PDA

View Full Version : Ten reasons why gays cant marry



Doc Fluty
06-03-2009, 05:57 PM
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in the world.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans


thought you hippies would get a kick out of this..

now dont say i never gave ya something...;)

cabernetluver
06-03-2009, 05:59 PM
:clap:

SmthBluCitrus
06-03-2009, 06:21 PM
Even Dick Cheney (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-02-cheney-speech_N.htm?csp=34) thinks gays should be able to marry.

Raider_Vet
06-03-2009, 06:22 PM
Doc I have a family member that is 4 years younger then me and was born gay. It was never a choice for him. If you think it is a choice then when did you make yours not to be gay? You get it rammed up the poop shot to hard one to many times? Also this family member of mines parents are straight. I know gay couples of both sexes who had children naturally and though other methods who children were straight. As far as religion goes we don't all worship the same god as you. Also if you want to make marriage more meaningful then outlaw divorce (you ever had one of those before Mr. Christian soldier boy?).


Even Dick Cheney (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-02-cheney-speech_N.htm?csp=34) thinks gays should be able to marry.

Was it Kerry of Edwards that said something about his daughter being gay when they ran against Bush in 04? I thought it was a sobering moment that needed to be had at the time. Then Dicks wife lashed out against the person who said it. Boy how ****ed up Republican's really are!

cabernetluver
06-03-2009, 06:25 PM
Doc I have a family member that is 4 years younger then me and was born gay. It was never a choice for him. If you think it is a choice then when did you make yours not to be gay? You get it rammed up the poop shot to hard one to many times? Also this family member of mines parents are straight. I know gay couples of both sexes who had children naturally and though other methods who children were straight. As far as religion goes we don't all worship the same god as you. Also if you want to make marriage more meaningful then outlaw divorce (you ever had one of those before Mr. Christian soldier boy?).

One of us misunderstood Doc's post. The way I read it, it was really an argument for gay marriage. I saw it as a parody of the anti gay marriage arguments.

SmthBluCitrus
06-03-2009, 06:30 PM
Was it Kerry of Edwards that said something about his daughter being gay when they ran against Bush in 04? I thought it was a sobering moment that needed to be had at the time. Then Dicks wife lashed out against the person who said it. Boy how ****ed up Republican's really are!

John Edwards. It was the Veep debate.


One of us misunderstood Doc's post. The way I read it, it was really an argument for gay marriage. I saw it as a parody of the anti gay marriage arguments.

x2

Raider_Vet
06-03-2009, 06:30 PM
One of us misunderstood Doc's post. The way I read it, it was really an argument for gay marriage. I saw it as a parody of the anti gay marriage arguments.
I doubt it but perhaps it's true. I have read prior posts on this subject by him and he does not support gay marriage from what I read. If it was a parody then he is wolf in sheep's clothing IMO.

blenderboy5
06-03-2009, 06:35 PM
This has to be the most stupid thread on the political forum

False. Your post is. He was clearly kidding.


Was it Kerry of Edwards that said something about his daughter being gay when they ran against Bush in 04? I thought it was a sobering moment that needed to be had at the time. Then Dicks wife lashed out against the person who said it. Boy how ****ed up Republican's really are!

Edwards. Want to talk about ****ed up? Exploiting a mostly private person's life for cheap political points. A la Edwards.

But let's face it... Edwards exploited his own dead kid for cheap political points.

Raider_Vet
06-03-2009, 06:39 PM
False. Your post is. He was clearly kidding.



Edwards. Want to talk about ****ed up? Exploiting a mostly private person's life for cheap political points. A la Edwards.

But let's face it... Edwards exploited his own dead kid for cheap political points.Any father who has a gay child and runs for political office with a moron that tried to put a federal ban on gay marriage is nothing more then a snake in the grass. Now you want to talk about cheap political points? Get a clue BB.

Also do I need to put up quotes of his prior statements on this subject to prove my point? Kidding or not he believes some of the crap he posted. A metphor .... A racist telling a Racist joke and then claiming he is just kidding.

SmthBluCitrus
06-03-2009, 06:39 PM
Hardly cheap political points. Pointing out a hypocrisy in one's own life is hardly cheap if it's relevant. Now, granted, Cheney appears to be more "pro-gay" than the rest of the conservative right; but that doesn't change the fact that the party he's a card carrying member of, and advocates for, is pretty down on certain forms of equality for homosexuals.

-------

BTW - the New Hampshire legislature approved gay marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/03/us/AP-US-XGR-Gay-Marriage-New-Hampshire.html?_r=3&hp). Activist judges my ***.

Raider_Vet
06-03-2009, 06:46 PM
Hardly cheap political points. Pointing out a hypocrisy in one's own life is hardly cheap if it's relevant. Now, granted, Cheney appears to be more "pro-gay" than the rest of the conservative right; but that doesn't change the fact that the party he's a card carrying member of, and advocates for, is pretty down on certain forms of equality for homosexuals.

-------

BTW - the New Hampshire legislature approved gay marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/03/us/AP-US-XGR-Gay-Marriage-New-Hampshire.html?_r=3&hp). Activist judges my ***.
TY for seeing the truth and Big Up's NH!!!!

ManRam
06-03-2009, 06:48 PM
Haha...good find.

I was curious to see if anyone could actually come up with 10 serious reasons why gays shouldn't marry...I guess I still haven't found that.

blenderboy5
06-03-2009, 06:49 PM
Hardly cheap political points. Pointing out a hypocrisy in one's own life is hardly cheap if it's relevant. Now, granted, Cheney appears to be more "pro-gay" than the rest of the conservative right; but that doesn't change the fact that the party he's a card carrying member of, and advocates for, is pretty down on certain forms of equality for homosexuals.


It's not hypocrisy.

Cheney is anti-gay marriage. He has a gay daughter. That's not hypocrisy. It might be hypocrisy if his daughter was the politician. Or it would be hypocrisy if he was advocating gay marriage for his daughter but not for the rest of Americans. But by definition, he's not hypocritical.

SmthBluCitrus
06-03-2009, 06:54 PM
It's not hypocrisy.

Cheney is anti-gay marriage. He has a gay daughter. That's not hypocrisy. It might be hypocrisy if his daughter was the politician. Or it would be hypocrisy if he was advocating gay marriage for his daughter but not for the rest of Americans. But by definition, he's not hypocritical.

Cheney actually isn't anti-gay marriage (he'd like the decision left up to the states -- see above on one of my other posts). But, the ticket he was running on had a head that was anti-gay marriage and civil union and wanted to actively pursue an amendment banning it.

John Edwards brought it out to use it as a wedge issue to see if Cheney would bite. Whether it's effective or not, it's not cheap because it was an issue that the opponent was running on.

That is ... unless bringing up issues on your opponents platform is considered a cheap stunt.

Raider_Vet
06-03-2009, 06:54 PM
It's not hypocrisy.

Cheney is anti-gay marriage. He has a gay daughter. That's not hypocrisy. It might be hypocrisy if his daughter was the politician. Or it would be hypocrisy if he was advocating gay marriage for his daughter but not for the rest of Americans. But by definition, he's not hypocritical.
No you are wrong. I remember Cheney saying that him and The President disagreed on this issue when Edwards talked about it. I'll look it up and see if I can find it.

He seems to be all over the board on this issue. Funny how his opinions change when he 1st get's into office, when Bush makes it a political issue, and when he is out of office. Just another wolf in sheeps clothing and common pandering. Maybe the Dems should of been screaming "Flip Flop" in 04?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040712/ai_n14579447/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/cheney-offers-his-support_n_209869.html

Doc Fluty
06-03-2009, 07:01 PM
are you really this dumb? or did you just see the title and see my name and proceed to try and bash me before you even read it... that has to be it... has to be

you thought the ten reasons i listed are actual reasons they cant marry?

are you seriously?

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

you dont see the sarcasm there?

omfg... your dumb

i was taking up for gays!

behindmydesk
06-03-2009, 08:18 PM
I liked the tall reference. That's why i'm not very tall, because I don't hang around tall people.

dbroncos78087
06-03-2009, 08:27 PM
Cheney actually isn't anti-gay marriage (he'd like the decision left up to the states -- see above on one of my other posts). But, the ticket he was running on had a head that was anti-gay marriage and civil union and wanted to actively pursue an amendment banning it.

John Edwards brought it out to use it as a wedge issue to see if Cheney would bite. Whether it's effective or not, it's not cheap because it was an issue that the opponent was running on.

That is ... unless bringing up issues on your opponents platform is considered a cheap stunt.

Well isnt that what a good Republican is suppose to do, leave it up to the states. Sorry just had to get my Cheney jab in there. I actually was watching Boston Legal and they did an episode where Denny gets arrested for committing adultery and Alan gets arrested for being an accessory to adultery. They are at a dude ranch in Utah and the judge tells them that it is against the law there. Ultimately the case gets thrown out because a guy (cowboy dude) "defends" them by telling the judge if he wants to keep the adultery law in place the last thing he wants to do is prosecute Alan for the law because he is such a good lawyer and will appeal it and they will lose the law.

gcoll
06-04-2009, 01:12 AM
Was it Kerry of Edwards that said something about his daughter being gay when they ran against Bush in 04? I thought it was a sobering moment that needed to be had at the time. Then Dicks wife lashed out against the person who said it. Boy how ****ed up Republican's really are!
Both of them said it. Edwards' mention wasn't so bad, but Kerry's was cringe worthy.

also....


This has to be the most stupid thread on the political forum I have ever read and no surprise it's by Doc Fluty.
Your sarcasm detector is broken. The original post is making fun of anti gay marriage arguments.

NotVeryOriginal
06-04-2009, 05:31 AM
Lulz

I started writing out this to number 1...


Neither is living past the age of 40, flying, cooking food, or not hunting your own food.

So if you are over 40, have ever been on a plane, or eaten anything other than raw food that you have killed yourself, then your arguement is invalid because you are a hypocrit.

Then I saw number 2 and clicked.:o

Overall this thread is still ghey

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q221/I_killed_emo/Gay.jpg?t=1244107848

LAFord
06-07-2009, 03:50 AM
are you really this dumb? or did you just see the title and see my name and proceed to try and bash me before you even read it... that has to be it... has to be

you thought the ten reasons i listed are actual reasons they cant marry?

are you seriously?

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

you dont see the sarcasm there?

omfg... your dumb

i was taking up for gays!Easy man, he's dumb alright, but it wasn't by choice. He was just born that way.

lakersrock
06-07-2009, 08:09 PM
People arn't born gay. They're also not born drunks, drug addicts, thieves, murderers, gang members, etc. What we do everyday is a choice. It's funny that Americans love to take away responsibility for everything.

LetsGoA's
06-07-2009, 09:27 PM
Well where I am from there are 10 reasons gays can not marry


1 we voted for prop 8
2 we voted for prop 8
3 we voted for prop 8
4 we voted for prop 8
5 we voted for prop 8
6 we voted for prop 8
7 we voted for prop 8
8 we voted for prop 8
9 we voted for prop 8
10 prop 8 was deemed constitutional by our supreme court, who had the decent fore thought not to over turn the will of the people for once (we passed anti illegal immigrant measures only to have a wacko liberal judge spit in our faces)

CuseDude87
06-07-2009, 09:59 PM
Well where I am from there are 10 reasons gays can not marry


1 we voted for prop 8
2 we voted for prop 8
3 we voted for prop 8
4 we voted for prop 8
5 we voted for prop 8
6 we voted for prop 8
7 we voted for prop 8
8 we voted for prop 8
9 we voted for prop 8
10 prop 8 was deemed constitutional by our supreme court, who had the decent fore thought not to over turn the will of the people for once (we passed anti illegal immigrant measures only to have a wacko liberal judge spit in our faces)

And if we took a vote on if black people should have the same rights as whites, you really think that most people, in the snugly privacy of their anonymous voting booths, would say yes? Of course not. There are still a lot of racist people, as well as homophobic.

Just because California was stupid enough to create a proposition where the outcome determines the human rights for individuals doesn't make it right.

LetsGoA's
06-07-2009, 10:44 PM
And if we took a vote on if black people should have the same rights as whites, you really think that most people, in the snugly privacy of their anonymous voting booths, would say yes? Of course not. There are still a lot of racist people, as well as homophobic.

Just because California was stupid enough to create a proposition where the outcome determines the human rights for individuals doesn't make it right.

Well considering we have a black president, I would say yea, if you took all the votes, blacks would still have the same rights as whites.

Sorry your state does not have propositions where the people actually have a voice. And by the way, the proposition was constitutional. No ones human rights or rights as american citizens have beeen trampled on here.

Maybe in places like Iowa where the legislature forces gay marrige on it's citizens, but not in california.

CuseDude87
06-07-2009, 10:52 PM
Well considering we have a black president, I would say yea, if you took all the votes, blacks would still have the same rights as whites.

Sorry your state does not have propositions where the people actually have a voice. And by the way, the proposition was constitutional. No ones human rights or rights as american citizens have beeen trampled on here.

Maybe in places like Iowa where the legislature forces gay marrige on it's citizens, but not in california.

You're confusing having a voice over public matters and being able to vote against other people's human rights.

And if you believe gays aren't fighting for the same rights as other humans, then say hi to the naivety fairy for me.

29$JerZ
06-07-2009, 10:56 PM
Whoever wrtoe that article must be a loon, wow.

LetsGoA's
06-07-2009, 11:23 PM
You're confusing having a voice over public matters and being able to vote against other people's human rights.

And if you believe gays aren't fighting for the same rights as other humans, then say hi to the naivety fairy for me.

Really than I guess felons not being able to vote is another violation of "human rights". LoL say hello to the liberal fairy for me. Just remember to wipe your feet when you enter the white house.

CubsGirl
06-07-2009, 11:48 PM
People arn't born gay. They're also not born drunks, drug addicts, thieves, murderers, gang members, etc. What we do everyday is a choice. It's funny that Americans love to take away responsibility for everything.

Actually, to all the bolded ones, it's been proven that genes can cause you to be, or be predisposed to, all of those.

dbroncos78087
06-08-2009, 12:13 AM
Actually, to all the bolded ones, it's been proven that genes can cause you to be, or be predisposed to, all of those.

For many of those it goes hand in hand. I think it is extremely difficult to know the exact cause of those problems. People who have a genetic history are also raised, presumably, around the people who act the same way. So i think it is a difficult chicken and egg scenario to determine which caused which and which plays a more pivotal role in the actions of some.

CubsGirl
06-08-2009, 12:27 AM
For many of those it goes hand in hand. I think it is extremely difficult to know the exact cause of those problems. People who have a genetic history are also raised, presumably, around the people who act the same way. So i think it is a difficult chicken and egg scenario to determine which caused which and which plays a more pivotal role in the actions of some.
That is true, but the point is, there is genetic disposition, at the very least, towards those behaviors.

As well as a lot of commas in that sentence.

LetsGoA's
06-08-2009, 01:21 AM
Some evidence to your claim would be nice

FOBolous
06-08-2009, 02:55 AM
Some evidence to your claim would be
nice

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090605/sc_livescience/boyswithwarriorgenemorelikelytojoingangs




Boys with 'Warrior Gene' More Likely to Join Gangs
LiveScience Staff

LiveScience.com livescience Staff

livescience.com Fri Jun 5, 2:02 pm ET

Boys who have a so-called "warrior gene" are more likely to join gangs and also more likely to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, a new study finds.

"While gangs typically have been regarded as a sociological phenomenon, our investigation shows that variants of a specific MAOA gene, known as a 'low-activity 3-repeat allele,' play a significant role," said biosocial criminologist Kevin M. Beaver of Florida State University.

In 2006, the controversial warrior gene was implicated in the violence of the indigenous Maori people in New Zealand, a claim that Maori leaders dismissed.

But it's no surprise that genes would be involved in aggression. Aggression is a primal emotion like many others, experts say, and like cooperation, it is part of human nature, something that's passed down genetically. And almost all mammals are aggressive in some way or another, said Craig Kennedy, professor of special education and pediatrics at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, whose research last year suggested that humans crave violence just like they do sex, food or drugs.

"Previous research has linked low-activity MAOA variants to a wide range of antisocial, even violent, behavior, but our study confirms that these variants can predict gang membership," says Beaver, the Florida State researcher. "Moreover, we found that variants of this gene could distinguish gang members who were markedly more likely to behave violently and use weapons from members who were less likely to do either."

The MAOA gene affects levels of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin that are related to mood and behavior, and those variants that are related to violence are hereditary, according to a statement from the university.

The new study examined DNA data and lifestyle information drawn from more than 2,500 respondents to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Beaver and colleagues from Florida State, Iowa State and Saint Louis universities will detail their findings in a forthcoming issue of the journal Comprehensive Psychiatry.

A separate study at Brown University from earlier this year found that individuals with the warrior gene display higher levels of aggression in response to provocation.

Over networked computers, 78 test subjects were asked to cause physical pain to an opponent they believed had taken money from them by administering varying amounts of hot sauce. While the results were not dramatic, low-activity MAOA subjects displayed slightly higher levels of aggression overall, the researchers said.

The Brown University results, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, support previous research suggesting that MAOA influences aggressive behavior, the scientists said.

borat
06-08-2009, 03:55 AM
People arn't born gay. They're also not born drunks, drug addicts, thieves, murderers, gang members, etc. What we do everyday is a choice. It's funny that Americans love to take away responsibility for everything.


Dumbest comment I've seen in a long time on here. And you say it with such certainty too.

Can i ask you a question? Why did you choose to be straight? What were the reasons?

SmthBluCitrus
06-08-2009, 09:17 AM
Maybe in places like Iowa where the legislature forces gay marrige on it's citizens, but not in california.

Ohmigoodness! We're so oppressed here in Iowa ... because ... the gays! THE GAYS ARE MARRYING!

SmthBluCitrus
06-08-2009, 09:25 AM
Really than I guess felons not being able to vote is another violation of "human rights". LoL say hello to the liberal fairy for me. Just remember to wipe your feet when you enter the white house.

Wow!

Felons and gays, gang members and gays, murderers and gays. There's a lot of intelligence circulating in this thread.

Zep
06-08-2009, 10:15 AM
Ohmigoodness! We're so oppressed here in Iowa ... because ... the gays! THE GAYS ARE MARRYING!

Don't worry, I have my gay-proof bomb shelter all set up under the backyard for when the gaypocalypse finally rains down brimstone, and strangely...men on all of us.

You guys can all crash there until the rapture, when all of us good "choose to be straight" people get beamed up to heaven by Saint Scotty.

SmthBluCitrus
06-08-2009, 10:22 AM
Don't worry, I have my gay-proof bomb shelter all set up under the backyard for when the gaypocalypse finally rains down brimstone, and strangely...men on all of us.

You guys can all crash there until the rapture, when all of us good "choose to be straight" people get beamed up to heaven by Saint Scotty.

Sweet. So, how big is this bomb shelter? And, does it have gaydar so we know when it'll be safe to gather our heterosexual necessities?

lakersrock
06-08-2009, 03:56 PM
And if we took a vote on if black people should have the same rights as whites, you really think that most people, in the snugly privacy of their anonymous voting booths, would say yes? Of course not. There are still a lot of racist people, as well as homophobic.

Just because California was stupid enough to create a proposition where the outcome determines the human rights for individuals doesn't make it right.

Human rights and getting married are two totally different things. BTW, if marriage isn't a religious institution, why do pastors have the ability to marry people?

Doc Fluty
06-08-2009, 04:03 PM
lakers thats not a real reason.. hell even captains of a ship can marry people..

but yes i think gays should be allowed ot have civil unions... not marraiges.. they shouldnt be allowed to force thier lifestyle onn a church and force them to marry them...

let them have the same rights and priveliges but they cant get married in a church (unless the church agrees)

lakersrock
06-08-2009, 04:05 PM
Actually, to all the bolded ones, it's been proven that genes can cause you to be, or be predisposed to, all of those.

It hasn't proven to be the cause for you to be anything. Predisposed, yeah, but we're all predisposed to something. If I eat terrible enough, I can get fat and have a heart attack. I CHOOSE not to. I can be born and raised in an environment that would lead me to be gay, but I would have to CHOOSE to give into that. It's the same reason kids in the ghetto choose to be in a gang. They don't have to, but they do. People don't HAVE to pick up a needle and stick it in their arm, but they do. My family has a history of being overweight. For awhile, I packed on the pounds very easily, but I decided to stay on a strict diet and work out, thus eliminating the predisposition argument. Everything in your life is a decision. It's up to you to do something or not and then take the responsibility for it or not. If you want to be gay, that's fine, don't blame it on God for making you that way though. God said don't be gay, so why would He do that to people? It's the same reason He wouldn't make people thieves, murderers, drug addicts, etc. when He said don't do that too.

FOBolous
06-08-2009, 05:02 PM
It hasn't proven to be the cause for you to be anything. Predisposed, yeah, but we're all predisposed to something. If I eat terrible enough, I can get fat and have a heart attack. I CHOOSE not to. I can be born and raised in an environment that would lead me to be gay, but I would have to CHOOSE to give into that. It's the same reason kids in the ghetto choose to be in a gang. They don't have to, but they do. People don't HAVE to pick up a needle and stick it in their arm, but they do. My family has a history of being overweight. For awhile, I packed on the pounds very easily, but I decided to stay on a strict diet and work out, thus eliminating the predisposition argument. Everything in your life is a decision. It's up to you to do something or not and then take the responsibility for it or not. If you want to be gay, that's fine, don't blame it on God for making you that way though. God said don't be gay, so why would He do that to people? It's the same reason He wouldn't make people thieves, murderers, drug addicts, etc. when He said don't do that too.

that would be a great argument if everyone in the world is Christian and everyone believes in the same God but too bad they don't. There are atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, agnostics...ect ect ect

Raider_Vet
06-08-2009, 05:07 PM
Look simpletons I understand this was a joke. My point is that Fluty is a homophobe and him putting this up was in poor taste. Kind of like a racist telling a racist joke. Now you see my point? Not asking that you agree with me but to understand my point of view.

lakersrock
06-08-2009, 06:52 PM
Dumbest comment I've seen in a long time on here. And you say it with such certainty too.

Can i ask you a question? Why did you choose to be straight? What were the reasons?

You don't choose to be straight. Straight is normal. The reason it is normal is it's the only way to reproduce. Male + Female = Kid.....no other way works. You have to choose to do something different and say it's just as normal even though it's clearly not due to the lack of reproduction.

lakersrock
06-08-2009, 06:56 PM
that would be a great argument if everyone in the world is Christian and everyone believes in the same God but too bad they don't. There are atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, agnostics...ect ect ect

...and that means I'm not entitled to think the way I do why? You act as if my opinion doesn't matter because it doesn't go along with everything. If everyone wasn't aware, Christianity doesn't go along with everything. It's the same way with all the other religions you named. Just because it doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't make it void. You believe what you do and I believe what I do. If you're right, I die and rot in a box like you. If I'm right, I'll be in Heaven and people who don't believe in Jesus won't. Either way, I don't have to worry about going through something terrible after I die.

....and that is why this is my last post in this forum. Unless you have the PC/Liberal/Mainstream opinion, you're wrong, a bigot and/or an idiot.

CanadianKid1987
06-08-2009, 07:19 PM
It hasn't proven to be the cause for you to be anything. Predisposed, yeah, but we're all predisposed to something. If I eat terrible enough, I can get fat and have a heart attack. I CHOOSE not to. I can be born and raised in an environment that would lead me to be gay, but I would have to CHOOSE to give into that. It's the same reason kids in the ghetto choose to be in a gang. They don't have to, but they do. People don't HAVE to pick up a needle and stick it in their arm, but they do. My family has a history of being overweight. For awhile, I packed on the pounds very easily, but I decided to stay on a strict diet and work out, thus eliminating the predisposition argument. Everything in your life is a decision. It's up to you to do something or not and then take the responsibility for it or not. If you want to be gay, that's fine, don't blame it on God for making you that way though. God said don't be gay, so why would He do that to people? It's the same reason He wouldn't make people thieves, murderers, drug addicts, etc. when He said don't do that too.

This actually gets into one of the core debates of what is homosexuality? What makes someone gay? Is it engaging in homosexual acts, or having homosexual thoughts? So what you said, if I read it correctly, is that someone can have gay thoughts but are only gay if they give into these thoughts and engage in gay behaviours? First of all, as a proud gay individual, I feel very sorry for those who try to live their life surpressing these thoughts and thus will never really develop a strong self identity.

I personally think we need to stop looking at homosexuality as a black and white issue, it is not that simple. Kinsey proposed homosexuality should be looked at on a 6 point scale (and while I disagree with some of the anchoring points on this scale I do believe sexual preference should be viewed on a continuum).

Now lets get into some actual research about whether you are born gay. Personally I dont think people are born gay, I believe like most traits it is formed through a gene-environment interaction. There have been MANY scientific studies that have shown that being gay is heavily linked to biology and genetics. Some examples include handedness studies (gays are much more likely to be left handed than by chance alone, even though I am right handed), fraternal birth order studies, and hypothalamus brain size studies (gay males have a hypothalamus that is inbetween straight males and females in volume). That being said, I think the environment also plays a role. But it is certainly not a choice. Sure, everyone can choose whether to engage in sexual behaviours, but you cannot choose who you are attracted to.

Also, if being gay were a simple choice then one would expect that conversion therapies (therapies aimed at converting gay individuals) would have been effective. The truth is these therapies were not at all effective (The people who did report 'succesful' conversions usually only did so because they felt pressure to do so) and one of the founders of these therapies was known to frequent gay establishments.

CanadianKid1987
06-08-2009, 07:21 PM
lakers thats not a real reason.. hell even captains of a ship can marry people..

but yes i think gays should be allowed ot have civil unions... not marraiges.. they shouldnt be allowed to force thier lifestyle onn a church and force them to marry them...

let them have the same rights and priveliges but they cant get married in a church (unless the church agrees)

I totally agree, but I dont know many gay people who would want to get married in a church that is not accepting of homosexuals. I know in Canada, where gay marriage is legal throughout, there is no issue of gay marriage infringing upon religious rights.

Doc Fluty
06-09-2009, 11:03 AM
thats interesting to know canadian.. thanks for informing me

prodigy
06-09-2009, 11:07 AM
Ten reasons why I could careless who marry's who.

1. I dont care

2. I dont care

3. freedom

4. I don't care

5 I dont care

6-10 are the same.

When gay's getting marired effects me, my family and friends, Then I will care. until then, I don't care. lol.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 11:08 AM
I totally agree, but I dont know many gay people who would want to get married in a church that is not accepting of homosexuals. I know in Canada, where gay marriage is legal throughout, there is no issue of gay marriage infringing upon religious rights.

In canada is it legal for the church to say "take a hike" if they don't want to marry gays?

jrice9
06-09-2009, 11:10 AM
In canada is it legal for the church to say "take a hike" if they don't want to marry gays?
Yes, you have to find someone willing to marry you the church isnt forced too. Thats part of the charter of rights and freedoms

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Ohmigoodness! We're so oppressed here in Iowa ... because ... the gays! THE GAYS ARE MARRYING!

It is not my fault that your state did not let its citizens have a say, not our issue how far you have strayed from the people having a voice. elected officials speak for you, and you really have no say.

I prefer to have my say on an issue.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 11:16 AM
Yes, you have to find someone willing to marry you the church isnt forced too. Thats part of the charter of rights and freedoms

I hate people on the left sometimes but canada makes it so hard. They get a lot of things right. I bet they don't force this issue on children in grade school, like they tried to do in California.(I was forced to do this while substituting at a charter school)

SmthBluCitrus
06-09-2009, 11:18 AM
It is not my fault that your state did not let its citizens have a say, not our issue how far you have strayed from the people having a voice. elected officials speak for you, and you really have no say.

I prefer to have my say on an issue.

Aside from Rep Steve King (R - IA-05), Chris Rants and a few other Republicans in the state legislature that are making it a big deal, the majority of Iowans generally support the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court.

It will probably be put on a ballot by '10 or '12 -- but in order to overturn it, the measure has to fall twice by state popular vote. It won't happen and it probably won't even make it on the ballot twice.

Besides, nobody said it was your fault. And, you clearly have no clue how the issue came to be in my state; nor how representative democracy works. Get this ... elected officials are elected by you to make decisions for you. Egad, that's almost revolutionary!

SmthBluCitrus
06-09-2009, 11:21 AM
I hate people on the left sometimes but canada makes it so hard. They get a lot of things right. I bet they don't force this issue on children in grade school, like they tried to do in California.(I was forced to do this while substituting at a charter school)

So ... you were forced to teach gay rights to children in a school that receives public monies but is non-traditional and dictates their own teaching policy?

dbroncos78087
06-09-2009, 11:27 AM
Ten reasons why I could careless who marry's who.

1. I dont care

2. I dont care

3. freedom

4. I don't care

5 I dont care

6-10 are the same.

When gay's getting marired effects me, my family and friends, Then I will care. until then, I don't care. lol.

But it does affect you. Two men or woman marrying surely takes away from the happiness that you and whoever you have/will get married to share together. And since legally i believe marriage is more of a contract than anything two gay people shouldnt be able to enter into contracts since the church says so.

I assume you can detect the severe sarcasm, but just in case you cant i wanted to make it blatantly obvious.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 11:31 AM
Aside from Rep Steve King (R - IA-05), Chris Rants and a few other Republicans in the state legislature that are making it a big deal, the majority of Iowans generally support the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court.

It will probably be put on a ballot by '10 or '12 -- but in order to overturn it, the measure has to fall twice by state popular vote. It won't happen and it probably won't even make it on the ballot twice.

Besides, nobody said it was your fault. And, you clearly have no clue how the issue came to be in my state; nor how representative democracy works. Get this ... elected officials are elected by you to make decisions for you. Egad, that's almost revolutionary!

You do realize, that elected officials were also put there because the land owning white males felt that the common folk were too ignorant to vote on issues. And its not as revolutionary as you think, that form of government has been around since before christ .

I prefer the greek model of democracy. We all vote and have a say.

jrice9
06-09-2009, 11:37 AM
You do realize, that elected officials were also put there because the land owning white males felt that the common folk were too ignorant to vote on issues. And its not as revolutionary as you think, that form of government has been around since before christ .

I prefer the greek model of democracy. We all vote and have a say.
Well how could that work, there would be weekly votes. Our current democracy (canda's better at this imo) basically allows each community to be represented on someone who they voted for and that person is entrusted with the decisions. If they go against the wishes of the community they are voted out

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 11:38 AM
So ... you were forced to teach gay rights to children in a school that receives public monies but is non-traditional and dictates their own teaching policy?

No I was forced to teach children that there was nothing unnatural about a man and a man having sex, getting married, and raising children. An issue roughly 90% of the parents of the children were against. But yes the school was funded by public monies and is non traditional in some senses. Now because of prop 8, I am no longer FORCED to teach something that I and many others believe is wrong. :clap::):p

jrice9
06-09-2009, 11:43 AM
No I was forced to teach children that there was nothing unnatural about a man and a man having sex, getting married, and raising children. An issue roughly 90% of the parents of the children were against. But yes the school was funded by public monies and is non traditional in some senses. Now because of prop 8, I am no longer FORCED to teach something that I and many others believe is wrong. :clap::):p
In a public school you cant give your view on issues. YOu have to go with the leagal ramications (which now work for you). Look, I dont see why this comes up in school ever. Like kids will either think gays are ok or not by themselves or by their parents. Basicalyl all you have to say if you live somewhere where gay marriage is legal is exactly that. Both gay marriage and heterosexual marriage is legal in our society. Both can adopt children. Done whats the problem

dbroncos78087
06-09-2009, 11:45 AM
You do realize, that elected officials were also put there because the land owning white males felt that the common folk were too ignorant to vote on issues. And its not as revolutionary as you think, that form of government has been around since before christ .

I prefer the greek model of democracy. We all vote and have a say.

That is partly responsible for why California is in the crapper. If people vote on every issue they will NEVER vote to raise taxes and vote for every possible benefit they can without giving anything in return. Sometimes taxes do need to be raised, they are used to pay for roads, schools, really everything the government does. Indirect democracy has its flaws, but direct democracy has its flaws too.

SmthBluCitrus
06-09-2009, 11:50 AM
You do realize, that elected officials were also put there because the land owning white males felt that the common folk were too ignorant to vote on issues. And its not as revolutionary as you think, that form of government has been around since before christ .

I prefer the greek model of democracy. We all vote and have a say.

Yea, and just how well do you think that would work in a country of over 300 million residents? One in which 131 million+ voted last November?

Like JRice said -- there would have to be weekly votes (or more) on national issues; and possibly more for state and local issues. Talk about a cluster%&@*. You'd have nothing more than inaction and inability to move.


No I was forced to teach children that there was nothing unnatural about a man and a man having sex, getting married, and raising children. An issue roughly 90% of the parents of the children were against. But yes the school was funded by public monies and is non traditional in some senses. Now because of prop 8, I am no longer FORCED to teach something that I and many others believe is wrong. :clap::):p

Uh huh ... uh huh ... yet it was at a charter school. Charter schools dictate their own curriculum. So, any lesson plan that constituted gay rights was built by the school administrators and not the education board of the state of California. Even if it was a state charter, it's still free from some of the rules and regulations that the state public schools are subject to.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 11:51 AM
Well how could that work, there would be weekly votes. Our current democracy (canda's better at this imo) basically allows each community to be represented on someone who they voted for and that person is entrusted with the decisions. If they go against the wishes of the community they are voted out

Look believe me I understand what entails our democracy, I have to teach it, that doesn't mean I agree with it 100%.

I think if people as citizens were required to vote, we would gain a lot. But than that would not be liberty. I am greatful in the state of california we at least have the opportunity to have our say, even if every one doesn't choose to use that right.

It is hard to really get a grasp on what the "community" really wants. Especially when it entails literally millions of people. Thats why in California we have propositions, recalls, voter innitiatives and such, so people can actually have a say. You can actually get an idea of what the community or those who bother to vote in the community want and not what some elected official thinks the community wants.

If it was up to all our whacko lefty statelegislatures, there would be a revolving door at the border and gay matrimony would be legal.

cabernetluver
06-09-2009, 11:56 AM
That is partly responsible for why California is in the crapper. If people vote on every issue they will NEVER vote to raise taxes and vote for every possible benefit they can without giving anything in return. Sometimes taxes do need to be raised, they are used to pay for roads, schools, really everything the government does. Indirect democracy has its flaws, but direct democracy has its flaws too.

While the theory of direct democracy sounds great, it turns out that representative form works much better because, in every law there are unintended consequences that do not lend themselves to bumper sticker campaigns.

In California, 31 years ago, we voted for a limitation on property taxes because of a severe problem that was occurring. Putting aside the question of whether this was the best way to deal with the problem, the unintended consequence of Prop 13 was to move the power center from local government to Sacramento, our state capitol. I will guarantee you that Howard Jarvis the godfather of Prop 13 never intended that to occur. All of you who complain about Sacramento's failures, and I agree they have many, have Prop 13 to blame. It happened because people were not careful in the crafting of the legislation. This is an example of an iconic piece of direct democracy in action having consequences well beyond its intended goal.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 11:57 AM
That is partly responsible for why California is in the crapper. If people vote on every issue they will NEVER vote to raise taxes and vote for every possible benefit they can without giving anything in return. Sometimes taxes do need to be raised, they are used to pay for roads, schools, really everything the government does. Indirect democracy has its flaws, but direct democracy has its flaws too.

Incorrect. California is in the crapper because unlike federal government, a state cannot finance all it's debt to China. Talk about a state when you live in it. Californians already pay more in taxes per capita than any other residents of any other state. California is also in the top 10 of states that give more money to the federal government than they get back. While states like alaska and montana get all sorts of government money, while they put in squat. (hmm and they have no debt) That is why the state is in the crapper.

If people were not getting taxed to death to begin with, the state would probably still have a middle class.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 12:01 PM
While the theory of direct democracy sounds great, it turns out that representative form works much better because, in every law there are unintended consequences that do not lend themselves to bumper sticker campaigns.

In California, 31 years ago, we voted for a limitation on property taxes because of a severe problem that was occurring. Putting aside the question of whether this was the best way to deal with the problem, the unintended consequence of Prop 13 was to move the power center from local government to Sacramento, our state capitol. I will guarantee you that Howard Jarvis the godfather of Prop 13 never intended that to occur. All of you who complain about Sacramento's failures, and I agree they have many, have Prop 13 to blame. It happened because people were not careful in the crafting of the legislation. This is an example of an iconic piece of direct democracy in action having consequences well beyond its intended goal.


Incorrect. I love how people love to spin prop 13 as the evil prop. I have heard it has ruined everything from schools to in this case, the whole state.

Proposition 13 saved california at a time when property taxes were out of control. It was like new jersey, middle class people were literally, getting taxed out of their houses. Before prop 13 californians really had no idea how high their property tax would jump everytime they opened the mail. TALK to someone who LIVED AND OWNED a home during this time. The middle class was being held hostage.

cabernetluver
06-09-2009, 12:04 PM
Incorrect. I love how people love to spin prop 13 as the evil prop. I have heard it has ruined everything from schools to in this case, the whole state.

Proposition 13 saved california at a time when property taxes were out of control. It was like new jersey, middle people were literally, getting taxed out of their houses. Before prop 13 californians really had no idea how high their property tax would jump everytime they opened the mail. TALK to someone who LIVED AND OWNED a home during this time. The middle class was being held hostage.

Good job of not addressing what I wrote. :clap:

Better job of arguing about something I didn't argue about :clap:

In a formal debate, you would have just failed on both grounds.

dbroncos78087
06-09-2009, 12:10 PM
Incorrect. I love how people love to spin prop 13 as the evil prop. I have heard it has ruined everything from schools to in this case, the whole state.

Proposition 13 saved california at a time when property taxes were out of control. It was like new jersey, middle class people were literally, getting taxed out of their houses. Before prop 13 californians really had no idea how high their property tax would jump everytime they opened the mail. TALK to someone who LIVED AND OWNED a home during this time. The middle class was being held hostage.

If i had to take someone's opinion on that based on the argument you made A's, i would take cabernetluver's argument.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 12:13 PM
Good job of not addressing what I wrote. :clap:

Better job of arguing about something I didn't argue about :clap:

In a formal debate, you would have just failed on both grounds.

Oh I'm sorry I must have been eating LSD when I saw you writing about prop 13. My mistake.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 12:17 PM
If i had to take someone's opinion on that based on the argument you made A's, i would take cabernetluver's argument.

Who said it was an arguement, I was stating facts. But in case you didn't catch it, prop 13 saved california home owners.

I could care less if YOU agree with cabernet, because I am perfectly content paying my fixed property tax.:cool:

Just for name sake do either of you even OWN property in california?

cabernetluver
06-09-2009, 12:18 PM
Oh I'm sorry I must have been eating LSD when I saw you writing about prop 13. My mistake.

I was writing about the unintended consequences of direct democracy. I hope it was good acid.

dbroncos78087
06-09-2009, 12:19 PM
Who said it was an arguement, I was stating facts. But in case you didn't catch it, prop 13 saved california home owners.

I could care less if YOU agree with cabernet, because I am perfectly content to paying my fixed property tax.:cool:

Well i believe she was alive when Prop 13 was passed. Neither of us were. I wont claim to know how it has effected California being from the East Coast. But you said you would trust someone who lived through it.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 12:23 PM
I was writing about the unintended consequences of direct democracy. I hope it was good acid.

You have yet to prove how fixing a property tax rate "moved power" to sacramento. So yea I guess it was good acid, because I seemed to have missed the whole you know...evidence thing.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 12:26 PM
Well i believe she was alive when Prop 13 was passed. Neither of us were. I wont claim to know how it has effected California being from the East Coast. But you said you would trust someone who lived through it.

Yea i missed that prop by a few years, but asking my parents, uncles, neighbors, older siblings, grandparents,co-workers, aunts, instructors, all california home owners bears a bit of weight vs a self proclaimed wine drinker...or in your case some one from the east coast, who possibly has never been to california.

Im not saying we should not have representitive democracy, but the people having a say is a good balance to it. Thats what this country is about, checks and balances.

SmthBluCitrus
06-09-2009, 12:36 PM
Yea i missed that prop by a few years, but asking my parents, uncles, neighbors, older siblings, grandparents,co-workers, aunts, instructors, all california home owners bears a bit of weight vs a self proclaimed wine drinker...or in your case some one from the east coast, who possibly has never been to california.

Im not saying we should not have representitive democracy, but the people having a say is a good balance to it. Thats what this country is about, checks and balances.

There's no "balance" to direct democracy. It's completely irrational and motivated by emotional ideological practices whereas representative voting via bicameral congress restricts hasty legislation on mass-hysterics.

dbroncos78087
06-09-2009, 12:37 PM
Yea i missed that prop by a few years, but asking my parents, uncles, neighbors, older siblings, grandparents,co-workers, aunts, instructors, all california home owners bears a bit of weight vs a self proclaimed wine drinker...or in your case some one from the east coast, who possibly has never been to california.

Im not saying we should not have representitive democracy, but the people having a say is a good balance to it. Thats what this country is about, checks and balances.

So because her name has to do with wine she has no idea what she is talking about? No direct experiences, as opposed to your indirect experience.

The people have say, it is called their representatives.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 12:45 PM
So because her name has to do with wine she has no idea what she is talking about? No direct experiences, as opposed to your indirect experience.

The people have say, it is called their representatives.

She likes to drink. Drinking causes impairment of judgment and can mess up the brain cells. Those are the facts. I never said she was a drunk, but I always take things that drinkers say with a grain of salt.


The people have a say, they are called propositions in california.

cabernetluver
06-09-2009, 12:50 PM
You have yet to prove how fixing a property tax rate "moved power" to sacramento. So yea I guess it was good acid, because I seemed to have missed the whole you know...evidence thing.

Fair enough

The "evidence thing" of the power shift

A Rand Study (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RAND'S+STUDY+OFF+TARGET+PROP.+13+HURT+SCHOOLS+THRO UGH+POWER+SHIFT,...-a0126887931) that concludes that schools got hurt because of the shift in power

Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/25/local/me-53288)
There has been a massive power shift from local governments to Sacramento. And as the responsibility for spending decisions moved to Sacramento, mistrust in those making the decisions grew.

And there are plenty more.

Now I have lived up to my burden of proof, I have written and proven that there are unintended consequences and all I have seen written is a knee jerk response. Oh and I am pretty darn sure I have owned my home longer than you, so don't give me that malarkey.

SmthBluCitrus
06-09-2009, 12:53 PM
Cab is a guy.

I think the only two females that post in this forum are CG and myself.

dbroncos78087
06-09-2009, 01:11 PM
Cab is a guy.

I think the only two females that post in this forum are CG and myself.

Wow i feel like an idiot.

LetsGoA's
06-09-2009, 01:13 PM
Fair enough

The "evidence thing" of the power shift

A Rand Study (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RAND'S+STUDY+OFF+TARGET+PROP.+13+HURT+SCHOOLS+THRO UGH+POWER+SHIFT,...-a0126887931) that concludes that schools got hurt because of the shift in power

Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/25/local/me-53288)

And there are plenty more.

Now I have lived up to my burden of proof, I have written and proven that there are unintended consequences and all I have seen written is a knee jerk response. Oh and I am pretty darn sure I have owned my home longer than you, so don't give me that malarkey.


Nice I like facts. Okay the second article you provided seems like an editorail with not many specifics, not surprising comming from the LA times, even though it was 10 years ago, they have not gotten better.

Your first link was good, but did you note the part where they say :

"Thus, while nobody is any longer really in control of our public schools, a disproportionate share of the power is held by the kind of people most of us wouldn't want our own children emulating - namely, labor union bosses."

The article notes that all tho power was shifted from local school boards to the state, the CTA is also partly to blame, since they have become, in the authors words "a militant union". Which is a loooooooong way from their modest, honest, thoughtful, logical, humble roots.


Prop 13 has actually brought MORE money to schools.

"The federal Digest of Educational Statistics shows that California's K-12 per student spending increased 38 percent in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars from 1979 to 2000, a nuggetNugget

A 15 year Gold FHLMC (Freddie Mac) bond; similar to a Dwarf.
..... Click the link for more information. viewable at www.nces.ed.gov. Our own nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office points out that per-student spending increased 25 percent in constant dollars from 1991 to 2001 alone, a fact that can be mined at www.lao.ca.gov."


So yea I can see the point that the big bad buracrats in sac are jacking things up, but the union has been playing a key role as well. There is more than one answer as to why california's schools are failing. And attributing it all to prop 13 is silly.

cabernetluver
06-09-2009, 01:35 PM
Nice I like facts. Okay the second article you provided seems like an editorail with not many specifics, not surprising comming from the LA times, even though it was 10 years ago, they have not gotten better.

Your first link was good, but did you note the part where they say :

"Thus, while nobody is any longer really in control of our public schools, a disproportionate share of the power is held by the kind of people most of us wouldn't want our own children emulating - namely, labor union bosses."

The article notes that all tho power was shifted from local school boards to the state, the CTA is also partly to blame, since they have become, in the authors words "a militant union". Which is a loooooooong way from their modest, honest, thoughtful, logical, humble roots.


Prop 13 has actually brought MORE money to schools.

"The federal Digest of Educational Statistics shows that California's K-12 per student spending increased 38 percent in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars from 1979 to 2000, a nuggetNugget

A 15 year Gold FHLMC (Freddie Mac) bond; similar to a Dwarf.
..... Click the link for more information. viewable at www.nces.ed.gov. Our own nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office points out that per-student spending increased 25 percent in constant dollars from 1991 to 2001 alone, a fact that can be mined at www.lao.ca.gov."


So yea I can see the point that the big bad buracrats in sac are jacking things up, but the union has been playing a key role as well. There is more than one answer as to why california's schools are failing. And attributing it all to prop 13 is silly.

Once again you ignore my point. I can bring up more and more articles that underline the fact that direct democracy, which was the topic I was addressing, using Prop 13 as an example, leads to unintended consequences. You can run all around the fact, and create all the straw men you want, the fact is that representative democracy has far better results.

Doc Fluty
06-09-2009, 01:47 PM
I am sooo in favor of representative democracy instead of the BS props that come up here in cali...

the voters usually dont know more than a paragragh of what they are voting on... so their vote is shortsighted at best.

i just wish we had more choices than usually pop up when voting comes around... intelligent, caring and smart people usually dont run for office... car sales man do

Doc Fluty
06-09-2009, 01:47 PM
:rock:
Cab is a guy.

I think the only two females that post in this forum are CG and myself.

and raidervet :rock:

GGGGG-Men
06-23-2009, 05:21 PM
It hasn't proven to be the cause for you to be anything. Predisposed, yeah, but we're all predisposed to something. If I eat terrible enough, I can get fat and have a heart attack. I CHOOSE not to. I can be born and raised in an environment that would lead me to be gay, but I would have to CHOOSE to give into that. It's the same reason kids in the ghetto choose to be in a gang. They don't have to, but they do. People don't HAVE to pick up a needle and stick it in their arm, but they do. My family has a history of being overweight. For awhile, I packed on the pounds very easily, but I decided to stay on a strict diet and work out, thus eliminating the predisposition argument. Everything in your life is a decision. It's up to you to do something or not and then take the responsibility for it or not. If you want to be gay, that's fine, don't blame it on God for making you that way though. God said don't be gay, so why would He do that to people? It's the same reason He wouldn't make people thieves, murderers, drug addicts, etc. when He said don't do that too.

Biological urges....not god. God never said "don't be gay". He never said anything actually.....still waiting on the evidence. People who believe in certain versions of god think we're not meant to be with the same sex (others with other ideas of god believe god is ok with it or has no stake even). It's not blame and if it were it would be on biology, not hte invisible spaceman.

Besides, the only problem in this entire debate is NOT whether gay is right or wrong; it's tolerance. You live in a world with people that possess endless different combinations of lifestyles. Asians, garbagemen, midgets, fat people, homosexuals, blondes, buddhists, hindus, atheists and unfortunately.....Eagles fans.

I hate eagles fans. Whether they are fans because they were born into an Eagles family, or they hung out with Eagles fans, or were just born with some attraction towards those colors is irrelevant. I, as an individual in a free society, have accepted that they have every right to do as they please. It doesn't matter if it's their choice or born that way, the world has room for all views.

Their fandom effects my personal life in no way. Sure, I may have to see them in their jerseys at a mall (like you may see 2 women holding hands wearing weddign bands) and, like you, I may even have to put up with their parades (if they EVER win a Super Bowl). But I get to live my life as I please and they get to be happy too.

You lose nothing life altering with homosexual marriage. Without it, millions lose happiness which is the only true virtue in life.

BTW, why is that concervatives are so against "BIG GOVERNMENT" except when it comes to a person's personal love life?

this long-winded lost direction diatribe brought to you by GGGGG-Men

GGGGG-Men
06-23-2009, 05:25 PM
I am sooo in favor of representative democracy instead of the BS props that come up here in cali...

the voters usually dont know more than a paragragh of what they are voting on... so their vote is shortsighted at best.

i just wish we had more choices than usually pop up when voting comes around... intelligent, caring and smart people usually dont run for office... car sales man do

Amen to that! I'm so tired of people voting on props just b/c their party supports it; not realizing the INSANE amount of money involved and the real areas it will end up.

Where are all the Mensa candidates? I'm tired of C student lawyers and salesmen.

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 12:20 PM
I just want to reiterate how glad I am prop 8 passed in California, maybe SF can one day clean up its act.

and.....he's casting.......reeling.....reeling.....any bites? nahhhh You better at least put some BAIT on that hook.

jrice9
06-24-2009, 02:26 PM
Biological urges....not god. God never said "don't be gay". He never said anything actually.....still waiting on the evidence. People who believe in certain versions of god think we're not meant to be with the same sex (others with other ideas of god believe god is ok with it or has no stake even). It's not blame and if it were it would be on biology, not hte invisible spaceman.

Besides, the only problem in this entire debate is NOT whether gay is right or wrong; it's tolerance. You live in a world with people that possess endless different combinations of lifestyles. Asians, garbagemen, midgets, fat people, homosexuals, blondes, buddhists, hindus, atheists and unfortunately.....Eagles fans.

I hate eagles fans. Whether they are fans because they were born into an Eagles family, or they hung out with Eagles fans, or were just born with some attraction towards those colors is irrelevant. I, as an individual in a free society, have accepted that they have every right to do as they please. It doesn't matter if it's their choice or born that way, the world has room for all views.

Their fandom effects my personal life in no way. Sure, I may have to see them in their jerseys at a mall (like you may see 2 women holding hands wearing weddign bands) and, like you, I may even have to put up with their parades (if they EVER win a Super Bowl). But I get to live my life as I please and they get to be happy too.

You lose nothing life altering with homosexual marriage. Without it, millions lose happiness which is the only true virtue in life.

BTW, why is that concervatives are so against "BIG GOVERNMENT" except when it comes to a person's personal love life?

this long-winded lost direction diatribe brought to you by GGGGG-Men
That was a great analogy

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 02:47 PM
no it wasn't

not even close

1. no one is trying to BAN being gay. so like you said.. you can go to the mall and see an eagles jersey and you have to tolerate it.. if i see two gays holding hands.. even if i don't like it.. i tolerate it

so gays are tolerated.. they are not burned, hanged, denied jobs or told they cant have a 401k... in fact they get on tv and have blogs easily these days

tolerance is different than changing laws to accomdate thier lifestyle

2. tolerance is a two way street. If gays want to force their lifestyle on regular folks then they should expect a backlash.. if they expect us to tolerate them and their lifestyle.. they should tolerate the Church's lifestyle and customs that do not approve of gays.

if a church has customs that have been in place for hundreds of years.. IMO it is not fair the gays to just FORCE the church to change it views and accept them... they want acceptance from the church then they should accept the Church's wishes also.

3. personally like Ive said before i think that gays should not be allowed to marry based soley on the fact that i think if a church denies marrying two gays they would be open to discrimination lawsuits. someone in this forum told me that in Canada they have had gay marriages for a long time and they couldn't recall a lawsuit against a church based on dicrimmination... but this is America... we lead the world in lawsuits... all it takes if for someone somewhere to be "offended"

4. they want us to accept them fine... have a civil union at the court house. you get all the legal benefits and personal losses as regular married people.. all the same rights, privileges and dream losses. they can have a ring and a bouquet if they want too. they want acceptance.. they should meet us in the middle

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 03:05 PM
no it wasn't

not even close

1. no one is trying to BAN being gay. so like you said.. you can go to the mall and see an eagles jersey and you have to tolerate it.. if i see two gays holding hands.. even if i don't like it.. i tolerate it They are trying to make an exclusionary law to ban their right to marry. What if New York banned eagles fans right to watch football?

2. tolerance is a two way street. If gays want to force their lifestyle on regular folks then they should expect a backlash.. if they expect us to tolerate them and their lifestyle.. they should tolerate the Church's lifestyle and customs that do not approve of gays.

if a church has customs that have been in place for hundreds of years.. IMO it is not fair the gays to just FORCE the church to change it views and accept them... they want acceptance from the church then they should accept the Church's wishes also.

They are not forcing their lifestyle on anyone. They are trying to live their own lives in peace and happiness. The fact that you referred to non-homosexuals as "regular folks" is exactly the intolerance I'm talking about. If a church doesn't want them married, fine; religion gets free reign in this country for some reason, but if a judge or ship captain or a homosexually accepting religion marries two women, they have every right to fill out a marriage certificate at city hall and call each other their spouse.....NOT their Civil Union Partner....that sounds like a f'n Teamsters term. I agree, they should tolerate the Church's right to not have to marry them, but the STATE and citizens need to allow each other a happy existence.

Also, beleiving something for thousands of years doesn't make it morally or factually RIGHT. The church stood by the earth being the center of the universe for quite some time. The Catholic church stood by Hitler's reign for some time.....way off topic though, my bad.


3. personally like Ive said before i think that gays should not be allowed to marry based soley on the fact that i think if a church denies marrying two gays they would be open to discrimination lawsuits. someone in this forum told me that in Canada they have had gay marriages for a long time and they couldn't recall a lawsuit against a church based on dicrimmination... but this is America... we lead the world in lawsuits... all it takes if for someone somewhere to be "offended"
I think frivilous lawsuits in this country is a HUGE problem as well, but I don't see this relevant to tolerating another person's right to be married.

4. they want us to accept them fine... have a civil union at the court house. you get all the legal benefits and personal losses as regular married people.. all the same rights, privileges and dream losses. they can have a ring and a bouquet if they want too. they want acceptance.. they should meet us in the middle

That's not acceptance at all. You're still denying their right to be MARRIED. Marriage is a union between two people by contract that is recognized by law. LAWS are determined by the state, NOT the church. LAWS are never to be made exclusionary based on race, sex, etc. Marriage is governed by the state. I totally agree that a church has a right to not marry anyone....not because I agree with that ideal, but solely based on our society, but a religion (or non-religion) that DOES accept a homosexual marriage has every right to finalize that in law with the state where marriages are recognized.


Just explain to me, how it effects you or any heterosexual's life what a woman calls her lesbian partner? Whether its wife or civil partner or pookie, how does this effect you? Nobody is telling you to change anything in YOUR personal life.

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 03:21 PM
it does not affect me

but neither does the Little girls who get acid thrown on the in Iraq on their way to school. if my neighbor doesn't have health care.. that doesn't affect me. people not wearing their seat belts in their cars doesn't affect me. carpool lanes doesn't affect me. a man beating his wife doesn't affect me. a black woman not getting into college doesn't affect me. a Chinese man who is only allowed to have 1 baby and has the rest of his kids killed by the government doesn't affect me...

plenty of things that don't directly affect me.. still matters to me

the reason they made that "exclusionary law" was because gays were trying to change the definition of marriage that has gone back hundreds of years in this country.

but your right.. laws are from the state.. not the church. so again if a couple wants too they can have a civil union at the court house.. same rights and everything

so what were arguing here is only a word...

Ive said i support they have all right and priviligdes... just change the word. but that is still unacceptable to you and most gays.

so if I'm a lawmaker and i say that in CA we will honor all civil unions as having the same privileges and rights as married couples... but only we will have the preformed by a judge, clerk or other designated official and we will not call them marriages.. but civil unions or whatever else gays want to call them

would you support that?

cabernetluver
06-24-2009, 03:32 PM
Doc, I think marriage should be a religious sacrament that people of the cloth give, and civil unions should be what the state gives. We all get civil unions to get the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that the state and fed gives, and each to his own for the title of marriage. That way, in the eyes of the government, we really are all equal.

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 03:43 PM
^^^ i would totally support that cab

SmthBluCitrus
06-24-2009, 03:50 PM
Doc, I think marriage should be a religious sacrament that people of the cloth give, and civil unions should be what the state gives. We all get civil unions to get the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that the state and fed gives, and each to his own for the title of marriage. That way, in the eyes of the government, we really are all equal.

Well, now I feel discriminated against. :p

My husband is religious and I'm not. We had a ceremony with both a JOP and in my husband's Methodist Church (JOP happened first). So, then my husband is married and I'm not ... harumph :Pout:

Does this mean we have a civil marriage?

:D

cabernetluver
06-24-2009, 04:02 PM
Well, now I feel discriminated against. :p

My husband is religious and I'm not. We had a ceremony with both a JOP and in my husband's Methodist Church (JOP happened first). So, then my husband is married and I'm not ... harumph :Pout:

Does this mean we have a civil marriage?

:D

I have no idea if your marriage is civil :D

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 04:42 PM
it does not affect me

but neither does the Little girls who get acid thrown on the in Iraq on their way to school. if my neighbor doesn't have health care.. that doesn't affect me. people not wearing their seat belts in their cars doesn't affect me. carpool lanes doesn't affect me. a man beating his wife doesn't affect me. a black woman not getting into college doesn't affect me. a Chinese man who is only allowed to have 1 baby and has the rest of his kids killed by the government doesn't affect me...

plenty of things that don't directly affect me.. still matters to me

the reason they made that "exclusionary law" was because gays were trying to change the definition of marriage that has gone back hundreds of years in this country.

but your right.. laws are from the state.. not the church. so again if a couple wants too they can have a civil union at the court house.. same rights and everything

so what were arguing here is only a word...

Ive said i support they have all right and priviligdes... just change the word. but that is still unacceptable to you and most gays.

so if I'm a lawmaker and i say that in CA we will honor all civil unions as having the same privileges and rights as married couples... but only we will have the preformed by a judge, clerk or other designated official and we will not call them marriages.. but civil unions or whatever else gays want to call them

would you support that?

But why does the word matter to you? I mean if you are heterosexual, YOUR marriage doesn't change if homosexuals marry. Your lifestyle stays the same. If marriage is just the same as civil unions by another name, then why would it matter if homosexuals are allowed to marry? Isn't it easier and more efficient and equal to just say that homosexuals can marry rather than treating their relationships as if they were any different? Why both coming up with a whole other term?

I hear your reasons and all, I just don't understand them. Say two women love each other and want to devot their lives to each other. They want to start a family. They want it recognized by law and their faith (let's say they are of a sect of Christianity or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism that does not frown upon their relationship) allows them to marry. Now they head to the state office to file their papers....whether they check a box that says civil union or one that says marriage certificate, why does it matter to you? This is what I'm failing to understand. This is the course of their personal, private love life. I don't understand how the situation changes because of the term used. If it's all the same rights, all the same priveledges, then it really IS marriage....so just call it that.

Marriage (to the best of my knowledge, but prove me wrong, b/c I tend to be :D ) was never officially defined in this country, so I don't see how heteromarriage goes back hundres of years. Isn't that what the whole Bush hub-bub was about when he (or his whacky christian base) wanted it defined in the constitution as man and woman?

Help me understand Doc. :D

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 04:59 PM
And here are my other questions. If marriage can only be between a man and a woman, what about sex change operations?

Should a man who was born a woman, but had an operation to become a man marry a man or a woman?
What if the operation happened AFTER the marriage? If a man marries a woman and the woman has a sex change operation, do they violate traditional marriage? Do they automatically become a civil union? Does a sex change operation doctor have to report them to the state to have their records updated? If so, then a homosexual couple wanting to marry simply needs to have one of them get the operation and then they can marry? This some how makes it ok in the eyes of anti-homomarriage folk?

What if a heterosexual married couple is driving and gets into a violent accident and the man loses his penis and balls? Are they no longer married? Do they have to be a civil union?

What about those people (I think its primarily in South America) who are born as one sex, but as they mature develop into another? It has happened quite a few times. Born a woman, then over time the organs actually grow into male sexual organs. NOW, do they have to marry the opposite of the sex they were born or the opposite of the sex they are once matured? What if their parents arranged a marriage at an early age for a daughter to a man, then she grew up with this condition and became a man? Does the TRADITION of hetero marriage or the TRADITION of ARRANGED marriage prevail? Is there some kind of conversion or heirarchy chart?

What about....HERMAPHRODITES??? They have both sexual characteristics. So..........do who do THEY get to marry? :eyebrow: Anyone they want? Well that doesn't seem fair at all to homosexuals! Or can they not marry at all? Well surely we can't ban marriage to them. Can they only marry other hermaphrodites? Makes it kind of hard for them to track down a mate huh? Do we have to further amend the definition of marriage to be: Between one man and one woman or one hermaphrodite and another hermaphrodite?


At what point does putting up a fight over a term that is only relevant to the people involved become silly?

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 05:04 PM
(i love when south park get referenced in here)

Ive explained many times in this thread..

the reason the word means something to me is because Church's preform marriages... they perform them on heterosexuals only..

that leaves them open to lawsuits.

thats the only reason... if church says .. we will MARRY a man and a woman but will not MARRY a gay couple.. that is discrimination

OK.. lets take religion out of this...

I was in the Navy... a captain of a ship can perform marriages... now if a captain says he doesn't want to do it for gays.. he can be sued for discrimination.

not only that but it would open up a whole new can of worms because gays aren't technically allowed in the military... so the guys/gals would go to the capt, ask to get married, be denied and then be kicked out of the service...

there are more scenarios available if needed.

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 05:11 PM
(i love when south park get referenced in here)

Ive explained many times in this thread..

the reason the word means something to me is because Church's preform marriages... they perform them on heterosexuals only..

that leaves them open to lawsuits.

thats the only reason... if church says .. we will MARRY a man and a woman but will not MARRY a gay couple.. that is discrimination

OK.. lets take religion out of this...

I was in the Navy... a captain of a ship can perform marriages... now if a captain says he doesn't want to do it for gays.. he can be sued for discrimination.

not only that but it would open up a whole new can of worms because gays aren't technically allowed in the military... so the guys/gals would go to the capt, ask to get married, be denied and then be kicked out of the service...

there are more scenarios available if needed.

But like I was saying, Churches are not the only places that perform marriages. Many religions and non-religions perform marriages. Hindus and Muslims marry....no church involved.

You don't have to take religion out of it. A few years ago I read an interview with a Rabbi saying he'd marry people of the same sex so long as they were in love. He felt it was "god's place" to decide right or wrong.

I'm fairly sure a google search could find a priest as willing, but I haven't tried....I apologize for my laziness. So, if marriages are not only performed by churches AND to that, not only heteromarriages are performed, your reason for why it matters doesn't work out. So why does it REALLY matter to you whether they fill out the marriage certificate form instead of a civil union? I can't see any other root to your reasoning other than arriving at you not approving of their lifestyle.....waaayyy too assuming of me I'm sure, but I'm still not understanding your reason.

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 05:21 PM
OK ill type it slowly...

I'm trying to protect the church/navy captains/whoever doesn't want to perform gay marriages from ending up in court deending themselves against million dollar lawsuits.

OK ill even go into the middle further... let the gays get married.. whoever wants to fine.. in a church or not.... (im soo resonable)

BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if a church/person/non state run organization does not want to perform them.... then they dont have too

and if they get targeted, vandalized or harassed because of their choice not to perform them based on their personal belief, then the state they are in is responsible for punitive damages and compensation to the victim

problem solved

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 05:43 PM
if a church/person/non state run organization does not want to perform them.... then they dont have too


IIIIII AGGGGRRREEEEEE!!!!! WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!

:clap: :cheers: :hi5:

Let 'em have the paperwork and legal contract and title so long as the person marrying them is WILLING TO do it. Since religions seem to have the right to do anything they want in this country anyway (ex. The tribe in Arizona who are allowed to hallucinate on a plant that is illegal EVERYWHERE else in the country, but they can b/c it "brings them closer to their god") they may as well have the right to marry anyone they want.

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 05:47 PM
to bad the gays wouldnt agree to that...

they will want EVERYONE to accept them and they will not take less than full compliance... they will get thier lawsuits... watch

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 05:56 PM
to bad the gays wouldnt agree to that...

they will want EVERYONE to accept them and they will not take less than full compliance... they will get thier lawsuits... watch

I don't see how a church can be sued for discrimination. I was never baptized and am part of no religion. I'm sure most churches wouldn't want me getting married there. Feeling is mutual.

PHX-SOXFAN
06-24-2009, 06:08 PM
I don't see how a church can be sued for discrimination. I was never baptized and am part of no religion. I'm sure most churches wouldn't want me getting married there. Feeling is mutual.

they can't be sued for it. It's just a rightist talking point to stir up unfounded fear to get votes for things like prop 8.

Raider_Vet
06-24-2009, 06:14 PM
OK ill type it slowly...

I'm trying to protect the church/navy captains/whoever doesn't want to perform gay marriages from ending up in court deending themselves against million dollar lawsuits.

OK ill even go into the middle further... let the gays get married.. whoever wants to fine.. in a church or not.... (im soo resonable)

BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if a church/person/non state run organization does not want to perform them.... then they dont have too

and if they get targeted, vandalized or harassed because of their choice not to perform them based on their personal belief, then the state they are in is responsible for punitive damages and compensation to the victim

problem solved

The Unitarian Church performs and condones gay marriage. How many Catholics go to church that use birth control? God is in the eye of the beholder and no church should be able to hijack god. It's that simple. If they want to medal in political issues like gay marriage then they should be taxed.

CubsGirl
06-24-2009, 06:17 PM
I don't see how a church can be sued for discrimination. I was never baptized and am part of no religion. I'm sure most churches wouldn't want me getting married there. Feeling is mutual.
Exactly. My mom's best friend and her new boyfriend cheated on their spouses with one another (classy), and as far as his church (Mormon, I think) is concerned, he's not allowed to get remarried.

Raider_Vet
06-24-2009, 06:21 PM
Here is a suggestion.... If the church and the government want's to protect the sanctity of marriage then how about outlaw divorce....lol!:clap: Also just curious how many of you god worshiping christians have had one of these or condone divorce?

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 06:29 PM
i would support outlawing divorce..

but liberals wouldnt go for that..

after all they scream and cry over a womans right to end a life.. I'm sure they would have a fit if a woman didn't have a choice to end a marriage

Raider_Vet
06-24-2009, 06:34 PM
i would support outlawing divorce..

but liberals wouldnt go for that..

after all they scream and cry over a womans right to end a life.. I'm sure they would have a fit if a woman didn't have a choice to end a marriage Life is a relative term when speaking about abortion... again with the hijacking of god. Also the fact that you would agree to outlaw divorce speaks volumes of your lack of critical thinking skills.

dbroncos78087
06-24-2009, 06:35 PM
i would support outlawing divorce..

but liberals wouldnt go for that..

after all they scream and cry over a womans right to end a life.. I'm sure they would have a fit if a woman didn't have a choice to end a marriage

Outlawing divorce you have to be kidding me. We dont live in a theocracy. We dont live in a country that tries to make a habit of restricting people's individual freedoms.

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 06:36 PM
OH MAN......ya know....me and the Doc hit a common ground agreement on this issue and other people gotta come in and F it up. :pity:

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 06:36 PM
Outlawing divorce you have to be kidding me. We dont live in a theocracy. We dont live in a country that tries to make a habit of restricting people's individual freedoms.

Agreed.....soooo.....let's outlaw marriage for EVERYONE. :D

Raider_Vet
06-24-2009, 06:38 PM
Outlawing divorce you have to be kidding me. We dont live in a theocracy. We dont live in a country that tries to make a habit of restricting people's individual freedoms.Well what is this country doing to gays then?

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 06:53 PM
i just think if you outlawed divorce it might cut down on frivolous marriages..

i don't know what tabloids would have to write about

(btw im half kidding on this subject)

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 07:09 PM
Outlaw marriage entirely! I'm against the taxation discrimination of marriage. I'm a hard working (except while I'm posting on message boards) individual living for a long time with my g/f. Why shouldn't we receive the same tax breaks as the same couple who sign some B.S. devotion contract?

Doc Fluty
06-24-2009, 07:24 PM
yeah and while your at it ban child credits!... why should they get the breaks just cause they didnt use condoms

get rid of affirmative action and special programs for minoritys... i was born white.. why should i not get the same services they get...

get rid of the NAACP (I'm not colored), aarp (I'm not retired)... and the NRA (i don't have a gun)

get rid of all those damn compact parking spaces.. you know how hard it is to park a crew cab in one of those ****ers...

get rid of... OK.. never mind.. i ran out of ideas and sarcasm lol

GGGGG-Men
06-24-2009, 07:39 PM
yeah and while your at it ban child credits!... why should they get the breaks just cause they didnt use condoms

get rid of affirmative action and special programs for minoritys... i was born white.. why should i not get the same services they get...

get rid of the NAACP (I'm not colored), aarp (I'm not retired)... and the NRA (i don't have a gun)

get rid of all those damn compact parking spaces.. you know how hard it is to park a crew cab in one of those fukers...

get rid of... OK.. never mind.. i ran out of ideas and sarcasm lol

Ban those stupid Verizon commercials....YES I CAN F'N HEAR YOU NOW B**CH STFU ALREADY

Ban reruns of Good Times and Hogans Heroes...there are easily a dozen classic TV shows that would be better to rerun.

Ban those stupid beeper things that some restaurants hand you while waiting ot be seated. Just call my f'n name please...I'll be around. I'm not carrying this gigantic red pulsing light through town to do some shopping while I'm waiting for a table at Chilis.

Ban "Grande", "Tall", "Venti", "Enorme", "El Biggo" or ANY coffee size that isn't small, medium, large or Triple bypass Large.

Ban Brett Favre from football. Just stop it already....please....just stop. Or at least change your name to match the f'n pronounciation!


...what topic am I in again?

CanadianKid1987
06-26-2009, 06:10 PM
to bad the gays wouldnt agree to that...

they will want EVERYONE to accept them and they will not take less than full compliance... they will get thier lawsuits... watch

I found the wording of this a bit offensive. The Gays lol, because EVERY SINGLE gay person thinks that all churches should marry them. I am sorry, but this could not be further from the truth. I don't know how many gay people you know, or know well, but being a gay person I know many. And I can speak for myself, and most of my friends, that we don't want to get married by anyone who doesn't want to marry us.

dbroncos78087
06-26-2009, 06:13 PM
Ban those stupid Verizon commercials....YES I CAN F'N HEAR YOU NOW B**CH STFU ALREADY

Ban reruns of Good Times and Hogans Heroes...there are easily a dozen classic TV shows that would be better to rerun.

Ban those stupid beeper things that some restaurants hand you while waiting ot be seated. Just call my f'n name please...I'll be around. I'm not carrying this gigantic red pulsing light through town to do some shopping while I'm waiting for a table at Chilis.

Ban "Grande", "Tall", "Venti", "Enorme", "El Biggo" or ANY coffee size that isn't small, medium, large or Triple bypass Large.

Ban Brett Favre from football. Just stop it already....please....just stop. Or at least change your name to match the f'n pronounciation!


...what topic am I in again?

No! No! Just no! Hogan's Heroes was a great show and reruns should stay on TV.

CanadianKid1987
06-26-2009, 06:18 PM
Another point I would like to address is the issue of the word marriage. A few people have said "why do gays need the word marriage if they can have all the civil rights... just call it something different"

Two things, 1) if we the gays did come up with a much cooler word for marriage and heterosexuals liked the new type of ceremony and wanted to also use our new word I would have NO PROBLEM extending it for those couples to be included.

However

2) The reason marriage is an important word for a lot of gay people is because we, like heterosexuals, grew up expecting to MARRY the person we loved... not CIVIL UNION them. When you have kids you talk to them about marrying the person that they love, and this gets instilled within in you at an early age... that is why the word is important to me.

gcoll
06-27-2009, 03:59 AM
i just think if you outlawed divorce it might cut down on frivolous marriages.
Murder rate might go up though.