEOPLE" have voted it down over a dozen times on state ballets, they have been trying to side-step the people and get activist judges to force it on us. I know that I did not have to tell you that mcpee, you knew this already.


Same thing happened when interracial marriage was frowned upon. Eventually people learn to accept it. There was no rational reasoning to outlaw interracial marriage and there is no rational reasoning to outlaw gay marriage. 

And when people were against interracial marriage it was because the majority was influenced by bullshit church doctrine and fear. The same hold true for what is happening now. Once people realize that allowing gays to marry won't cause the apocalypse we read about in Revelations, they will accept it as a part of everyday life. You don't have to agree with it, but it won't affect you either way.

----------


## Logan13

> people in those states are voting to prevent the individual freedom of marriage to gay couples and it is no different than when interracial marriage was illegal. how long do you think interracial marriage would of been illegal if it wasn't struck down in the courts?


Please show me where in the Constituton or Bill of Rights it is stated that marriage is a "freedom". Interacial marriages have never been illegal where I live.

----------


## Logan13

> Same thing happened when interracial marriage was frowned upon. Eventually people learn to accept it. There was no rational reasoning to outlaw interracial marriage and there is no rational reasoning to outlaw gay marriage. 
> 
> And when people were against interracial marriage it was because the majority was influenced by bullshit church doctrine and fear. The same hold true for what is happening now. Once people realize that allowing gays to marry won't cause the apocalypse we read about in Revelations, they will accept it as a part of everyday life. You don't have to agree with it, but it won't affect you either way.


I do not believe in Revelations or gay marriage..........

----------


## nalbano34

I do not see any negative social ramifications from same sex marriages whatsoever. I think it is purely fueled by people with a religious ideology of it being an abomination. That is certainly not a reputable argument in my eyes. I do have to say that the 14 Y.O. deal is rather sick by most peoples standards, and again, just my personal opinion.

----------


## nalbano34

I guess LOGAN just screwed my post up.........your supposed to be religious for my idea to work.........throw me a bone!!!!

----------


## Coop77

> *The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat.* What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?


No one wants to force you to marry a man. Speaking of forcing things down throats.. isn't outlawing gay marriage forcing your personal moral/religious beliefs down everyone else's throat?

----------


## Coop77

> *Since "WE THE PEOPLE" have voted it down over a dozen times on state ballets,* they have been trying to side-step the people and get activist judges to force it on us. I know that I did not have to tell you that mcpee, you knew this already.


Haven't most of the states that passed these state amendments been those southern/midwest states (aka Jesusland) with the evangelical Christian voting blocks.. you know those people with no concept of separation of church & state? Obviously "we the people" of the entire country don't want a ban, or the national amendment would have passed.

----------


## singern

> Same thing happened when interracial marriage was frowned upon. Eventually people learn to accept it. There was no rational reasoning to outlaw interracial marriage and there is no rational reasoning to outlaw gay marriage. 
> 
> .



But the literal definition of marriage was not altered in cases of interracial couples. It was still a Man and a Woman. Gay and Lesbian couple do deserve the equality, social status and financial judgements allowed married couples but I wouldnt call it marriage.

My motorcycle rides on the street, and uses gas, but its not a car.

----------


## kfrost06

> Haven't most of the states that passed these state amendments been those southern/midwest states (aka Jesusland) with the evangelical Christian voting blocks.. you know those people with no concept of separation of church & state? Obviously "we the people" of the entire country don't want a ban, or the national amendment would have passed.



Maybe if you say something enough it becomes fact, thats how you liberals operate. I do not want to confuse you with the facts but I will anyway. DOMA (Defense of Marrairge Act) passed by the federal government was *passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

I quess you could argue that Bill Clinton is from the South :LOL:  

Here's what is in the law:

1.No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. 

2.The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. 

In addition 45 out of the 50 states have voted to affirm similar laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Yet, another one of the pathetic liberal agruements flushed down the toilet. I am sure you can spread some more misinformation, how about the ice caps will nit melt, that was a good one.

----------


## Logan13

> Haven't most of the states that passed these state amendments been those southern/midwest states (aka Jesusland) with the evangelical Christian voting blocks.. you know those people with no concept of separation of church & state? Obviously "we the people" of the entire country don't want a ban, or the national amendment would have passed.
> *Hardly.......2004/2006 states that voted NO on the ballet:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...initiative.htm
> "Voters have approved each of 19 proposals for state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage; support has averaged 70%: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia."
> *


If it makes you feel better to shrug these votes off as only occuring in the "bible-belt" than so be it. But as you can see, 70% of the voters are voting NO in states from all over the country. One can hardly call Oregon a Christian voting block.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_SSM_Laws.png

Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and California have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."

Several political parties such as the _Communist Party USA_,[4] _U.S. Green Party_, the United States _Libertarian Party_, the _Socialist Party USA_,[5] and several state _Democratic Parties_ also support gay marriage.
*Wow, the Dems are in great company.......:*icon_roll 

Advocates noted that 45 states have approved constitutional amendments or statutes to define traditional marriage in a way that would bar same-sex marriage. Moreover, evangelical Christian organizations and some black and Hispanic groups, all representing key voting blocs in November, also have supported a ban.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/wa...f225&ei=5088&p

----------


## Logan13

> Haven't most of the states that passed these state amendments been those southern/midwest states (aka Jesusland) with the evangelical Christian voting blocks.. you know those people with no concept of separation of church & state? Obviously "we the people" of the entire country don't want a ban, or the national amendment would have passed.


Marriage licenses are given by the states, not the Federal gov't. "45 states have approved constitutional amendments or statutes to define traditional marriage in a way that would bar same-sex marriage." 45 out of the 50 states have spoken on this............

----------


## BgMc31

Again you conservatives are dancing around the question. AS I pointed out with interracial marriages, all kinds of things were made up about the evils of such unions only to be proven false. The same applies with gay marriage. Eventually once everyone sees that it will not cause any harm, the people will not mind it at all. 

On a side note, I love how you convervatives use the argument "We the People" have spoken on this issue, purely as a tool of convenience. You conservatives are the ones who want to overturn Roe v. Wade even though "We the People" have spoken. The President you elected continues to keep us in a war that "We the People" are clearly against. Seems strange that you are only with the 'people' when it is convenient for your arguments!!!

----------


## BigLittleTim

_1.No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. 

2.The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states._ 

The "Defense of Marriage Act", to Bill Clinton's eternal shame, never should have been signed into law, and should be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court once a lawsuit by a gay couple married in one state seek federal benefits.

The _"Full Faith And Credit"_ article of the U.S. Constitution declares that what is _regarded as a legal contract in one state shall be held legally binding throughout the rest of the Union._ If you enter into a business contract in your home state it doesn't become invalid if you move across state lines. If you're married in New York (with a marriage license issued by the State of New York... the federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses), you're also considered married in every other state, AND by the federal government.

This was the old rationale behind the quickie_ "Las Vegas divorce"._ Most states used to have really draconian divorce laws. You had to prove (with photographs, witnesses, testimony, etc.) actual _INFIDELITY._ There had to be a _"co-respondant"_ named (the guy or gal who was cheating with your spouse) in the suit for _"alienation of affection"._ (I'm not making this up!) It was so expensive and devestating to get divorced in just about all the states... EXCEPT *Nevada!*  Nevada had super-easy divorce requirements. If one mate wanted a divorce, he (or she) would "take the train to Reno", establish "residency" (usually a matter of checking into a hotel for three weeks) and then apply for a divorce in Nevada, which would be granted for ANY reason. I believe the common complaint listed on the form, (among society matrons anyway) was that _"He cheated at a rubber in Bridge.")_  :Wink/Grin: 

*"The Defense of Marriage Act"* is, I believe, the only instance of a law that completely disregards the _"Full Faith and Credit"_ clause in the Constitution.

How'd you like to have to get married fifty times to your wife, and in all fifty states, to get federal marriage rights like filing taxes jointly or right to inherit Social Security benefits?

-BigLittleTim

----------


## BigLittleTim

> Note: post #54 is made to look like I said the things quoted within. I did NOT say any such things. Misquotes and name calling is a very weak and poor way to debate. It will only lead to getting the thread closed. The topic will obvisously raise emotions especially to those that are directly effected, i.e. gay couples seeking to get married. However, it is a current topic and warrents debate, debate can only occur when people have differing views. Insinuating (by false quotes) someone is a racist serves no purpose.



_Inteligent_ viewers read your original wording in the post, above, and understood my use of poetic irony.

I didn't "mis" quote you. I replaced "gay marriage" in your original post with a list of other rights which we today enjoy as a matter of course but which were once vehemently opposed by conservatives.

I think everyone else got the point.

 :Loser Smilie:  

-BigLittleTim

----------


## Logan13

> Again you conservatives are dancing around the question. AS I pointed out with interracial marriages, all kinds of things were made up about the evils of such unions only to be proven false. The same applies with gay marriage. Eventually once everyone sees that it will not cause any harm, the people will not mind it at all. 
> 
> On a side note, I love how you convervatives use the argument "We the People" have spoken on this issue, purely as a tool of convenience. You conservatives are the ones who want to overturn Roe v. Wade even though "We the People" have spoken. The President you elected continues to keep us in a war that "We the People" are clearly against. Seems strange that you are only with the 'people' when it is convenient for your arguments!!!


Do not skip over facts. 70% of this country is not Conservative, people from all walks of life obviously voted against it. But hey, you Democrats have the Socialist party and the Communist party on your side on this topic.......
Remember, in 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act: Was Clinton a Conservative? :1laugh:  
*No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. 
The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. 
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.*

----------


## Tock

> Please show me where in the Constituton or Bill of Rights it is stated that marriage is a "freedom". Interacial marriages have never been illegal where I live.


Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.

----------


## Tock

> The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?





> No one wants to force you to marry a man. Speaking of forcing things down throats.. isn't outlawing gay marriage forcing your personal moral/religious beliefs down everyone else's throat?


I'd like to force him to marry not only a man, but several men in a polygamous gay marriage, along with a goat and two cows. It would be fun to shove gay marriage down his throat.  :Icon Rolleyes:

----------


## Tock

> But the literal definition of marriage was not altered in cases of interracial couples. It was still a Man and a Woman.


Black men were at one time legally defined as 3/5 of white men http://www.census.gov/population/www...t/history.html. Now they're counted as legally equal, so yes, in that respect, the literal defination of an interracial couple changed from being 3/5 of a man and 1 woman, to 1 black man and 1 woman. 









> Gay and Lesbian couple do deserve the equality, social status and financial judgements allowed married couples but I wouldnt call it marriage.


The government shouldn't call it one thing for one set of people, and another for a second set of people. 

IMHO, I'm all for getting civil unions from the government for everybody who wants legal protections, and letting just churches do marriage ceremonies to whoever they like--but since marriage is a religious ceremony like baptism or confirmation, the government shouldn't recognize it for anything.

----------


## Act of God

> IMHO, I'm all for getting civil unions from the government for everybody who wants legal protections, and letting just churches do marriage ceremonies to whoever they like--but since marriage is a religious ceremony like baptism or confirmation, the government shouldn't recognize it for anything.


Honestly, that is the best solution and I have been saying that for years. For some reason, no one with any power ever seems to even mention it.

It's so simple, what the hell is wrong with people!?!?!

----------


## Coop77

> Haven't most of the states that passed these state amendments been those southern/midwest states (aka Jesusland) with the evangelical Christian voting blocks.. you know those people with no concept of separation of church & state? Obviously "we the people" of the entire country don't want a ban, or the national amendment would have passed.





> Maybe if you say something enough it becomes fact, thats how you liberals operate. I do not want to confuse you with the facts but I will anyway. DOMA (Defense of Marrairge Act) passed by the federal government was *passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act


I said national *amendment*, as in the amendment that Bush proposed adding to the US Constitution a few years ago, which failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

----------


## Coop77

> IMHO, I'm all for getting civil unions from the government for everybody who wants legal protections, and letting just churches do marriage ceremonies to whoever they like--but since marriage is a religious ceremony like baptism or confirmation, the government shouldn't recognize it for anything.





> Honestly, that is the best solution and I have been saying that for years. For some reason, no one with any power ever seems to even mention it.
> 
> It's so simple, what the hell is wrong with people!?!?!


I agree, the gov't should provide partner benefits for any two people that request it, and it should be up to churches to throw the word "marriage" around. No mainstream politician would ever propose this because people would see it as "abolishing marriage" and freak out. Funny how just a word makes all the difference.

----------


## Logan13

> Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.


There you go, it is LAW! And it was signed by a Democratic President....... :Wink/Grin:  
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act: 
*No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.* *The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. 
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.*

----------


## Logan13

> I agree, the gov't should provide partner benefits for any two people that request it, and it should be up to churches to throw the word "marriage" around. No mainstream politician would ever propose this because people would see it as "abolishing marriage" and freak out. Funny how just a word makes all the difference.


If Civil Unions, instead of gay marriage, were put to a vote on the state ballets I am quite sure that it would pass in most every state. Hell, I'd vote for it. But with the Defense of Marriage Act still in place, it may be a moot point.

----------


## Tock

Originally Posted by Tock
Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.





> There you go, it is LAW! And it was signed by a Democratic President....... 
> In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act:



I didn't think you could show me where it is stated so _in the Constitution_. 
Lots of laws end up being thrown out as unconstitutional, and the DOMA is destined to be one of them (rationale for this has been given previously).



So . . . ya wanna take another try at answering my question?


*Originally Posted by Tock
Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.*

----------


## Coop77

> If Civil Unions, instead of gay marriage, were put to a vote on the state ballets I am quite sure that it would pass in most every state. Hell, I'd vote for it. But with the Defense of Marriage Act still in place, it may be a moot point.


So you're saying that you have no objection to the gov't reocognizing gay couples, allowing them to file taxes jointly, allowing inheritance/living will rights, immigration benefits, insurance benefits, retirement benefits, and all the other things that married people enjoy... as long as they don't use the word "marriage"? 
This is fascinating to me, that a word is so important.

----------


## IronReload04

KFrost and others
Homosexuality is a biological need. Bioligically, thats what they need to feel fulfilled. Who are we to argue with that. It is natural, that is how they were born and their is not a goddamn thing theyor you can do about it. Just think for a second.....Think about the way you feel about women........YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR ATTRACTION FOR WOMEN......it just is......their is nothing we can do about it, and their is nothing they can do about it.


And all this divine and natural right, its all bullshit.....Alot of it comes from catholics and Christians.......I consdier myself catholic.....Here is some news for ya, CATHOLICS ARE FULL OF ****ING SHIT. Throughout history, catholics acted furthest from christian like, and bullshit is their saliva. Lots of stuff that came after Christ's passing, is where an intelligent and critical peson needs to filter the nonsense.



I used to be hardcore against gays....Just really disturbed me......But, I really have been thinking hard lately and feel my old ways are closeminded.............What the hells the difference? What difference is this going to make.......Like sombody else stated, all its doing is making official what already is, and that is the best argument going for their side imo.........Nobody asks to be gay.......Its not like their is going to be some surge in homosexuality, heterosexuals will not start converting to homosexuals with a law passed.......It would have such a little impact, you wouldnt even notice it. What is it that we're afraid of? probably homosexuality becoming more accepted in schools, and more accepted and everyday kind of thing in society. Well guess what, like i said, their will be no increase in homoesexuals or rate of them because of a law. It will make no difference to your daily life.



What it all comes down to, is brainwashed people believing totally bogus opinions from closeminded homophobes claiming to be christian, and "spreading the christian ways", in which they are totally just livng and behaving completely opposite of how Jesus actually intended them to live. thats all it is.


sincerely, 
an ex homophobe who isnt so closeminded anymore and is comforable and thankful for his own heterosexuality

----------


## IronReload04

> To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.


ya it has, like they argue, its just not official....all it would do is acknowledge what already is

----------


## IronReload04

> Well, the Catholic Church is a very different organization from Catholic Charities. One is a church, and the other is a tax-exempt corporation that solicits and accepts money from local, state, and federal government to fund its activities. So while the government of Massachusetts cannot tell the Catholic church how to set its doctrines and policies, it can (and does) tell Catholic Charities, as a social service contractor, that it must comply with the laws of the State of Massachusetts if it wants to do work for the state. Of course, they don't have to work for the state government, and in this case, they chose not to.
> 
> 
> 
> So, look closely at what you wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you will be gratified to know that there is no such thing as "Catholic church charities." There is a Catholic church, and there is a tax-exempt charitiable organization named "Catholic charities" that contracts with governments to provide social services to people. They get government $$$ to do child care, deal with drug addicts, homeless people, etc. 
> ...


"all their child molesting priests"

1. All? how many is all?
2. Surely, child molestation is not limited to catholicism

----------


## Information

*IronReload04, do not make this a religious discussion or the thread will be closed.*

----------


## Logan13

> Originally Posted by Tock
> Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the authority to prohibit marriage either for gays or straights or for inter-racial couples.
> 
> didn't think you could show me where it is stated so _in the Constitution_. 
> Lots of laws end up being thrown out as unconstitutional, and the DOMA is destined to be one of them (rationale for this has been given previously).
> 
> 
> 
> So . . . ya wanna take another try at answering my question?
> ...


Actually, I asked *you* the question first. So do want to take a first attempt at showing where in the Constitution marriage is described as a "freedom"? Do you want to know why it is not stated in the Constitution in such a manner? Because the Founding Fathers viewed marriage as an institution of God, not necessarily of man.

----------


## Logan13

> So you're saying that you have no objection to the gov't reocognizing gay couples, allowing them to file taxes jointly, allowing inheritance/living will rights, immigration benefits, insurance benefits, retirement benefits, and all the other things that married people enjoy... as long as they don't use the word "marriage"? 
> This is fascinating to me, that a word is so important.


It's called tradition. Welcome to the world of the previously silent majority.

----------


## IronReload04

> Actually, I asked *you* the question first. So do want to take a first attempt at showing where in the Constitution marriage is described as a "freedom"? Do you want to know why it is not stated in the Constitution in such a manner? Because the Founding Fathers viewed marriage as an institution of God, not necessarily of man.



ok, if you want to play that card, they cared an awful lot about the will of God when interacting with native Americans around that same time perdiod.

----------


## DSM4Life

Is this pissing contest over yet ?  :Icon Rolleyes:

----------


## Carlos_E

> Is this pissing contest over yet ?


Nope.

----------


## Logan13

> ok, if you want to play that card, they cared an awful lot about the will of God when interacting with native Americans around that same time perdiod.


That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........

----------


## BgMc31

[QUOTE=Logan13]That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, *nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........[/*QUOTE]


Don't bring my people into this Logan!!!! :Wink/Grin:  How much Sioux are you Logan? And it isn't our fault that you accept the past and current dismal situation that your people live in (Native Americans have the highest incidents of alcoholism, drug abuse, infant mortality, poverty, and high school drop out rates). All because of the forced living conditions put on them by the government. 

Just because the founding fathers viewed marriage between a white man and white woman, doesn't mean we should continue their way of thinking. They also thought that only white men who own property should be the only ones who have the right to vote. Our country and culture has evolved since then, don't you agree? Many things have changed from what our founding father's initially wanted.

----------


## IronReload04

> That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........



basically what your saying is, the four fathers picked and chose which 10 commandments they felt like obeying......obey marriage, but disobey the whole treath others as you would like to be treated part or though shall not kill and stuff. Thats what I was getting at before......its all bullshit and so many people cant see past that.


This is the toughest part of the argument, God Bless U.S.A., but damn, my ancesters (Europe), i mean, their just no better than.......

----------


## DontPlayByTheRules

I am a female and I am gay (I don't like labels) I appreciate a womans body as well as her mind. I am half Jewish and half Italian and I am not religious nor am I political. As far as the marriage issue between gays and lesbians, it really doesn't matter to me but what does matter is benefits for same sex partners. I believe in equal rights for everybody, same sex, opposite sex, race, etc. This is just my opinion  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Logan13

[QUOTE=BgMc31]


> That doesn't change the fact that the Founding Fathers viewed the sanctity of marriage through the eyes of God and not man. I am Sioux, that hasn't changed my views on the subject at all, *nor have I attempted to sue the gov't for "reparations"..........[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Don't bring my people into this Logan!!!! How much Sioux are you Logan? And it isn't our fault that you accept the past and current dismal situation that your people live in (Native Americans have the highest incidents of alcoholism, drug abuse, infant mortality, poverty, and high school drop out rates). All because of the forced living conditions put on them by the government. 
> 
> Just because the founding fathers viewed marriage between a white man and white woman, doesn't mean we should continue their way of thinking. They also thought that only white men who own property should be the only ones who have the right to vote. Our country and culture has evolved since then, don't you agree? Many things have changed from what our founding father's initially wanted.


Accept? It's just that I live for the today and tomorrow, not for yesterday. I have a great life, and nothing in the past is to blame or can take credit for this, it's all because of what I have done. I have never lived on a reservation, nor has anyone alive today been an actual victim of slavery. My grandma grew up on a reservation in s. dakota, and even she was not a bitter person about it. We are all dealt a hand at birth, and it's up to each individual to play this hand to the best of their abilities....or not and sit back and blame others for their own inadequacies.

----------


## Logan13

> basically what your saying is, the four fathers picked and chose which 10 commandments they felt like obeying......obey marriage, but disobey the whole treath others as you would like to be treated part or though shall not kill and stuff. Thats what I was getting at before......its all bullshit and so many people cant see past that.
> 
> 
> This is the toughest part of the argument, God Bless U.S.A., but damn, my ancesters (Europe), i mean, their just no better than.......


We are all human, and none of us are perfect by any means. The world will never be a utopia, and if you sit back waiting for it you will just be wasting your life.

----------


## Logan13

> I am a female and I am gay (I don't like labels) I appreciate a womans body as well as her mind. I am half Jewish and half Italian and I am not religious nor am I political. As far as the marriage issue between gays and lesbians, it really doesn't matter to me but what does matter is benefits for same sex partners. I believe in equal rights for everybody, same sex, opposite sex, race, etc. This is just my opinion


As a female member, your title should be in pink. Anyway, how do the Jewish and Italian sides of your family view your decision? I know that both credes are very traditional.

----------


## Carlos_E

> As a female member, your title should be in pink. Anyway, how do the Jewish and Italian sides of your family view your *decision*? I know that both credes are very traditional.


 :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Logan13

> 


So you are saying that it's a compulsion than? :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Carlos_E

> So you are saying that it's a compulsion than?


Complusion than what? I think you mean then.

I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?

If the answer is no, you did not make a decision. What makes you think it's different for someone who is gay? There was never a moment in my life I decided to be gay. It is the same as your attraction to women. The only decision involved was to be honest with my family and to tell them. Not to pretend to be something that I'm not.

As I said before, it amazes me that someone straight thinks they are the authority on homosexuality and can tell us what makes us gay. I am not straight, I can't tell you what it is like to be straight. What makes you think you can tell us what and why we are gay? Do you have a special insight? Did you try it with a guy and decide it wasn't for you?

Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it. I'm betting I'll get one of these.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  

 :LOL:

----------


## DSM4Life

> Complusion than what? I think you mean then.
> 
> I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?
> 
> If the answer is no, you did not make a decision. What makes you think it's different for someone who is gay? There was never a moment in my life I decided to be gay. It is the same as your attraction to women. The only decision involved was to be honest with my family and to tell them. Not to pretend to be something that I'm not.
> 
> As I said before, it amazes me that someone straight thinks they are the authority on homosexuality and can tell us what makes us gay. I am not straight, I can't tell you what it is like to be straight. What makes you think you can tell us what and why we are gay? Do you have a special insight? Did you try it with a guy and decide it wasn't for you?
> 
> Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it. I'm betting I'll get one of these.



I absolutely agree with this 100 percent. Good post.

----------


## scottish

Im for letting people do what they want. What the hell do I care. I keep hearing about how the "gays" will get the same benefits and tax breaks. Who gives a rats ass. Im so sick of people worrying about everyone else. You guys should just tend to your own home, not someone elses.

----------


## Logan13

> Complusion than what? I think you mean then.
> 
> I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?
> 
> If the answer is no, you did not make a decision. What makes you think it's different for someone who is gay? There was never a moment in my life I decided to be gay. It is the same as your attraction to women. The only decision involved was to be honest with my family and to tell them. Not to pretend to be something that I'm not.
> 
> As I said before, it amazes me that someone straight thinks they are the authority on homosexuality and can tell us what makes us gay. I am not straight, I can't tell you what it is like to be straight. What makes you think you can tell us what and why we are gay? Do you have a special insight? Did you try it with a guy and decide it wasn't for you?
> 
> Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it. I'm betting I'll get one of these.


That's great and I hope that you find what you are looking for in life. So is deciding to become a polygymist something a person has to think about or is it just the way that they are? How about beastiality, is that something someone is just born with? How about pedophilia, perhaps this is just the way they are as well. If so, shouldn't we all just accept them for who they are? :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  The truth of the matter is that we all have choices, not evrything can be explained by "that's just the way I am". Do not journey down the road of the inconsequential victim of nature; For if you do, you will obviously have alot of company there (see above). I always bring the answers to your questions, problem is, you usually have the thread locked before most others are able to do so. My tone is reflective of your own. 
Countdown to Carlos threadlock..............

----------


## DSM4Life

> That's great and I hope that you find what you are looking for in life. So is deciding to become a polygymist something a person has to think about or is it just the way that they are? How about beastiality, is that something someone is just born with? How about pedophilia, perhaps this is just the way they are as well. If so, shouldn't we all just accept them for who they are? The truth of the matter is that we all have choices, not evrything can be explained by "that's just the way I am". Do not journey down the road of the inconsequential victim of nature; For if you do, you will obviously have alot of company there (see above). I always bring the answers to your questions, problem is, you usually have the thread locked before most others are able to do so. My tone is reflective of your own. 
> Countdown to Carlos threadlock..............


*Carlos
"Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it"*


hahah read him like an open book  :LOL:

----------


## Carlos_E

> That's great and I hope that you find what you are looking for in life. So is deciding to become a polygymist something a person has to think about or is it just the way that they are? How about beastiality, is that something someone is just born with? How about pedophilia, perhaps this is just the way they are as well. If so, shouldn't we all just accept them for who they are? The truth of the matter is that we all have choices, not evrything can be explained by "that's just the way I am". Do not journey down the road of the inconsequential victim of nature; For if you do, you will obviously have alot of company there (see above). I always bring the answers to your questions, problem is, you usually have the thread locked before most others are able to do so. My tone is reflective of your own. 
> Countdown to Carlos threadlock..............


You are so predictable. You avoided the question. For once I would like to you answer a question directed towards you instead of avoiding it. 

Just so you know. I don't lock threads. If you had the same access rights you could see who locks thread. They are locked by the admins.

----------


## Logan13

> You are so predictable. You avoided the question. For once I would like to you answer a question directed towards you instead of avoiding it. 
> 
> Just so you know. I don't lock threads. If you had the same access rights you could see who locks thread. They are locked by the admins.


So this is your question?
"I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?"
Ok Carlos, 
If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............

----------


## Logan13

> *Carlos
> "Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it"*
> 
> 
> hahah read him like an open book


nuthugger........ :1laugh:

----------


## IronReload04

> So this is your question?
> "I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?"
> Ok Carlos, 
> If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............


Mitosis and Miosis, I tihnk the argument is that it happens here and is in fact innate for those people.....]


I would like to hear someone else's view on pedaphilia and beastiality being innate....This is a good discussion question

----------


## Carlos_E

> So this is your question?
> "I want you to take a minute to think about this question. Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!" Or is your attraction to women something that came naturally to you?"
> Ok Carlos, 
> If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............


You still did not answer the question. Yes or no, Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!

----------


## Logan13

> You still did not answer the question. Yes or no, Was there a moment in your life that you decided to be straight? Did you sit and think "hey, I'm going to like women today!


As I have answered, No, Carlos I have not. Now answer my question, if you can without making this into a "you just hate gays" post to avoid a simple question:

If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, *please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............*

----------


## Logan13

> Mitosis and Miosis, I tihnk the argument is that it happens here and is in fact innate for those people.....]
> 
> 
> I would like to hear someone else's view on pedaphilia and beastiality being innate....This is a good discussion question


I do not believe that anyone will attempt this one since it opens up alot of doors that many do not want opened.

----------


## DSM4Life

> If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, *please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............*



Is this a serious statement ? 

I use to think of you as a semi-intelligent person. Keyword, use to.

----------


## Carlos_E

> As I have answered, No, Carlos I have not. Now answer my question, if you can without making this into a "you just hate gays" post to avoid a simple question:
> 
> If the male/female attraction were not innate, the species would not survive. There is a reason for heterosexual attraction, *please tell me what the reason for homosexual attraction is..............*


Natures form of population control. Homosexuality exists in other species. If there was not a reason for it, it would not exist. If everyone were meant to procreate people would not be born sterile.

----------


## Logan13

> Natures form of population control. Homosexuality exists in other species. If there was not a reason for it, it would not exist. If everyone were meant to procreate people would not be born sterile.


In all honesty, I would have to agree. Everything happens for a reason in nature.

----------


## Logan13

> Is this a serious statement ? 
> 
> I use to think of you as a semi-intelligent person. Keyword, use to.


There is a reason for everything. Albeit I still have not figured out the reasoning for your most recent worthless posts...........
BTW, Carlos had the answer.......
Discussions open up minds, mine included.

----------


## Coop77

> There is a reason for everything. Albeit I still have not figured out the reasoning for your most recent worthless posts...........
> BTW, Carlos had the answer.......
> Discussions open up minds, mine included.


I'm not convinced that sexual orientation is necessarily something you're 100% born with. Surely environment influences it somewhat. Who we are as people is partly in our genes and partly a product of experiences we've had in life. Human sexuality is complex. Stop trying to understand it or find rhyme or reason behind it. 

That being said, the idea that someone _chooses_ what they're attracted to is absurd. Congratulations Logan on realizing this in your above post. Some guys like blondes, some like brunettes, big boobs, small boobs.. and some guys like.. guys.

----------


## DSM4Life

> There is a reason for everything. Albeit I still have not figured out the reasoning for your most recent worthless posts...........
> BTW, Carlos had the answer.......
> Discussions open up minds, mine included.


First off that wasnt suppose to be an attack on you but you have to understand where I am coming from. When you argue this topic you are arguing my lifestyle so it does get somewhat under my skin. 

I also dont believe that there needs to be a reason for everything that happens. How come bad things happen to good people? How come some people get into fatal car accidents when they are on their way home not bothering anyone? 
I dont know. 

I dont see a reason for it but I see it happen daily. The only thing that keeps me going and makes me happy is living in the moment and being able to share that with someone I love. 

So my reason for homosexuality is easy, to make me happy. Thats all the reason I need.

----------


## DontPlayByTheRules

> As a female member, your title should be in pink. Anyway, how do the Jewish and Italian sides of your family view your decision? I know that both credes are very traditional.


I have asked for access to the Female Forum twice so far and nothing has happened that is why my name is not in pink. I know that there are other females in the same boat as I and it's a little frustrating. Anyways, to answer your question, I am not a religious person and neither is my family. My Aunt and Uncle (Jewish side) totally accept me, my father really doesn't (old school Italian). My mom is like my best friend (Jewish side) and accepts me for me.  :7up:

----------


## Logan13

> First off that wasnt suppose to be an attack on you but you have to understand where I am coming from. When you argue this topic you are arguing my lifestyle so it does get somewhat under my skin. 
> 
> I also dont believe that there needs to be a reason for everything that happens. How come bad things happen to good people? How come some people get into fatal car accidents when they are on their way home not bothering anyone? 
> I dont know. 
> 
> I dont see a reason for it but I see it happen daily. The only thing that keeps me going and makes me happy is living in the moment and being able to share that with someone I love. 
> 
> So my reason for homosexuality is easy, to make me happy. Thats all the reason I need.


When someone says that they are born with something, than there must be a reason for it. There are no true mistakes in nature, everything that is naturally occurring has a reason. Please do not correlate getting into a car wreck and homosexuality, that's just silly.

----------


## DSM4Life

> When someone says that they are born with something, than there must be a reason for it. There are no true mistakes in nature, everything that is naturally occurring has a reason. Please do not correlate getting into a car wreck and homosexuality, that's just silly.



If you want to play the nature card then we can. As carlos has pointed out 1000 times on this board there have been plenty of stuides that find homosexual animals.

How do you explain that logan ? Looks like mother nature might have been a lesbo herself.

----------


## Tock

> Actually, I asked *you* the question first. So do want to take a first attempt at showing where in the Constitution marriage is described as a "freedom"?


Sure.

The 9th amendment to the US Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The US Constitution is silent on the matter of marriage, therefore, citizens are free to marry any way we wish. 









> Do you want to know why it is not stated in the Constitution in such a manner? Because the Founding Fathers viewed marriage as an institution of God, not necessarily of man.


This is why I hate replying to your posts. 
From the stuff you write, I'm starting to wonder if you have a tumor on your brain.

----------


## Tock

> Is this pissing contest over yet ?


Urine the middle of it . . .
 :0piss:

----------


## Tock

> Just because the founding fathers viewed marriage between a white man and white woman, doesn't mean we should continue their way of thinking. They also thought that only white men who own property should be the only ones who have the right to vote. Our country and culture has evolved since then, don't you agree? *Many things have changed from what our founding father's initially wanted*.



Boy, that's the truth.

Slavery used to be Constitutional. Women used to couldn't vote. It wasn't until 1835 that the US Supreme Court struck down the government's ability to tax property to support its official church.

Lots of things have been sorted out since the Declaration of In***endance, and the ratification of the US Constitution by the 13 colonies. Lots more things will be sorted out in the future to make the country more democratic and less theocratic (hopefully, anyway).

----------


## Tock

> Lets see how quickly Logan tries to change the topic or avoid answering the question. My guess, he'll throw a question back at me or only answer half of it. I'm betting I'll get one of these.


Ya, I get this response from him, too. It's why I hate talking to him . . .

----------


## Logan13

> If you want to play the nature card then we can. As carlos has pointed out 1000 times on this board there have been plenty of stuides that find homosexual animals.
> 
> How do you explain that logan ? Looks like mother nature might have been a lesbo herself.


What is it that you are trying to argue about?

----------


## Logan13

> Sure.
> 
> The 9th amendment to the US Constitution:
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> The US Constitution is silent on the matter of marriage, therefore, citizens are free to marry any way we wish. 
> 
> 
> This is why I hate replying to your posts. 
> From the stuff you write, I'm starting to wonder if you have a tumor on your brain.


Nice try.
You hate replying to my posts because the answers to my questions are not what you wish they were...........

Now let's deal with US law and the hard cold reality of this situation.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act:
The law has two effects.

"No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. 
The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. 
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Hmmm. I guess that Bill Clinton was not aware that "citizens are free to marry any way we wish." :1laugh:

----------


## kfrost06

> What is it that you are trying to argue about?


Because animals are gay then humans should be able to have same sex marriage. However, based on that arguement, I pointed out before ALL monogamous relationships in nature are between opposite sexes. In theory, marriage is designed for the mongamous otherwise why get married?

----------


## kfrost06

Here's a fact, same sex relationships are not able to produce children. I did not create that, government did not make that law or enforce it. Lesbo mother nature did, soooooo "if" same sex marriage is allowed where do you think they will get children from. It is the next step isn't it? First love, then marriage then kfrost06 in a baby carriage. What's the solution to this, adoption?

----------


## Carlos_E

> Because animals are gay then humans should be able to have same sex marriage. However, based on that arguement, I pointed out before ALL monogamous relationships in nature are between opposite sexes. In theory, marriage is designed for the mongamous otherwise why get married?


I already pointed out TWICE that there are animals that are monogamous and the same sex. I posted links. You obviously did not read them.



> In theory, marriage is designed for the mongamous otherwise why get married?


Gay relationships are also monogamous. I was in a monogamous relationship for 7 years. It didn't workout. Eventually with the right guy I would like to get married. 

You have way to many stereotypes floating around your head.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Here's a fact, same sex relationships are not able to produce children. I did not create that, government did not make that law or enforce it. Lesbo mother nature did, soooooo "if" same sex marriage is allowed where do you think they will get children from. It is the next step isn't it? First love, then marriage then kfrost06 in a baby carriage. What's the solution to this, adoption?


Gay people already can adopt. Didn't you know?

Duck and cover! The world is coming to an end!  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

FYI: Gay parents do not automatically raise gay kids. I know 2 straight guys who had gay parents and they love women.

----------


## Act of God

I dunno if it is nature, environment, or some combination of the two. All I know is that I don't care what the hell you do. More chicks for me!

----------


## Coop77

> Because animals are gay then humans should be able to have same sex marriage. However, based on that arguement, I pointed out before ALL monogamous relationships in nature are between opposite sexes. In theory, marriage is designed for the mongamous otherwise why get married?



Are you a zoology expert now? 
Here. Monogamous gay penguins in the link below. Please don't try to argue. I can find dozens of other examples for you. Just say "I was wrong."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1275591.html

----------


## Coop77

> Here's a fact, same sex relationships are not able to produce children. I did not create that, government did not make that law or enforce it. Lesbo mother nature did,* soooooo "if" same sex marriage is allowed where do you think they will get children from*. It is the next step isn't it? First love, then marriage then kfrost06 in a baby carriage. What's the solution to this, adoption?


What does the ability to produce children have to do with the right to be married? Your logic suggests that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry either.

----------


## DSM4Life

> Ya, I get this response from him, too. It's why I hate talking to him . . .


That is 100 percent the truth.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Here's a fact, same sex relationships are not able to produce children. I did not create that, government did not make that law or enforce it. Lesbo mother nature did, *soooooo "if" same sex marriage is allowed where do you think they will get children from. It is the next step isn't it?*  First love, then marriage then kfrost06 in a baby carriage. What's the solution to this, adoption?


Not all people even want kids. My girl and i plan on never having kids. I'm probably going to get fixed. 

I'm sure there are gay couples that want children. 

I dont understand how this relates to this topic of marriage.

----------


## Lexed

gixxer HOW NO KIDS... I cant wait to have kids

----------


## Tock

> I pointed out before ALL monogamous relationships in nature are between opposite sexes.


No they aren't. 
Where did you get that bit of nonsense?

----------


## Carlos_E

> What does the ability to produce children have to do with the right to be married? Your logic suggests that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry either.


Straight people should stop having babies. You keep making more of us.  :LOL:

----------


## Tock

> Here's a fact, same sex relationships are not able to produce children. I did not create that, government did not make that law or enforce it. Lesbo mother nature did, soooooo "if" same sex marriage is allowed where do you think they will get children from. It is the next step isn't it? First love, then marriage then kfrost06 in a baby carriage. What's the solution to this, adoption?


Here's a fact -- relationships where either of the individuals are sterile are not able to produce children. That includes most women over the age of 50. So should they be prohibited from marriage? Or impotent men? 

Sometimes I wonder what planet my internet connection is hooked up to . . . I'm getting all sorts of weird stuff on my screen . . .
 :Icon Rolleyes:

----------


## kfrost06

> No they aren't. 
> Where did you get that bit of nonsense?


Prove me wrong. Carlos tried but failed. Please provide link. I am not saying there are not gay animals but when it comes to monogamous relations(e.g. 90% of birds are monogamous and 100% are paired female and male). Please prove me wrong! The reason, *the survival of the species* had mother nature paired smae sex animals in monigamous relationships the species would die out, FACT.

----------


## kfrost06

> Here's a fact -- relationships where either of the individuals are sterile are not able to produce children. That includes most women over the age of 50. So should they be prohibited from marriage? Or impotent men? 
> 
> Sometimes I wonder what planet my internet connection is hooked up to . . . I'm getting all sorts of weird stuff on my screen . . .



For the first part, that ridicules arguemnet has been used when the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a supporter of same-sex marriage, began a petition drive to place a ballot measure on the November 2007 ballot that would require opposite-sex couples who marry to have children within three years or have their marriages become legally unrecognized. Couples seeking a marriage license would also have to show they can produce children." - *This is just one af many examples of how gays want to destroy marriage and what it means* Research this and prove me wrong!

For the second part 


> I'm getting all sorts of weird stuff on my screen . . .


You could be downloading to much gay porn, I am sure it is very weird stuff.

Edited:I tried to make a funny again but it was probably not that funny :Frown:

----------


## Carlos_E

> Prove me wrong. Carlos tried but failed. Please provide link. I am not saying there are not gay animals but when it comes to monogamous relations(e.g. 90% of birds are monogamous and 100% are paired female and male). Please prove me wrong! The reason, *the survival of the species* had mother nature paired smae sex animals in monigamous relationships the species would die out, FACT.


Man you are blind when the information is right on front of you. Since you refuse to click on the links I posted I'll post here. 



> News :: Zoo plans to inseminate rare lesbian birds :: (1146 Reads) 
> 
> Posted by gayteens on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 05:48 AM 
> 
> Johannesburg Zoo plans to artificially inseminate a pair of female birds, who appear to be lovers, to help boost dwindling numbers of the endangered wattled crane species, it said on Thursday. 
> Staff at the zoo assumed Cherry and Amazona were lovers when they arrived earlier this year and charmed visitors with typical mating rituals - including dancing, serenading one another with song and tossing sticks into the air.
> 
> Tests showed the pair were both females, but due to a shortage of male wattled cranes and the species' faithfulness to one partner, the zoo decided to artificially inseminate the birds so they could reproduce.
> 
> ...





> Lesbian Swans
> They laid eggs together. They prepared for parenthood together. But Romeo and Juliet, the famous two swans residing in the Boston Public Garden (remember Make Way for Ducklings?) both turn out to be female, the Boston Globe reported Friday. Unfortunately, since the eggs were unfertilized, they did not hatch. Visitors have suggested artificial insemination so the pair can be parents after all.
> 
> Apparently, this is not an uncommon behaviour among swans if there is not an opposite-sex bird around. Swans will then stay with the same mate for life.





> (New York City) Gay rams in Corvallis, Oregon, lesbian swans in Boston, and gay penguins at several zoos around the world - they may shock conservative Christian groups fighting gay rights but for scientists they offer an insight into the origins and development of human sexuality.
> 
> Researchers at Oregon State University have found that about eight percent of rams are gay. The scientists, at the university along with those at the Oregon Health & Science University and the U.S. ***artment of Agriculture's Sheep Experiment Station, say that the finding may prove sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, may be biologically driven.
> 
> In rams who prefer to mount other rams, the anterior preoptic area of the hypothalamus was about half the size of this part of the brain in heterosexual rams, the researchers say in a new report.
> 
> "This was exciting to us because this area of the brain has been found in many species to regulate sexual behavior," Fred Stormshak, a distinguished professor of animal science at Oregon State and an investigator on the project, told The Gazette-Times of Corvallis on the weekend.
> 
> The investigation also targeted aromatase activity in the hypothalamus. Aromatase is an enzyme that converts androgens such as testosterone into estrogens such as estradiol. In male mammals, estrogen causes masculinization of the brain during gestation.
> ...





> The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not scientifically observed on a large scale until recent times. Homosexual behaviour does occur in the animal kingdom outside humans, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[31] Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexual behaviour, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males.
> 
> Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertilized egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[32] German and Japanese zoos have also reported homosexual behaviour among their penguins. This phenomenon has also been reported at Kelly Tarlton's Aquarium in Auckland, New Zealand. "Humans have created the myth that sexuality can be justified only by reproduction, which by definition limits it to hetero sex," says Michael Bronski, author of The Pleasure Principle: Culture, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom. "But here is an animal society that uses homosexuality to improve its social life."
> Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behaviour, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season."[citation needed] Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle. (See also, Freemartin. Freemartins occur because of clearly causal hormonal factors at work during gestation.)
> Bonobos in zoos. After studying the primates for his book Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, primatologist Frans de Waal, a professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, says that such expressions of intimacy are consistent with the homosexual behavior of what he terms "the erotic champions of the world." "Same-sex, opposite-sex--bonobos just love sex play," de Waal said in an interview. "They have so much sex, it gets boring."</ref>
> Homosexual behaviour in male sheep (found in 6-10% of rams) is associated with variations in cerebral mass distribution and chemical activity. A study reported in Endocrinology concluded that biological and physiological factors are in effect.[33] These findings are similar to human findings reported by Simon LeVay.
> "Approximately eight percent of [male] rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes..."
> Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds, the typical males among whom homosexual behavior is common and "effeminate sheep" or "behavioral transvestites" which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior.

----------


## Carlos_E

http://thisisby.us/index.php/content/gay_marriage

I try to be a fairly open minded person and when I come across people who have a differing opinion on a topic, I try to look at things from their perspective in an effort to see why they feel the way they do. Sometimes I can relate to their viewpoints, and sometimes I cannot. One of these topics on which I cannot relate is gay marriage. 

A lot of people get worked up over the topic of gay marriage, especially in my home state of Texas. However, I see no problem with it. If two consenting adults want to get married, who is the government to say they cant? There are many reasons people give for saying that gay marriage should be illegal, but none of them really make sense. 

I have heard that gays should not be allowed to marry because it is against the Bible. There are a few flaws with this argument however. First off, they seem to assume that Christians invented marriage, yet marriage of some form or another occurs in almost every society on earth going as far back as mankind has organized itself into settlements. Another problem with this argument is that it is still legal for practically any other sinner to get married. Last time I checked, it was against the Bible to be Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, pagan or any of the other countless religions, yet they are still allowed to get married. 

Adulterers are allowed to marry, as are thieves, murderers, blasphemers, and any other number of malefactors. So it is legally acceptable for a murderer on death row to marry, yet a homosexual couple is barred from the same privilege. Thirdly, the religious beliefs of a group shouldnt be allowed to influence legislative proceedings. Whether or not same sex marriage is a sin to your religion or not shouldnt affect its legal status. This is supposed to be the land of the free. If we let religion dictate what is legal or illegal what would be next? Going to jail for drawing a picture of Mohammad? Fines for making fun of Jesus? Where would it end?

Another argument that I have heard in favor of disallowing gay marriage is that same sex couples cannot have children naturally. This is quite a stupid argument as we still allow infertile couples to marry. The elderly are still allowed to marry if they find love late in their lives. We wouldnt tell a woman who just had her ovaries removed because of cancer that she cant marry the love of her life because she can no longer bear children. Thats just ridiculous. 
A third point that those against gay marriage use is that if same sex couples are granted legal marriage rights that they will be able to adopt children. I say, so what? If they meet the requirements to adopt children, isnt it better for the kids to be in a loving household than to be in an orphanage or going from foster home to foster home until they are eighteen? Some might say that if a kid is adopted by a gay couple, the other kids will tease them at school. Kids will tease anyone for any reason they can find. A little teasing in exchange for a loving home is more than a fair trade-off in the long run. 

Then there are those that say homosexuality is not natural. That is untrue. If anything is unnatural it is marriage. Monogamy is not a trait common in nature, and even scientists are finding out that those few species that they thought were monogamous were getting some on the side too. On the other hand, over 450 vertebrate species have been observed having homosexual relationships. The list includes elephants, big horn sheep, giraffes, dolphins and even species of monkey, such as the chimpanzee, the closest living relative of humans. There are male penguins that mate with each other for years on end, even though females are close at hand. Bottlenose dolphins, a species that doesnt normally form monogamous heterosexual relationships, have been observed in same sex coupling that can last their entire life. Even in nature, homosexual behavior is nothing out of the ordinary.

----------


## Act of God

I think the problem a lot of the really religious people have is that they feel that they are being forced to accept the gay marriage. Since it is government sponsored, they feel that it infringes upon their religious beliefs.

I dunno. Like I said, I could care less. I still think the idea about abolishing all marriage in relation to government is the best idea. Let it be private and allow civil unions between ANY adults (gay, brother/sister, 2 friends, dad and son) for those benefits.

Now, another thing that comes up logically. Mind you, this is absolute nitpicking for the sake of the argument.

"If two consenting adults want to get married, who is the government to say they can’t?" - Carlos

Do you support incestuous marriage? Polygamy? Most people that I have spoken to that are pro-gay marriage say no. They say that it is unnatural. I find it laughable that just because it is becoming widely acceptable to be gay that people still have no problem harboring that same hatred towards others. At one point in the not too distant past being gay was considered just as bad as doin yer sister. 

If two people love each other, who are we to say no? Right?

----------


## Carlos_E

Incestuous marriage? No. Incestuous marriages produce children with genetic diseases. Polygamy? That goes on now. Do I agree with it? No. But if that's what they want to do, let them.

----------


## biglouie250

hey carlos or anyone else can answer my questions. Since the federal govt does not recognize same sex marriages your still single on a federal tax return, however you file as married on the state return? Also has there been litigation by insurance companies refusing benefits to a deceased gay persons spouse? I mean they weasel out of everything they can Im sure if they could they would weasel out of paying death benefits as well.

----------


## Logan13

> I think the problem a lot of the really religious people have is that they feel that they are being forced to accept the gay marriage. Since it is government sponsored, they feel that it infringes upon their religious beliefs.
> 
> I dunno. Like I said, I could care less. I still think the idea about abolishing all marriage in relation to government is the best idea. Let it be private and allow civil unions between ANY adults (gay, brother/sister, 2 friends, dad and son) for those benefits.
> *Like it or not, marriage has an effect on many in regards to gov't programs and such.* 
> Now, another thing that comes up logically. Mind you, this is absolute nitpicking for the sake of the argument.
> 
> "If two consenting adults want to get married, who is the government to say they cant?" - Carlos
> 
> Do you support incestuous marriage? Polygamy? Most people that I have spoken to that are pro-gay marriage say no. They say that it is unnatural. I find it laughable that just because it is becoming widely acceptable to be gay that people still have no problem harboring that same hatred towards others. At one point in the not too distant past being gay was considered just as bad as doin yer sister. 
> ...


Once the door is opened, many acts which are deemed reprehensible by the majority will have to be allowed as well. There is nothing special about "gay unions" and who are gays to say that they are more deserving than polygymists and such?

----------


## Tock

> For the first part, that ridicules arguemnet has been used when the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a supporter of same-sex marriage, began a petition drive to place a ballot measure on the November 2007 ballot that would require opposite-sex couples who marry to have children within three years or have their marriages become legally unrecognized. Couples seeking a marriage license would also have to show they can produce children." - *This is just one af many examples of how gays want to destroy marriage and what it means* Research this and prove me wrong!


Ya, well, the reason for their ballot measure was to point out that since the Washington State Supreme court upheld the anti-gay marriage law by saying:
http://www.wa-doma.org/ 

_declared that a legitimate state interest allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this legitimate state interest, it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage._

So, since the court's opinion was that marriage should be limited to couples who were reproducing, this organization took them at their word, and took up their measure that would:

_If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

add the phrase, who are capable of having children with one another to the legal definition of marriage; 
require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled; 
require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as unrecognized; 
establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and 
make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits._ 


They were just making a point, not trying to be as hard on heterosexuals as heterosexuals are on gays.

------------------------------







> For the second part 
> You could be downloading to much gay porn, I am sure it is very weird stuff.


One can never download too much gay porn.  :7up:

----------


## Tock

> hey carlos or anyone else can answer my questions. Since the federal govt does not recognize same sex marriages your still single on a federal tax return, however you file as married on the state return?


It's a problem for gay couples in Massachusetts and other states that allow them to file their state income taxes jointly. They have to 
1) file seperately under federal tax rules
2) calculate their federal taxes jointly, as this is the basis for most state income tax figures
3) file state taxes jointly
This creates all sorts of bookkeeping nightmares -- it's bad enough trying to keep one set of books, but two, that's a trick. For instance, if Adam and Steve have joint investments, their investment company will send them monthly and annual statements detailing their profits and losses and how much they put in and took out. That's easy to deal with on a joint tax return. But for the federal tax return, since Adam and Steve have to file seperately, they have to figure out which investments each person owned, the profit or loss on each, which person received the income from any account withdrawals, which person received credit for losses that can be carried over to the next year, etc etc etc, and it becomes an accounting nightmare. 
For married people, it's simple. For gay couples, it's a nightmare only because the federal government won't let them file jointly.

And then you get into inheritance issues, problems owning property overseas jointly, it's a mess. Makes me glad to be single. 








> Also has there been litigation by insurance companies refusing benefits to a deceased gay persons spouse? I mean they weasel out of everything they can Im sure if they could they would weasel out of paying death benefits as well.


Not that I'm aware of ...

----------


## Tock

> Once the door is opened, many acts which are deemed reprehensible by the majority will have to be allowed as well. There is nothing special about "gay unions" and who are gays to say that they are more deserving than polygymists and such?


Who's to say that heterosexuals are more deserving than gays?
At least gay relationships don't create children that end up being abandoned/neglected by their parents, necessitating billions of welfare $$$ spent.

----------


## RamyGras

> What does the ability to produce children have to do with the right to be married? Your logic suggests that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry either.



Nice one.

----------


## DSM4Life

> One can never download too much gay porn.


Amen to that  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## mcpeepants

> Please show me where in the Constituton or Bill of Rights it is stated that marriage is a "freedom". Interacial marriages have never been illegal where I live.


Well the ninth amendment mentions that the rights listed in the in the constitution and bill of rights are not comprehensive and that we have others rights that are not listed.

----------


## Coop77

> Prove me wrong. Carlos tried but failed. Please provide link. I am not saying there are not gay animals but when it comes to monogamous relations(e.g. 90% of birds are monogamous and 100% are paired female and male). *Please prove me wrong!*  The reason, the survival of the species had mother nature paired smae sex animals in monigamous relationships the species would die out, FACT.


Several links have been provided. Carlos listed some and I listed a link to an article about two female penguins at a zoo that tend a nest together and reject male penguins. You've been proven wrong.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Several links have been provided. Carlos listed some and I listed a link to an article about two female penguins at a zoo that tend a nest together and reject male penguins. You've been proven wrong.


Watch, he'll come up with an excuse.

----------


## Coop77

> For the first part, that ridicules arguemnet has been used when the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a supporter of same-sex marriage, began a petition drive to place a ballot measure on the November 2007 ballot that would require opposite-sex couples who marry to have children within three years or have their marriages become legally unrecognized. Couples seeking a marriage license would also have to show they can produce children."


This was just to make a point, which you obviously missed. It's like when the college republicans have those bake sales where the price is based on what race you are.. to make a point about affirmative action. 




> This is just one af many examples of how gays want to destroy marriage


This statement completely bewilders me.  :Hmmmm:   :Hmmmm:  There are millions of Americans that think like you - feel threatened by gay people - and it totally dumbfounds me. It's like saying when women demanded the right to vote, they were trying to destroy voting and democracy.

----------


## RamyGras

When will "the gays" realize we don't want their kind around our innocent children. Infecting their minds and such with their homosexual ways. Trying to "gay" up our military and ruin the sanctity of heterosexual marriages by eloping. First they illegalize slavery, then they give women rights, now they're thinking of letting "the gays" get married?

Disgusting, and more importantly, un-American. 

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.......except for them gays!"

----------


## kfrost06

> Several links have been provided. Carlos listed some and I listed a link to an article about two female penguins at a zoo that tend a nest together and reject male penguins. You've been proven wrong.



This is absurd and I can hardly believe that I am wasting my precious time responding to such tripe! First and foremost, a zoo(which IMO is cruel) is NOT a natural setting. For the penguiins which are monogomous they are locked up with the following ratios 2.2 males for every 1 female! Here's the link Carlos blessed us with:

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp

"Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm."

Well, no sh1t sherlock! The same thing happens in prison, it's called being "on the down low".

Another quote from same link:

"In 1997, the park had four pairs of homosexual penguins. In an effort to increase breeding, zookeepers *tried to separate them by force*. They failed, said Gramzay."

How do you try to seperate by force and fail??? What a joke! You call this natural environment? Mother Nature. Does PBS go to the zoo to observe and film nature in the wild?

It is a colossal waste of my time to answer everyone of your links that lead no where but to a zoo! I really hope your not saying gay humans belong in a zoo!!!

----------


## Logan13

> Well the ninth amendment mentions that the rights listed in the in the constitution and bill of rights are not comprehensive and that we have others rights that are not listed.


Just so you do not continue down this road using vague examples and your interpretation of the law:
Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and is still on the books.
The law has two effects.
No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. 
The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. 
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Several links have been provided. Carlos listed some and I listed a link to an article *about two female penguins at a zoo that tend a nest together and reject male penguins*. You've been proven wrong.


they were just drunk and doing it for attention. You know how girls can be :Wink/Grin:

----------


## mcpeepants

> Just so you do not continue down this road using vague examples and your interpretation of the law:
> Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and is still on the books.
> The law has two effects.
> No state (or other political su**ivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. 
> The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. 
> The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996


That's what the ninth amendment says Logan, take a look at it. This law will eventually be struck down by the courts or the congress like so many others before it. Before the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, I would of been considered 3/5 of a person in the eyes of the government and probably not human by most people in the US. The majority of the people will eventually get over there prejudices and this law will be tossed like prohibition. You keep pointing out Clinton signed the bill as if I support bigotry when democrats do it and oppose it when republicans do.

Logan do you think gay people should be able to openly serve in the military and if not why?

----------


## Carlos_E

> It is a colossal waste of my time to answer everyone of your links that lead no where but to a zoo! I really hope your not saying gay humans belong in a zoo!!!


I'm obviously wasting my time with you. Your eyes and ears are closed. If you kept reading, you would see that *ALL OF THE LINKS ARE NOT IN A ZOO!* 

Logan13 is pig headed but he at least has an open mind. You on the other hand...

----------


## WillieDaPimp

> Logan13 is pig headed but he at least *has an open mind*.



now that's funny.....

----------


## Logan13

> That's what the ninth amendment says Logan, take a look at it. This law will eventually be struck down by the courts or the congress like so many others before it. Before the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, I would of been considered 3/5 of a person in the eyes of the government and probably not human by most people in the US. The majority of the people will eventually get over there prejudices and this law will be tossed like prohibition. You keep pointing out Clinton signed the bill as if I support bigotry when democrats do it and oppose it when republicans do.
> 
> Logan do you think gay people should be able to openly serve in the military and if not why?


Ya know, I have been back-and-forth on this one. Right now, today, I do not have any problem with gays serving openly. But I am not serving in the military, therefore my opinion should have less weight than those who are in a branch of service.

----------


## Logan13

> now that's funny.....


With a name like "DaPimp", how could we not take you seriously.......... :1laugh:

----------


## Tock

> This is absurd and I can hardly believe that I am wasting my precious time responding to such tripe! First and foremost, a zoo(which IMO is cruel) is NOT a natural setting.


For that matter, apartments, houses, mobilehomes, tents, condos, etc, are not natural settings for human beings, either. 
I hope you're not advocating that all humans go back to living in natural settings . . . I don't much care for the outdoors. Too many bugs.

----------


## Carlos_E

> For that matter, apartments, houses, mobilehomes, tents, condos, etc, are not natural settings for human beings, either. 
> I hope you're not advocating that all humans go back to living in natural settings . . . I don't much care for the outdoors. Too many bugs.


To true.  :LOL: 

I bet he won't have a come back for that.

----------


## Carlos_E

His post was sarcasm. Get with the program. 

Gay people don't make gay people. You straight people do. We're not like they army. We don't recruit.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> His post was sarcasm. Get with the program. 
> 
> Gay people don't make gay people. You straight people do. We're not like they army. *We don't recruit*.


I dont know about that./ I've been out a few times and someone was trying to convert me :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Carlos_E

> I dont know about that./ I've been out a few times and someone was trying to convert me


It was probably that gay tank top you wear. You were sending the wrong singals.  :LOL:

----------


## gixxerboy1

> why is your opinion ok and mine bigotry?your doing the name calling here Putz?wtf, maybe some little kid that has been raised by 2 daddys thinks he can get a husband one day, get married and have a babys and contribute to humanity on a reproductive level and further ensure the survival of the human race .oh please thats my oppinion, i said all i have to say about this.


Is that really the whole argument a lot of you have reproduction? Yea because the human race is on the verge of instinction.  :Icon Rolleyes:  

What about the straight people who can't? Hell my girl and i choose not to have any kids. I'm thinking about getting a vasectomy. That's not natural.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> It was probably that gay tank top you wear. You were sending the wrong singals.


It was probably that or the eye liner :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Coop77

> Watch, he'll come up with an excuse.





> This is absurd and I can hardly believe that I am wasting my precious time responding to such tripe! First and foremost, a zoo(which IMO is cruel) is NOT a natural setting.


 :LOL:

----------


## Coop77

> This is absurd and I can hardly believe that I am wasting my precious time responding to such tripe! First and foremost, a zoo(which IMO is cruel) is NOT a natural setting. For the penguiins which are monogomous they are locked up with the following ratios 2.2 males for every 1 female!


Interesting. I had no idea that zoos make animals gay. Now i know.

----------


## Carlos_E

> This is absurd and I can hardly believe that I am wasting my precious time responding to such tripe! First and foremost, a zoo(which IMO is cruel) is NOT a natural setting.





> For that matter, apartments, houses, mobilehomes, tents, condos, etc, are not natural settings for human beings, either. 
> I hope you're not advocating that all humans go back to living in natural settings . . . I don't much care for the outdoors. Too many bugs.


My favorite post for tonight.

 :LOL:

----------


## Coop77

> This is absurd and I can hardly believe that I am wasting my precious time responding to such tripe! First and foremost, a zoo(which IMO is cruel) is NOT a natural setting. *For the penguiins which are monogomous they are locked up with the following ratios 2.2 males for every 1 female!* Here's the link Carlos blessed us with:
> 
> http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp
> 
> "Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm."
> 
> Well, no sh1t sherlock! The same thing happens in prison, it's called being "on the down low".
> 
> Another quote from same link:
> ...


By the way, it's nearly impossible to distinguish a male penguin from a female penguin (the zoo had to use DNA tests) because their sex organs are on the inside.. there have probably been gay wild penguins in PBS nature shows, just no one can tell.

----------


## DSM4Life

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by kfrost06
> This is absurd and I can hardly believe that I am wasting my precious time responding to such tripe! First and foremost, a zoo(which IMO is cruel) is NOT a natural setting. 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Tock
> For that matter, apartments, houses, mobilehomes, tents, condos, etc, are not natural settings for human beings, either. 
> I hope you're not advocating that all humans go back to living in natural settings . . . I don't much care for the outdoors. Too many bugs.


 :Owned:

----------


## nalbano34

I am not going to try and get beaten up on this subject, but as far as housing goes......Mankind has alway made itself shelter. Am I missing something there? So we just became a bit more a***t at it, a house is not much different than a cave.I would have to say the comparison of a jail to a zoo is much more valid than just shelter, very different things IMO. I would like to add that you all make very valid points and this has become my favorite thread to check.

----------


## ftony

> His post was sarcasm. Get with the program. 
> 
> Gay people don't make gay people. You straight people do. We're not like they army. We don't recruit.


You Carlos and your cause is seriously losing integrity fast in my eyes. you are fast to reply defending what you believe in (homosexuality),you are biased to the point you deleted my post because they dont help your cause.My entire reason and effort of making my opinion known was to protect innocent children from being subjected to homosexuality without having the presence of mind to be able to make that choice to be in that situation. thats my opinion and right to believe this to be true ,you made your choice why are you pushing your beliefs on other people (innocent kids for one)for your own selfish gratification.Maybe thats what your all about, sure looks that way to me and if you felt the need to delete my post it must be true,ill save a copy of this post so dont bother to delete it. in addition you being the one ruining the integrity of this forum by deleting peoples post. when i never name called like you did or make racist comments like you did.I just gave my opinion on a topic posted by someone else.You defend homosexuality i defended innocent kids you want to argue with that?and last if you had a mod delete those post for you this site is even more corrupt than i imagined,but hey i guess you have your hands full .in more ways than one peace out

----------


## gixxerboy1

> You Carlos and your cause is seriously losing integrity fast in my eyes. you are fast to reply defending what you believe in (homosexuality),you are biased to the point you deleted my post because they dont help your cause.My entire reason and effort of making my opinion known was to protect innocent children from being subjected to homosexuality without having the presence of mind to be able to make that choice to be in that situation. thats my opinion and right to believe this to be true ,you made your choice why are you pushing your beliefs on other people (innocent kids for one)for your own selfish gratification.Maybe thats what your all about, sure looks that way to me and if you felt the need to delete my post it must be true,ill save a copy of this post so dont bother to delete it. in addition you being the one ruining the integrity of this forum by deleting peoples post. when i never name called like you did or make racist comments like you did.I just gave my opinion on a topic posted by someone else.You defend homosexuality i defended innocent kids you want to argue with that?and last if you had a mod delete those post for you this site is even more corrupt than i imagined,but hey i guess you have your hands full .in more ways than one peace out


Honestly i'm shocked by this post. 

How are homosexuals pushing their beliefs on children. Do you think Carlos is hanging out in the playground? I agree young children shouldn't be subjected to really any sexuality. But the fact is they are. Gay and straight. You think kids comprehend the shit they see straight adults doing?

I cant even write a reply. How is Carlos or homosexuality hurting kids?

----------


## Carlos_E

> You Carlos and your cause is seriously losing integrity fast in my eyes. you are fast to reply defending what you believe in (homosexuality),you are biased to the point you deleted my post because they dont help your cause.My entire reason and effort of making my opinion known was to protect innocent children from being subjected to homosexuality without having the presence of mind to be able to make that choice to be in that situation. thats my opinion and right to believe this to be true ,you made your choice why are you pushing your beliefs on other people (innocent kids for one)for your own selfish gratification.Maybe thats what your all about, sure looks that way to me and if you felt the need to delete my post it must be true,ill save a copy of this post so dont bother to delete it. in addition you being the one ruining the integrity of this forum by deleting peoples post. when i never name called like you did or make racist comments like you did.I just gave my opinion on a topic posted by someone else.You defend homosexuality i defended innocent kids you want to argue with that?and last if you had a mod delete those post for you this site is even more corrupt than i imagined,but hey i guess you have your hands full .in more ways than one peace out


I did not delete your post. An admin did. My posts were deleted as well. Your argument just got shot to hell.

----------


## ***xxx***

> You Carlos and your cause is seriously losing integrity fast in my eyes. you are fast to reply defending what you believe in (homosexuality),you are biased to the point you deleted my post because they dont help your cause.My entire reason and effort of making my opinion known was to protect innocent children from being subjected to homosexuality without having the presence of mind to be able to make that choice to be in that situation. thats my opinion and right to believe this to be true ,you made your choice why are you pushing your beliefs on other people (innocent kids for one)for your own selfish gratification.Maybe thats what your all about, sure looks that way to me and if you felt the need to delete my post it must be true,ill save a copy of this post so dont bother to delete it. in addition you being the one ruining the integrity of this forum by deleting peoples post. when i never name called like you did or make racist comments like you did.I just gave my opinion on a topic posted by someone else.You defend homosexuality i defended innocent kids you want to argue with that?and last if you had a mod delete those post for you this site is even more corrupt than i imagined,but hey i guess you have your hands full .in more ways than one peace out


wtf?! if u see it that way eveybody straights and gays are pushing their beliefs on innocent children. we live in a sexualized world that has nothing to do with who you sleep with or not.

----------


## kfrost06

> For that matter, apartments, houses, mobilehomes, tents, condos, etc, are not natural settings for human beings, either. 
> I hope you're not advocating that all humans go back to living in natural settings . . . I don't much care for the outdoors. Too many bugs.


Yes, they are. They are as natural a setting as a bird nest is to a bird, an ant hole/colony is to ants. They built them and use them. They were not forced and locked up in them. Now if "free will" were taken away, i.e. locked up in jail, that would not be natural. If an animal were *locked up* in prison(I mean a zoo) then that is not natural. I human building a house, tent, teepee, mall is natural in the sense he has done so on his own and comes and goes on his own. Now, when penguins build a zoo and come and go as they please then AND ONLY THEN can you say that is part of there nature. 

Tock, that was a very weak arguement. I am dissapointed to wake up and see that the best you could come up with is.....well...nothing.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Yes, they are. They are as natural a setting as a bird nest is to a bird, an ant hole/colony is to ants. They built them and use them. They were not forced and locked up in them. Now if "free will" were taken away, i.e. locked up in jail, that would not be natural. If an animal were *locked up* in prison(I mean a zoo) then that is not natural. I human building a house, tent, teepee, mall is natural in the sense he has done so on his own and comes and goes on his own. Now, when penguins build a zoo and come and go as they please then AND ONLY THEN can you say that is part of there nature. 
> 
> Tock, that was a very weak arguement. I am dissapointed to wake up and see that the best you could come up with is.....well...nothing.


If you actually read my post you would see not all of the animals were in a zoo. The lesbian swans are not in a zoo. How will you explain that away.

----------


## kfrost06

> You Carlos and your cause is seriously losing integrity fast in my eyes. you are fast to reply defending what you believe in (homosexuality),you are biased to the point you deleted my post because they dont help your cause.My entire reason and effort of making my opinion known was to protect innocent children from being subjected to homosexuality without having the presence of mind to be able to make that choice to be in that situation. thats my opinion and right to believe this to be true ,you made your choice why are you pushing your beliefs on other people (innocent kids for one)for your own selfish gratification.Maybe thats what your all about, sure looks that way to me and if you felt the need to delete my post it must be true,ill save a copy of this post so dont bother to delete it. in addition you being the one ruining the integrity of this forum by deleting peoples post. when i never name called like you did or make racist comments like you did.I just gave my opinion on a topic posted by someone else.You defend homosexuality i defended innocent kids you want to argue with that?and last if you had a mod delete those post for you this site is even more corrupt than i imagined,but hey i guess you have your hands full .in more ways than one peace out



Welcome ftony! As you can see we are discussing a "hot" topic. It is important that no name calling is done by either side of the issue, that gets us no where and will lead to the thread being locked. I am not accusing you of name calling but I know from experience that once post start getting deleted it is only moments away from having the thread locked. We can strongly disagree with others in a civil manner and if emotions run high, walk away and then come back. Carlos, despite his warped views(I call liberalism) he is a cool guy, even if he hates me. I can also tell you he can not delete post, if he had the power to delete post, my post count would be in the single digits.

----------


## kfrost06

> If you actually read my post you would see not all of the animals were in a zoo. The lesbian swans are not in a zoo. How will you explain that away.


Here's one line from your swan story, "Apparently, this is not an uncommon behaviour among swans *if there is not an opposite-sex bird around*."

----------


## Carlos_E

> Carlos, despite his warped views(I call liberalism) he is a cool guy, even if he hates me. I can also tell you he can not delete post, if he had the power to delete post, my post count would be in the single digits.


I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. I just feel you're... misguided. 

I do have the power to edit and delete posts. I delete or edit posts that break the rules or are reported as offensive. Your posts have not done that.

----------


## ftony

> wtf?! if u see it that way eveybody straights and gays are pushing their beliefs on innocent children. we live in a sexualized world that has nothing to do with who you sleep with or not.


Well a typical family beliefs of growing up going to college "getting married" having children to pass on your jeans so they may grow and pass on their jeans ,contributing to humanity in way of reproducing what you may or may not believe are good jeans. Well those are not such bad beliefs.there are good and bad people of all walks of life.But i can see problems with a child being raised by two men, it has got to be confusing the s#it out of him or her,im not singling out any one person no malice intended...my intentions are not to offend anybody,I feel the need to speak out for those who cannot,just as you are compelled to defend what you believe in..I would do the same for you.Again im done with this i just had to repost because of some forum corruption..lol peace out

----------


## Carlos_E

> Here's one line from your swan story, "Apparently, this is not an uncommon behaviour among swans *if there is not an opposite-sex bird around*."


The swans were in their natural environment with access to males.

----------


## kfrost06

> If you actually read my post you would see not all of the animals were in a zoo. The lesbian swans are not in a zoo. How will you explain that away.



Carlos, you have to give me credit, I am good :Wink/Grin:  . Remember too, there are people far more articulate then me that are currently fighting this issue in the real world, e.g. courts, public opinion, congress, press, etc. You have an uphill fight and a long one. I wish you no harm and actually wish you the best but I do not see gay marriage happening with in the next 10 years, not here in the good 'ole US of A.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Well a typical family beliefs of growing up going to college "getting married" having children to pass on your jeans


Wrangler or Levi?

----------


## Act of God

> I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. I just feel you're... misguided. 
> 
> I do have the power to edit and delete posts. I delete or edit posts that break the rules or are reported as offensive. Your posts have not done that.


I thought you said you weren't a mod?  :Wink:

----------


## kfrost06

> Wrangler or Levi?


Wranglers :Hmmmm:  you call me backwards! What decade are you living in!

----------


## Carlos_E

> I thought you said you weren't a mod?


There is a difference between mod and admin. Mods/Hall of Famers can edit and delete posts. Gsxxr, Me, and 2-3 others have powers to edit and delete when the admins are not here. The admins however can do everything including suspend and ban. Something we cannot do.

----------


## Carlos_E

> Wranglers you call me backwards! What decade are you living in!


What kind of American are you that you don't buy American products? You are whats wrong with this country.

 :Wink/Grin:

----------


## ftony

> Wrangler or Levi?


Genes ...but hey whatever turns your head i guess..

----------


## RamyGras

> You Carlos and your cause is seriously losing integrity fast in my eyes. you are fast to reply defending what you believe in (homosexuality),you are biased to the point you deleted my post because they dont help your cause.My entire reason and effort of making my opinion known was to protect innocent children from being subjected to homosexuality without having the presence of mind to be able to make that choice to be in that situation. thats my opinion and right to believe this to be true ,you made your choice why are you pushing your beliefs on other people (innocent kids for one)for your own selfish gratification.Maybe thats what your all about, sure looks that way to me and if you felt the need to delete my post it must be true,ill save a copy of this post so dont bother to delete it. in addition you being the one ruining the integrity of this forum by deleting peoples post. when i never name called like you did or make racist comments like you did.I just gave my opinion on a topic posted by someone else.You defend homosexuality i defended innocent kids you want to argue with that?and last if you had a mod delete those post for you this site is even more corrupt than i imagined,but hey i guess you have your hands full .in more ways than one peace out



Thank you for defending all those innocent kids that are being swarmed by the "Homosexual Army of Darkness." Their manipulative ways have gone unmatched for way too long. There was a time, when I was a child, that a recruiter cornered me at a playground. I was simply shooting baskets on my own, when all of a sudden he approached me and put me in a trance. I almost converted my sexual orientation, but a school official ran over and saved me. It's their eyes, fellas, there's something about their eyes!

----------


## ftony

> Thank you for defending all those innocent kids that are being swarmed by the "Homosexual Army of Darkness." Their manipulative ways have gone unmatched for way too long. There was a time, when I was a child, that a recruiter cornered me at a playground. I was simply shooting baskets on my own, when all of a sudden he approached me and put me in a trance. I almost converted my sexual orientation, but a school official ran over and saved me. It's their eyes, fellas, there's something about their eyes!


They adopt babies in adoption agencys not schools .perhaps you have some other fetish with school children ill leave that one to the authorities.wise a##

----------


## Carlos_E

Gay parents do not automatically raise gay kids. I know 2 guys who both had gay parents. One two Moms, the other 2 days. Both guys are straight.

What do you think? That the parents would have sex in front of their children? The kids would not be exposed to anything they can't see on the street or on TV. A couple being affectionate holding hands or kissing. If you think that is horrible why aren't you out campaigning against PDA? Eww ... straight people are holding hands and kissing. Cover your child's eyes!

----------


## ftony

> Gay parents do not automatically raise gay kids. I know 2 guys who both had gay parents. One two Moms, the other 2 days. Both guys are straight.
> 
> What do you think? That the parents would have sex in front of their children? The kids would not be exposed to anything they can't see on the street or on TV. A couple being affectionate holding hands or kissing. If you think that is horrible why aren't you out campaigning against PDA? Eww ... straight people are holding hands and kissing. Cover your child's eyes!


God i would hope not.No ,but lets look at a typical day in school in america that a child will deal with one day.whats the matter little johnny you seem sad today?do you miss your mommy and daddy??huh i have two daddys.Dont you have two daddys ?why do the other kids have mommys??well johnny thats something your going to have to ask your daddys...dad ,why dont i have a mommy? well son when two people love each other it doesnt matter if you can reproduce or not .Fu## it you can adopt from a breeder when you get old if you want ,or you can just be straight like the others...no daddy i want to be just like you and daddy ,um daddy.WTF am i a retard here or what? take that same kid adopt him to a "normal" couple and i bet my life that kid will be a completely different person.Now who has the right to subject a baby to this type of exposure?maybe if the world was the way you want it to be it would be fine but thank god ,for reasons of survival of the human race its not.Carlos i gotta go back to work no hard feelings bro, i feel for you..peace out :Wink/Grin:

----------


## mcpeepants

> God i would hope not.No ,but lets look at a typical day in school in america that a child will deal with one day.whats the matter little johnny you seem sad today?do you miss your mommy and daddy??huh i have two daddys.Dont you have two daddys ?why do the other kids have mommys??well johnny thats something your going to have to ask your daddys...dad ,why dont i have a mommy? well son when two people love each other it doesnt matter if you can reproduce or not .Fu## it you can adopt from a breeder when you get old if you want ,or you can just be straight like the others...no daddy i want to be just like you and daddy ,um daddy.WTF am i a retard here or what? take that same kid adopt him to a "normal" couple and i bet my life that kid will be a completely different person.Now who has the right to subject a baby to this type of exposure?maybe if the world was the way you want it to be it would be fine but thank god ,for reasons of survival of the human race its not.Carlos i gotta go back to work no hard feelings bro, i feel for you..peace out


wow it seems like people keep trying to out do it other by trying to out show their ignorance. there is prejudice all over the world and kids and his family will have to deal with or the world will walk all over you. there are millions of kids in the world that are orphans, hungry, in foster homes, whose only wish is to find someone to love and take care of them. would you rather the child stay an orphan because you don't want homosexuals couples to adopt?

----------


## kfrost06

> wow it seems like people keep trying to out do it other by trying to out show their ignorance. there is prejudice all over the world and kids and his family will have to deal with or the world will walk all over you. there are millions of kids in the world that are orphans, hungry, in foster homes, whose only wish is to find someone to love and take care of them. would you rather the child stay an orphan because you don't want homosexuals couples to adopt?


bad arguement, in the USA there are far more people looking to adopt then there are babies. It is VERY VERY difficult to adopt(unless your rich). The "kids" in orphans are usually(almost exclusively) older and troubled and no one wants them. Couples want babies, not troubled youths, I'd image gay couples would be no different in this area then straight couples.

----------


## Carlos_E

> bad arguement, in the USA there are far more people looking to adopt then there are babies. It is VERY VERY difficult to adopt(unless your rich). The "kids" in orphans are usually(almost exclusively) older and troubled and no one wants them. Couples want babies, not troubled youths, I'd image gay couples would be no different in this area then straight couples.


The gay couples I know who adopt adopted kids of different races and ages. Not just babies. (We take the kids the rest of you don't want.)

----------


## BgMc31

> bad arguement, in the USA there are far more people looking to adopt then there are babies. It is VERY VERY difficult to adopt(unless your rich). The "kids" in orphans are usually(almost exclusively) older and troubled and no one wants them. Couples want babies, not troubled youths, I'd image gay couples would be no different in this area then straight couples.


Absolutely not true!!!! There are many more children out there waiting to be adopted than couples wanting to adopt (the National Adoption Center says their are over 120K children waiting to be adopted as opposed to 17K of couples wanting to adopt). The majority of couples want a baby that they can usually pass as their own. That is why the majority of kids in foster care and orphanages are minorities and or handicapped. And the reason for the older age is because these children weren't adopted as children or babies.

----------


## Lavinco

this thread is so gay!

----------


## BgMc31

> God i would hope not.No ,but lets look at a typical day in school in america that a child will deal with one day.whats the matter little johnny you seem sad today?do you miss your mommy and daddy??huh i have two daddys.Dont you have two daddys ?why do the other kids have mommys??well johnny thats something your going to have to ask your daddys...dad ,why dont i have a mommy? well son when two people love each other it doesnt matter if you can reproduce or not .Fu## it you can adopt from a breeder when you get old if you want ,or you can just be straight like the others...no daddy i want to be just like you and daddy ,um daddy.WTF am i a retard here or what? take that same kid adopt him to a "normal" couple and i bet my life that kid will be a completely different person.Now who has the right to subject a baby to this type of exposure?maybe if the world was the way you want it to be it would be fine but thank god ,for reasons of survival of the human race its not.Carlos i gotta go back to work no hard feelings bro, i feel for you..peace out


Wow, what ignorance!!! Your scenario is one of many that many children face. Many kids nowadays are raised in single parent households (How come I don't have a mommy or daddy?). Many children are raised in bi-racial environments, the list goes on and on. You are acting like exposing children to a loving relationship (albeit same sex) is child abuse. That is completely assinine. The human race will not die out if we allow same sex marriage or same sex couples to adopt. 

Apparently Carlos has adapted well to criticism and bigotry so I don't think you should feel for him, but because of you intolerance and hatred towards others, we all feel for you!!!

----------


## kfrost06

> this thread is so gay!


 :Haha:

----------


## kfrost06

> Wow, what ignorance!!! Your scenario is one of many that many children face. Many kids nowadays are raised in single parent households (How come I don't have a mommy or daddy?). Many children are raised in bi-racial environments, the list goes on and on. You are acting like exposing children to a loving relationship (albeit same sex) is child abuse. That is completely assinine. The human race will not die out if we allow same sex marriage or same sex couples to adopt. 
> 
> Apparently Carlos has adapted well to criticism and bigotry so I don't think you should feel for him, but because of you intolerance and hatred towards others, we all feel for you!!!


BgMc you're like a broken record. Everytime someone disagrees with you you say the same thing, what ignorance, your intolerance and hatred, bigotry, etc. I bet if we did a search of threads with the words "hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc we'd find hundreds all from you. People can have values different then yours and not be a bigot, full of hatred, or intolerant. They can simply disagree.

----------


## RamyGras

> They adopt babies in adoption agencys not schools .perhaps you have some other fetish with school children ill leave that one to the authorities.wise a##



I don't know where you got the idea of me having a fetish for school children. But, if that's what you got out of my post, so be it. I would possibly take your insult to heart, had I not read most of your posts. You brought up the children, as though they are victims when people have relationships with the same sex. Like they are somehow effected. A heterosexual man recently placed a baby in a microwave, for goodness' sake! Does this mean heterosexual men shouldn't be able to raise children? Of course not. Some people are fit to take care of kids, some aren't. 

But, I must say, playing with my words and SOMEHOW turning it into me being a pedophile was very mature and thought provoking.

----------


## RamyGras

> BgMc you're like a broken record. Everytime someone disagrees with you you say the same thing, what ignorance, your intolerance and hatred, bigotry, etc. I bet if we did a search of threads with the words "hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc we'd find hundreds all from you. People can have values different then yours and not be a bigot, full of hatred, or intolerant. They can simply disagree.



Wow. Try not throwing TOO many stones when you're living in a glass house. The repercussions are no good. What bothers me is that people who aren't gay are all about stopping gay marriage. This affects nobody's life but the homosexual's. You get to make your opinion and then go live in your nuclear family and live a regular life. "They can't reproduce". Who cares? It's not like if you ban gay marriage, they're all of a sudden going to become straight and start reproducing. And, as long as you continue to bring up reproduction, the argument will remain that straight people that simply can't reproduce or just don't want to have kids are still allowed to marry. Why is this? 

It seems to me that most of the posters that are against gay marriage have similar philosophies about most of the other topics on this site. I'm realizing this is no coincidence.

----------


## ftony

> I don't know where you got the idea of me having a fetish for school children. But, if that's what you got out of my post, so be it. I would possibly take your insult to heart, had I not read most of your posts. You brought up the children, as though they are victims when people have relationships with the same sex. Like they are somehow effected. A heterosexual man recently placed a baby in a microwave, for goodness' sake! Does this mean heterosexual men shouldn't be able to raise children? Of course not. Some people are fit to take care of kids, some aren't. 
> 
> But, I must say, playing with my words and SOMEHOW turning it into me being a pedophile was very mature and thought provoking.


Next time spare us the BS of your wise a## post and say what you are trying to say .some of us dont have time for your games..i guess you have as much trouble reading as you do expressing what you are trying to say.i think most everyone who has read what i posted knows what i said and why i said it ,go figure out another trivial post for someone to decipher .

----------


## BgMc31

> BgMc you're like a broken record. Everytime someone disagrees with you you say the same thing, what ignorance, your intolerance and hatred, bigotry, etc. I bet if we did a search of threads with the words "hatred, bigotry, intolerance, etc we'd find hundreds all from you. People can have values different then yours and not be a bigot, full of hatred, or intolerant. They can simply disagree.


I call em like I see em!!! It's one thing to disagree on things but when your basis of disagreement is lined with hatred and bigotry what else should I call it. Trying to equate same sex marriage with child abuse is simply ignorance. No matter how you look at it, there is no basis in fact to this. And the definition of ignorance is lack of knowledge. So called it what you want, but apparently the truth hurts!

----------


## mcpeepants

> bad arguement, in the USA there are far more people looking to adopt then there are babies. It is VERY VERY difficult to adopt(unless your rich). The "kids" in orphans are usually(almost exclusively) older and troubled and no one wants them. Couples want babies, not troubled youths, I'd image gay couples would be no different in this area then straight couples.


i needs some numbers for you to back that claim that there far more people want to adopt than there are babies to adopt. i agree that we need to get rid of high adoptions fees so more people can adopt.

----------


## RamyGras

> Next time spare us the BS of your wise a## post and say what you are trying to say .some of us dont have time for your games..i guess you have as much trouble reading as you do expressing what you are trying to say.i think most everyone who has read what i posted knows what i said and why i said it ,go figure out another trivial post for someone to decipher .



I have as much trouble reading as I do expressing what I'm trying to say? What the heck are you talking about? My post was a simple paragraph mocking your ignorance. If it took you more than thirty seconds to decipher, that's another problem for you to add to your long list. I agree that "most everyone who has read" what you've posted knows what you were saying. However, I wouldn't brag about it. Sorry it was so trivial. Next time I'll take your intelligence into account before I post something.

----------


## Tock

> Yes, they are. They are as natural a setting as a bird nest is to a bird, an ant hole/colony is to ants. *They built them and use them.*  They were not forced and locked up in them.


So, would you say that downtown New York City, full of structures built and used by humans, is a "natural setting?" Perhaps even "Nature's Paradise?"

[ ] Yes
[ ] No










> Now if "free will" were taken away, i.e. locked up in jail, that would not be natural.


Why not? Is it not a structure, as you put it, built and used by humans?











> If an animal were *locked up* in prison(I mean a zoo) then that is not natural. I human building a house, tent, teepee, mall is natural in the sense he has done so on his own and comes and goes on his own. Now, when penguins build a zoo and come and go as they please then AND ONLY THEN can you say that is part of there nature.


All I can say is that you have a very peculiar and limited view of what is natural for human beings. 

Is it natural for humans to do shift work in a factory? Perhaps you are familiar with the "Factory System" used in the American Industrial Revolution, where people worked in a factory, lived in a factory owned community house, went to a factory owned church on sundays where a factory-paid preacher brought the sermon, bought all their groceries from a factory owned general store, played on factory owned recreation facilities, saw a factory paid doctor when they were sick, and were buried in a factory owned cemetary when they died.
All this happened in structures built and used by humans. Does this strike you as natural? 

Consider the millions of rats that infest New York City. Those animals exist in an environment that is not natural for them. They are enabled to form swarms that take on new behavioral patterns; the individuals become more aggressive, form heirachies. Human beings are no different, I'm sure you'll agree. Any time you put an abnormal number of animals (including humans) in a given space, you'll find increased aggression, social problems, etc. 










> Tock, that was a very weak arguement. I am dissapointed to wake up and see that the best you could come up with is.....well...nothing.


C'mon, are you _really_ disappointed? Are you trying to tell me that you honestly wanted to be overwhelmed with a counter to your arguement so devastating that you would be compelled to acknowledge your intellectual inferiority? 

No, I didn't think so.

Somehow, I don't think that you would ever reach that point. I don't think that even if a thousand intellectual giants were to graphically illustrate the weakness of your position, you would ever recognize the nature of your deficiencies. Neither do I suspect that you would be disappointed by your inability to recognize the nature of your deficiencies. 

But, what is that to me? Nothing, really.

----------


## ftony

> I have as much trouble reading as I do expressing what I'm trying to say? What the heck are you talking about? My post was a simple paragraph mocking your ignorance. If it took you more than thirty seconds to decipher, that's another problem for you to add to your long list. I agree that "most everyone who has read" what you've posted knows what you were saying. However, I wouldn't brag about it. Sorry it was so trivial. Next time I'll take your intelligence into account before I post something.


Fair enough i will work on the fact that i am ignorant to the idea of possibly influencing a baby growing into a person he might not otherwise be influenced into being if he had grown up in a different setting otherwise.And you can put your kid up for adoption to a loving gay couple.I think your ignorance is affecting your judgement .But hey thats just my ignorant opinion right ...we are all ignorant if we see things different i guess.. And your trivial post are comic at best.I respect the fact that homosexual couples would want a family and be contributing citizens in our society,however i have a problem with the baby not being able to decide the detrimental consequences of other peoples decisions..so i guess im an ignorant fool,ill take that label if i have to.but remember this you have a mother dont you,hell we all have mothers dont we...but hey thats an ignorant statement i suppose considering your intelligence ,ill keep that in mind next time I post.

----------


## BgMc31

> Fair enough i will work on the fact that i am ignorant to the idea of possibly influencing a baby growing into a person he might not otherwise be influenced into being if he had grown up in a different setting otherwise.And you can put your kid up for adoption to a loving gay couple.I think your ignorance is affecting your judgement .But hey thats just my ignorant opinion right ...we are all ignorant if we see things different i guess.. And your trivial post are comic at best.I respect the fact that homosexual couples would want a family and be contributing citizens in our society,however i have a problem with the baby not being able to decide the *detrimental consequences* of other peoples decisions..so i guess im an ignorant fool,ill take that label if i have to.but remember this you have a mother dont you,hell we all have mothers dont we...but hey thats an ignorant statement i suppose considering your intelligence ,ill keep that in mind next time I post.


Please explain the detrimental consequences of being gay. And I guess nothing would convince you that being gay is not a decision. Again, ignorance means lack of knowledge, and apparently that is what you suffer from.

----------


## ftony

> Please explain the detrimental consequences of being gay. And I guess nothing would convince you that being gay is not a decision. Again, ignorance means lack of knowledge, and apparently that is what you suffer from.


Is it easy to be gay?I wouldnt know,ya lack of knowledge i suppose.Are you gay?what do you go through on a daily basis?do you have a child of your own?I do..i would want my kid to carry on my name,my "genes" our family tree.Im an ignorant fool for this??im confused here obviously, perhaps you can enlighten me so i may not be so ignorant...or perhaps you may have things twisted i dont know..I guess the detrimental consequences i have in my mind is the preservation of the human race hypothetically speaking if we all were in fact gay ...i mean no disrespect to anyone who is in fact gay,I just have a problem with the childs ability to decide..that makes me a bad person...I dont think so..but you do .whos ignorant here..

----------


## Information

> but remember this you have a mother dont you,hell we all have mothers dont we...but hey thats an ignorant statement i suppose considering your intelligence ,ill keep that in mind next time I post.


*We would like to know why you are bringing his mother into this discussion?*

----------


## ftony

> *We would like to know why you are bringing his mother into this discussion?*


The discussion is about gay marriage as you know,and with that comes parenting....my opinion is every child should have a mother and father...not two fathers or two mothers ..I said he has a mother and we all have mothers (hence my argument ***riving a child of a mother)without the child having any say in the matter being he or she is a baby..

----------


## ***xxx***

I have to agree with u on that. every child should have a mom and a dad. but this world is far from perfect and I do not see a reason why a gay couple could not be good parents though I am sure the kid will constantly be harassed in school...

----------


## RamyGras

> The discussion is about gay marriage as you know,and with that comes parenting....my opinion is every child should have a mother and father...not two fathers or two mothers ..I said he has a mother and we all have mothers (hence my argument ***riving a child of a mother)without the child having any say in the matter being he or she is a baby..



No reason for us to come to blows here. I'm sure you're a swell guy. However, I think the idea that a child doesn't have a choice as to who raises them is something that happens all the time. Again, I'll bring up the poor child who was put in the microwave. This child didn't have a choice as to who raised her. As it turns out, the baby was being raised by a heterosexual man and woman. It didn't change the fact that they are scum. While it is convenient to have both a mother and a father, there is a high percentage of children in this world who aren't blessed with having two parents. Sometimes the mother or father skips town, or worse, they pass away. 

You have also commented on your desire for the preservation of the human race if we were all gay. I have very good news for you. This will not be an issue. It's not as though people in this world are straight because they're not allowed to marry if they were gay. The fact remains that gay people will NEVER reproduce. So, even by disallowing gay marriage, the chances are very high that they will remain homosexual. And, when it comes to adopting children, I agree that they will probably get harrassed at school. But, really, the buck stops there. Maybe I'm not seeing things the same as you are, but I don't see many more disadvantages of having gay parents than having straight parents. There are plenty of fathers and mothers that are neglectful and careless. Just because they are heterosexual does not mean that they are better suited to raise children. 

Please stop bringing up my apparently impossible to decipher post (i've posted several times since), stop bringing up children's lack of options when it comes to parents (children that get abused don't get to choose either), and stop bringing up the preservation of the human race (hopefully self-explanatory). Because neither of these arguments support your cause.

----------


## ftony

> No reason for us to come to blows here. I'm sure you're a swell guy. However, I think the idea that a child doesn't have a choice as to who raises them is something that happens all the time. Again, I'll bring up the poor child who was put in the microwave. This child didn't have a choice as to who raised her. As it turns out, the baby was being raised by a heterosexual man and woman. It didn't change the fact that they are scum. While it is convenient to have both a mother and a father, there is a high percentage of children in this world who aren't blessed with having two parents. Sometimes the mother or father skips town, or worse, they pass away. 
> 
> You have also commented on your desire for the preservation of the human race if we were all gay. I have very good news for you. This will not be an issue. It's not as though people in this world are straight because they're not allowed to marry if they were gay. The fact remains that gay people will NEVER reproduce. So, even by disallowing gay marriage, the chances are very high that they will remain homosexual. And, when it comes to adopting children, I agree that they will probably get harrassed at school. But, really, the buck stops there. Maybe I'm not seeing things the same as you are, but I don't see many more disadvantages of having gay parents than having straight parents. There are plenty of fathers and mothers that are neglectful and careless. Just because they are heterosexual does not mean that they are better suited to raise children. 
> 
> Please stop bringing up my apparently impossible to decipher post (i've posted several times since), stop bringing up children's lack of options when it comes to parents (children that get abused don't get to choose either), and stop bringing up the preservation of the human race (hopefully self-explanatory). Because neither of these arguments support your cause.


Ok ,I guess we can agree to disagree.Sometimes we may say things out of frustration in order to get our point across,and for that i apologize to you and anyone else i may have offended, It wasnt my direct intention.I think good people should get what they want (not the scraps left over from what other people dont want)weather they are gay straight or whatever.Im just a bit confused as to the phycological effect it may have on a kid.One of my parents made a very bad choice when i was a pup that effects me to this day, and i am 36 years old.Again all apologies to this forum .

----------


## BgMc31

> Is it easy to be gay?I wouldnt know,ya lack of knowledge i suppose.Are you gay?what do you go through on a daily basis?do you have a child of your own?I do..i would want my kid to carry on my name,my "genes" our family tree.Im an ignorant fool for this??im confused here obviously, perhaps you can enlighten me so i may not be so ignorant...or perhaps you may have things twisted i dont know..I guess the detrimental consequences i have in my mind is the preservation of the human race hypothetically speaking if we all were in fact gay ...i mean no disrespect to anyone who is in fact gay,I just have a problem with the childs ability to decide..that makes me a bad person...I dont think so..but you do .whos ignorant here..


No, I'm not gay. And yes I have children, 3 as a matter of fact. 2 boys and a one girl. That answers that. I know it's not easy to be gay or because I know the difficulty it is being a minority. I can only imagine what gay people go through. 

The human race is not in peril so your detrimental consequences argument is moot. Being gay isn't a disease that is spread by human contact so there is no chances of us all being gay. I'm sure any child who doesn't have parents would not mind having two parents (whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman). They just wish to be loved by a family. 

Anytime you attempt to make an argument with no basis in fact and attempt to justify your intolerance and refuse to educate yourself, that you are in fact ignorant. Simply based on the definition of ignorance (dictionary.com provides that ignorance is the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. )

----------


## Logan13

> Anytime you attempt to make an argument with no basis in fact and attempt to justify your intolerance and refuse to educate yourself, that you are in fact ignorant.


Remember your own words above when questioning why I have an issue with those who do not post a source to back up their ideological gossip..........

----------


## ftony

> No, I'm not gay. And yes I have children, 3 as a matter of fact. 2 boys and a one girl. That answers that. I know it's not easy to be gay or because I know the difficulty it is being a minority. I can only imagine what gay people go through. 
> 
> The human race is not in peril so your detrimental consequences argument is moot. Being gay isn't a disease that is spread by human contact so there is no chances of us all being gay. I'm sure any child who doesn't have parents would not mind having two parents (whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman). They just wish to be loved by a family. 
> 
> Anytime you attempt to make an argument with no basis in fact and attempt to justify your intolerance and refuse to educate yourself, that you are in fact ignorant. Simply based on the definition of ignorance (dictionary.com provides that ignorance is the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. )


listen I posted we can agree to disagree.I apologized if i offended anyone on this forum. and then you go and do the same thing by saying "your sure any kid would want a loving family whether it be man and women or man and man"all without any basis or fact for that statement. so hey now that we are both ignorant just drop it..I can send you the link for ignorant because apparently you didnt read it either,this can go back and fourth forever ,WTF. you will not change my mind, I will not change yours.we obviously cant physically fight with a keyboard and mouse so wheres this going...go play with your kids ill do the same.peace out

----------


## RamyGras

> Remember your own words above when questioning why I have an issue with those who do not post a source to back up their ideological gossip..........



Is this about the Churchill thing?  :Wink/Grin:  I apologize for that. I had recently read the allegations of him having had a homosexual relationship, and I thought it was an opportune time to drop it. I did, however, give you all the resources necessary to find what I had read. In all honesty, for what it's worth, I don't really believe it to be true for various reasons. For that, I'm sorry. Man, you really went to bat for him!

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Is it easy to be gay?I wouldnt know,ya lack of knowledge i suppose.Are you gay?what do you go through on a daily basis?do you have a child of your own?*I do..i would want my kid to carry on my name,my "genes" our family tree.*Im an ignorant fool for this??im confused here obviously, perhaps you can enlighten me so i may not be so ignorant...or perhaps you may have things twisted i dont know..*I guess the detrimental consequences i have in my mind is the preservation of the human race hypothetically speaking if we all were in fact gay ...*i mean no disrespect to anyone who is in fact gay,I just have a problem with the childs ability to decide..that makes me a bad person...I dont think so..but you do .whos ignorant here..


Because if i had kids my main concern is for them to be happy not to pass on my genes. If being gay makes them happy then great. ( I didn't know a better choice of words other then being gay) 

The human race isn't near instinction. Any just because gay marriage became legal. Straight people aern't going to turn gay. Just like if they keep gay marriage illegal gays aren't going to turn straight.

Unfortunaltly kids grow up in a lot of different situations. Parents get divorced. Mothers or fathers pass away. Or they have abusive parents If a child has 2 people that love them and take care of them i think the least of the worries is that they are of the same sex.

----------

