Conservative Gays vs. liberal Gays

quote:

I think I would do like the Bible says, learn tolerance.!

Not that I am questioning your knowledge but could you give me the exact scripture you are talking about when you mention "learn tolerance"? I sometimes just like to study the scripture to make sure I didn't hear it wrong or to make sure I just don't take someones word for it. No offense.

There's a big difference in tolerance and acceptance as moral. The Bible very clearly states that we have a sin nature but choose to do it. The Bible also very clearly states God's view on homosexuality in multiple scriptures(Read Romans ch. 1 for an example) I put that particular one because it's straight to the point and in the New Testament so no one can dispute it as some do the Old Testament.
As for the political side of it, your rambling went all around the world to get a block down the street...Dems are sinners/Rep are sinners. There is no man running for any office who is without sin, but that doesnt mean what they say is moral is correct or incorrect based soley on that. Morally speaking we should all be disgusted at many of the lifestyles our leaders lead whether its homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, thievery...but Jesus ain't walkin through that door of the White House so we have to find the lesser of two evils in most cases.
As for the rich people vote Rebulican crack you made...OPEN YOUR EYES!!! How many millionares do we hear every day beating their drum for the libbys? Don't give me that crap about Dems are the workin man's party... thats more outdated than the fashions from Miami Vice. They may be the union's party, but all workin men and women ain't in unions...The Republicans consistently want to lower my taxes unlike Dems who want to do the opposite...I'm a workin man...lower taxes means more money in my pocket.. Who's really lookin out for the workin man here? The policies of the Democrats cripple the workin man.

quote:

Originally posted by outspokenjerk:

quote:

I think I would do like the Bible says, learn tolerance.!

Not that I am questioning your knowledge but could you give me the exact scripture you are talking about when you mention "learn tolerance"? I sometimes just like to study the scripture to make sure I didn't hear it wrong or to make sure I just don't take someones word for it. No offense.

No problem! If we people don't learn tolerance we are going to be killing each other. We have tolerance to people who pull out in front of you that almost got your butt killed. You had enough tolerance not to chase his butt down and beat the living daylights out of him.Get the point? You don't have to like it!! If you chase this dude down then you are asking for trouble. You must have enough self control about things or you are the one that could be asking for trouble.Tolerance is a must! You can't control something that has been here forever but you can teach.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
There's a big difference in tolerance and acceptance as moral. The Bible very clearly states that we have a sin nature but choose to do it. The Bible also very clearly states God's view on homosexuality in multiple scriptures(Read Romans ch. 1 for an example) I put that particular one because it's straight to the point and in the New Testament so no one can dispute it as some do the Old Testament.
As for the political side of it, your rambling went all around the world to get a block down the street...Dems are sinners/Rep are sinners. There is no man running for any office who is without sin, but that doesnt mean what they say is moral is correct or incorrect based soley on that. Morally speaking we should all be disgusted at many of the lifestyles our leaders lead whether its homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, thievery...but Jesus ain't walkin through that door of the White House so we have to find the lesser of two evils in most cases.
As for the rich people vote Rebulican crack you made...OPEN YOUR EYES!!! How many millionares do we hear every day beating their drum for the libbys? Don't give me that crap about Dems are the workin man's party... thats more outdated than the fashions from Miami Vice. They may be the union's party, but all workin men and women ain't in unions...The Republicans consistently want to lower my taxes unlike Dems who want to do the opposite...I'm a workin man...lower taxes means more money in my pocket.. Who's really lookin out for the workin man here? The policies of the Democrats cripple the workin man.

I have had my eyes open more longer than thee.You put words in and added words that I did not say. You say>>Republicans consistently want to lower my taxes unlike Dems who want to do the opposite. My Answer: Well, I guess if you got a great tax break you must be in the 200,000 dollar a year brackit. I know people that are working folks and only got a $11.00 tax break but not like you they were only making 50 0r 60,000 a year. and anyone below that number got less also. See,Everybody likes tax breaks so much to have fire depts or police we have to sell chicken stew and have a few good people who is willing to give their life,time with their family's time up,for people like you who hate them taxes. The Rich people have got people like you by the balls and even if they offered to let go you beg for the to grab them again. The policies of Reagan with the Democrats and republicans help, Cripple the workin man and he is not doing any better under Bush.

The folks who are doing great are the folks that work for places like RedStone,Lockeed and others who count on wars to work! No war then you get layoffs. So, who loves war? NEOCON'S who are republican and democrat and conservative.

Question, if you think I am gay, and you see me standing on the street, and you believe that God Hates Gays, Is it all right for you to beat me to death? Well, Is it? Are you supposed to stone me till I am dead? Are you?
If you said yes to those questions, don't come around me. You see I am tall, slender, blond, and I dress in Work Clothes with creases, and sometimes wear sandals, and sometimes high top lace up boots. I really look gay. but I am not, and I will not take a beating from you or a cop, or a priest, or a President. I will agree with anyone who says I am gay. I sure am, are you looking for a date? Now what are you going to do? will you whip out a pistol and shoot me? Do you think it will make a difference? I would not pay for all the bible verses in creation with the drawing of a single drop of blood from a gay. Would you? Is beating a gay to death an assurance of a lifetime in paradise? Would you be a martyr if you were killed trying to beat a gay to death? Do you ever think, and consider what your words enable others to justify? Is saying Gays deserve beatings and starvation and denial of medical treatment and decent education and housing going to get you into the heaven so many people long for? Or is it just another way to rationalize your own ignorance of teh meaning of THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS?

quote:

Originally posted by outspokenjerk:

quote:

I think I would do like the Bible says, learn tolerance.!

Not that I am questioning your knowledge but could you give me the exact scripture you are talking about when you mention "learn tolerance"? I sometimes just like to study the scripture to make sure I didn't hear it wrong or to make sure I just don't take someones word for it. No offense.

There are many instances of the Scriptures encouraging tolerance and or compassion.

Colossians 3:12-17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

13Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

14And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Jesus on non-believers -

Jesus refused to curse non-believers: Jesus' teachings were rejected by the inhabitants of a village in Samaria. His disciples asked that he exterminate the people of the village by issuing a curse. Jesus refused to do it, and simply move on to the next village.
Luke 9:52-56: "...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."


Tolerance of different kinds of Christianity:

Tolerance of other types of "Christianity": Jesus' disciples had rejected a healer who was exorcising demons in Jesus' name, yet was not one of Jesus direct followers. Jesus criticized his disciples and accepted the healer. Mark and Luke report the incident in parallel passages:
Mark 9:38-40 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." (KJV)
Luke 9:49-50 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

One more -

Jesus treats a Samaritan women with respect: Jesus initiates a conversation with a Samaritan woman in Sychar, Samaria. This is unusual in at least two ways: Jewish men did not talk to women who were not their wives or were not from their family. Also, Jews normally treated Samaritans with contempt. Jews did not have dealings with them, because they had deviated from Judaism.
John 4:7-27: "There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink...Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water...Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father...And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman..."

Mean as a snake - everything in the above post is about grace, not tolerance. When Jesus healed the sick he said to go and put your evil ways behind you. Jesus did not tolerate sin, he did give grace to everyone, even homosexuals.

Ed - God does not hate homosexuals. God hates sin and according to the bible homosexuality is a sin. Jesus loves the sinner, which is why he ate at the houses of those considered the scourge of the earth at the time. He even couseled to the criminal on the cross next to him. If you think that God hates anybody, then that's a god of your own imagination.

Yes, Christ associated with tax collectors!

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:
Question, if you think I am gay, and you see me standing on the street, and you believe that God Hates Gays, Is it all right for you to beat me to death? Well, Is it? Are you supposed to stone me till I am dead? Are you?
If you said yes to those questions, don't come around me. You see I am tall, slender, blond, and I dress in Work Clothes with creases, and sometimes wear sandals, and sometimes high top lace up boots. I really look gay. but I am not, and I will not take a beating from you or a cop, or a priest, or a President. I will agree with anyone who says I am gay. I sure am, are you looking for a date? Now what are you going to do? will you whip out a pistol and shoot me? Do you think it will make a difference? I would not pay for all the bible verses in creation with the drawing of a single drop of blood from a gay. Would you? Is beating a gay to death an assurance of a lifetime in paradise? Would you be a martyr if you were killed trying to beat a gay to death? Do you ever think, and consider what your words enable others to justify? Is saying Gays deserve beatings and starvation and denial of medical treatment and decent education and housing going to get you into the heaven so many people long for? Or is it just another way to rationalize your own ignorance of teh meaning of THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS?

Ed,
I Am a Christian, a born-again believer and I have friends who are gay. Do I hate them? No, they're my friends. I do not approve of their lifestyle but I still love them as my friends. I will not treat them any different than I would treat my straight firends. I also will not tolerate someone hating on them. The example Jesus set was to LOVE. That is it. I have said this before. We are to love everyone. We do not have to approve of someone's lifestyle to do that. We can even debate like we do on here. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I hate them or even dislike them. I know that meanasasnake and I disagree on a number of things but if meanasasnake needed my help, I would do everything I could to help him. If we as Christians love people, God will take care of the rest. And anyone who would beat up or kill a gay person in the name of Jesus, probably doesn't have a clue about God's grace.

What did Jesus Christ say about being gay or homosexual? Not what Peter said. Not what John said. What did CHRIST say?

If you want to quote Old Testament and tell me what God said than we can play that way, too. God said it is an abomination to eat shrimp. So go hate on Captain D's and Red Lobster.

Back to the New Testament and The Word. What did Jesus say about being gay?

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:
What did Jesus Christ say about being gay or homosexual? Not what Peter said. Not what John said. What did CHRIST say?

If you want to quote Old Testament and tell me what God said than we can play that way, too. God said it is an abomination to eat shrimp. So go hate on Captain D's and Red Lobster.

Back to the New Testament and The Word. What did Jesus say about being gay?

So, do you think that the GOP is the God party or a bunch of propaganda to win over Christians to their way of thinking and to get money and votes?

quote:

Originally posted by pba:
So, do you think that the GOP is the God party or a bunch of propaganda to win over Christians to their way of thinking and to get money and votes?

Neither.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Mean as a snake - everything in the above post is about grace, not tolerance.

I disagree with you. Especially where these passages are concerned.

Mark 9:38-40 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." (KJV)
Luke 9:49-50 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

Jesus was perfectly willing to tolerate less than perfect individuals including prostitutes, thieves and various other sinners of note. Without a certain amount of tolerance one never gets the opportunity to express the love of Christ to a non-believer. Once again, we will never agree on some things.

Most of the gay people I know are actually preferable to many of the straight people I know. I thank God every day for them. None of my freinds are perfect.

No Mean as a snake, it sounds like we actually do agree. If you look at my post I talk about how Jesus had no problem rubbing elbows with sinners. It's the sin that Jesus doesn't tolerate and it's through him that we (because we're all sinners) have grace to overcome our sins and be forgiven.

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:

quote:

Originally posted by pba:
So, do you think that the GOP is the God party or a bunch of propaganda to win over Christians to their way of thinking and to get money and votes?

Neither.

I have decided you are one of my favorite "conservatives".

#1 EdKit... take a pill dawg, ain't a single person said anything bout beating or killing gays... good lord man

#2 PBA... take an economics class sometime and quit confusing mismanagement of tax dollars with we need tax dollars. If we cut about 80% of the useless gov't funded programs in this country and cut taxes about 50-65% across the board we would see a boom in this country like never before economically... its been proven over and over again that raising taxes hurts the economy. And saying its ok to hike taxes on the rich creeps dangerously close to socialism, which is probably what you want so why don't you go visit Cuba and tell me what you think bout that. And 2 other quick hits for you, I'm not close to rich and how many poor people do you know who offer people jobs... thats what I thought, you may want to curb your hatred of rich folks

#3 T S C Your's was by far to most retarted defense of homosexuality I've ever heard in my entire life...you can't be serious. See, this is what comes when someone reads a book about the Bible instead of actually reading the Bible.. God Himself chastized many of the "silly laws" from the old testament...like eating shrimp..because that became man worshiping the law instead of the law maker.. those laws were laws of men not God(which is a HUGE reason why He sent Jesus)..study closer. As for homosexuality, sexual sin is a biggie in the Bible and if you don't believe that any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin then you are reading the bible that Billy the crackhead down the street wrote or you are an athiest and shouldnt even be talking about this

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
or you are an athiest and shouldnt even be talking about this

Hey! Since when have atheists been prohibited from making fun of the bible?

quote:

Originally posted by pba:
Conservative Gays vs. liberal Gays

So what is the difference?

Who cares? It is a personal choice and none of our business.

The Log Cabin Republicans are a group of gay men and women who support moderates and old style limited government candidates. In the last election they lost a couple of their favorites. Most notably Lincoln Chafee of R.I. They count Arlen Specter, Gordon Smith, Guliani, Schwartznegger, and countless others within the Republican party as friends. Their intention is to change the party from the inside. To a great extent they have been successful in many ways. I still dont get it. Its sort of like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. Sort of contrary to purpose. In the 2000 election, the Log Cabin Republicans handed the state of Florida to Bush. There are over 3100 members in 6 Florida counties alone. Karen Hughes told them : "We will not forget your hard work." I wonder what that meant?

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
the Log Cabin Republicans handed the state of Florida to Bush.

Yeah, riiiight. I'm sure all three members of this group swayed all the electorate in Florida.

This group may claim to have done that but I know a group of folks who claim to be alien abductees, too.

quote:

Originally posted by miamizsun:
Who cares? It is a personal choice and none of our business.

I care. I don't give a rip about their sexual preference but when they determine they want extra rights because of their sexual kinks, they pizz me off.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
#3 T S C Your's was by far to most retarted defense of homosexuality I've ever heard in my entire life...you can't be serious. See, this is what comes when someone reads a book about the Bible instead of actually reading the Bible.. God Himself chastized many of the "silly laws" from the old testament...like eating shrimp..because that became man worshiping the law instead of the law maker.. those laws were laws of men not God(which is a HUGE reason why He sent Jesus)..study closer. As for homosexuality, sexual sin is a biggie in the Bible and if you don't believe that any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sin then you are reading the bible that Billy the crackhead down the street wrote or you are an athiest and shouldnt even be talking about this

First, I have read the Bible, the whole thing. Thanks for asking. Second, I am not retarded and take offense to you using that term as a slur.

God Himself said in Leviticus that it is not right to eat shrimp.

Leviticus 11:9-12 (King James Version)
1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

5And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Further, he referred to doing so as an ABOMINATION. The same word people use for homosexuality. Those were Laws given to men by God. God told Moses, not Moses decided on it and told the folks to do it. Read your Bible closer.

If homosexuality is such a sin, then why didn't Christ weigh in on it? He spoke to us about lying, cheating, stealing, and divorce. If being gay was that big of a deal, then I feel like Christ would have at least mentioned it. He did not.

You are right - any sex outside of marriage is a sin. So why not attack the people who are having casual heterosexual relations as vehemently as you attack the gays? Because you are a hypocrite, no better than a Pharisee. That is why.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by miamizsun:
Who cares? It is a personal choice and none of our business.

I care. I don't give a rip about their sexual preference but when they determine they want extra rights because of their sexual kinks, they pizz me off.

It's not equal rights that are being asked for, it is the SAME rights.

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
It's not equal rights that are being asked for, it is the SAME rights.

Homosexuals want to NOT ONLY have the right to marry the opposite sex, they also want to marry the same sex. That is an ADDITIONAL right.

Once you crack that door, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from marrying whatever they love be it a hamster, dog, cat or favorite sheep.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
It's not equal rights that are being asked for, it is the SAME rights.

Homosexuals want to NOT ONLY have the right to marry the opposite sex, they also want to marry the same sex. That is an ADDITIONAL right.

Once you crack that door, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from marrying whatever they love be it a hamster, dog, cat or favorite sheep.

Individual rights are the same for everyone regardless, be it civil unions or matrimony.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by miamizsun:
Who cares? It is a personal choice and none of our business.

I care. I don't give a rip about their sexual preference but when they determine they want extra rights because of their sexual kinks, they pizz me off.

What are these "extra rights" you continually say gay people are asking for?

I think someone is afraid that somebody might one day want to marry his hamster. And then that hamster will be entitled to that person's BC/BS, get income tax deductions, and all kinds of other benefits....

quote:

Originally posted by T S C:
I think someone is afraid that somebody might one day want to marry his hamster. And then that hamster will be entitled to that person's BC/BS, get income tax deductions, and all kinds of other benefits....

TSC - I have heard this silly argument before. Marrage, or civil unions will be like any traditional marrage in the U.S. - between two consenting adults. People do not marry their relatives for clear genetically unhealthy reasons. Hamsters cannot give consent - NO animal can give consent. Civil Unions will probably be the way for this to naturally go. Gay people pay taxes, pay into Social Security - its their money, they should be allowed to decide who would benefit from it at their deaths. Also it should be the decision of ANY individual who will be at their bedside when they die, who will inherit property etc. That is actually a very unintrusive, conservative view point. Keep the government OUT of the decisions of two consenting adults and their relationships.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Gay people pay taxes, pay into Social Security - its their money, they should be allowed to decide who would benefit from it at their deaths.

No one is prohinited form leaving his entire estate to whomeever he wishes.

quote:

Also it should be the decision of ANY individual who will be at their bedside when they die, who will inherit property etc. That is actually a very unintrusive, conservative view point. Keep the government OUT of the decisions of two consenting adults and their relationships.

Please. This isn't about keeping the government out. The government doesn't want to come in your bedroom and tell you to stop having anal sex. This is about gay people wanting to legitimize a deviant sexual behavior.

Again, who cares what consenting adults do behind closed doors? I sure don't. But do not expect me or the government to legitimize this extremely unhealthy, deviant lifestyle . . . At least as it exists between men. Seriously, this is all about men wanting to be able to poke their noses, fingers, tongues and sexual organs into another man's dookey hole! How freaking gross and deviant is THAT?

And, by the way, I don't have a problem with two women wanting to marry. They make good mommies for lots of adoptable kids and don't do the "in through the out door" sexual deviancy. They can also be artificially impregnated in order to generate more taxpayers. But I don't see how a law could be written to allow that but not allow it between two sick, twisted males.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Gay people pay taxes, pay into Social Security - its their money, they should be allowed to decide who would benefit from it at their deaths.

No one is prohinited form leaving his entire estate to whomeever he wishes.

quote:

Also it should be the decision of ANY individual who will be at their bedside when they die, who will inherit property etc. That is actually a very unintrusive, conservative view point. Keep the government OUT of the decisions of two consenting adults and their relationships.

Please. This isn't about keeping the government out. The government doesn't want to come in your bedroom and tell you to stop having anal sex. This is about gay people wanting to legitimize a deviant sexual behavior.

Again, who cares what consenting adults do behind closed doors? I sure don't. But do not expect me or the government to legitimize this extremely unhealthy, deviant lifestyle . . . At least as it exists between men. Seriously, this is all about men wanting to be able to poke their noses, fingers, tongues and sexual organs into another man's dookey hole! How freaking gross and deviant is THAT?

And, by the way, I don't have a problem with two women wanting to marry. They make good mommies for lots of adoptable kids and don't do the "in through the out door" sexual deviancy. They can also be artificially impregnated in order to generate more taxpayers. But I don't see how a law could be written to allow that but not allow it between two sick, twisted males.

Lol.......I have never heard so much obsessive drivel in my life. Got a news flash for ya - straight couples have anal sex and have since the beginning of time (it has been recorded on ancient vase paintings from ancient Greece and Rome, not to mention China, Japan, etc.)and not all gay men have anal sex and in either case - its none of your business. Your tortured rationalization about lesbians is just short of being total lunacy. Sexual practice has nothing to do with love, commitment, or legality within marrage between two consenting adults. Lets not get all fascinated with sex you ARE NOT HAVING. There are lots of things married couples do that many people OUTSIDE that marrage would find disgusting or abhorrent - and the government endorses those marrages. Do we now need to regulate ALL marrages upon private bedroom habits? Sorry, that makes no sense.

I thought Conservatives were good moarl folks who hated the sin but not hate the person. See that is what turns me off about people who say they are Consevative and for morals and good will. Oh well,I guess not, That would just sound like a liberal to be a good conservative.

The hate folks like the KKK who are Conservative and not liberal and go to church every Sunday only to go hate again. Makes one wonder if hate is taught in some of our churches. Don't forget to go to church this sunday!

Go Fish, keep living in your fishbowl. If this were an X-rated forum, I'd list some of the things I've heard straight folks participate in and you'd really stroke out.

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
Go Fish, keep living in your fishbowl. If this were an X-rated forum, I'd list some of the things I've heard straight folks participate in and you'd really stroke out.

Heaven forbid we should mention : wife swapping, rape clubs, S&M, Hedonism, sex clubs, etc, etc, etc,. This is a big world full of disgusting things. I think I read on here that the elderly are having sex! What next?

LOL I think "disgust" is in the eye of the beholder. That last post by Go Fish is about as twisted as I've ever read. She seems to think that gay males are only interested in sex. Trust me, most of us are as boring and average as your typical straight couple.

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
Trust me, most of us are as boring and average as your typical straight couple.

But the fact is this: 60% of all new AIDS cases in the US stem from gay men poking their tallywhacker into the wrong hole.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
Trust me, most of us are as boring and average as your typical straight couple.

But the fact is this: 60% of all new AIDS cases in the US stem from gay men poking their tallywhacker into the wrong hole.

Dear, delusional Gofish - here are the statistics.

An estimated one million people are currently living with HIV in the United States, with approximately 40,000 new infections occurring each year.
70 percent of these new infections occur in men and 30 percent occur in women.
By race, 54 percent of the new infections in the United States occur among African Americans, and 64 percent of the new infections in women occur in African American women.
75 percent of the new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted.
Half of all new infections in the United States occur in people 25 years of age or younger.


In Canada and the United States, women and minorities are at significantly higher risk for contracting HIV, reflecting larger systematic biases in healthcare delivery and prevention efforts. In the United States, 50% of newly reported infections in recent years have been among African Americans although this group represents only 12% of the population. Their HIV prevalence is as much as 12 times higher than that of whites. African-American women account for an increasing proportion of new infections and HIV infection is now the leading cause of death for African-American women aged 25-34. Many of these women do not engage in high-risk behavior, but are contracting HIV through sex with their long term male partners--a significant proportion of whom also have sex with men or inject drugs. Hispanics, too, are experiencing significantly higher rates of HIV infection than whites in the United States. Accounting for 14% of the total U.S. population, Latinos comprised 18% of new HIV diagnoses in 2005.

Did it ever occur to you that stable relationships of any kind result in fewer AIDS related infections? The statistics bear that out. Your reasoning is still a bit flawed and clearly based on your own perceptions and bias. What you are missing is that many of the new AIDs infections are among MARRIED people who identify themselves as "straight". So many people think they are not at risk for AIDS because their partners are not gay. WRONG. Also - the majority of AIDS victims worldwide are heterosexual. Look it up.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:

Dear, delusional Gofish - here are the statistics.
( . . .)
Also - the majority of AIDS victims worldwide are heterosexual. Look it up.

The "world " isn't considering recognizing marraige between two men. The US is. The TRUTH is this: 80% of the people who have aids are MEN. Of those, 60% got AIDS from butt sex and 20% got it from sharing needles.

Source: http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm which got their data from the CDC.

In short, the majority of AIDS in this country is from homosexual sex between men. The government has a duty to protect the people and uphold moral standards of the time. Homosexual is not only considered "immoral" by the majority, is is also a significant health risk to the general population.

I would be the first to pick up arms if the government tried to outlaw homosexual sex. Your bedroom is none of their or even my business. However, there is no legal standing for legitimizing homosexuality via marital covenant. None at all.

quote:

Did it ever occur to you that stable relationships of any kind result in fewer AIDS related infections?

So marraige between homosexual men is even more stable that marriage between heterosexuals? YEah, riiiiight. Talk about delusional!

So what would y'all say about polygamy? It's simply marriage between lots of people who love each other, right? They are all consenting adults, right? Is there any limit to the number of wives or husbands a person should be able to marry? Why should we not legitimize polygamy?

Go Fish, I'm curious to know if you would support a "civil union" between gay males if it were not called "marriage." My partner and I have been together for 18 years and have supported each other through the good and bad times, just like any other straight couple. I think we should have the right to share insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, the right for our wills to be uncontested and so forth - what would you say to that?

My philosophy is that if to adults want to be gay in their own house, it's their house so I don't care. I don't have any hatred towards gays and I don't wish them any harm. What I don't like is when gays try to bring it out of their house and shove it into my face saying "ACCEPT THIS!"

To me, gay is gross. I didn't choose to be disgusted by homosexuality, I was just born that way. I get the same physical reaction watching my dog in the yard snacking on her own poop as I do seeing two men making out. I'm simply repulsed by it. The majority of Americans have made it known that they feel the same way. Forcing those repulsed by an action to accept it as normal against their will is simply wrong.

If you're gay, go be gay, have fun, do whatever you want in your house, I don't care. Just don't force me to accept it and keep it out of my face and I'll do my part and make sure you never have to watch my dog eat poop.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
My philosophy is that if to adults want to be gay in their own house, it's their house so I don't care. I don't have any hatred towards gays and I don't wish them any harm. What I don't like is when gays try to bring it out of their house and shove it into my face saying "ACCEPT THIS!"

To me, gay is gross. I didn't choose to be disgusted by homosexuality, I was just born that way. I get the same physical reaction watching my dog in the yard snacking on her own poop as I do seeing two men making out. I'm simply repulsed by it. The majority of Americans have made it known that they feel the same way. Forcing those repulsed by an action to accept it as normal against their will is simply wrong.

If you're gay, go be gay, have fun, do whatever you want in your house, I don't care. Just don't force me to accept it and keep it out of my face and I'll do my part and make sure you never have to watch my dog eat poop.

I agree with you on that - I don't care for public displays of affection either (straight or gay). I don't think though that asking for basic civil rights is forcing anything on anybody.

If gays want a civil union for legal reasons, I say let them. I really don't care, just don't call it a marriage. A civil union is blessed by the government, a marriage is blessed by God.

The only thing that bothers me is that if gays started marrying, then some guy can come out and say "I want to marry 3 women at once." Then another guy can say "I want to marry my cousin" (most likely a Vols fan). Then another guy can say "I want to marry my sheep". How can you allow one and say no to the others?

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
If gays want a civil union for legal reasons, I say let them. I really don't care, just don't call it a marriage. A civil union is blessed by the government, a marriage is blessed by God.

The only thing that bothers me is that if gays started marrying, then some guy can come out and say "I want to marry 3 women at once." Then another guy can say "I want to marry my cousin" (most likely a Vols fan). Then another guy can say "I want to marry my sheep". How can you allow one and say no to the others?

A civil union is fine with me - I don't need the marriage part anyway. Your second statement always comes up in arguments. I think that two people who love each other and show a committment is not as outlandish as a person wanting to marry a sheep. Let's be realistic here.

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
Go Fish, I'm curious to know if you would support a "civil union" between gay males if it were not called "marriage." My partner and I have been together for 18 years and have supported each other through the good and bad times, just like any other straight couple. I think we should have the right to share insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, the right for our wills to be uncontested and so forth - what would you say to that?

You are obviously in a committed, stable relationship. Good for you. If I were able to sit at a judges table and approve and disprove marriage licenses for homosexuals, I would say, "c'est la vive" and give you my blessing. As I stated before, I would generally give a blank check to homosexual women, too.

Your kind of relationship is good for you, good for government and good for The People. However, I don't think you can show me any sort of statistic that shows this type of partnership to be a common occurance.

Okay, people with sheep is a bad example. Polygamists is a great example. If we allow to men or two women to marry, how can we say no to a man marrying 2, 3, or a dozen wives? How can we say no to two cousins who want to marry? Edgar Allen Poe married his cousin. What if a guy wanted to marry 3 of his cousins and one was another guy? Can we still say no to this if we yes to two men?

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
What if a guy wanted to marry 3 of his cousins and one was another guy? Can we still say no to this if we yes to two men?

Of COURSE we can! Our morals change with the wind, Nash! In fact, the hell with ALL morals. Most of them are imposed upon us by Christian fundamentalists and I don't agree with fundamentalists.

Right?

Nashbama, I just don't see a similarity between the two. I'm talking 2 people, you are talking multiples.

Go Fish, obviously there aren't as many gay couples because there are not as many gay people in the general population. Should discrimination be allowed just because that human being happens to be in a minority?

I do think there are more than you probably think and more or less depending on what area of the country you are in. And I would add that 90% of the single gay males that I know want to find that special someone to spend their lives with. It's not all about about sex.

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
And I would add that 90% of the single gay males that I know want to find that special someone to spend their lives with. It's not all about about sex.

If it is all about love and committed relationships then you must address the polygamy issue. Would you be in favor of polygamous marriages?

quote:

Nashbama, I just don't see a similarity between the two. I'm talking 2 people, you are talking multiples.

The similarity is that both are shunned in our society. How can we allow one while forbidding the other?

No, I'm not for polygamy and I honestly don't see why you are equating with what I'm talking about.

quote:

No, I'm not for polygamy and I honestly don't see why you are equating with what I'm talking about.

Because polygamist unions and same sex unions are both considered wrong in our society. If we suddenly allow unions for gays, how can we still disallow unions for polygimists?

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
No, I'm not for polygamy

Why not?

I think the view on civil rights for gays is changing. A recent survey found that the majority of young people supported equal rights. I think the outlook is positive and I hope that I live to see it.

I don't wish to continue arguing about this. It is obvious that you don't like gay people so why not just say it?

I guess the Libertarian in me is coming out - it usually does as the weekend approaches! But I am all for the government not getting all caught up in who marries who and who has civil unions and all that jazz.

Hey, do you want to marry your cousin? Go ahead! Why is that my business? Don't give me the birth defects thing, you can be from whole different continents and have a kid with a birth defect.

Do you want to marry Dolly the sheep? Have at it. I really don't even care if they have "relations" with the sheep. They need to watch the movie "ZOO" first (if you have a weak stomach here is the deal: guy wants to have sex with a male horse, with the HORSE taking on the traditionally male role, and ends up with his guts shredded and he died).

How about 6 or 7 wives? Go ahead, marry a whole harem. BC/BS does not have to cover them all. BC/BS is a private entity and they can say "we only cover one spouse". Have fun dividing your life insurance between a bunch of women. I'm not sure what other benefits people are wigging out about.

If two adults of either gender want to get married, have a civil union, adopt a kid, go to church, eat cookies in bed, whatever - have at it. I don't feel like it is a negative thing for society. Not too long ago society was shunning divorced people, people who got pregnant out of wedlock, and people of different races who married. I think as society evolves these type of laws that impose one groups morals and standards on other groups will disappear. When anyone's rights are restricted, all of our rights are restricted.

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
I don't wish to continue arguing about this. It is obvious that you don't like gay people so why not just say it?

Whatever . . .

You don't HAVE an answer for the polygamy thing. In fact, everyone seems to have lost the will to debate since that was brought up.

Could it be that you have all seen the hypocrisy of your own stances on the subject?

Animals cannot give consent - that is a simple understanding. Two adult individuals CAN. Its going to happen, one way or the other. Try and be reasonable. We are talking about the rights of the individual, a very "conservative" philosophical standard. You do not have to call it "marrage". But you do have to extend the rights of the individual to ALL Americans - even those you do not agree with - within consentual bounds. Look up CONSENT - it means agreement. All this hysterical babble about animals, poligamy and incest is a just grasping at straws because you really do not like gay people. Its hostility based on personal philosophical, or religious doctrinal dogma - it has nothing to do with freedom, progression, or "conservatism".

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Animals cannot give consent - that is a simple understanding. Two adult individuals CAN.

So if two individuals can, can three, four of more?

What about communal arrangements with two or more husbands and as many wives sharing each other in love?

Shall we extend those "rights" to these people, too?

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Animals cannot give consent - that is a simple understanding. Two adult individuals CAN.

So if two individuals can, can three, four of more?



What about communal arrangements with two or more husbands and as many wives sharing each other in love?

Shall we extend those "rights" to these people, too?

There is no state where marrage is extended to more than two individuals of consentual age. This argument is hysterical and grasping. The "the pursuit of happiness" is not extended only to those people we "approve" of. Tax paying Americans deserve equal rights under the law about who they can share their economic rights with (i.e. Social Security, property rights, and healthcare directives), without the input of strangers or the state. You do not have to call it "marrage", but it will happen.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
You do not have to call it "marrage", but it will happen.

I agree. Just as interracial marriage was once frowned upon in our society, Loving vs. Virginia changed the laws on that.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
There is no state where marrage is extended to more than two individuals of consentual age.

Up until very recently there were nop states that recognized same sex marriage, either. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You still haven't answered the question and your silence on the issue is deafening. Once more time Are you in favor of legally recognized polygamous marriages?

Why or why not?

Yet another reason to have a true proportional flat tax minus loopholes, tax breaks for anything, form after form after form of nonsense, etc. When it got to the point that you have to hire a third party just to file your taxes, they went way past the sanity line. How many arguments would end as a result?

quote:

Originally posted by just saying:
I agree. Just as interracial marriage was once frowned upon in our society, Loving vs. Virginia changed the laws on that.

Aw Jesus H Christ! That is the most ludicrous and insensitive statemnt anyone could make. If I were a black person, I'd be fighting mad.

Comparing the gay movement to the equal rights movement is like comparing the holocaust to a boxing match. There IS no comparison.

Gay activists want ADDITIONAL rights, not "equal" rights.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by just saying:
I agree. Just as interracial marriage was once frowned upon in our society, Loving vs. Virginia changed the laws on that.

Aw Jesus H Christ! That is the most ludicrous and insensitive statemnt anyone could make. If I were a black person, I'd be fighting mad.

Comparing the gay movement to the equal rights movement is like comparing the holocaust to a boxing match. There IS no comparison.

Gay activists want ADDITIONAL rights, not "equal" rights.

There's no difference - blacks were being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, gays are discriminated against because of who they are sexually attracted to. It all boils down to hatred, intolerance and ignorance.

And you still don't get the "additional" vs. "equal" rights, do you? Even after I explained it to you? Jeez! I give up!

Thank you,David.I agree with you.I think they should do away with the concept of marriage and have something like a contract of family.So that anyone living and acting like a family will get all the legal benefits that a husband and wife have now.My definition of a family is anyone living together,caring for each other and loving each other. My best friend,my sister and I are planning on living together in our old age, if we out live our husbands,so why couldn't we share our benefits?

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:
That is the most ludicrous and insensitive statemnt anyone could make. If I were a black person, I'd be fighting mad.

Comparing the gay movement to the equal rights movement is like comparing the holocaust to a boxing match. There IS no comparison.

First off, why would you think blacks would be “fighting mad” about that statement? It was addressing the issue of a type of marriage that was once frowned upon in society, but now by change of laws, it’s accepted. All of these laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians. It’s not like blacks are the only ones that were entering into interracial marriages. Why would you jump to that conclusion that it should be only offensive to blacks?

Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to all citizens by law.

TSC said it best: “ When anyone's rights are restricted, all of our rights are restricted.”

quote:

Originally posted by yankeewitch:
My best friend,my sister and I are planning on living together in our old age, if we out live our husbands,so why couldn't we share our benefits?

So perhaps YOU can answer the question for me: Are you for or against polygamy?

ALL OF YOU KEEP DODGING THIS QUESTION. Why is that? Is it perhaps because you know why but just cannot admit to it publicly?

I answered your question a few pages back and said that I was against it. Both Meanasasnake and I said that the issue here is about a relationship between 2 consenting adults, not multiple partners.

quote:

Originally posted by just saying:
First off, why would you think blacks would be “fighting mad” about that statement?

Because black people suffered under cruel whips, fire hoses and hundreds of years of horrible, unthinkable hatred just because they have a darker tan than European people. Their leaders were strung from tree limbs or assassinated.

And you claim that the Gay Rights movement is "no different"? That is incredible.

quote:

Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to all citizens by law.

Our Constutution says (in part) that we cannot discriminate against someone for their race. Racism is stupid, illogical and has no place in modern times.

The Gay Rights movement now wasnts to change the constitution to ALSO include "Sexual Preference" as a qualifier for actionalable discrimination. (WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT).

If you have your way, what is to stop us from also recognizing polygamy as a legitimate right? That is a sexual preference, isn't it? What is to stop us form lowering the age of consent to perhaps 13 so men can marry teenagers? It's a sexual preference, isn't it? What is I prefer to have sex with my computer. It can give "consent" if I tell it to do so. Will I be able to marry my computer?

Gorillas can speak sign language. They can give consent by answering "yes" or "no" to voiced questions. Would that constitutional right also be extended to other species so I can marry a gorilla?

GoFish,Go for it!May you and your computer have many happy years together.To each their own.Do what you will, as long as it harms no one else!

This is unbelievable. The Holocaust memorial inculdes a section devoted to the homosexuals who were tortured and killed during the Nazi era - All this hysterical babble about animals, polygamy, and incest is just a diversion that reveils bigotry and busybody "conservativism" which amounts to irrational delusion. Two consenting adults who are not related get married every day in the U.S. The fact that they are same sex couples has nothing to do with the fact that they are contributing, law abiding citizens of the U.S. Gay people have been mistreated for centuries -its time to move into the new century and leave your bigotry behind. If you do not like gay people - don't hang out with them or acknowledge their existance.

Its going to happen - I suggest you get used to that fact. Try and worry about your own marrage and let others worry about their own.

I am not talking about what “black people suffered.” I am talking about a case, in which a white man married a black woman and sued the state of Virginia. Where in the heck can you compare what one race suffered years ago with a case about a man and woman wanting to marry regardless of their race? Unless you are confusing human rights with civil rights, I don’t see your point.

Oh, and if your computer was forced to consent, you have committed rape.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Two consenting adults who are not related get married every day in the U.S.

So will you go on the record supporting polygamy? . . . Nah, hell, I give up. Since you and others have refused to address it despite my repeated requests to do so, I will answer for you:

Meanasasnake and et all: "No, I don't support polygamy! Why? Because it is WRONG. It is morally reprehensible! There is no way that marriage should be granted for more than two people.

To that, I reply, "But, Meany, don't polygamous people have "civil rights" to marry whomever they wish?"

"No," Meany says, "They don't get extra rights. That's just for gay folks."


-----

See, THAT'S why you and others wont' answer. You know the answer would be hypocritical. You know darn well it's wrong but you don't see any way to allow one yet disallow the other. So you simply avoid the polygamy issue, call me a closed minded conservative and avert your eyes from your own hypocrisy.

Hey, at least I can look in the mirror and see a guy who is honest with himself.

quote:

Originally posted by yankeewitch:
GoFish,Go for it!May you and your computer have many happy years together.To each their own.Do what you will, as long as it harms no one else!

Oh, nooo. I can't stop there! I want the GOVERNMENT to recognize and legitimize it. My computer has rights, too!

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Two consenting adults who are not related get married every day in the U.S.

So will you go on the record supporting polygamy? . . . Nah, hell, I give up. Since you and others have refused to address it despite my repeated requests to do so, I will answer for you:

Meanasasnake and et all: "No, I don't support polygamy! Why? Because it is WRONG. It is morally reprehensible! There is no way that marriage should be granted for more than two people.

To that, I reply, "But, Meany, don't polygamous people have "civil rights" to marry whomever they wish?"

"No," Meany says, "They don't get extra rights. That's just for gay folks."


-----

See, THAT'S why you and others wont' answer. You know the answer would be hypocritical. You know darn well it's wrong but you don't see any way to allow one yet disallow the other. So you simply avoid the polygamy issue, call me a closed minded conservative and avert your eyes from your own hypocrisy.

Hey, at least I can look in the mirror and see a guy who is honest with himself.

Fishy - You sound completely nuts. Marrage is only between TWO ( 2, 1+1,a couple) adult individuals in EVERY state in the UNION!! Gay people are asking for the same rights as every other adult couple in this nation. You are babbling about polygamy, which has nothing to do with LEGAL marrage in this nation. Try and get on the same page as the rest of the world.
Polygamy is illegal - marrage between two individuals (not three or more, not seven, not twelve - 2, two, 1+1 = 2) Your argument makes no sense - look in the mirror and tell yourself that. Marrage is between TWO people, that is NOT what the subject here is. Try and stay in reality.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Fishy - You sound completely nuts. Marrage is only between TWO ( 2, 1+1,a couple) adult individuals in EVERY state in the UNION!!

Oh? Says who? The vast majority of Americans (upwards of 80%) do not agree with you there. A majority (upwards of 60%), in fact, would favor a constitutional ban (actually, not a band but a official definition of marriage).

(source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml)

For the past few thousand years, marraige has been defined as between a man and a woman. Quite sudden;y, you want to change that definition to a marriage between two people who love each other.

quote:

Gay people are asking for the same rights as every other adult couple in this nation. [QUOTE]

THEY ALREADY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.


[QUOTE] You are babbling about polygamy, which has nothing to do with LEGAL marrage in this nation. Try and get on the same page as the rest of the world.

The "rest of the world" does not approve, either. You folks keep saying that "it WILL happen" when there is no data to indicate that whatsoever.

[QUOTE]Polygamy is illegal - marrage between two individuals (not three or more, not seven, not twelve - 2, two, 1+1 = 2) Your argument makes no sense [QUOTE]

Gay marriage is not legal, either.

You folks keep saying that marriage is all about love between people - no matter their sex. If it is all about love as you have claimed, then there is nothing that will prevent polygamy, either. If you can't see that, then I give up.

As long as we are talking about ADULT HUMANS, then I guess I'm not against polygamy,either.Whatever,cranks your Tractor!

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by miamizsun:
Who cares? It is a personal choice and none of our business.

I care. I don't give a rip about their sexual preference but when they determine they want extra rights because of their sexual kinks, they pizz me off.

LOL. You obviously do give a rip despite claiming otherwise. The extra/special rights argument is complete bunk. They are merely asking for the same rights.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
It's not equal rights that are being asked for, it is the SAME rights.

Homosexuals want to NOT ONLY have the right to marry the opposite sex, they also want to marry the same sex. That is an ADDITIONAL right.

Once you crack that door, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from marrying whatever they love be it a hamster, dog, cat or favorite sheep.

Since the current law is based on the sexual preferences of heterosexuals, homosexuals simply want the law to include them as opposed to discriminate against them. All persons would have the same rights, not just one set.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Gay people pay taxes, pay into Social Security - its their money, they should be allowed to decide who would benefit from it at their deaths.

No one is prohinited form leaving his entire estate to whomeever he wishes.

You can certainly try to do so, but it can be challenged. The protections marriage convey are automatic and far more powerful. Also, because homosexual couples are denied legal recognitions, things like heathcare, pensions, social security benefits, etc. may not be providible by one partner to another.

Case in point is Michigan where various groups are using their recent marriage amendment to prevent homosexual couples from having healthcare.

Does it make you feel better that you can make other peoples lives more difficult? I simply cannot understand this attitude.

quote:

Also it should be the decision of ANY individual who will be at their bedside when they die, who will inherit property etc. That is actually a very unintrusive, conservative view point. Keep the government OUT of the decisions of two consenting adults and their relationships.

Please. This isn't about keeping the government out. The government doesn't want to come in your bedroom and tell you to stop having anal sex. This is about gay people wanting to legitimize a deviant sexual behavior.
[/quote]

Deviant sexual behavior? Homosexuality is not deviant, it is merely one aspect of human sexuality. A bit of research into the real world would be enlightening. How do you feel about intersexed people? Are they deviant as well? Are they homosexual or straight?

quote:

Again, who cares what consenting adults do behind closed doors? I sure don't. But do not expect me or the government to legitimize this extremely unhealthy, deviant lifestyle . . . At least as it exists between men. Seriously, this is all about men wanting to be able to poke their noses, fingers, tongues and sexual organs into another man's dookey hole! How freaking gross and deviant is THAT?

Why claim that you don't care why consenting adults do behind closed doors when you so obviously do? Or do you not care so long as publicly homosexuals act like heterosexuals?

I never understand the anal fixation that many anti-gay people seem to have. You do realize that there are most likely far more heterosexual people who engage in anal activities than gay men. I think it's reasonable to assume that every single part of the human body has been used in a sexual capacity and that that will continue to the end of time. Sex is a highly personal thing and different things are liked by different folks. Duh.

quote:

And, by the way, I don't have a problem with two women wanting to marry. They make good mommies for lots of adoptable kids and don't do the "in through the out door" sexual deviancy. They can also be artificially impregnated in order to generate more taxpayers. But I don't see how a law could be written to allow that but not allow it between two sick, twisted males.

LOL.
The classic heterosexual male "lesbians are OK, but gays are gross" reasoning. What a complete cognitive disconnect from reality.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
Trust me, most of us are as boring and average as your typical straight couple.

But the fact is this: 60% of all new AIDS cases in the US stem from gay men poking their tallywhacker into the wrong hole.

And this is relevant how? Not following safe-sex practices has nothing to do with sexuality. Worldwide, AIDS is transmitted more by heterosexual sex than homosexual sex. Do you think the US is somehow special the numbers won't eventually change to match the rest of the world? AIDS is a disease. It doesn't care about sexuality at all.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
My philosophy is that if to adults want to be gay in their own house, it's their house so I don't care. I don't have any hatred towards gays and I don't wish them any harm. What I don't like is when gays try to bring it out of their house and shove it into my face saying "ACCEPT THIS!"

So, you don't care so long at homosexuals act like heterosexuals in public, right? But you wish them no harm. Right, forcing them to be something that they aren't simply so you can feel better won't cause them any harm. In fact it'll be good for them!

quote:

To me, gay is gross. I didn't choose to be disgusted by homosexuality, I was just born that way. I get the same physical reaction watching my dog in the yard snacking on her own poop as I do seeing two men making out. I'm simply repulsed by it. The majority of Americans have made it known that they feel the same way. Forcing those repulsed by an action to accept it as normal against their will is simply wrong.

Yet you are perfectly OK with forcing gay people to behave like straight people. Acceptance and tolerance are not the same thing.

quote:

If you're gay, go be gay, have fun, do whatever you want in your house, I don't care. Just don't force me to accept it and keep it out of my face and I'll do my part and make sure you never have to watch my dog eat poop.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
If gays want a civil union for legal reasons, I say let them. I really don't care, just don't call it a marriage. A civil union is blessed by the government, a marriage is blessed by God.

The only thing that bothers me is that if gays started marrying, then some guy can come out and say "I want to marry 3 women at once." Then another guy can say "I want to marry my cousin" (most likely a Vols fan). Then another guy can say "I want to marry my sheep". How can you allow one and say no to the others?

LOL

What about all of the churches who do marry homosexuals. I guess your religion has trademark protection on the word marriage and only those you approve can actually use it.

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
Okay, people with sheep is a bad example. Polygamists is a great example. If we allow to men or two women to marry, how can we say no to a man marrying 2, 3, or a dozen wives? How can we say no to two cousins who want to marry? Edgar Allen Poe married his cousin. What if a guy wanted to marry 3 of his cousins and one was another guy? Can we still say no to this if we yes to two men?

Polygamy is not a great example. Please explain why two men or two women getting married leads to polygamy when a man and women doesn't. History is replete with examples of one man, many women. Even the Bible is OK with that.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by David L.:
I don't wish to continue arguing about this. It is obvious that you don't like gay people so why not just say it?

Whatever . . .

You don't HAVE an answer for the polygamy thing. In fact, everyone seems to have lost the will to debate since that was brought up.

Could it be that you have all seen the hypocrisy of your own stances on the subject?

Could it because they really aren't related and you are merely trying to use a second issue as an argument against the first?

He did answer you. He said he didn't support it.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
There is no state where marrage is extended to more than two individuals of consentual age.

Up until very recently there were nop states that recognized same sex marriage, either. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You still haven't answered the question and your silence on the issue is deafening. Once more time Are you in favor of legally recognized polygamous marriages?

Why or why not?

If meanasasnake answered yes, would you jump to yet another unrelated issue? You seem to have trouble staying on one issue.

Polygamy does not follow logically from gay marriage except for those who use it as a topic to oppose gay marriage.

The same applies to human-animal marriages.

It is simply silly.

quote:

Originally posted by _Joy_:
Yet another reason to have a true proportional flat tax minus loopholes, tax breaks for anything, form after form after form of nonsense, etc. When it got to the point that you have to hire a third party just to file your taxes, they went way past the sanity line. How many arguments would end as a result?

Agree 100%

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by just saying:
I agree. Just as interracial marriage was once frowned upon in our society, Loving vs. Virginia changed the laws on that.

Aw Jesus H Christ! That is the most ludicrous and insensitive statemnt anyone could make. If I were a black person, I'd be fighting mad.

Comparing the gay movement to the equal rights movement is like comparing the holocaust to a boxing match. There IS no comparison.

Gay activists want ADDITIONAL rights, not "equal" rights.

Gee, blacks wanted "additional rights" too didn't they? They could go already go to black places just like whites could go to white places but they wanted the additional right of going to white places too. The nerve.

How exactly are gay rights and civil rights different?

Blacks were harassed, discriminated against, beaten, and killed simply because they were black. The very same things happen to gay people simply because they are gay.

I used to know a guy who was black, but his skin was as white as any caucasian. By the same logic used by many on this forum, he would have been perfectly fine back in the day so long as he was only black at home and was white when he went out.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by just saying:
First off, why would you think blacks would be “fighting mad” about that statement?

Because black people suffered under cruel whips, fire hoses and hundreds of years of horrible, unthinkable hatred just because they have a darker tan than European people. Their leaders were strung from tree limbs or assassinated.

And you claim that the Gay Rights movement is "no different"? That is incredible.

You've got to be kidding right?

Homosexuals have been mistreated far longer than blacks have been. AFAIK no state ever had a law stating that you were to be put to death simply for being black but there were several states that had such laws concerning gay people.

quote:

Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to all citizens by law.

Our Constutution says (in part) that we cannot discriminate against someone for their race. Racism is stupid, illogical and has no place in modern times.

The Gay Rights movement now wasnts to change the constitution to ALSO include "Sexual Preference" as a qualifier for actionalable discrimination. (WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT).
[/quote]

Goodness, how cheeky of them to want to be able live their lives without fear of people like you.

quote:

If you have your way, what is to stop us from also recognizing polygamy as a legitimate right? That is a sexual preference, isn't it? What is to stop us form lowering the age of consent to perhaps 13 so men can marry teenagers? It's a sexual preference, isn't it? What is I prefer to have sex with my computer. It can give "consent" if I tell it to do so. Will I be able to marry my computer?

Heterosexuality is a sexual preference too. Your polygamy strawman is just silly. Why do keep harping on it?

quote:

Gorillas can speak sign language. They can give consent by answering "yes" or "no" to voiced questions. Would that constitutional right also be extended to other species so I can marry a gorilla?

First get them legal standing to give consent and then you can have a debate. More silliness.

quote:

So, you don't care so long at homosexuals act like heterosexuals in public, right? But you wish them no harm. Right, forcing them to be something that they aren't simply so you can feel better won't cause them any harm. In fact it'll be good for them!

So you're saying it's okay to force me to accept something against my will? I have a natural aversion to homosexuality, I can't help it. So you think there must be something wrong with me and I should be exposed to homosexuality against my will regardless of my feelings. How is that logical?

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
[QUOTE]So, you don't care so long at homosexuals act like heterosexuals in public, right? But you wish them no harm. Right, forcing them to be something that they aren't simply so you can feel better won't cause them any harm. In fact it'll

There is absolutely NOTHING you can do about your "aversions" to homosexuals. Get over yourself and move on. Individuals have every right to live their lives as they please within the law and with no concern for your homophobic aversions. Please mind your own business. That is a "conservative" position. People disliked interracial marrage and relationships and they had to learn to live with it - there is no difference.

Your aversions are no more ligitimate than those who might disagree with you. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. If homosexual relationships disgust you - DONT HAVE ONE! How simple is that? Not to mention "conservative". Fear not - you are probably NOT the desire of ANY homosexual you may know.

What I am reading here it that you feel your opinion is more legitimate than those who hold a differing view. How selfish.

The "marrage amdendment" did not even muster a majority in the republican led congress last time around. Don't give me that crap. A majority of Americans do not think getting our your crayons and marking up the Constitution is appropriate when dealing with people you don't like. GROW UP! Your statistical information is flawed.

TSC,
I'm glad you actually came with some scripture back on page 2 of this post...most folks who try to debunk the Bible during a gay debate don't even attempt to come with something like that...so kudos...however you've missed it. Read the following chapter of Lev....It speaks of a woman being "unclean" after child-birth. Does this mean she is "unclean" in God's eyes meaning she has a sinful heart and is destined for Hell... no, it is a health issue..hers, the childs, and those around her(child birth is a very tramatic medical event, and back then they weren't quite as equipped as we are now)
Now wander on to the next chapter..Lev. ch 13, God speaks of the unclean person with leporsy.. now once again, does this mean this person is destined for Hell because he has leporsy.. no, it means he is a threat to the physical health of those around him...Now, you think maybe when God is talking to His people in ch. 11 about what to eat and what not to eat that maybe, just maybe this was to protect His people physically from "unclean" things???? Common sense, one of God's greatest blessings to us, we must use it when reading the Bible.
Now go to Romans chapter 1...start around verse 20 and read it all, but v 25 starts the meat of it.. you'll see "vile affections", "burned in lust", "changing NATURAL use for UNATURAL ones". Very clear that God sees these acts as sinful...unclean of the heart, "changing the truth of God into a lie" v25
As for why heterosexual, sinful sex isn't attacked as strongly is simple...whereas it is an immoral act, in the physical, anotomical sense it is NATURAL and not disgusting

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
TSC,
I'm glad you actually came with some scripture back on page 2 of this post...most folks who try to debunk the Bible during a gay debate don't even attempt to come with something like that...so kudos...however you've missed it. Read the following chapter of Lev....It speaks of a woman being "unclean" after child-birth. Does this mean she is "unclean" in God's eyes meaning she has a sinful heart and is destined for Hell... no, it is a health issue..hers, the childs, and those around her(child birth is a very tramatic medical event, and back then they weren't quite as equipped as we are now)
Now wander on to the next chapter..Lev. ch 13, God speaks of the unclean person with leporsy.. now once again, does this mean this person is destined for Hell because he has leporsy.. no, it means he is a threat to the physical health of those around him...Now, you think maybe when God is talking to His people in ch. 11 about what to eat and what not to eat that maybe, just maybe this was to protect His people physically from "unclean" things???? Common sense, one of God's greatest blessings to us, we must use it when reading the Bible.
Now go to Romans chapter 1...start around verse 20 and read it all, but v 25 starts the meat of it.. you'll see "vile affections", "burned in lust", "changing NATURAL use for UNATURAL ones". Very clear that God sees these acts as sinful...unclean of the heart, "changing the truth of God into a lie" v25
As for why heterosexual, sinful sex isn't attacked as strongly is simple...whereas it is an immoral act, in the physical, anotomical sense it is NATURAL and not disgusting

Since you're so concerned about the NATURAL use of anatomy, please explain how intersex people fit into this picture. Particularly, what about a person with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) which is basically an XY male with testes, but with external female genitalia.

I ask this question over and over in such debates and it is *never* addressed and yet it strikes directly at the heart of such arguments.

The problem is, a person with CAIS or any other intersex condition, like other human beings can be sexually attracted to either males or females. Which attraction is immoral or are both?

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:

quote:

So, you don't care so long at homosexuals act like heterosexuals in public, right? But you wish them no harm. Right, forcing them to be something that they aren't simply so you can feel better won't cause them any harm. In fact it'll be good for them!

So you're saying it's okay to force me to accept something against my will? I have a natural aversion to homosexuality, I can't help it. So you think there must be something wrong with me and I should be exposed to homosexuality against my will regardless of my feelings. How is that logical?

Sorry to tell you but the world is full of things that you won't like. Homosexuals won't go away or hide simply because you don't like them or refuse to accept that they exist. I'm sure that most couldn't care less what you think of them. I'm sure, however, that they do care when you interfere with their lives.

quote:

Sorry to tell you but the world is full of things that you won't like. Homosexuals won't go away or hide simply because you don't like them or refuse to accept that they exist. I'm sure that most couldn't care less what you think of them. I'm sure, however, that they do care when you interfere with their lives.

So they don't care about me but I'm supposed to care about them? It's okay to disrespect my views step all over my beliefs without any regard to my rights? Who gave you the right to force your beliefs on me? How is that right?

logical,

I'd be glad to address it... that is a PHSYICAL medical condition from birth that have obvious psychological ramifications...however, that is a small percentage of births wouldnt you agree? You are attempting to cover a very broad topic with a tiny blanket... thats from the same train of thought that tells us that abortion is ok across the board because of ectopic pregnacies. Ectopic pregnacies occur on occacion and is a medical condition where the fetus grows outside the uterus and must be terminated or the mother will certainly die. This is a horrible tragedy physically and psycologically, however to use that to justify all other pregnancy termination would be absurd.
In the same instance it's absurd to justify homosexuality for everyone who choses despite being born with all the parts just right.

quote:

Originally posted by logical:
Since you're so concerned about the NATURAL use of anatomy, please explain how intersex people fit into this picture.

I'll be happy to address that as soon as you answer a couple of questions:

Do intersex couples have more or less "rights" than "normal" folks?

Are intersex people demanding specials treatment because of their condition?

quote:

Originally posted by logical:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
TSC,
I'm glad you actually came with some scripture back on page 2 of this post...most folks who try to debunk the Bible during a gay debate don't even attempt to come with something like that...so kudos...however you've missed it. Read the following chapter of Lev....It speaks of a woman being "unclean" after child-birth. Does this mean she is "unclean" in God's eyes meaning she has a sinful heart and is destined for Hell... no, it is a health issue..hers, the childs, and those around her(child birth is a very tramatic medical event, and back then they weren't quite as equipped as we are now)
Now wander on to the next chapter..Lev. ch 13, God speaks of the unclean person with leporsy.. now once again, does this mean this person is destined for Hell because he has leporsy.. no, it means he is a threat to the physical health of those around him...Now, you think maybe when God is talking to His people in ch. 11 about what to eat and what not to eat that maybe, just maybe this was to protect His people physically from "unclean" things???? Common sense, one of God's greatest blessings to us, we must use it when reading the Bible.
Now go to Romans chapter 1...start around verse 20 and read it all, but v 25 starts the meat of it.. you'll see "vile affections", "burned in lust", "changing NATURAL use for UNATURAL ones". Very clear that God sees these acts as sinful...unclean of the heart, "changing the truth of God into a lie" v25
As for why heterosexual, sinful sex isn't attacked as strongly is simple...whereas it is an immoral act, in the physical, anotomical sense it is NATURAL and not disgusting

Since you're so concerned about the NATURAL use of anatomy, please explain how intersex people fit into this picture. Particularly, what about a person with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) which is basically an XY male with testes, but with external female genitalia.

I ask this question over and over in such debates and it is *never* addressed and yet it strikes directly at the heart of such arguments.

The problem is, a person with CAIS or any other intersex condition, like other human beings can be sexually attracted to either males or females. Which attraction is immoral or are both?

The condition to which you refer is a type of pseudo-hermaphroditism. If diagnosed at birth, the child would be given, at the appropriate time, extra doses of testosterone (since his testicles would be underdeveloped). An artificial phallus would be constructed from malformed (pseuo-labial) tissue. This would be for cosmetic puposes only, at least at this time. The child in question should be, according to informed sources, attracted to women--his opposite sex. Whether many women would be attracted to him might be the salient question.

I'll be happy to address that as soon as you answer a couple of questions:

Do intersex couples have more or less "rights" than "normal" folks?

Are intersex people demanding specials treatment because of their condition?[/QUOTE]

Still grasping at straws!

quote:

Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Since you're so concerned about the NATURAL use of anatomy, please explain how intersex people fit into this picture. Particularly, what about a person with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) which is basically an XY male with testes, but with external female genitalia.

Let me state this again. I'll say it real slow so y'all can understand it:

I do not care what happens in your bedroom. It is none of my or the government's business. I most certainly care about a thousands-of-year old tradition and lawfully recognized practice of marriage between two heterosexual people. Homosexual marriage is illegal in most states because the majority of the people (that includes me) want it that way.

Most Americans (including me) see homosexuality, bestiality, sadism, masochism, etc and "deviant" forms of sexual behavior. Most will also readily admit that it is a "deviant" behavior. I will agree that "deviant" is a subjective term and will readily admit that deviancy can even be considered normal. The bottom line is that is it none of my business.

Just don't expect the government to legitimize homosexuality any more than they should legitimize any other "abnormal" sexual behavior. You dang sure shouldn't expect the morals of the country to instantly swing your way -- At least not as long as this crap is going on: http://www.geocities.com/sfphototour/gay_parade.html

And whomever it was that accused me of being some sort of Christian fundamentalist or against gay marriage on "Christian" principals: I am an atheist. I oppose gay marriage mainly because of the "Pandora's Box" aspect of it and not necessarily moral grounds (though that does play a part).