Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[von551]

Just curious where you californian CAG's stand if you had to vote on the propostion today. Yes on prop 8 bans same sex marriage, No on prop 8 allows same sex marriage. If you don't know much, educate yourself and realize it's not the proposition the gay-influenced-liberal-media tells you. This is a fork in the road for our state and our nation, for "as california goes, so goes the nation." For more information, go to iprotectmarriage.com (http://www.iprotectmarriage.com/)

If gays have a right to get married, then how can they say a man doesn't have the right to marry his daughter, or a minor, or three women? The same-sex marriage movement has more to do with validation and social respect than legal rights. But the cost to the rest of society is far too much to pay.

If Prop. 8 loses, churches likely will face lawsuits and persecution if they don't perform same-sex ceremonies.
Churches, synagogues, mosques and other centers of worship have beliefs, practices, and traditions they use to determine what heterosexual couples must meet prior to marriage. That isn't bias; that's freedom of religion.
The government doesn't (as of yet) tell faith-based groups who they can...


baptize
confirm
accept for a bar mitzvah
qualify for any other religious function.



If same-sex marriage remains legal, what will happen if a church or religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for individuals that runs contrary to its belief system? If it refuses, it may be accused of discrimination and be subject to a lawsuit. That is not freedom of religion.


Same-sex marriage separates marriage from parenthood. In Norway, where it has been accepted for a decade, marriage has nearly disappeared, and 70 percent of children are born out of wedlock.

In countries where gay marriage is legal, the average gay man has six partners per year outside of their same-sex marriage. And the average marriage lasts less than two years.

Children from fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 70% of long-term prison inmates, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youth prisoners, and 90% of runaways.

Prop. 8 protects and strengthens society by promoting marriage between a man and a woman.
Simply put, traditional marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We're not making it up; public health statistics confirm this. That's just another reason why Prop. 8 needs to be passed.
Take just one example: Men in traditional marriages are way better off than unmarried men.


They live longer: Unmarried men have a 250% higher mortality rate.
They're happier: The latest data show that 40% of married people say they are very happy with their life in general, compared with less than 25% of single or cohabitating individuals.
They're richer: Married men earn more too... 10-40% more than single or cohabitating men.

What this means is that fewer of your tax dollars go to pay for social programs caused by unhealthy and unwise living.


For centuries, marriage as a legal, civil and religious institution between a man and a woman has protected children and society in every country and culture.
In March 7, 2000, 61% of California voters passed Proposition 22 — to keep marriage between a man and a woman. [1]
On Aug. 8, 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 53% of new HIV infections in 2006 occurred in gay or bisexual men. More infections occurred among young people under 30 (aged 13–29) than any other age group (34%, or 19,200). African Americans, while comprising 13% of the US population, accounted for 45% of the new HIV infections in 2006. [3] [4]

[Xevious]

I have nothing against gay people getting married.

It doesn't affect me..

[SpazX]

I've never seen someone throw so many unrelated statistics into a discussion...

[DarkSageRK]

If interracial couples have a right to get married, then how can they say a man doesn't have the right to marry his daughter, or a minor, or three women? The interracial marriage movement has more to do with validation and social respect than legal rights. But the cost to the rest of society is far too much to pay.

Oh, I get it now. How could I have ever been so blind?

[docvinh]

I've never seen someone throw so many unrelated statistics into a discussion...

This, and good luck with this discussion.

[RAMSTORIA]

i like it, but i dont like it.

[KingBroly]

They're doing it in an effort to overturn the California's Supreme Court ruling earlier in the year. Even if it passes, the California Supreme Court will probably say it doesn't count (it's been done before)


If Prop. 8 loses, churches likely will face lawsuits and persecution if they don't perform same-sex ceremonies.
Churches, synagogues, mosques and other centers of worship have beliefs, practices, and traditions they use to determine what heterosexual couples must meet prior to marriage. That isn't bias; that's freedom of religion.


Quoted for emphasis.

[Paco]

I voted no. But i do believe they are fucking stupid if they want to get married. I just hope they get ram rodded by those stupid divorce laws and realize that they willingly gulped down that shit sandwich.

[SpazX]

KingBroly and OP, I don't see how prop 8 protects churches from have lawsuits brought against them. Are they currently being sued for it? There are always a few assholes who are going to be dicks about it and sue some church, but allowing gay people to get married won't force any churches to perform them.

Could I, as a straight person, force any church to perform a marriage for me?

[docvinh]

KingBroly and OP, I don't see how prop 8 protects churches from have lawsuits brought against them. Are they currently being sued for it? There are always a few assholes who are going to be dicks about it and sue some church, but allowing gay people to get married won't force any churches to perform them.

Could I, as a straight person, force any church to perform a marriage for me?

I was actually wondering this myself. They don't have to marry you even if you don't belong to the faith, right?

[KingBroly]

KingBroly and OP, I don't see how prop 8 protects churches from have lawsuits brought against them. Are they currently being sued for it? There are always a few assholes who are going to be dicks about it and sue some church, but allowing gay people to get married won't force any churches to perform them.

Could I, as a straight person, force any church to perform a marriage for me?

He's saying that if prop 8 fails, this will happen. Currently, gay marriage is allowed in California because of the California Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year. The fear by some is that if Gay marriage is legal, gay couples will want to get married in churches that don't allow it, and those people will sue in order to get married there or else that church could not hand out marriage licenses AT ALL.

[SpazX]

He's saying that if prop 8 fails, this will happen. Currently, gay marriage is allowed in California because of the California Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year. The fear by some is that if Gay marriage is legal, gay couples will want to get married in churches that don't allow it, and those people will sue in order to get married there or else that church could not hand out marriage licenses AT ALL.

And I'm saying - is that a rational fear?

Can churches not currently deny marriages to whoever they want? Can you sue a synagogue for not performing a christian marriage? You can get a marriage license from the state, so I don't see why any particular church is obligated to give one to anybody. Besides that, I'd think that most gay people who are religious and attend a church and intend to get married probably attend one that would marry them anyway.

[HotShotX]

Gays and Lesbians are entitled to the same happiness and unhappiness marriage brings. As for preserving the "sanctity" of marriage between a man and a woman, perhaps this would actually be a valid argument if straight couples weren't fucking it up 50% of the time and getting divorced. You cannot play the "Holier than thou" card the same time you play the "Do as I say, not as I do" card, God will Mana Burn the shit out of you.

As for the churches, gay marriage falls under the same guidelines: It is the CHURCH'S decision to accept and perform the marriage ceremony. Any law regarding this would only GRANT A MARRIAGE LICENSE, the ceremony itself falls under the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Just as a Jewish temple has the right to turn away a Muslim marriage, so does a Christian church have the right to refuse a gay marriage, but they are all entitled to have their marriage recognized by the state, even if a ceremony does not accompany it. It is up to the couple to find a church that works for them, not threaten to sue for discrimination (which would be thrown out).

As for every other worthless fear-mongering statistic you threw into your argument, let's get one thing clear: There WILL be a day when gay marriage is the norm, and when that day comes, and the world has not ended, will you still be blaming shitty marriage statistics on them, or will you look your wife in the eyes and start wondering if your intolerance and ignorance is leading you down the path of failure?

If you can't even fathom the idea everyone in this world deserves a chance at love and happiness regardless of their origins or beliefs, as long as they do not take it away from others, how the hell can you even think for a second that your own love life is a success?

You cannot have what you do not wish upon others.

~HotShotX

[Koggit]

I'll have to remember to come back to this thread when I'm in a bad mood. Ripping apart posts like that (OP) makes me feel better. When I'm in a decent mood, though, I just can't make myself care enough to bother.

[thrustbucket]

Didn't the California supreme court already prove that propositions don't matter? What's the point of this merry-go-round legislation?

[Cheese]

f gays have a right to get married, then how can they say a man doesn't have the right to marry his daughter, or a minor, or three women? The same-sex marriage movement has more to do with validation and social respect than legal rights. But the cost to the rest of society is far too much to pay

Marrying your daughter would constitute incest, illegal; minors don't have the right of consent, so that nixes that one (also goes for Santorum's fave claim that gay marriage would lead to men marrying sheep, sheep can't say, "I Do!" - something fishy about that guy). It does bring up the issue of Polyamory, but as long as the marriage laws still say marriage is between two individuals, no harm, no foul.

Massachusetts has had gay marriage for what? Four years? I haven't heard of any churches being sued or any of the complaints you've brought up. The world didn't end, the legal system hasn't been bogged down, no one tried to marry their daughter - or son for that matter - and no one married a sheep.

As long as i don't wake up after a night out drinking married to Dave the bartender, I have no problem with same sex marriage.

PS - Lesbians are awesome, just thought I'd float that out there.

[mykevermin]

If you don't know much, educate yourself and realize it's not the proposition the gay-influenced-liberal-media tells you.

What kinda fuckin' Candy Land are you living in, pal?

EDIT: You forgot legalizing marrying your dog and cats, too. That's totally gonna happen.

[Mr Unoriginal]

What kinda fuckin' Candy Land are you living in, pal?

EDIT: You forgot legalizing marrying your dog and cats, too. That's totally gonna happen.

If we were able to marry our dogs maybe we wouldn't have to stock up on so much peanut butter.

[thespamofpower]

If Prop. 8 loses, churches likely will face lawsuits and persecution if they don't perform same-sex ceremonies.
Churches, synagogues, mosques and other centers of worship have beliefs, practices, and traditions they use to determine what heterosexual couples must meet prior to marriage. That isn't bias; that's freedom of religion.
The government doesn't (as of yet) tell faith-based groups who they can...


baptize
confirm
accept for a bar mitzvah
qualify for any other religious function.

If same-sex marriage remains legal, what will happen if a church or religious institution refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for individuals that runs contrary to its belief system? If it refuses, it may be accused of discrimination and be subject to a lawsuit. That is not freedom of religion.

You're confusing a religious marriage and a legal marriage. You can be married without involving any religion at all. Lifting a legal ban affects religious groups in no way whatsoever (at least in the way that you claim). Since churches are considered private institutions (I think they are anyway), they can refuse to marry any one they want to.


Same-sex marriage separates marriage from parenthood. In Norway, where it has been accepted for a decade, marriage has nearly disappeared, and 70 percent of children are born out of wedlock.
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Levon/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg
In countries where gay marriage is legal, the average gay man has six partners per year outside of their same-sex marriage. And the average marriage lasts less than two years.
This sounds like a fact from the well trusted 'out of my ass' university and I'm not going to touch it.


Children from fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 70% of long-term prison inmates, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youth prisoners, and 90% of runaways.
Has nothing to do with gay marriage as all those stats are from (if not made up) 'fatherless homes' as in single mother. It has no relevance to a same sex married couple. As far as I know, there has been no studies done on the effect of same sex parents on a child.


Prop. 8 protects and strengthens society by promoting marriage between a man and a woman.
Simply put, traditional marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We're not making it up; public health statistics confirm this. That's just another reason why Prop. 8 needs to be passed.
Traditional marriages have roughly a 50% failure rate in this country. Are you going to claim that this is because gay people want to marry?


Take just one example: Men in traditional marriages are way better off than unmarried men.


They live longer: Unmarried men have a 250% higher mortality rate.
They're happier: The latest data show that 40% of married people say they are very happy with their life in general, compared with less than 25% of single or cohabitating individuals.
They're richer: Married men earn more too... 10-40% more than single or cohabitating men.

What this means is that fewer of your tax dollars go to pay for social programs caused by unhealthy and unwise living.
So you're saying that men are happier when married? Then why would you not want them to be able to marry each other? Who says that the same effects wouldn't pass on to them?


For centuries, marriage as a legal, civil and religious institution between a man and a woman has protected children and society in every country and culture.
Not true, but whatever.


In March 7, 2000, 61% of California voters passed Proposition 22 — to keep marriage between a man and a woman. [1]
On Aug. 8, 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 53% of new HIV infections in 2006 occurred in gay or bisexual men. More infections occurred among young people under 30 (aged 13–29) than any other age group (34%, or 19,200). African Americans, while comprising 13% of the US population, accounted for 45% of the new HIV infections in 2006. [3] [4]I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with these stats. Californians passed a similar law back in 2000, but this has no bearing on your argument. Many things change in 8 years. The majority of new infections are found in homosexuals. This makes sense since homosexuals make up roughly 55% of all cases of AIDS through 2006. Source (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm) However, even though they make up that much of the AIDS population, that's still only roughly 1/2 million people. Hardly that threatening to even the rest of the roughly 4-5% of people that are gay in the United States (% pulled from Wikipedia. I know, but I couldn't find any stats on number of gay men in the united states). 4% of 300 million is 12 million. 0.5 million is roughly 4% of the gay population. Not exactly a huge number.

[javeryh]

HotShotX dropped some knowledge all over this retarded thread. The "facts" in the OP are hilarious though so thanks for that...

[speedracer]

And I'm saying - is that a rational fear?

Can churches not currently deny marriages to whoever they want? Can you sue a synagogue for not performing a christian marriage? You can get a marriage license from the state, so I don't see why any particular church is obligated to give one to anybody. Besides that, I'd think that most gay people who are religious and attend a church and intend to get married probably attend one that would marry them anyway.
Yes, religious organizations can deny a religious ceremony to anyone they choose, and gay marriage will have zero affect on the ability of religious organizations to choose how to exercise their religion. The Catholics require legal statements from friends of party attesting to their faith and religious viewpoints. Without these, Catholics will deny even Catholics marriage in their churches.

Any suit would receive swift and painful summary judgment against the plaintiff. They'd be thrown out of court.

If there is another outlet that satisfies the legal requirement, then original outlets are absolved (as long as they aren't governmental). For example, since a courthouse can issue a marriage license, churches are not obligated to act as such. The license is the key issue, not the ceremony. Religious people opposed to gay marriage don't seem to understand this very fundamental issue of law... or they're lying in order to whip up opposition.

I leave the judgment of their actions (liars or misinformed) to you.

The same-sex marriage movement has more to do with validation and social respect than legal rights.
Which makes your choice to attempt to deny their legal rights that much more... puzzling. If you stuck to denying validation and social respect, you'd garner more support from those that may see you viewpoint but haven't denied the supremacy of the Constitution.

The government doesn't (as of yet) tell faith-based groups who they can...


baptize
confirm
accept for a bar mitzvah
qualify for any other religious function.

They need only not accept federal funds if they wish to remain independent. Is it too much to ask welfare churches to modify their behavior? Should a church that accepts my tax money (and they do) be allowed to do so without strings attached?

Prop. 8 protects and strengthens society by promoting marriage between a man and a woman.
Simply put, traditional marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We're not making it up; public health statistics confirm this. That's just another reason why Prop. 8 needs to be passed.
Take just one example: Men in traditional marriages are way better off than unmarried men.

I've heard this logic before... where was it? Oh, right. It went something like this:

Prop. 8 protects and strengthens society by promoting marriage between a white man and a white woman.
Simply put, traditional race marriage is better for us, mentally, physically and psychologically. We're not making it up; public health statistics confirm this. That's just another reason why Prop. 8 needs to be passed.
Take just one example: Men in traditional race marriages are way better off than mixed race marriages.

Well this is fun! Let's look at the lower court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the one that denied the "right" to interracial marriage and see if we see any similarities with the OP's logic:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.
Somehow, God has changed his mind in the last 8 years (Alabama's anti-interracial laws came off the books in 2000). Crazy how that works huh?

[depascal22]

Wait a minute. I saw something in a quote about how the OP was saying something about interracial marriage and compared it to incest and polygamy but then I go back to the OP and it's gone.

Now I see more about Almighty God and not wanting them to mix. Then why the hell did Europeans colonize the Americas and ship mad Black people over to do slave work? If God didn't want us to mingle, then why did the Americas become a true melting pot?

[trq]

I'll have to remember to come back to this thread when I'm in a bad mood. Ripping apart posts like that (OP) makes me feel better. When I'm in a decent mood, though, I just can't make myself care enough to bother.

PS - Lesbians are awesome, just thought I'd float that out there.

If we were able to marry our dogs maybe we wouldn't have to stock up on so much peanut butter.

Between you guys and HotShot and Spaz and TheSpamofpower, this is one of the best threads in ages.

Wait a minute. I saw something in a quote about how the OP was saying something about interracial marriage and compared it to incest and polygamy but then I go back to the OP and it's gone.

Well, that tends to happen when someone makes a ridiculous post and people who are far, far more knowledgeable show up and proceed to mud-hole stomp the shit out of his or her stupid-ass opinion.

[RAMSTORIA]

the interracial comment was someone changing the OPs words, the OP has not been edited.

[homeland]

Is Mccain running the Prop 8 campaign too? Because all I see is B.S.

[RAMSTORIA]

Is Mccain running the Prop 8 campaign too? Because all I see is B.S.

OMG LOL :):D:lol::applause:

[The Crotch]

I'll have to remember to come back to this thread when I'm in a bad mood. Ripping apart posts like that (OP) makes me feel better. When I'm in a decent mood, though, I just can't make myself care enough to bother.
Spam and Speed and... well, really, a lot of people did damn good jobs, but I get the feeling that you'll be angrier and possibly a little drunk when you finally get around to making good on that threat, so I eagerly anticipate this post.

[DarkSageRK]

Wait a minute. I saw something in a quote about how the OP was saying something about interracial marriage and compared it to incest and polygamy but then I go back to the OP and it's gone.

You're probably referring to my post.

I simply switched out "same-sex" with "interracial" to make a point.

[lilboo]

Bottom line: If you vote for this, then you have no respect for human life and I hope your children end up being gay so you can be labled as a horrible parent and a horrible person.

[thrustbucket]

Human life? What does it have to do with Human life? Don't you mean Human rights?

[depascal22]

I really wish people would stop trying to legislate other people's private behavior. I just want to know who is honestly threatened by gay people getting married? Anyone?

If someone invites me to a wedding, I'm there with bells and whistles. Who cares if it's two dudes, two girls, or a guy and a girl. It's a wedding! C'mon. Who doesn't like an open bar and a DJ playing the Humpty Dance followed by Nat King Cole's Unforgettable?

[mykevermin]

Plus the economy could be saved by the increase in weddings and divorces!

[Koggit]

It's hilarious how conservatives only care about choice when it doesn't involve choosing to go against the Bible.

That's our constitutional right!!

Wait.. you can't do that, the Bible says so!!

[GuilewasNK]

Gay people should be able to marry (and be in the military for that matter). They have the right to pursue happiness as much as anyone else and it's more than ridiculous that people can't see that. Gay people marrying has nothing to do with the marriage of straight couples despite what some people think.

George Takei had to wait until his 70's to get married and it would be an utter shame if things are reversed now.

[JMEPO]

Stupid ass conservatives... Leave gay people alone!

[Access_Denied]

I don't really care if gay people get married. But if they do, they'll turn more people gay. And I don't want more gay people. Not that I don't like gay people, I just think it should be men and women together. So, I don't know. I'm teetering on the edge.

[lilboo]

Human life? What does it have to do with Human life? Don't you mean Human rights?

No I mean LIFE. People need to respect PEOPLE and leave other people alone--THIS does NOT concern anyone except for gay people, everyone else DOES NOT QUALIFY TO HAVE AN OPINION. Who the FUCK is ANYONE to say "THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED!"? Hmm? No one. I know your Thrusbucket and you will go on a big rant and end up talking about polygamy, but the truth is: Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong and a bad person. [-(

I don't really care if gay people get married. But if they do, they'll turn more people gay. And I don't want more gay people. Not that I don't like gay people, I just think it should be men and women together. So, I don't know. I'm teetering on the edge.

You HAVE to be joking.
Right?
Oh dear GOD, please tell me you said that for the lulz...

Yeah. We have secret underground meetings and we have contests on how many straight people we can convert. The contests run quarterly. Gay marriage is not about us having equal rights; it's about trying to win a contest.

..PLEASE be kidding!!

[thrustbucket]

No I mean LIFE. People need to respect PEOPLE and leave other people alone--THIS does NOT concern anyone except for gay people, everyone else DOES NOT QUALIFY TO HAVE AN OPINION. Who the FUCK is ANYONE to say "THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED!"? Hmm? No one. I know your Thrusbucket and you will go on a big rant and end up talking about polygamy, but the truth is: Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong and a bad person. [-(

You are still talking about human rights. Nobody is dying, thus it's not a human life issue.


That's not to devalue it's importance, but there is a difference.

[lilboo]

It is very much a human rights issue. Of course it is.

But doesn't that go with respect for PEOPLE? It hits both. It's against rights we have as humans and it just disrespects people.

[homeland]

Liboo your abit biased on the issue, let us straight people discuss and figure out whats right for your type.

[lilboo]

:wall:

[RAMSTORIA]

:wall:

typical reaction of those people

[mykevermin]

:rofl:

homeland's a jokin, toots.

[thrustbucket]

It is very much a human rights issue. Of course it is.

But doesn't that go with respect for PEOPLE? It hits both. It's against rights we have as humans and it just disrespects people.

Oh.

So you do respect polygamists.






;)

[lilboo]

:rofl:

homeland's a jokin, toots.

:lol: I know!!

Oh.

So you do respect polygamists.






;)


:rofl: Hate you.
But I do! <3 Polygamists

[Koggit]

THIS does NOT concern anyone except for gay people

Disagreed.

Really, there are two fights to be had here:

(1) Gays against religion -- gays can try to convince bible thumpers that being gay isn't a sin. IMO there's no right or wrong here... people of faith will always believe wacky things, there's no changing that.

(2) Non-bible thumpers against the government -- we need to convince our politicians that marriage, as a religious tradition, should in no way be recognized by the state or country as independent of a civil union. Our government should recognize unions, and those unions should neither be restricted by gender, race, nor sexuality. Marriage should never enter play here, and there should be nothing in our laws giving marriage special attention.


Both fights should be cared about by more than just gays.

[SpazX]

I don't really care if gay people get married. But if they do, they'll turn more people gay. And I don't want more gay people. Not that I don't like gay people, I just think it should be men and women together. So, I don't know. I'm teetering on the edge.

:rofl:

Don't talk to lilboo man, you'll be gay in seconds!

[JJSP]

I didn't even know this was on the ballot in CA, but now I know to vote against it.

Thanks OP!

[blandstalker]

:rofl:

Don't talk to lilboo man, you'll be gay in seconds!

It happened to me.

Well, maybe it was Cho Aniki.

[GuilewasNK]

It happened to me.

Well, maybe it was Cho Aniki.


Bah, everyone knows it was Bridget.

[The Crotch]

Should've listened to 'em... (http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/22_single_player.html?archive/jan_28/jan28_3)

[depascal22]

I wish Bible-thumpers would spend more time trying to figure out how to help people instead of dividing them into the Christians and everyone else.

Prayer in school, gay marriage, ten commandments in courthouses all comes down to people of religion's need to get people to say that they're right.

[mykevermin]

Shame the OP didn't make the poll so we could see who the five tight-lipped bigots are who voted yes.

[depascal22]

You can blame some of it on upbringing. If hate is constantly taught in the house, then you will feel it's normal or justified.

In rural parts of Indiana, gays and blacks are still demonized. The Confederacy is looked at with rose colored lenses and kids like to fly the Confederate flag from their trucks. As long as you have retards raising kids, we'll continue to have retards.

[GuilewasNK]

You can blame some of it on upbringing. If hate is constantly taught in the house, then you will feel it's normal or justified.

In rural parts of Indiana, gays and blacks are still demonized. The Confederacy is looked at with rose colored lenses and kids like to fly the Confederate flag from their trucks. As long as you have retards raising kids, we'll continue to have retards.


It's like Chris Rock said, it doesn't makes sense to hate because whoever you hate will end up in your family.

[depascal22]

It's like Chris Rock said, it doesn't makes sense to hate because whoever you hate will end up in your family.

That's why I love to go to my wife's family get togethers. They don't have a problem with me because I speak the language. It's funny because, after a drinks, they forget I'm there. Then it's $$$$er this $$$$er that and Hispanics are the root of all evil.

[GuilewasNK]

That's why I love to go to my wife's family get togethers. They don't have a problem with me because I speak the language. It's funny because, after a drinks, they forget I'm there. Then it's $$$$er this $$$$er that and Hispanics are the root of all evil.

Yeah, family plays a big part. I had more than one occasion in high school where a girl really liked me but couldn't go out with me because I was black. I was mildy amused at that.

[depascal22]

That happened to me in Georgia. I had just moved there after living in California and on military installations in Germany and Arizona. I asked this cute red head if she wanted to go to a movie and she got this horrified look on her face like the South African in Lethal Weapon 2..."But, but.....you're black..."

[lilboo]

I want to make a shirt that says "GAY is the new BLACK"
I'll make MILLIONS!...or..pennies!

[depascal22]

Damn. I was just thinking the same thing. We could go into business but..but...you're gay....



j/k

[lilboo]

: (

[depascal22]

Dude. Don't get offended. I was just riffing on my earlier comment about the red head.

[lilboo]

:rofl: I'm not, ass

[Access_Denied]

No I mean LIFE. People need to respect PEOPLE and leave other people alone--THIS does NOT concern anyone except for gay people, everyone else DOES NOT QUALIFY TO HAVE AN OPINION. Who the FUCK is ANYONE to say "THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED!"? Hmm? No one. I know your Thrusbucket and you will go on a big rant and end up talking about polygamy, but the truth is: Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong and a bad person. [-(



You HAVE to be joking.
Right?
Oh dear GOD, please tell me you said that for the lulz...

Yeah. We have secret underground meetings and we have contests on how many straight people we can convert. The contests run quarterly. Gay marriage is not about us having equal rights; it's about trying to win a contest.

..PLEASE be kidding!!
I didn't say that. But once gay marriage becomes more accepted, then it'll be more common for people to be gay. No because you're convincing them, but just because little kids will see it an act that way. And like I said, nothing against gay people personally, but I just think marriage is between a man and woman. I'm trying to look at both sides of the situation, but I guess I'm just too biased.

[Dr Mario Kart]

That assumes that sexuality is a choice, which its not. It wont be more common for people to be gay in that scenario, but it might be more common for it to come out in the open.

[Koggit]

I didn't say that. But once gay marriage becomes more accepted, then it'll be more common for people to be gay. No because you're convincing them, but just because little kids will see it an act that way. And like I said, nothing against gay people personally, but I just think marriage is between a man and woman. I'm trying to look at both sides of the situation, but I guess I'm just too biased.

Wait... what? You either mean:

(1) More people will be open about their sexuality.

or

(2) More people will choose to be gay.



If 1, what's the problem with that? If 2, you're an idiot and I'm sorry for wasting my time responding to you.

[lilboo]

I didn't say that. But once gay marriage becomes more accepted, then it'll be more common for people to be gay. No because you're convincing them, but just because little kids will see it an act that way. And like I said, nothing against gay people personally, but I just think marriage is between a man and woman. I'm trying to look at both sides of the situation, but I guess I'm just too biased.

Because kids see gay people, they will act gay? No no. It doesn't work that way. You are born that way. You do not choose to be gay nor are raised to be gay. It doesn't work that way.

I think people need to stop using "kids" as an excuse to everything. They are going to grow up and realize what the world is eventually, why must we hide it from them? In fact, it's probably more damaging to not tell kids about stuff and have them find out on their own.

Basically put it this way: If more people were accepting of gays, we wouldn't have people such as yourself having those kind of opinions.

[mykevermin]

Normalization of homosexuality is the point, access.

It's not something to be fearful of or hostile towards, or worried your kids will turn out to be.

It's just a sexual preference.

[Layziebones]

I think it is damn ridiculous that the six people have any say over what someone else does. You shouldn't care what someone else does as long as it doesn't affect you. If someone wants to marry in the same gender, good for them. It is their business and not ours and definetely not the states decision.

[thrustbucket]

That assumes that sexuality is a choice, which its not.

That's assuming there is scientific evidence to back up that statement, and there isn't.

Are you really going to suggest that nobody "switches sides" out of any other reason other being "born that way"?

[Dr Mario Kart]

What are you looking for exactly?

Google "brain differences homosexuality"

People can make up any number of reasons for switching sides, but yes, thats exactly what I'm suggesting. That doesnt mean that people wont experiment with something that is different from their original inclinations.

[thrustbucket]

I did. I got a wide selection of articles. The third (http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html)of which corroborates what I already thought.

You can change brain behavior, almost entirely, through lifestyle in a variety of things. Google brain differences and monks. You can notice brain differences in the celibate, does that mean they were born sexually inert or is it a choice? There is a swath of research on how the brain changes drastically after blindness.

There is no definitive study that has found the homosexual gene yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, the research has just started. But I always roll my eyes when people act as if things are common knowledge, that are more just common assumption.

I'm not even arguing against homosexual rights. But introducing mythology into the argument isn't going to help them, if that's your goal.

[Dr Mario Kart]

If homosexuality were in any way an honest choice, I would have to agree with Access. There is a lot that goes with accepting that it is a choice. If you dont want your kids to be ____, and you think thats a choice, then you better damn well want your kids shielded from whatever ____ is.

For the record, biological =/= heritable. For instance, if there is something in the womb environment that leaves a male with a more feminized brain, thats not genetic/heritable. I fully believe that its a nearly 100% born at situation. How much, if any, is genetic is another matter entirely.

[thrustbucket]

For the record, biological =/= heritable. For instance, if there is something in the womb environment that leaves a male with a more feminized brain, thats not genetic/heritable. I fully believe that its a nearly 100% born at situation. How much, if any, is genetic is another matter entirely.

That very well could be the case. Maybe some day science will prove you right.

But you have to admit that many environmental factors after the womb help formulate sexual behavior later in life. There are countless studies showing so. So how much is before you are born and how much is after, is all highly up for debate and likely very relative.

But that's all really besides the point when it comes to ensuring someone's quality of life, as the OP is about.

[mykevermin]

But you have to admit that many environmental factors after the womb help formulate sexual behavior later in life. There are countless studies showing so. So how much is before you are born and how much is after, is all highly up for debate and likely very relative.

It's a real treat to see you type something like this. Now keep extending that line of thought into the postnatal years of someone's life, and you'll really be cookin'!

[depascal22]

There is scientific evidence that boys with older brothers are more likely to be gay. They didn't go far enough to prove whether it was because conditions in the womb or after. There hasn't been a study for girls though.

[dmaul1114]

You shouldn't care what someone else does as long as it doesn't affect you.

That's it in a nut shell and covers just about every social non-issue that's made a big deal of in our society.

[homeland]

not sure what any heterosexual male would choose to put things up their butt... it must hurt like hell.l

[GuilewasNK]

I'd like to think that with 6 billion humans, that it is reasonable that some people are born gay and some, as a choice, try it and prefer it or like it enough to continue, some try it and don't like it.

not sure what any heterosexual male would choose to put things up their butt... it must hurt like hell.l

Well, from what I have read, prostate massages feel good.

[lilboo]

If gays did not exist, think about how even MORE overpopulated the world would be. O_O
Gays & ugly people exist to keep from having children. It's all about balance.

So, what I'm trying to say is, WE are doing YOU all a favor. It's time to repay us.

[depascal22]

Believe it or not. It's actually good for a straight man to move to San Francisco or Minneapolis. Less competition.

[thrustbucket]

It's a real treat to see you type something like this. Now keep extending that line of thought into the postnatal years of someone's life, and you'll really be cookin'!

Oh I've never denied the importance of environmental effects to shape someone's behavior. How much it should excuse that behavior, or how little choice factors in is the real debate.

[homeland]

If gays get marriage..straight guys should at least get fashion sense.. We need to negotiate with the gays..just don't give them something for nothing..

[GuilewasNK]

If gays did not exist, think about how even MORE overpopulated the world would be. O_O
Gays & ugly people exist to keep from having children. It's all about balance.

So, what I'm trying to say is, WE are doing YOU all a favor. It's time to repay us.


Not to mention each gay guy is one less I have to compete with for a woman. Of course, homophobic people are too stupid to realize that.

Believe it or not. It's actually good for a straight man to move to San Francisco or Minneapolis. Less competition.


Beat me to it.

[dmaul1114]

Not to mention each gay guy is one less I have to compete with for a woman. Of course, homophobic people are too stupid to realize that.


Well, of course logically speaking that's offset by each lesbian being one less woman you have the chance to compete for. :D

[RAMSTORIA]

Well, of course logically speaking that's offset by each lesbian being one less woman you have the chance to compete for. :D

bi people have the best odds.

[GuilewasNK]

Well, of course logically speaking that's offset by each lesbian being one less woman you have the chance to compete for. :D


Ah yes, but many a straight man won't care as long as he can watch. :lol:

[depascal22]

Ah yes, but many a straight man won't care as long as he can watch. :lol:

Hellz yeah. Besides, most of the lesbians I've met were a little off. Not that I'm discriminating against lesbians but most weren't my cup of tea in the first place.

[von551]

ok, so, let me first start off by saying that two of my best friends are lesbians and i support them as humans and they're some of the best people I've made friends with. Now, that doesn't mean I support their lifestyle, I can't. Why? Because that's how much I care for them. Would you support a friend's addiction to heroin or let a friend drink themselves to death with alcohol without intervening?

I live in San Diego, a few blocks from Hillcrest, which is a HUGE epicenter for the GLBT community, probably only second to SF in California. So, I get a front seat to what goes on. It's funny how those of you crying out for equal rights and human equality are doing just the opposite by voting against this proposition. If you truly do value human life, you'll look at the statistics and see that the gay life style is dangerous. My brother in law is a medic and he's seen a guy come in with the flesh eating bacteria on his groin and penis from having anal sex with men and he lost EVERYTHING, penis, balls and all. That's just ONE example, walk into a Hillcrest Hospital and ask a nurse what they see on a daily basis, and you'll be horrified. It's a lifestyle of sensuality and perversion, you know how us guys are. Imagine if we could have sex all the time and girls thought like us, it'd be our ruin, that's what homosexual men have at their disposal. Now, how is that a lifestyle to support?

And, don't think for a second that just because you're not gay, or are so far removed from the lifestyle that you should care less and it doesn't affect you if they get to marry. marriage is about a man and a woman pro-creating, not health care, or a ceremony, or social status. if you want to take it a step further, marriage is about a man and woman becoming one, as God intended with Adam and Eve, WOMAN means from the womb of man. If you want to take it even deeper, marriage is a model of our relationship with God. God is the groom and the church, those that believe in Jesus as their savior, is the bride and will be one with God in Heaven. those of you that look at the high percentage of broken marriages can't use that as a crutch to just throw everything out the window and let it get worse by allowing perversion of sex and marriage take place. two wrongs don't make a right. the reason marriage is over 50% divorces is for the same reason we're on the brink of approving same-sex marriage. No body is in contact with God, or what He has in store for their lives, we're so consumed with pleasing ourselves that we set ourselves up for failure, or just give up.

Let's take God, religion, and emotion out of the equation for a second and just look at this from a humanistic perspective and find the stats on what the gay lifestyle is all about.

These are stats from the CDC that wouldn't be released, until recently, because the gay community has so much political power, that it didn't want to admit the high risk of this lifestyle.

-1.4% of women and 2.8% of men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, yet they account for 70% of ALL HIV cases
-Homosexual men are 1000 times more likely to contract AIDs than the general population.
-Homosexual Youths are: 4x more likely to suffer depression, 3x more likely to suffer from anxiety disorder, 4x more likely to experience conduct orders,
4x as likely to commit suicide, 5x more likely to have nicotine addiction, 6x more likely to suffer multiple disorders, 6x more likely to have attempted suicide.
-On average, gay men live 50 years less than straight men, lifestyle removes 20-30 years.
-average married gay person has six partners per year in addition to their same-sex spouse
-75% of self-identified gay men have had 100+ partners in their lifetime
-married gay men are 50% more likely to divorce within 8 years than heterosexual couples
-gay women are 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples

This is more a struggle between us, the people, and the government and even deeper the devil. They're trying to strangle the free speech and power of the church, yeah the same establishment that also upholds murder, stealing, lying, etc., as being wrong as well. It's funny how everyone wants to remove the church from school, work, etc., yet they agree with the basic laws that it provided our world. What happens when we start making our own moral commandments tailored to our desires? We set our own traps.

You don't believe me the gay lobby/government is against the church? Examples:
-There are already preachers in Canada, Belgium, Italy and around the world being arrested for teaching the Bible because it teaches against homosexual lifestyles by law because it's considered hate speech.

- In New Jersey, a church loses their tax exemption as a church because they won't marry a same-sex couple. Oct. 2007

-In Massachusetts, Catholic Charity Organization is forced out of adoption business in 100 years because it won't adopt to a gay couple.


These are a few examples and there's no reason to turn a blind eye to what's happening.

Any of you have kids? If none of the above provoked any reason to shut down this proposition, maybe this will. Ever heard of Senate Bill SB777? This bill, which was signed in October last year by Schwarzenegger devalues a man and woman's marriage by prohibiting "mommy and daddy" or "husband and wife" terms from being used in the classroom. also, children are now able to use the opposite sex bathrooms if they choose too. so if johnny "feels" like a girl, even though he's biologically a boy, he HAS to be allowed to use the girls' restroom. A school in Massachusetts is reading a book to kindergarten children called "King and King" about a prince that chooses a prince over the princesses offered to him, is this what you want your tax money going to and what you want your five year old exposed to?

If any of you are serious about this issue, watch THIS (http://www.therocksandiego.org/messages/2008-02-10/) video and hopefully you'll understand a little more about what's at stake and why this proposition should not pass.

For all you liberal democrats, read this message from the LA Times from a self-proclaimed liberal democrat. You don't have to be a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-church person to be a democrat. I'm independent myself, so I claim no partisan, I stand on my own judgments and convictions, not a party's.

Protecting marriage to protect children

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
By David Blankenhorn

September 19, 2008

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution -- marriage -- that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."

[mykevermin]

Being gay = being hooked on heroin?

Man, I try to be civil, but you're a blithering fucking idiot.

EDIT: By the way, your "liberal Democrat" David Blankenhorn has been tooting his bigoted horn for 18 years on this subject and this subject alone. He's a liberal Democrat and I'm William Kristol.

[helpdesk22]

-Homosexual Youths are: 4x more likely to suffer depression, 3x more likely to suffer from anxiety disorder, 4x more likely to experience conduct orders,
4x as likely to commit suicide, 5x more likely to have nicotine addiction, 6x more likely to suffer multiple disorders, 6x more likely to have attempted suicide.

Gee, I wonder why?

[The Crotch]

Re: Von's wall-o-text.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3698/dreamssmallvu4.png

That is all.

[JolietJake]

I've never understood why there is any hate directed toward homosexuals. They can't even reproduce, so they're essentially taking themselves out of the gene pool. You'd think the homophobes would be happy about that.

[thespamofpower]

Being gay = being hooked on heroin?

Man, I try to be civil, but you're a blithering fucking idiot.

EDIT: By the way, your "liberal Democrat" David Blankenhorn has been tooting his bigoted horn for 18 years on this subject and this subject alone. He's a liberal Democrat and I'm William Kristol.

I was going to pick von's new post apart, but saying THIS is much easier and takes much less time.

THIS
Oh and i'm in the same area don't even try to use that as a method of bringing credibility.

[DarkSageRK]

I've never understood why there is any hate directed toward homosexuals. They can't even reproduce, so they're essentially taking themselves out of the gene pool. You'd think the homophobes would be happy about that.

They would be if they believed in genes.

[Frogurt.man]

von551

I hope you get hit by a bus. That would be one less fundamentalist prick trying to force his religion down our throats.

[VioletArrows]

I've never understood why there is any hate directed toward homosexuals. They can't even reproduce, so they're essentially taking themselves out of the gene pool. You'd think the homophobes would be happy about that.

Human nature: If it's in any way different from what you personally like and threatens your opinion, hate/attack it with blind, illogical, and unreasonable amounts of wrath of your choice. Don't worry, it's justified somewhere.

[Koggit]

the gay community has so much political power

:rofl:

[lilboo]

ok, so, let me first start off by saying that two of my best friends are lesbians and i support them as humans and they're some of the best people I've made friends with. Now, that doesn't mean I support their lifestyle, I can't. Why? Because that's how much I care for them. Would you support a friend's addiction to heroin or let a friend drink themselves to death with alcohol without intervening?

HOLY CRAP! You're friends are lesbians! You are so accepting! :grouphug:
And yes, a heroin addict and gay are SO on the same page!!! :applause:

If you truly do value human life, you'll look at the statistics and see that the gay life style is dangerous. My brother in law is a medic and he's seen a guy come in with the flesh eating bacteria on his groin and penis from having anal sex with men and he lost EVERYTHING, penis, balls and all. That's just ONE example, walk into a Hillcrest Hospital and ask a nurse what they see on a daily basis, and you'll be horrified. It's a lifestyle of sensuality and perversion, you know how us guys are. Imagine if we could have sex all the time and girls thought like us, it'd be our ruin, that's what homosexual men have at their disposal. Now, how is that a lifestyle to support?

FUN FACT: Straight guys like to fuck their girls in the ass.
FUN FACT: An asshole is the same on both men and women.
FUN FACT: You happen to be an idiot.

What about things that ANYONE can do sexually dangerous? What about straight couples whom are HEAVILY into bondage and end up fuckin each other up?
Also, you mention how gay sex is SO0o0o0o0o dangerous..You actually only mentioned sex between 2 dudes, and on that note I corrected you by informing you straight people fuck each other in the ass--But what about lesbians. If gay sex is so dangerous, what is it that lesbians do dangerous?

And, don't think for a second that just because you're not gay, or are so far removed from the lifestyle that you should care less and it doesn't affect you if they get to marry. marriage is about a man and a woman pro-creating, not health care, or a ceremony, or social status.

So...what about people who are old and never get married..and eventually get married? They can't procreate. What about a hot young couple..the only problem is..one of them is dried up and can't have kids!! :(

Again: You = Flawed

if you want to take it a step further, marriage is about a man and woman becoming one, as God intended with Adam and Eve, WOMAN means from the womb of man. If you want to take it even deeper, marriage is a model of our relationship with God. God is the groom and the church, those that believe in Jesus as their savior, is the bride and will be one with God in Heaven. those of you that look at the high percentage of broken marriages can't use that as a crutch to just throw everything out the window and let it get worse by allowing perversion of sex and marriage take place. two wrongs don't make a right. the reason marriage is over 50% divorces is for the same reason we're on the brink of approving same-sex marriage. No body is in contact with God, or what He has in store for their lives, we're so consumed with pleasing ourselves that we set ourselves up for failure, or just give up.

Sweetie, not everyone is the same religion and share the same religious beliefs. Not everyone get married in a church. Some people want to be married for the legal bond that they are entitled to. God, Jesus, and the Church have no business being in OUR laws. Maybe other countries, but not in this one. Sorry!


-Homosexual Youths are: 4x more likely to suffer depression, 3x more likely to suffer from anxiety disorder, 4x more likely to experience conduct orders,
4x as likely to commit suicide, 5x more likely to have nicotine addiction, 6x more likely to suffer multiple disorders, 6x more likely to have attempted suicide.

This is because of nitwits like YOU trying to make people feel bad and/or guilty about themselves. This is why men get married to the first woman available and spend their marriage cheating on her--WITH men. Because they feel that they can NOT come out of the closest..because of people like YOU.

-On average, gay men live 50 years less than straight men, lifestyle removes 20-30 years.
-average married gay person has six partners per year in addition to their same-sex spouse
-75% of self-identified gay men have had 100+ partners in their lifetime
-married gay men are 50% more likely to divorce within 8 years than heterosexual couples
-gay women are 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples

Lifestyle removes 20-30 years? :rofl: So how come I know gays in their 60s and 70s? Unless the average age IS 100. :shrug:
How is there a statistic for "Married Gay Person" when gays can't marry? :-s
Gay Men have 100+ partners in their lifetime? Ok. What about.. MEN.. in general? The reason why gay men have so much sex is because GUYS are horny. You don't think there are tons of straight guys with 100+ girls in their lifetime? Please. If a guy can fuck it, he WILL fuck it.

Again, how are marriage statistics apart of this? Every couple will be different. Not every couple will last, but every couple has a RIGHT to try and make a relationship last. Look, sorry. You guys have Britney Spears getting married to a random guy for 72 hours. I think YOU people right there ruined what marriage can be entitled to.

This is more a struggle between us, the people, and the government and even deeper the devil.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You don't believe me the gay lobby/government is against the church? Examples:
-There are already preachers in Canada, Belgium, Italy and around the world being arrested for teaching the Bible because it teaches against homosexual lifestyles by law because it's considered hate speech.

IT IS HATE SPEECH YOU TITTY!
The Gay Lobby is against the church BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS AGAINST THE GAYS.
What the hell? You can attack us but we are NOT allowed to fight back? Shove a Bible up your ass.


Any of you have kids? If none of the above provoked any reason to shut down this proposition, maybe this will. Ever heard of Senate Bill SB777? This bill, which was signed in October last year by Schwarzenegger devalues a man and woman's marriage by prohibiting "mommy and daddy" or "husband and wife" terms from being used in the classroom. also, children are now able to use the opposite sex bathrooms if they choose too. so if johnny "feels" like a girl, even though he's biologically a boy, he HAS to be allowed to use the girls' restroom. A school in Massachusetts is reading a book to kindergarten children called "King and King" about a prince that chooses a prince over the princesses offered to him, is this what you want your tax money going to and what you want your five year old exposed to?

First of all, who the FUCK cares where people go take a shit. You go to the restroom to SHIT and PISS. Who the hell cares? It is NOT a big deal, and now you are just pulling stuff out your ass just to make a point.

Oh NOOO!!!! Kids are going to know GAY PEOPLE EXIST!! All that book is showing you that GAYS EXIST: It does not PROMOTE gays, its informative. THERE ARE GAY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. GET. OVER. IT

Oh man. I gotta go to bed, I can't wait to see what this ass clown has to say.
Excuse me, I have to go tell kids I'm gay.. but that's only AFTER I let ass bacteria rot away my cock. :roll:

[bubbafett4hire]

Originally Posted by von551 http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4889622#post4889622)
the gay community has so much political power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nh2C8q8jnM

same guy different video but some good points on the gay community and and funny end about straights which i hate to say is true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brvORXvfN_0

[SpazX]

I should really go to sleep, but I must be a masochist...

ok, so, let me first start off by saying that two of my best friends are lesbians and i support them as humans and they're some of the best people I've made friends with. Now, that doesn't mean I support their lifestyle, I can't. Why? Because that's how much I care for them. Would you support a friend's addiction to heroin or let a friend drink themselves to death with alcohol without intervening?

Yeah yeah, "I have a black friend," "love the sinner, hate the sin" and "fucking a dude in the ass is like shooting heroin." Gotcha.

If you truly do value human life, you'll look at the statistics and see that the gay life style is dangerous.

Fabulously dangerous!

My brother in law is a medic and he's seen a guy come in with the flesh eating bacteria on his groin and penis from having anal sex with men and he lost EVERYTHING, penis, balls and all.

Shoulda worn a rubber. But now he's cured, right?

It's a lifestyle of sensuality and perversion, you know how us guys are. Imagine if we could have sex all the time and girls thought like us, it'd be our ruin, that's what homosexual men have at their disposal. Now, how is that a lifestyle to support?

So is that why people like you always picture two gay dudes and never lesbians? Because you think women don't like sex? Gay guys have jobs and shit man (except lilboo, ya bum), they can't just fuck 24/7.

And, don't think for a second that just because you're not gay, or are so far removed from the lifestyle that you should care less and it doesn't affect you if they get to marry. marriage is about a man and a woman pro-creating, not health care, or a ceremony, or social status.

Blah blah, plenty of people can't procreate and still get legal marriages, no one thinks twice about it and nobody cares, blah blah blah.

If you want to take it even deeper, marriage is a model of our relationship with God. God is the groom and the church, those that believe in Jesus as their savior, is the bride and will be one with God in Heaven.

Yeah, that's kinda gay.

those of you that look at the high percentage of broken marriages can't use that as a crutch to just throw everything out the window and let it get worse by allowing perversion of sex and marriage take place. two wrongs don't make a right. the reason marriage is over 50% divorces is for the same reason we're on the brink of approving same-sex marriage. No body is in contact with God, or what He has in store for their lives, we're so consumed with pleasing ourselves that we set ourselves up for failure, or just give up.

Conservative Christians have the highest divorce rates. I'd guess because they're so weird about sex and don't get to know each other enough before they get married.

Let's take God, religion, and emotion out of the equation for a second and just look at this from a humanistic perspective and find the stats on what the gay lifestyle is all about.

Fabulous stats. Alright, I'm done.

These are stats from the CDC that wouldn't be released, until recently, because the gay community has so much political power, that it didn't want to admit the high risk of this lifestyle.

Ha, yeah, for the past eight years they've used their political power put in the most homosexual friendly administration they could.

-1.4% of women and 2.8% of men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, yet they account for 70% of ALL HIV cases
-Homosexual men are 1000 times more likely to contract AIDs than the general population.

So what do you think that means, exactly? What reason would you give for that (if it's true, I didn't check)?

If gay people have higher STD rates I'd say it's probably because they use less protection. Makes sense to me anyway, afterall it seems people use condoms mainly because of fear of having a kid rather than fear of STDs and gay people don't exactly have to worry about that.

-Homosexual Youths are: 4x more likely to suffer depression, 3x more likely to suffer from anxiety disorder, 4x more likely to experience conduct orders,
4x as likely to commit suicide, 5x more likely to have nicotine addiction, 6x more likely to suffer multiple disorders, 6x more likely to have attempted suicide.

Somebody covered this, but yeah, everybody hating them can't possibly be a motivating factor.

-On average, gay men live 50 years less than straight men, lifestyle removes 20-30 years.

Hahaha, that's made up.

-average married gay person has six partners per year in addition to their same-sex spouse
-75% of self-identified gay men have had 100+ partners in their lifetime
-married gay men are 50% more likely to divorce within 8 years than heterosexual couples
-gay women are 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples

I imagine these aren't American stats. Where are they from?

This is more a struggle between us, the people, and the government and even deeper the devil. They're trying to strangle the free speech and power of the church, yeah the same establishment that also upholds murder, stealing, lying, etc., as being wrong as well. It's funny how everyone wants to remove the church from school, work, etc., yet they agree with the basic laws that it provided our world. What happens when we start making our own moral commandments tailored to our desires? We set our own traps.

I honestly don't even know what the hell that's trying to say. You have to outlaw gay marriage to protect the free speech of the churches? You think murdering, etc. were OK by human standards before Judaism/Christianity existed?

You don't believe me the gay lobby/government is against the church? Examples:
-There are already preachers in Canada, Belgium, Italy and around the world being arrested for teaching the Bible because it teaches against homosexual lifestyles by law because it's considered hate speech.

- In New Jersey, a church loses their tax exemption as a church because they won't marry a same-sex couple. Oct. 2007

-In Massachusetts, Catholic Charity Organization is forced out of adoption business in 100 years because it won't adopt to a gay couple.

Fake.


These are a few examples and there's no reason to turn a blind eye to what's happening.

Any of you have kids? If none of the above provoked any reason to shut down this proposition, maybe this will. Ever heard of Senate Bill SB777? This bill, which was signed in October last year by Schwarzenegger devalues a man and woman's marriage by prohibiting "mommy and daddy" or "husband and wife" terms from being used in the classroom. also, children are now able to use the opposite sex bathrooms if they choose too. so if johnny "feels" like a girl, even though he's biologically a boy, he HAS to be allowed to use the girls' restroom. A school in Massachusetts is reading a book to kindergarten children called "King and King" about a prince that chooses a prince over the princesses offered to him, is this what you want your tax money going to and what you want your five year old exposed to?

Half fake, half don't care.

There, I'm done.

[thrustbucket]

Wow, I'd say that was a joke account, except it was too long, thought out, and obviously written with care and time to be so.

Kid has balls though, coming in here saying such things...

[mykevermin]

That reminds me that I'd like to see that Harvey Milk biopic. Hopefully it isn't dragged down by Sean Penn's blatant effort to fish for an oscar.

I'd say there is anger, but not so much coordinated solidarity amongst many homosexuals.

EDIT: thrust, I was thinking it was a C&P job. Looks like the kind of email conservative old Aunt Mildred would get from her church/bridge club friends.

[depascal22]

It's funny how conservative Christians want marriage to be defined as a man and a woman. Did they forget Abraham was married to Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah? Hell, Sarah even suggested he marry Hagar. What about David's wives? You can't pick and choose what you want to follow out of the Bible. The fundamentalists will all tell you that the Bible is 100% true. Then, you ask how Cain, Abel, and Seth found wives and their heads blow up.

It's funny. I was just checking some facts on this stuff and stumbled onto a discussion about the beginning of the world and some fundamentalist actually said that carbon dating isn't scientifically supported by anything. Arguing with these guys is a losing game.

In the end, we must all remember. He who argues with the fool will only be made to look foolish in the end. Just let gays be happy. Hell, I'm not even against polygamy as long as everyone consents and it isn't some scared 14 year old girl with a gun to her head.

[HumanSnatcher]

You know von, its little shits like you that are the reason why the world is the way it is today. Going and spouting out vitrol like its nothing and trying to use your fucked up religious beliefs to back you up. Great way to make friends ya douche bag. God I'm so glad that I have no idea where you live or I'd make the rest of your miserable ass life a living hell...

EDIT: wow dumbass, just googling your name seems to pull up a bit of stuff...

[MSI Magus]

If you have you get flesh eating bacteria from having butt sex then why arnt prissy little whiney Christian kids like Von loosing their wang by the assload? I mean after all since Christians got their way and we started teaching absence only the number of kids having butt sex has shot up to record numbers. After all a boy wont marry a girl who had a red ring popped so she better use her brown ring if she wants a pretty white ring one day!

Id like to live in vons world though. Seriously the next generation of Christians would be compltly whipped out....that would be a great thing. It would be sad that all the gay men would have to die but its a sacrafice to make the world a better place. Also on the bright side is that while gay men would die we wouldnt loose the women! *dreams of said world with no Christians and lots of lesbians walking around*

[depascal22]

Wait a minute...more girls but they're all lesbians? Sounds like a lose lose to me.

[MSI Magus]

Wait a minute...more girls but they're all lesbians? Sounds like a lose lose to me.

Ah but we dont loose the straight woman. So we have all the straight woman and now far more lesbians! Thats win win baby......then again its a world where no man can have butt sex....and as far as im concerned butt sex is good stuff.

[depascal22]

Also, flesh eating bacteria don't just go after gay guys. I worked in operating rooms for ten years and saw all walks of life get hit up with that horrible horrible disease. Gasp, even straight men get it. One guy got it for falling on a stake in his yard. Impaled his leg and the bacteria went from his lower leg all the way up. He ended up dying a couple months later. Maybe he was a closet gay.

[lilboo]

I think in order to get some kind of flesh eating bacteria you really have to fuck a really dirty ass. I mean, really now. I know lots of guys who've had LOTS OF SEX..and they are all fine. No STDS/HIV or flesh eating bacteria.

[HumanSnatcher]

Well, considering douchebag LOVES posting bogus "facts"...lets see, according to your YouTube channel your name is Levon. Lets see, because you're making assumptions, let me make some of my own. Since you're name is Levon, you must be a dark Kunta Kente $$$$er that somehow learned to read away from the "mastah". Does you diet mostly consist of watermelon and fried chicken? Does momma know how to make chitlins??? When does daddy get out of jail?

You want to play assumptions and bullshit stereo type facts. Two can play that game bitch

[lilboo]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Daaaaang snatcher

[GuilewasNK]

Well, considering douchebag LOVES posting bogus "facts"...lets see, according to your YouTube channel your name is Levon. Lets see, because you're making assumptions, let me make some of my own. Since you're name is Levon, you must be a dark Kunta Kente $$$$er that somehow learned to read away from the "mastah". Does you diet mostly consist of watermelon and fried chicken? Does momma know how to make chitlins??? When does daddy get out of jail?

You want to play assumptions and bullshit stereo type facts. Two can play that game bitch


I'm black, but I got your back. :)

[MSI Magus]

Also, flesh eating bacteria don't just go after gay guys. I worked in operating rooms for ten years and saw all walks of life get hit up with that horrible horrible disease. Gasp, even straight men get it. One guy got it for falling on a stake in his yard. Impaled his leg and the bacteria went from his lower leg all the way up. He ended up dying a couple months later. Maybe he was a closet gay.

Ermmm you realize that I dont really believe gays are more prone to flesh eating bacteria right? As per most people that follow the bible von is a complete moron that easily believes dumb things. I was just saying the world he lives in would be interesting.

[MSI Magus]

Well, considering douchebag LOVES posting bogus "facts"...lets see, according to your YouTube channel your name is Levon. Lets see, because you're making assumptions, let me make some of my own. Since you're name is Levon, you must be a dark Kunta Kente $$$$er that somehow learned to read away from the "mastah". Does you diet mostly consist of watermelon and fried chicken? Does momma know how to make chitlins??? When does daddy get out of jail?

You want to play assumptions and bullshit stereo type facts. Two can play that game bitch

Wow just wow. And I thought I had a tendency to take things too far ;)

[HumanSnatcher]

And von, newsflash, DO NOT go making bullshit inflammatory posts on things you know NOTHING about when you have YouTube videos like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3KwnevnERg and the latest comment says that you live blocks from the San Diego airport.

[GuilewasNK]

Wow just wow. And I thought I had a tendency to take things too far ;)


Normallly, I'd agree, but I have no problem with HumanSnatcher proving a point in this case. Besides, he's been a cool dude everytime I have talked to him. 8-)

[MSI Magus]

Normallly, I'd agree, but I have no problem with HumanSnatcher proving a point in this case. Besides, he's been a cool dude everytime I have talked to him. 8-)

Heh I wasnt offended by it or anything. I mean if your putting things in a sarcastic manor like that its obvious you mean nothing by it.

[HumanSnatcher]

Normallly, I'd agree, but I have no problem with HumanSnatcher proving a point in this case. Besides, he's been a cool dude everytime I have talked to him. 8-)

Especially considering, like lilboo, I'm one of "them there homer-sexuals"

[lilboo]

:whee:

[cochesecochese]

This is a perfect example of a thread blowing up in the OP's face.

[lilboo]

Back on topic, when does this thing get voted on?

[GuilewasNK]

Especially considering, like lilboo, I'm one of "them there homer-sexuals"

Lilboo would be more awesome with the angry Princess Peach avatar making a comeback. :applause: I liked that one.

People just amaze me sometimes. They get so concerned about everyone else lives to the point it is absurd. I guarantee everyone has a gay friend or family member and don't even realize it. People really need to to just try learn about gay people like they should anyone else that is different from themselves.

[thrustbucket]

It's funny how conservative Christians want marriage to be defined as a man and a woman. Did they forget Abraham was married to Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah? Hell, Sarah even suggested he marry Hagar. What about David's wives? You can't pick and choose what you want to follow out of the Bible. The fundamentalists will all tell you that the Bible is 100% true. Then, you ask how Cain, Abel, and Seth found wives and their heads blow up.

It's funny. I was just checking some facts on this stuff and stumbled onto a discussion about the beginning of the world and some fundamentalist actually said that carbon dating isn't scientifically supported by anything. Arguing with these guys is a losing game.

In the end, we must all remember. He who argues with the fool will only be made to look foolish in the end. Just let gays be happy. Hell, I'm not even against polygamy as long as everyone consents and it isn't some scared 14 year old girl with a gun to her head.

Interesting you bring that up.

In the past, in other threads about homosexuality, and before you posted here, I would always bring up Polygamy to help everyone get perspective (both sides). It would cause such a violent reaction from the gay rights community that would span dozens of pages though. I've opted to not play that card again, unless my unemployed boredom reaches new lows.

It has always interested me though, that the fundamental christians are too close minded to define marriage as anything but one man and one woman, and many pro-gay rights people can only define it as two people total. Both sides don't see hot obtuse and self serving their views are.

Just a fun fact for you.

[lilboo]

:rofl:
I wonder if I have that pic saved still.. :-k

[GuilewasNK]

I just thought of something that is slightly off topic.

Let's say a male wants to marry a transgendered woman in the US. Is that legal? Would it technically fall under the veil of gay marriage to some people? I don't think I have seen this addressed anywhere.

[lilboo]

Maybe if she was post-op and was actually a woman?
I don't know.

See, the transgendered community is like a spin-off of the gay community. It's different, but similiar--but in the end it IS different.
It's really confusing :(

[depascal22]

Ermmm you realize that I dont really believe gays are more prone to flesh eating bacteria right? As per most people that follow the bible von is a complete moron that easily believes dumb things. I was just saying the world he lives in would be interesting.

That was directed at von. I was just expanding on what I was talking about earlier not refuting anything you had to say.

EDIT -- Marrying a transgendered woman is legal. In the eyes of the law, she is a woman. You can say she can't procreate but neither can the many women that have lost their ovaries to cancer.

[The Crotch]

The Gay Lobby/Agenda/Mafia has totally taken over this thread. Total, man.

But back on topic, I too preferred lilboo's Peach avatar.

[GuilewasNK]

The Gay Lobby/Agenda/Mafia has totally taken over this thread. Total, man.

I'm just about people having the right to be happy so long as it doesn't infringe with anyone else's rights. Life is too short to deal with bullshit all the time.

[The Crotch]

So... would you say you're more the Agenda type, or are you part of the Mafia?

[GuilewasNK]

So... would you say you're more the Agenda type, or are you part of the Mafia?


Mafia sounds cooler. :lol:

[thrustbucket]

I'm just about people having the right to be happy so long as it doesn't infringe with anyone else's rights. Life is too short to deal with bullshit all the time.

Fuckin libertarians's. Their taking this forum over!




;)

[GuilewasNK]

Fuckin libertarians's. Their taking this forum over!




;)

Hah! :)

I guess I am more libertarian than anything else. Never really gave myself a label before.

[MSI Magus]

Hah! :)

I guess I am more libertarian than anything else. Never really gave myself a label before.

I think most Americans are pretty damn libertarian. Their just too stupid to realize they are. I remember when me and my fiancee took a political science class together and we had to fill out this form that helped determine what party you belonged to in philosophy at least. My fiancee was surprised to learn she was a member of a party she had never even heard of.

On Polygamy who gives a shit. You can have 10 wives for all I care if your not hurting anyone it shouldn't matter. I think to prevent certain complications you shouldn't have certain rights as a polygamist(for instance its insane to expect welfare for having 10 kids when you did it with 4 woman, and health insurance has similar issues). Hell I think in some ways polygamy in a non traditional sense would be a better life style for a lot of people. I know my sex drive could never be kept under control by 1 normal woman(probally not 2)and it would certainly make paying the bills a lot easier. It might even cause a lot of guys to stop being such rude ignorant assholes since they would have to compete for a smaller amount of woman. Then again...woman often tend to go for the assholes till their ready to get married meaning a shortage of woman for good guys for a long time....hmmmm

[GuilewasNK]

I remember when me and my fiancee took a political science class together and we had to fill out this form that helped determine what party you belonged to in philosophy at least. My fiancee was surprised to learn she was a member of a party she had never even heard of.

I know my sex drive could never be kept under control by 1 normal woman(probally not 2)and it would certainly make paying the bills a lot easier.


Did you let your fiancee know that? ;):lol:

[MSI Magus]

Did you let your fiancee know that? ;):lol:

Yes my fiancee knows. We have had issues with sex but have slowly worked through them. It will never be what I want it to be nor will it be what she is 100% comfortable with. But hey that seems to be what relationships are, making compromises that leave both parties not quite where they want to be! She has compromised and worked far more then most woman though, I think she has given me 70/100 which is about 30-40 more then most guys get.

[thrustbucket]

On Polygamy who gives a shit. You can have 10 wives for all I care if your not hurting anyone it shouldn't matter. I think to prevent certain complications you shouldn't have certain rights as a polygamist(for instance its insane to expect welfare for having 10 kids when you did it with 4 woman, and health insurance has similar issues). Hell I think in some ways polygamy in a non traditional sense would be a better life style for a lot of people. I know my sex drive could never be kept under control by 1 normal woman(probally not 2)and it would certainly make paying the bills a lot easier. It might even cause a lot of guys to stop being such rude ignorant assholes since they would have to compete for a smaller amount of woman. Then again...woman often tend to go for the assholes till their ready to get married meaning a shortage of woman for good guys for a long time....hmmmm

Totally agree. Glad to see you say this.

[GuilewasNK]

Yes my fiancee knows. We have had issues with sex but have slowly worked through them. It will never be what I want it to be nor will it be what she is 100% comfortable with. But hey that seems to be what relationships are, making compromises that leave both parties not quite where they want to be! She has compromised and worked far more then most woman though, I think she has given me 70/100 which is about 30-40 more then most guys get.


This is true. At least you have a dialogue about it instead of keeping your wishes bottled up. It seems like she is at least open to your feelings about it and you aren't pushing her too hard either.

[depascal22]

We have a weird form of polygamy in the ghettos and trailer parks right now. Some guys have several children by several different women. Marriage was never involved but for all intents and purposes the man pays to support several different women. If we had polygamy, that man could (under the right circumstances) bring all the women and, subsequently, all his children under one roof.

[GuilewasNK]

We have a weird form of polygamy in the ghettos and trailer parks right now. Some guys have several children by several different women. Marriage was never involved but for all intents and purposes the man pays to support several different women. If we had polygamy, that man could (under the right circumstances) bring all the women and, subsequently, all his children under one roof.

Anal.

Nature's contraceptive. :lol:

[mykevermin]

:shock:

'the fuck happened in here?

[Friend of Sonic]

Anal.

Nature's contraceptive. :lol:

Speaking of nature, are there any examples of anal sex in the animal kingdom?

[GuilewasNK]

Speaking of nature, are there any examples of anal sex in the animal kingdom?

Between male and female, I don't know, but I imagine in the billions of years of history of the world that it is plausible it has occured in two male animals.

[Friend of Sonic]

I imagine in the billions of years of history of the world that it is plausible it has occured in two male animals.
:hot:

[homeland]

Doesn't sheep farmers have a problem with gay sheep? To many male sheep turn gay because its so socially acceptable in the herd..

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html

[HumanSnatcher]

:shock:

'the fuck happened in here?

I guess you can say that it "ass"ploded heh

[MSI Magus]

This is true. At least you have a dialogue about it instead of keeping your wishes bottled up. It seems like she is at least open to your feelings about it and you aren't pushing her too hard either.

Exactly. Most relationships people grow to resent eachother because they arnt honest and next thing you know people are either divorcing or cheating. I told her openly what I felt knowing it would hurt her but be good for our relationship in the long run. It took about 3 years but things are finally working out and we are happier then we ever could have thought possible as a result.

[HumanSnatcher]

Doesn't sheep farmers have a problem with gay sheep? To many male sheep turn gay because its so socially acceptable in the herd..

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html

I guess after the hundreds of years of humans having their way with female sheep, they decided to take matters in their own hooves

[The Crotch]

Between male and female, I don't know, but I imagine in the billions of years of history of the world that it is plausible it has occured in two male animals.Happens with dogs.

[depascal22]

Many animals have oral sex regardless of gender.

[MSI Magus]

Many animals have oral sex regardless of gender.

We saw monkeys having oral sex just last weekend at the zoo! No seriously we did, it was funnier then them soaking people in the splash zone by far.

[Access_Denied]

Wait... what? You either mean:

(1) More people will be open about their sexuality.

or

(2) More people will choose to be gay.



If 1, what's the problem with that? If 2, you're an idiot and I'm sorry for wasting my time responding to you.

If you are a guy, you like women, and vice versa. Why? Because that's the way it's always been. It's the way you learned from other people. I don't think that sexuality is put into you when you're born. It's something you learn. It's a person's way of thinking that makes them gay, and your way of thinking is not hereditary or genetic, it's acquired from your surroundings.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Absolutely false. Physical morphology and behavior evolve together. Even moreso when we're talking about sexual dimorphism.

There is textbook case from Canada, unfortunately I cant remember the name of the family (help?). A baby boy had his penis burnt off because of a circumcision accident using some experimental/controversial method. They decided to give the kid a sex change operation/hormone treatment and raise him as a girl, never letting him now.

It was a horrible failure, and he found out later on after he grew up. He never took on traits they wanted him to through the female-type socialization.

In a completely different story, you cant get even the youngest of male and female toddlers to like the same toys. You cant. Toy manufacturers spend millions on research so that they only have to make one kind of toy. Preferences for toys show up super early and no amount of socialization can change it. You give them the choice, they'll make it on gender lines.
___________
You kinda got me off on a wild tangent. Coming from the evolutionary school of psychology, I used to be in the business of attacking socialization as a cause of really....anything.

The point is, a lot of our behavior/preferences, from simple to complex, are hard wired. Getting someone to switch to cock is a lot harder than you might think.

[mykevermin]

^David Reimer.

[Chacrana]

That's an awful lot of statistics, OP.

[The Crotch]

That's a lot of awful statistics, OP.

[depascal22]

What I find even more disturbing is that there's now 12 people in support of the gay marriage ban. I know it's still 85% the other way but these forums tend to be populated by younger (Crotch excepted) and more open minded individuals. The general population is far less understanding.

[The Crotch]

Wait, when did I become the new Shrike?

[lilboo]

:rofl:
--
Yeah, of those 12 we don't know who they are. Well we know one of them and we pretty much explained how wrong he is 8-)

[The Crotch]

Yeah, I'm curious to see who the 12 are. A couple are rather obvious, sure, but I wanna see the rest. Don't have to debate it or anything, just... y'know... "Hi, my name is X and I voted yes."

...

"Also, here's a million dollars."

[GuilewasNK]

What I find even more disturbing is that there's now 12 people in support of the gay marriage ban. I know it's still 85% the other way but these forums tend to be populated by younger (Crotch excepted) and more open minded individuals. The general population is far less understanding.


Those same young ones tend to throw homosexual and racial slurs about on Xbox Live too.

There isn't consensus on many things in life unfortunately.

What is your definition of young though? I'm 31 (32 next month).

[depascal22]

I'm 29. I meant young as under 35-40.

[blandstalker]

I just thought of something that is slightly off topic.

Let's say a male wants to marry a transgendered woman in the US. Is that legal? Would it technically fall under the veil of gay marriage to some people? I don't think I have seen this addressed anywhere.

The answer is "it depends".

This is an area that is defined state by state and depends on how the state legally recognizes a transexual's gender.

Some states do not legally recognize a change in gender, which means that if you're born a man, you're always a man, no matter what kind of surgery you've undergone. This has made some existing marriages rather interesting. And it has made it impossible for some people who have transitioned to a new gender to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they could marry someone of the same sex, even if same-sex marriage is illegal in the state. Wacky.

Other states do recognize it legally, in which case a male could marry a transgendered woman with no problem.

As for what happens when someone moves from one state to another, the answer varies. Literally anything can happen, and is prone to reversal by another court.

It's one of the examples why the "let the states decide" approach can get very messy.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Man, thats a bizarre theoretical scenario. Thats analogous to some of the questions Catholic School kids would ask. Take a sin and surround it with the most insane shit ever.

[blandstalker]

If you are a guy, you like women, and vice versa. Why? Because that's the way it's always been. It's the way you learned from other people. I don't think that sexuality is put into you when you're born. It's something you learn. It's a person's way of thinking that makes them gay, and your way of thinking is not hereditary or genetic, it's acquired from your surroundings.

Okay. Think about this for a minute.

Most gay people are raised by heterosexual parents. Where, exactly, do they learn to be gay? What "surroundings" cause one person to be gay and another straight?

If "it's the way it's always been" and if "it's the way you learned from other people", how in the hell did gay people not turn out heterosexual? It would seem the number of heterosexual "role models" and examples in society far outweigh anything else.

At what point does someone decide to be gay? It would seem that somehow they would have to discard a lifetime's worth of heterosexual thinking and replace it with gay thinking. Where does it come from and why?

What would it have taken for you to learn to be gay?

[thrustbucket]

What would it take for a man to shave his head into a pink mowhawk and prance around the street in a goth dress? Who would want to do that (I saw at wal mart a few weeks ago)?

Why would a girl want to get 13 piercings on her body, 4 of which are on her face? Why would anyone want to stick out like that and look like a freak (I went to school with a few of these girls)?

Where are all the role models that are making young people want to behave and appear in shocking manners? There are far more "normal" role models in most peoples lives and on TV, so where does this need come to be so different?

I'm not equating homosexuals to anything here. I'm simply showing that the argument of "why would anyone choose to be gay" is usually a pretty poor one, in the attempt to prove it can't be helped. I'm not even saying it can be helped, or it isn't something your born with, just that that is a poor argument for it.

Things like victim mentalities and attention starvation will lead people to do any number of very odd harmless (or sometimes harmful) things. Not to mention a myriad of psychological disorders that can be expressed outwardly in anti-social, attention grabbing, "abnormal" expressions.

[MSI Magus]

I think there is no right side to the argument of nature vs nurture. Its a combination of both. A person is not just made by their parents, their genes or their surroundings its all of the above. And Thrust I take offense to you reffer to people that are different as if they are some sort of retarded defects of society. Many of them are, especially the young ones who are obviously just trying to stand out. But im 6'0 with a burly beard and a build like a football player. Despite this I have a mohawk which I often dye and I often paint my nails several colors and have tattoos on my hands.

At this point in time it has nothing to do with being starved for attention or anything else stupid like that. It's simply that im partially more comfortable this way and partially that I freaking have very girly tastes and like bright colors. Hell ill openly admit there have been times I wished I could wear a skirt but I havnt because I put up with enough shit from assholes who think im just some sort of as you put it "freak craving attention".

People are motivated to do different things for many different reasons that are not always even within their own grasp. Its good that you seem to get that its not simply their surroundings that make them who they are.....but you still have a pretty judgmental tone that makes me think you dont really understand yet.

[SpazX]

What would it take for a man to shave his head into a pink mowhawk and prance around the street in a goth dress? Who would want to do that (I saw at wal mart a few weeks ago)?

Why would a girl want to get 13 piercings on her body, 4 of which are on her face? Why would anyone want to stick out like that and look like a freak (I went to school with a few of these girls)?

Where are all the role models that are making young people want to behave and appear in shocking manners? There are far more "normal" role models in most peoples lives and on TV, so where does this need come to be so different?

I'm not equating homosexuals to anything here. I'm simply showing that the argument of "why would anyone choose to be gay" is usually a pretty poor one, in the attempt to prove it can't be helped. I'm not even saying it can be helped, or it isn't something your born with, just that that is a poor argument for it.

Things like victim mentalities and attention starvation will lead people to do any number of very odd harmless (or sometimes harmful) things. Not to mention a myriad of psychological disorders that can be expressed outwardly in anti-social, attention grabbing, "abnormal" expressions.

Well firstly I'd say that all those things you stated aren't necessarily done to get attention. In many cases that may be so, but a lot of the time people change their appearances that drastically to 1) signify their difference from others and 2) signify their sameness to some other group. Some people may have no particular reason and others may simply do it for attention, but most of the time it's for a need for individuality/uniqueness or to show that they belong to some group of people who look like that. Generally they're not attention starved nor have any mental disorders.

Secondly, gay people for the most part aren't looking for attention either. Otherwise so many of them wouldn't stay in the closet and not tell anybody they're gay. So obviously they're not "being" gay for attention or because they have some gay role model. Barring some mental disorder, I don't think there's any reason for someone to be gay (ie, act in all the necessary and/or stereotypical ways that gay people are portrayed) unless they're actually attracted to their same sex.

And thirdly (and finally, I guess), I want to make a distinction between physical acts and physical/emotional attraction. I'm not one to say that being gay or straight is 100% biologically determined. I don't believe that there are many (if any) complicated behaviors that aren't partially social and partially biological, in whatever proportions. That being said, I think it would also be an error to say that if something is in any part socially constructed that it's automatically malleable or changeable and/or that it should be to suit a majority.

Anyway, my point being, GuilewasNK and probably others have given the example that maybe some people have "tried it and liked it" and therefore became gay. I want to make the distinction between physical acts and attraction. If I fuck a dude in the ass, does that make me gay? If I fucked like a hundred dudes exclusively for a year would that mean I was gay? What if I only fucked dudes for the rest of my life, would that mean I was gay? If lilboo fucked a hundred chicks, would he now be straight? What if he fucked chicks for the rest of his life? I mean, even if we both liked it? I imagine it really doesn't feel all that different to fuck a chick in the ass versus a dude, right? Is one gay and one straight? If I fucked a hole in a tree would that automatically make me a dendrophiliac? Obviously there's more to it than that and boiling it down to who you physically have sex with at any point in time is an insult to both homosexuality and heterosexuality.

There seems to me to be a level of sexual attraction that you can't fake, you can't will to be different. It may partially be a result of some social conditioning, although it may not be something as obvious as a boy sees some gay dudes and now he's attracted to dudes. Social norms shape the specifics to a very large extent - the type of women/men that heterosexuals or homosexuals are attracted to, for instance - but I'm not sure if the base of it is social and/or changeable. It may be something that is developed in the womb due to biology or something that is developed early on socially, but it seems to me that it does not require a gay role model or exposure to anything "gay" in society, nor does it seem to be something the develops late in life or is alterable later on. It's something that happens to people, beyond their own control, and isn't easily changed if it's able to be changed at all. It also isn't dichotimous, obviously, but there is more of a spectrum of sexual attraction, but that's not my point so I won't make this post any longer.

[thrustbucket]

Thanks for the responses. Spazx, I totally agree with you. Please understand that I was just simply responding to one specific argument made by blandstalker. Otherwise, I agree with everything you are saying. For all the reasons you mentioned in your post, the "why would someone ever choose to be gay" argument shouldn't be used. Especially when its somewhat difficult to separate a "true" homosexual from homosexual activity.

Last night, after my post, because I was bored, I googled for scientific studies on proof of biological reasons for sexual preference. All I could come up with is what most of us already know; most biologists don't think enough research has been done to be conclusive, although they suspect sexual preference is a mix between genes and environment during the first five years of childhood (there are many that try to tie abuse to later homosexuality or other sexual behaviors, but nothing conclusive).

[lilboo]

The only "choice" in the matter of being gay vs straight is the choice on whether or not you are going to live your life in secret.

See, there are TONS of married men and women who ARE gay..but..just strive to live a normal life. They are gay despite the fact they are with someone of the opposite sex. This is what causes infidelity, and unhappiness in a marriage.

For some, it's that CHOICE to say "I am going to live a lie" or "Fuck DIS, Imma be a QUEEN honey!"

8-)

*puts on her crown*
But you get what I mean, right?

[MSI Magus]

Well firstly I'd say that all those things you stated aren't necessarily done to get attention. In many cases that may be so, but a lot of the time people change their appearances that drastically to 1) signify their difference from others and 2) signify their sameness to some other group. Some people may have no particular reason and others may simply do it for attention, but most of the time it's for a need for individuality/uniqueness or to show that they belong to some group of people who look like that. Generally they're not attention starved nor have any mental disorders.

Secondly, gay people for the most part aren't looking for attention either. Otherwise so many of them wouldn't stay in the closet and not tell anybody they're gay. So obviously they're not "being" gay for attention or because they have some gay role model. Barring some mental disorder, I don't think there's any reason for someone to be gay (ie, act in all the necessary and/or stereotypical ways that gay people are portrayed) unless they're actually attracted to their same sex.

And thirdly (and finally, I guess), I want to make a distinction between physical acts and physical/emotional attraction. I'm not one to say that being gay or straight is 100% biologically determined. I don't believe that there are many (if any) complicated behaviors that aren't partially social and partially biological, in whatever proportions. That being said, I think it would also be an error to say that if something is in any part socially constructed that it's automatically malleable or changeable and/or that it should be to suit a majority.

Anyway, my point being, GuilewasNK and probably others have given the example that maybe some people have "tried it and liked it" and therefore became gay. I want to make the distinction between physical acts and attraction. If I fuck a dude in the ass, does that make me gay? If I fucked like a hundred dudes exclusively for a year would that mean I was gay? What if I only fucked dudes for the rest of my life, would that mean I was gay? If lilboo fucked a hundred chicks, would he now be straight? What if he fucked chicks for the rest of his life? I mean, even if we both liked it? I imagine it really doesn't feel all that different to fuck a chick in the ass versus a dude, right? Is one gay and one straight? If I fucked a hole in a tree would that automatically make me a dendrophiliac? Obviously there's more to it than that and boiling it down to who you physically have sex with at any point in time is an insult to both homosexuality and heterosexuality.

There seems to me to be a level of sexual attraction that you can't fake, you can't will to be different. It may partially be a result of some social conditioning, although it may not be something as obvious as a boy sees some gay dudes and now he's attracted to dudes. Social norms shape the specifics to a very large extent - the type of women/men that heterosexuals or homosexuals are attracted to, for instance - but I'm not sure if the base of it is social and/or changeable. It may be something that is developed in the womb due to biology or something that is developed early on socially, but it seems to me that it does not require a gay role model or exposure to anything "gay" in society, nor does it seem to be something the develops late in life or is alterable later on. It's something that happens to people, beyond their own control, and isn't easily changed if it's able to be changed at all. It also isn't dichotimous, obviously, but there is more of a spectrum of sexual attraction, but that's not my point so I won't make this post any longer.

Few things here. First off I know Ill get slammed for it but ill openly admit when I was like 12-15 and horny as shit I slept with 3 different guys. It was just one of those awkward things where I was horny and made some stupid joke and a friend made a stupid joke back and next thing you know not so hawt chubby teenage boy on teenage boy action. Heh hell one of the 3 times was something as stupid as I made the joke that id trade my copy of DarkStalkers for a blow job......apparently my friend really wanted that game! That said I am not attracted to men, would never date a man, would never kiss a man(actually find it kinda gross no offense lilboo)and havnt in my adult life slept with a man nor do I see myself doing so again outside some kind of odd situation like being imprisoned for life or stranded on an island with some guy and nothing to do but....ya you know.

Sex and sexuality are 2 completely different things. Situations like mine are not that uncommon, iv had a few other guys admit they had similar situations happen(only in private and with a threat of killing me if I told anyone)and then there are situations like prison. There is lots of man on man action in prison, but how many of them choose to sleep with men once they get out of prison? Stuff like this shows that people just have built in sex drives and some people need release enough that even though they are not attracted to the same sex they will use them to get off.

Another good example of this was I believe Ancient Greece(I cant recall the exact place but think it was Greece or Italy). They actually encouraged their young men to have sex with each other. This might sound very odd in modern times but it did a lot of good in those times. Underage pregnancy was a huge problem and they also had many problems with teenage boys raping woman. By encouraging the boys to have sex with each other they found that they were able to keep the birth rate in children down as well as the number of sexual assaults in the city. Again that didnt make these young men gay nor the society in love with homosexuality or a new den of sin. It just meant that teenage boys had needs and they were going to be met in one way or another.

[lilboo]

Magus is now officially sexy <3

I have a personal theory: I think we are ALL kinda bi. I don't think we all have the potnetial to LOVE the same sex, but we all would totally fuck each other if it was more accepted.

Sex is sex and sex is a good time! :whee:

[MSI Magus]

Magus is now officially sexy <3

I have a personal theory: I think we are ALL kinda bi. I don't think we all have the potnetial to LOVE the same sex, but we all would totally fuck each other if it was more accepted.

Sex is sex and sex is a good time! :whee:

Hehe im sexy now? Anyways regardless I dont think that we are all bi but I do think alot of people are without realizing it. Another fav article I read at one point was a study on sexuality where they hooked up a device that detected arousal to people then showed them different types of porn. They found that people that were hostile towards gays or thought homosexuality was immoral were turned on watching gay porn at a much higher % then those that said they were not attracted to men but had no problem with homosexuality in general. So I guess the topic creator would probably having a raging hard on in that test ;)

[lilboo]

Hehe im sexy now? Anyways regardless I dont think that we are all bi but I do think alot of people are without realizing it. Another fav article I read at one point was a study on sexuality where they hooked up a device that detected arousal to people then showed them different types of porn. They found that people that were hostile towards gays or thought homosexuality was immoral were turned on watching gay porn at a much higher % then those that said they were not attracted to men but had no problem with homosexuality in general. So I guess the topic creator would probably having a raging hard on in that test ;)

That's how it usually goes.
For example, some people in your situation--who have fucked around with dudes at one point if their life--grow up and become really homophobic just to cover up. It's to the point where most of the time it's so obvious.. :lol:

I'm not attracted to girls, but I'd totally nail one. I guess I'm not bi, and just a sex machine 8-)

[MSI Magus]

That's how it usually goes.
For example, some people in your situation--who have fucked around with dudes at one point if their life--grow up and become really homophobic just to cover up. It's to the point where most of the time it's so obvious.. :lol:

I'm not attracted to girls, but I'd totally nail one. I guess I'm not bi, and just a sex machine 8-)

The one dude I slept with was that way. We had been best friends since we were in 1st grade, it happaned in 6th or 7th grade and he just totally wigged out on me. He got extreamly homophobic as life went on and freaked the fuck out when he was around me. Was pretty damn hilarious.

And man if you were a girl we would be a good match, I can relate to the sex machine thing.

[lilboo]

http://emoticons4u.com/love/1227.gif

Let's make deal!

[GuilewasNK]

It's getting sexy in here people. :oops:


In regards to the gay porn thing, I think porn can be a great tool to explore sexuality as long as people don't get carried away with it.

I'm probably giving more info that I need to with my next paragraph, but since MSI did, I will to.

My last girlfriend (who was as up front about sex as anyone I have ever met) wanted to see gay porn and I thought that was only fair considering most adult films have girl/girl stuff. So I watched it with her and I thought it was no big deal to be honest.

[SpazX]

Thanks for the responses. Spazx, I totally agree with you. Please understand that I was just simply responding to one specific argument made by blandstalker. Otherwise, I agree with everything you are saying. For all the reasons you mentioned in your post, the "why would someone ever choose to be gay" argument shouldn't be used. Especially when its somewhat difficult to separate a "true" homosexual from homosexual activity.

Last night, after my post, because I was bored, I googled for scientific studies on proof of biological reasons for sexual preference. All I could come up with is what most of us already know; most biologists don't think enough research has been done to be conclusive, although they suspect sexual preference is a mix between genes and environment during the first five years of childhood (there are many that try to tie abuse to later homosexuality or other sexual behaviors, but nothing conclusive).

Yeah, just to clarify my post, only the first parts about difference and attention were really in response to your quote, the rest of it was really just my own rant.

And kind of in response to the porn/gay porn thing. My gf has seen lesbian porn (the kind targeted to guys anyway) and thought in some ways it seemed more genuine or something. The thing with most porn (especially with the free shit on the internet like redtube or something, all directed at guys) is that a lot of the times it's pretty sick and degrading to women. I would understand why a woman wouldn't really be all that interested in porn where some dude is doing ass-to-mouth on a chick or forcing his dick down her throat or blowing his load on her face (which is the ending to like almost all of them that I've seen). They're generally just treating the women like cum recepticles.

[MSI Magus]

Yeah, just to clarify my post, only the first parts about difference and attention were really in response to your quote, the rest of it was really just my own rant.

And kind of in response to the porn/gay porn thing. My gf has seen lesbian porn (the kind targeted to guys anyway) and thought in some ways it seemed more genuine or something. The thing with most porn (especially with the free shit on the internet like redtube or something, all directed at guys) is that a lot of the times it's pretty sick and degrading to women. I would understand why a woman wouldn't really be all that interested in porn where some dude is doing ass-to-mouth on a chick or forcing his dick down her throat or blowing his load on her face (which is the ending to like almost all of them that I've seen). They're generally just treating the women like cum recepticles.

Ever since Palin became the potential future president thats all I seem to be able to see woman as :)

[blandstalker]

Thanks for the responses. Spazx, I totally agree with you. Please understand that I was just simply responding to one specific argument made by blandstalker.

thrust, would you please go back and look at what I was saying?

Access_Denied gave his opinion, which is that it's all learned behavior. I responded with a carefully worded sentence, which I'm going to reproduce here:


If "it's the way it's always been" and if "it's the way you learned from other people", how in the hell did gay people not turn out heterosexual?

The quote marks indicate his exact words. Also note that my question is, at least to my mind, very different than "Why would people choose to be gay?"

I wasn't looking to make a general argument about nature, nurture, or choice. I was responding very specifically to Access_Denied's post, trying to show why learned behavior, at least in the way he expressed it, isn't enough to really make sense of things.


For all the reasons you mentioned in your post, the "why would someone ever choose to be gay" argument shouldn't be used. Especially when its somewhat difficult to separate a "true" homosexual from homosexual activity.

Now this I agree with.

[lilboo]

I think what needs to be done is when a boy turns maybe 16 years old..bring him a really atractive guy with a HUGE wang.

Let him experiement.
If he likes it--let him. 8-)
If not, you have a straight! :whee:

[thrustbucket]

Blandstalker,

I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clarification.

[level1online]

Gay Marriage.... such a pressing issue at the moment. :roll:

[blandstalker]

Gay Marriage.... such a pressing issue at the moment. :roll:

It is for me.

I'm pretty sure my bank account will still be around after November.

Not so sure about my marriage.

[The Crotch]

...

Wow. I never noticed that Blandstalker is awesome.

[HumanSnatcher]

Honestly, after watching this thread, why is it that the dipshits inthis country feel the need to dictate what makes me happy??? I have found that one man that makes me happy. We may be going thru things right now, but we make each other happy and care about each other....

[Paco]

WHY has nobody used the south park defense.

Instead of Husband and Husband. They can be BUTT BUDDIES.

Instead of Gay Marriage. They can be. BUTT BUDDIES.

Instead of it being a civil union. They can be. BUTT BUDDIES.

But seriously. I thought gay people were smarter then that. What the fuck is wrong with you? WHY are you fighting for the right to be ramrodded in divorce court? does 50% of your designer clothes and imported shampoos mean nothing to you anymore? What about your maltese dog? Do these items being taken from you scare you? If it does, then don't push for gay marriage. Be happy in the fact that you don't have someone stealing half your stuff once your union dissolves.

[RAMSTORIA]

bumping this thread because theres a bunch of people out here getting upset that a california teachers union has donated $1,000,000 dollars to defeat prop 8, making them the biggest donor to do so. im in line with those people that are upset, wtf does a teachers union have invested with this?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-teachers17-2008oct17,0,963624.story

[mykevermin]

What concern do you have with how a teacher's union spends their money?

It's not like they stole petty cash for crayons for this funding. It's their money, let them use it how they like, no?

[SpazX]

I don't know, but I guess they can donate to whomever/whatever they want can't they? Unless a majority of the members think they shouldn't, of course (if that's how it works).

[lordwow]

While I don't have a vote in this, if it came up to vote in my state, I would vote against the ban. As the saying goes, "if you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one."

[lilboo]

WHY has nobody used the south park defense.

Instead of Husband and Husband. They can be BUTT BUDDIES.

Instead of Gay Marriage. They can be. BUTT BUDDIES.

Instead of it being a civil union. They can be. BUTT BUDDIES.

But seriously. I thought gay people were smarter then that. What the fuck is wrong with you? WHY are you fighting for the right to be ramrodded in divorce court? does 50% of your designer clothes and imported shampoos mean nothing to you anymore? What about your maltese dog? Do these items being taken from you scare you? If it does, then don't push for gay marriage. Be happy in the fact that you don't have someone stealing half your stuff once your union dissolves.

Fighting for the right to be married. Just because YA'LL is fucking up marriage doesn't mean we will too. Of course, gays will end up in divorce. But ya know what? We won't get married to each other because one breeder knocked the other one up ;)

At least we'd get married for REAL reasons.
So shut up.

bumping this thread because theres a bunch of people out here getting upset that a california teachers union has donated $1,000,000 dollars to defeat prop 8, making them the biggest donor to do so. im in line with those people that are upset, wtf does a teachers union have invested with this?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-teachers17-2008oct17,0,963624.story

Because maybe they realize this ban is stupid and that they are..ya know..actual people who CARE about OTHER people's rights? Maybe.

While I don't have a vote in this, if it came up to vote in my state, I would vote against the ban. As the saying goes, "if you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one."

Exactly. Thank you. :-B

[depascal22]

I still haven't heard any credible evidence that gay marriage will ruin or destroy straight marriage. I've never heard anything other than a biblical "God wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman" defense. It kills me that this is so close to the same reasons they used to try to stop inter-racial marriage.

[RAMSTORIA]

What concern do you have with how a teacher's union spends their money?

It's not like they stole petty cash for crayons for this funding. It's their money, let them use it how they like, no?



Because maybe they realize this ban is stupid and that they are..ya know..actual people who CARE about OTHER people's rights? Maybe.




its not my concern in the sense that i dont pay dues, so they arent spending my money.

it is my concern in the sense that i read about it and have an opinion about it. if it was my dues going towards it, id be very mad. not because im against it, but because i wouldnt want the dues going towards an initiative that really doesnt benefit the union, except for maybe some that might be gay.

[depascal22]

Yeah, why would the teacher's union care if gays could get married. I could see if it was an initiative to give married teachers some sort of benefit but where's the connection? Why would they give money to stop gays from getting married when they should be about teaching kids how to work a 401(k) or maybe something about the Civil War?

[BlueLobstah]

From a governmental standpoint, I'm still undecided on the issue. I have not yet decided whether or not it is the government's role to enforce marriage at all, be it sanctioned by the church or not. I would have a hard time justifying a yes or no vote simply on personal grounds.

Of course this calls into question as to whether or not any marriage should be sanctioned by the government at all.

[thrustbucket]

From a governmental standpoint, I'm still undecided on the issue. I have not yet decided whether or not it is the government's role to enforce marriage at all, be it sanctioned by the church or not. I would have a hard time justifying a yes or no vote simply on personal grounds.

Of course this calls into question as to whether or not any marriage should be sanctioned by the government at all.

You hit the nail on the head. The fact that the gay marriage issue had to come up for most people to really think about this and conclude what you are starting to, is sad, but true.

It's not about gay marriage, it's about how much interference our government should really have in our lives. If, we decide as people, we love to be fucked over legally and institutionally by the government, then by all means let's make sure everyone gets it equally. But I am not going to endorse that.

[BigT]

Already submitted my Yes on 8 vote via absentee ballot! It's nice here that I can see 2 of those yellow and blue "Yes on 8" signs on the lawns of my neighbors... gotta love OC!



But seriously. I thought gay people were smarter then that. What the fuck is wrong with you? WHY are you fighting for the right to be ramrodded in divorce court? does 50% of your designer clothes and imported shampoos mean nothing to you anymore? What about your maltese dog? Do these items being taken from you scare you? If it does, then don't push for gay marriage. Be happy in the fact that you don't have someone stealing half your stuff once your union dissolves.

No kidding. If there was a bill that would get rid of normal marriage (i.e., remove it from the domain of government), I'd vote for that too.


What concern do you have with how a teacher's union spends their money?

It's not like they stole petty cash for crayons for this funding. It's their money, let them use it how they like, no?
Let's see: call me dense, but when I am paying dues to a union (yes I am a member of a housestaff union... call me a commie), I expect that the money goes to some cause that either helps me or helps the workplace environment in which I work... If I were a teacher, I'd expect it to go to education related causes. WTF does gay marriage have to do with education? Has anyone noticed that our public school system in many parts of California is a joke? Unfortunately, the combination of the morons in the union plus the morons in administration have made public schools suck in many places... war private schools!

[lilboo]

I think if this passes, we should ban divorce 8-)

[depascal22]

What do you have against gay marriage, BigT?

[Hex]

We cayunt have them faygits ruin'un tha sanctuty uf marruge!

I continue to assert there is zero reason why equal marriage should be prohibited.

I think if this passes, we should ban divorce 8-)

Breaking news: Spousicide has increased 798% following the ban on divorce. It's like New Order's 1963, but in reality. :lol:

Also,
But seriously. I thought gay people were smarter then that. What the fuck is wrong with you? WHY are you fighting for the right to be ramrodded in divorce court? does 50% of your designer clothes and imported shampoos mean nothing to you anymore? What about your maltese dog? Do these items being taken from you scare you? If it does, then don't push for gay marriage. Be happy in the fact that you don't have someone stealing half your stuff once your union dissolves.

Really fucking classy. Top notch argument right there, going after the effeminate like that. Because, you know, all homosexual individuals are flamboyant men, right? Protip: as with most stereotypes, the "queen" image isn't as common as you might think. It's just flamboyant, so knuckledragging reactionist thinking like that is of course going to pick up on it. Again, classy move.

The fight is for the principle. To be made equal in the eyes of the law as we non-heteros have a right to be.

[blandstalker]

Already submitted my Yes on 8 vote via absentee ballot! It's nice here that I can see 2 of those yellow and blue "Yes on 8" signs on the lawns of my neighbors... gotta love OC!

What is nice about it?

This proposition doesn't affect you at all.

It does affect me, my life, my husband, my child, and my future.

Thank you for using your vote to void my marriage. All this high minded talk about about government interference, and here are California voters directly interfering in my life.

I don't know what you get out of it, but I hope it's worth it to you.

[mykevermin]

Already submitted my Yes on 8 vote via absentee ballot! It's nice here that I can see 2 of those yellow and blue "Yes on 8" signs on the lawns of my neighbors... gotta love OC!

High five for Jim Crow 2: Electric Boogaloo!

No kidding. If there was a bill that would get rid of normal marriage (i.e., remove it from the domain of government), I'd vote for that too.

Petition your government representatives at the local, state, and federal level if you're such an equal-opportunity kind of guy. As I see it right now, you've simply voted to render homosexuals second-class citizenship while paying mere lip service to being an equal opportunity offender.

Let's see: call me dense, but when I am paying dues to a union (yes I am a member of a housestaff union... call me a commie), I expect that the money goes to some cause that either helps me or helps the workplace environment in which I work... If I were a teacher, I'd expect it to go to education related causes. WTF does gay marriage have to do with education? Has anyone noticed that our public school system in many parts of California is a joke? Unfortunately, the combination of the morons in the union plus the morons in administration have made public schools suck in many places... war private schools!

I've already covered the dense part, but let me emphasize your own point: WHEN you are paying dues to a union, then you can be offended if they don't do what you like with said dues. In the meantime, quit yer cryin' over what someone does who doesn't represent you.

[BigT]

What is nice about it?

This proposition doesn't affect you at all.

It does affect me, my life, my husband, my child, and my future.

Thank you for using your vote to void my marriage. All this high minded talk about about government interference, and here are California voters directly interfering in my life.

I don't know what you get out of it, but I hope it's worth it to you.

I have no problem with any interactions or associations that people have with each other. I have already said multiple times that I believe that government should not be involved in marriage.

I support prop 8 because I do have a problem with a small minority of people trying to redefine the institution of marriage for the majority of people. Unfortunately, a small group of activists and relativists are using this issue to purposefully weaken traditional nuclear families while mainstreaming hedonism and deviancy (of course, this issue is much broader than just that of homosexuality and extends into feminism, promiscuity, and sexual deviancy).

Plain and simple, "marriage" b/w 2 men or 2 women is not equivalent to marriage b/w a woman and a man. In principle, such unions are not capable of reproduction and do not carry the same benefits for society. Moreover, they create confusion for society and for future generations by creating a vague and less precise definition for the term marriage while also muddling the intrinsically different roles of males and females within society.

Another issue is that of whether society should create exceptions for something that may well be a psychiatric illness. Unfortunately, in the field of psychiatry, "diseases" are often difficult to define (DSM is rather arbitrary and this all becomes a discussion to itself). Nevertheless, the possibility exists that we may be making an exception to placate the whims of those with a psychiatric condtion... and where does that stop? Should we ignore the crimes of those with antisocial personality disorder, forgive the debts of those with bipolar mania, provide welfare to those with amotivation caused by schizophrenia?

I'll stick with tradition...

[lilboo]

I'll stick with idiocy...

Fair enough.

[speedracer]

I have no problem with any interactions or associations that people have with each other. I have already said multiple times that I believe that government should not be involved in marriage.

I support prop 8 because I do have a problem with a small minority of people trying to redefine the institution of marriage for the majority of people. Unfortunately, a small group of activists and relativists are using this issue to purposefully weaken traditional nuclear families while mainstreaming hedonism and deviancy (of course, this issue is much broader than just that of homosexuality and extends into feminism, promiscuity, and sexual deviancy).

Plain and simple, "marriage" b/w 2 men or 2 women is not equivalent to marriage b/w a woman and a man. In principle, such unions are not capable of reproduction and do not carry the same benefits for society. Moreover, they create confusion for society and for future generations by creating a vague and less precise definition for the term marriage while also muddling the intrinsically different roles of males and females within society.

Another issue is that of whether society should create exceptions for something that may well be a psychiatric illness. Unfortunately, in the field of psychiatry, "diseases" are often difficult to define (DSM is rather arbitrary and this all becomes a discussion to itself). Nevertheless, the possibility exists that we may be making an exception to placate the whims of those with a psychiatric condtion... and where does that stop? Should we ignore the crimes of those with antisocial personality disorder, forgive the debts of those with bipolar mania, provide welfare to those with amotivation caused by schizophrenia?

I'll stick with tradition...
I get my posters mixed up sometimes. Is this real or someone bullshitting? -1 if it's a faker for using the same busted ass arguments, +1 if it's real for the sociological and archaeological value of having something like that saved forever for people to laugh at.

[thrustbucket]

Plain and simple, "marriage" b/w 2 men or 2 women is not equivalent to marriage b/w a woman and a man. In principle, such unions are not capable of reproduction and do not carry the same benefits for society. Moreover, they create confusion for society and for future generations by creating a vague and less precise definition for the term marriage while also muddling the intrinsically different roles of males and females within society.


Families shmamlies. All marriage is today is a piece of paper with two names on it. It's just a ceremony to feel good about and a reason to proudly wear a ring with a memory attached. Who are you to deny others this joy?

To bring up children as an aspect of marriage is just assholish and pure bigotry. Who are you to attach children to the definition or origins of marriage? What an imbecile. Historically, marriage has had nothing to do with the creation and importance of offspring, what are you, retarded?

Marriage is just another way of expressing love, and has nothing to do with offspring and never has. Don't you see that it's unfair that society maintains artificial barriers that prevents people in love from loving each other as much as they could otherwise? Who are you to deny people that piece of paper that makes love complete?

[BigT]

High five for Jim Crow 2: Electric Boogaloo!

Petition your government representatives at the local, state, and federal level if you're such an equal-opportunity kind of guy. As I see it right now, you've simply voted to render homosexuals second-class citizenship while paying mere lip service to being an equal opportunity offender.

This issue is different than the issue of race. Race is an immutable characteristic over which one has no choice. Homosexuality, despite any propensities that may be biologically ingrained, also involves an aspect of behavior and choice... hell, I could, in principle, choose to have sex with a man or transsexual and could enter into a relationship with a member of one of these genders. However, as hard as I may try, I cannot change the fact that I'm a white man.

Look, I have no problem with women forming relationships with women, men forming relationships with men, or even men forming relationships with male to female transsexuals (add other permutations as needed). It's America and we should be free to do what we want without persecution (as long it does not infringe on the rights of others). However, these people should realize that if their chosen behavior differs significantly from the norm, they should not expect that society will provide them with the same benefits that are afforded to the more generally accepted behavior.

I've already covered the dense part, but let me emphasize your own point: WHEN you are paying dues to a union, then you can be offended if they don't do what you like with said dues. In the meantime, quit yer cryin' over what someone does who doesn't represent you.

The teachers union donation is a symptom of a bigger problem (i.e., the curious lack of focus on education). It is akin to having a huge gas leak in one's house and then using one's money to build a swimming pool in a neighbor's yard instead of fixing the gas leak. Our public school system and it's unions are made up of liberal ideologues who have shown their hand on this issue through their donations. They are champions of relativism and want to indoctrinate into their pupils that homosexuality is simply an alternative to heterosexuality.

[mykevermin]

I have no problem with any interactions or associations that people have with each other.

This is like the "I don't mean to sound like a racist, but..." of the anti-marriage crowd.

I have already said multiple times that I believe that government should not be involved in marriage.

I'll keep that in mind. I have a feeling as soon as I turn the corner I'll find a different argument, like I'm playing Saints Row and all of a sudden all the pedestrians and cars disappear to be replaced by different pop-in characters.

I support prop 8 because I do have a problem with a small minority of people trying to redefine the institution of marriage for the majority of people. Unfortunately, a small group of activists and relativists are using this issue to purposefully weaken traditional nuclear families while mainstreaming hedonism and deviancy (of course, this issue is much broader than just that of homosexuality and extends into feminism, promiscuity, and sexual deviancy).

There we go. You no longer can lay claim to either (1) the argument of yours that "government should not be involved in marriage," or that (2) you "have no problem." That's bullshit. As you liken sexuality to a psychological illness (CITE YOUR DATA!) later on, you fucking *clearly* have a problem with it. I already said your phony egalitarianism in the form of an empty gesture towards government getting out of all marriages was just that. You're no egalitarian; you've clearly established a hierarchy of preference here that one kind of marriage is perfectly fine both in the church and as recognized by the state. You're not just a hypocrite: you lied through your fucking *teeth* in your last post. That's despicable.

Plain and simple, "marriage" b/w 2 men or 2 women is not equivalent to marriage b/w a woman and a man. In principle, such unions are not capable of reproduction and do not carry the same benefits for society. Moreover, they create confusion for society and for future generations by creating a vague and less precise definition for the term marriage while also muddling the intrinsically different roles of males and females within society.

Yeah. Like women in the workforce, desegregated schools, and white kids with dreadlocks. Look, dude, social change happens whether or not you're a postmodernist (n.b.: I'm not). You seem to want to embrace traditionalism, yet you're enforcing the status quo of modern society. You're against promiscuity, yet seem to want to misattribute the responsibility for that onto homosexuals - which is patently incorrect, and your brilliant plan to fight against promiscuity is to - get this! - fight against MONOGAMY!?!?! You're a blithering idiot.

You're fighting one battle against gay marriage, and not petitioning your congressperson to spay and neuter sexually active unwed teens and adults; you're not petitioning your congressperson to repeal divorce laws (remember the good old days, when divorce would only be granted due to philandering by the wife and not the husband? Them were the days!); you're not petitioning your congressperson to make sure women are good homemakers in order to meet your ideal.

In short (finally!), you've sculpted this elaborate rationale and backstory for your vote, none of which holds any water, none of which stands up to any ideological scrutiny, and none of which you're actively working to change in favor of your grandiose "Pleasantville" world vision. You just want to act like you have a well-thought-out reason for voting against gay marriage. It's thought out, but philosophically empty.

I'd have more respect for you if you just said "I can't stand gay people, I can't stand monogamy, I can't stand lifelong commitments by people I can't stand, and I've stands all I can stands, and I can't stands no more."

Another issue is that of whether society should create exceptions for something that may well be a psychiatric illness. Unfortunately, in the field of psychiatry, "diseases" are often difficult to define (DSM is rather arbitrary and this all becomes a discussion to itself). Nevertheless, the possibility exists that we may be making an exception to placate the whims of those with a psychiatric condtion... and where does that stop? Should we ignore the crimes of those with antisocial personality disorder, forgive the debts of those with bipolar mania, provide welfare to those with amotivation caused by schizophrenia?

I'll stick with tradition...

Oh, well, there's...that. Perhaps I spoke too soon. I s'pose that does give me a modicum of respect for your willingness to simply admit to hating a group of people. ;)

This issue is different than the issue of race. Race is an immutable characteristic over which one has no choice. Homosexuality, despite any propensities that may be biologically ingrained, also involves an aspect of behavior and choice... hell, I could, in principle, choose to have sex with a man or transsexual and could enter into a relationship with a member of one of these genders. However, as hard as I may try, I cannot change the fact that I'm a white man.

Race is a social category. Tell my Irish great-great grandmother just how fucking "white" she was.

And, of course, you're conflating sexual attraction with sexual performance. Two issues, and I'm, as usual, unamazed that you can't intellectually separate the two. Were the reality in your world the case, divorce wouldn't happen. Married couples would look at each other 20 years later, say "oh, I guess I could fuck...*that*...again," sigh with some semblance of resigned eroticism, and enjoy themselves. One chooses who they perform with sexually; one does not choose who they are sexually attracted to (can't imagine scat fetishes are consciously selected. In fact, don't want to imagine anything down that psychological path!).

Now, that said, let's say it's a choice. Let me claim the mantle of a Republican for a moment.

*cough*

I'M AN AMERICAN CITIZEN GODDAMMIT! I CAN STICK MY DICK WHEREVER I GODDAMNED WELL PLEASE AND UNCLE SAM CAN'T SAY A FUCKING THING ABOUT IT!

I mean, really, choice or not choice...so fuckin' what? Unless, as we've established, you're prejudiced against homosexuals. Not like that would go away if you could even admit that sexual attraction is biologically driven.

Look, I have no problem with women forming relationships with women, men forming relationships with men, or even men forming relationships with male to female transsexuals (add other permutations as needed).

Just as long as they shut up, keep it in their bedrooms, and reinforce heteronormativity, right? Don't want Judy and Janice doin' somethin' NASTY like...like...like...HOLDING HANDS OR KISSING IN PUBLIC OH MY GOD MY EYES THEY BURN!!!!!

(this is where I'm a bit facist: I think PDA should be punishable by death except in cases of military deployment/return, but that's neither here nor there, really.)

It's America and we should be free to do what we want without persecution (as long it does not infringe on the rights of others).

Duly noted. I concur.

However, these people should realize that if their chosen behavior differs significantly from the norm, they should not expect that society will provide them with the same benefits that are afforded to the more generally accepted behavior.

Oh, so now there are caveats for freedom without persecution? Shit, I guess I haven't been reading my constitution lately. Sorry, queers, the white straight folks have spoken. Back in your holes!

The teachers union donation is a symptom of a bigger problem (i.e., the curious lack of focus on education). It is akin to having a huge gas leak in one's house and then using one's money to build a swimming pool in a neighbor's yard instead of fixing the gas leak.

That's a cute analogy. I've been using "it's akin to sweeping the kitchen floor when the house is on fire" when discussing McCain's proposed elimination of earmarks, FWIW. How adorable. Think we're compatible? ;)

Our public school system and it's unions are made up of liberal ideologues who have shown their hand on this issue through their donations. They are champions of relativism and want to indoctrinate into their pupils that homosexuality is simply an alternative to heterosexuality.

So...liberal unions made up of liberals are passing on money to liberal candidates. Are you just pissing and moaning, or are you decrying democracy being democracy?

[SpazX]

I've been changed, you're right thrust, marriage is important and unlike what you and BigT have said about the government staying out of marriage I agree with what you and BigT have said about how the government should define marriage through law.

Like you, I define things based on what the government does and does not allow. If the government allows gay people to get "married" then that changes everything I've ever thought about marriage! That means I have to say two gay people are married when they get their certificates from the state! That's some crazy shit I just can't deal with, so I'd rather the government just not allow gay people to get married since that just makes the term "marriage" confusing and meaningless. I won't let them take away my definitions, they're all I have.

And of course children are the centerpiece of all marriages. After prop 8 passes I submit that there should be a new law that will have people checked to make sure they can bear children before they are able to get married. If they cannot have children themselves then they can file a "right to marriage via adoption" waiver and after approval they can get married on the condition that they plan to adopt. Additionally, if they have not had children (or adopt, of course, it's their choice, I'd rather not have the government make that decision for them), then all marriage rights will be revoked. What's the point in getting married if you're not planning on having children, right? That's the whole point, so I'd rather not have these assholes mucking up my definition of marriage by being allowed to deviate from that.

[mykevermin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409262,00.html

THAT is what y'all pants-shitting straight folks should be worried about. White folks throwin' away perfectly good chillun'!

[RAMSTORIA]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409262,00.html

THAT is what y'all pants-shitting straight folks should be worried about. White folks throwin' away perfectly good chillun'!

id imagine most people that support prop 8 would find that law appalling. but i could be wrong.

[SpazX]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409262,00.html

THAT is what y'all pants-shitting straight folks should be worried about. White folks throwin' away perfectly good chillun'!

Those kids are from parents who are just too good at marriage. They understand how marriage is for making babies and fucking is for procreation, not recreation!

[mykevermin]

id imagine most people that support prop 8 would find that law appalling. but i could be wrong.

Finding it appalling and putting effort into working against it, even across state lines, is what "traditionalists" ought to be doing. I'm not cool with more lip service.

[Hex]

However, as hard as I may try, I cannot change the fact that I'm a white man.

Hey. Psst. Guess what. A GAY GUY CAN'T CHANGE HIS ORIENTATION EITHER.

My god, get over yourself.

Look, I have no problem with women forming relationships with women, men forming relationships with men, or even men forming relationships with male to female transsexuals (add other permutations as needed). It's America and we should be free to do what we want without persecution (as long it does not infringe on the rights of others). However, these people should realize that if their chosen behavior differs significantly from the norm, they should not expect that society will provide them with the same benefits that are afforded to the more generally accepted behavior. Myke already said basically what needs to be said but I can't go without commenting on just how nuts you are. You obviously DO have a problem with it, otherwise you wouldn't care if we married. "It's America and we should be free to do what we want without persecution (as long it does not infringe on the rights of others)." Yet equal marriage harms no one, and Proposition Eight is the very fucking definition of persecution.

If I didn't think what you continue to post were an affront to humanity, I'd probably laugh good and hard, hoping you're some bored 4chan troll.

[BigT]

This is like the "I don't mean to sound like a racist, but..." of the anti-marriage crowd.

I'll keep that in mind. I have a feeling as soon as I turn the corner I'll find a different argument, like I'm playing Saints Row and all of a sudden all the pedestrians and cars disappear to be replaced by different pop-in characters.

There we go. You no longer can lay claim to either (1) the argument of yours that "government should not be involved in marriage," or that (2) you "have no problem." That's bullshit. As you liken sexuality to a psychological illness (CITE YOUR DATA!) later on, you fucking *clearly* have a problem with it. I already said your phony egalitarianism in the form of an empty gesture towards government getting out of all marriages was just that. You're no egalitarian; you've clearly established a hierarchy of preference here that one kind of marriage is perfectly fine both in the church and as recognized by the state. You're not just a hypocrite: you lied through your fucking *teeth* in your last post. That's despicable.

I don't think I lied... not intentionally... but all emotions aside, it's a difference b/w what I believe would be the ideal (gov't staying out of marriage and not handing out unequal preferences) vs. a more pragmatic reality (in a democracy, a minority practicing a vastly different lifestyle should not expect to have the same benefits/recognition as the majority... it's a simple corollary of our democratic voting system). I do stand by my statement that I do not like it when activists try to use this issue to attack heterosexual marriage.

Yeah. Like women in the workforce, desegregated schools, and white kids with dreadlocks. Look, dude, social change happens whether or not you're a postmodernist (n.b.: I'm not). You seem to want to embrace traditionalism, yet you're enforcing the status quo of modern society. You're against promiscuity, yet seem to want to misattribute the responsibility for that onto homosexuals - which is patently incorrect, and your brilliant plan to fight against promiscuity is to - get this! - fight against MONOGAMY!?!?! You're a blithering idiot.

Aside from the ad hominem attacks, you do make a valid point: my argument could be viewed as a limited "fight against monogamy" in the homosexual community. Good catch. To clarify, I fully support monogamy among homosexuals, but

You're fighting one battle against gay marriage, and not petitioning your congressperson to spay and neuter sexually active unwed teens and adults; you're not petitioning your congressperson to repeal divorce laws (remember the good old days, when divorce would only be granted due to philandering by the wife and not the husband? Them were the days!); you're not petitioning your congressperson to make sure women are good homemakers in order to meet your ideal.

One battle at a time, one battle at a time... Jeez, give me a break, I don't even have one of those Yes on 8 lawn signs (not because I don't think they're awesome... it's just that they seem tacky and would not go with the decor ;)). The rest of the issues may be best addressed by society as a whole (i.e., through which ideals are represented as laudable by the media... unfortunately, we're going in the wrong direction...) Legislating those things would be silly.


In short (finally!), you've sculpted this elaborate rationale and backstory for your vote, none of which holds any water, none of which stands up to any ideological scrutiny, and none of which you're actively working to change in favor of your grandiose "Pleasantville" world vision. You just want to act like you have a well-thought-out reason for voting against gay marriage. It's thought out, but philosophically empty.

I'd have more respect for you if you just said "I can't stand gay people, I can't stand monogamy, I can't stand lifelong commitments by people I can't stand, and I've stands all I can stands, and I can't stands no more."
I'd be a liar if I said those things because I don't agree with them.


Oh, well, there's...that. Perhaps I spoke too soon. I s'pose that does give me a modicum of respect for your willingness to simply admit to hating a group of people. ;)

I diagnose people with illnesses all the time... it doesn't make me hate them; it just makes me want to help them.

Race is a social category. Tell my Irish great-great grandmother just how fucking "white" she was.
Now you are living in the past...

And, of course, you're conflating sexual attraction with sexual performance. Two issues, and I'm, as usual, unamazed that you can't intellectually separate the two. Were the reality in your world the case, divorce wouldn't happen. Married couples would look at each other 20 years later, say "oh, I guess I could fuck...*that*...again," sigh with some semblance of resigned eroticism, and enjoy themselves. One chooses who they perform with sexually; one does not choose who they are sexually attracted to (can't imagine scat fetishes are consciously selected. In fact, don't want to imagine anything down that psychological path!).

You're missing the point of my argument: there is still a choice. Despite the fact that one may have attraction to the same sex, one still has a choice to avoid acting on these desires. Furthermore, one may reinforce the development of a sexual attraction to an object or act over time... orgasm is a powerful reinforcement plus there are hormones such as oxytocin (and other poorly understood factors) released after the sexual act which all serve to reinforce the activity... thus, it is not beyond reason that someone may condition him/herself to be gay through operant conditioning.




Just as long as they shut up, keep it in their bedrooms, and reinforce heteronormativity, right? Don't want Judy and Janice doin' somethin' NASTY like...like...like...HOLDING HANDS OR KISSING IN PUBLIC OH MY GOD MY EYES THEY BURN!!!!!

(this is where I'm a bit facist: I think PDA should be punishable by death except in cases of military deployment/return, but that's neither here nor there, really.)
PDA? In my mind that stands for 1.) patent ductus arteriosus and 2.) personal data/digital assistant.


That's a cute analogy. I've been using "it's akin to sweeping the kitchen floor when the house is on fire" when discussing McCain's proposed elimination of earmarks, FWIW. How adorable. Think we're compatible? ;)

Don't get your hopes up big boy... ;) I'd first go for a passable tranny before i fully crossed over to the other side... 8-)

On a related note, check this article: Final Fight, the most awesome game ever getting besmirched (there's my Steven Regal allusion for the day)...
http://gaygamer.net/2007/05/is_final_fight_the_gayest_game.html

Mike "don't call me Don Frye" Haggar would not be amused... :)

...and they didn't even mention Poison :cry:, the hottest tranny in video games... dude, if I'm not careful, I'm gonna become a switch hitter soon...

[mykevermin]

But you're a physician who's reaching over into the psychological realm, a location where you have no qualifications to make such assertions. Particularly when you flippantly poo-poo the DSM with baseless disregard.

Likewise, I'm a 'doctor,' but I'm not going to tell you that you require cyclobenzaprine in order to relax your bigotry. Dig?

Your whole argument is faulty because it's so fractioned, packed of lies (intentional or not), contradictions, and is simply an elaborate rationale you constructed after deciding that homosexuality is an abomination. And your post-hoc "one battle at a time" claim is absolute nonsense, since you know, dollars to donuts (the hell did that phrase ever come from?), that you'll sit on your diagnosin' ass, content with the world once the queers can't marry.

You are in NO position to claim homosexuality as an illness. Your M.D. don't qualify you for that any more than it qualifies you to prepare me a nice duck confit. Now go back to prescribing "ritalin" for children diagnosed with "ADD," "ADHD," and "autism," and contemplate the inherenty biological and not-particularly-social elements of medical science.

I've some research to look up Carleton Coon's claims on biological race to reaffirm my faith in the "hard" sciences. ;)

[BigT]

Hey. Psst. Guess what. A GAY GUY CAN'T CHANGE HIS ORIENTATION EITHER.

My god, get over yourself.

Myke already said basically what needs to be said but I can't go without commenting on just how nuts you are. You obviously DO have a problem with it, otherwise you wouldn't care if we married. "It's America and we should be free to do what we want without persecution (as long it does not infringe on the rights of others)." Yet equal marriage harms no one, and Proposition Eight is the very fucking definition of persecution.

If I didn't think what you continue to post were so ridiculous, I'd probably laugh good and hard, hoping you're some bored 4chan troll.

I'm not a bored 4chan troll... it's worse than that... gasp, I'm a Ron Paul and Alan Keyes supporter who currently has the week off from work and doesn't know what to do with all the free time. Plus, my brain has been fried by sleeping 5 hours a night and working 80-90 hour weeks for the last several months...

Dude, I do use some hyperbole for effect... but the basic argument is what I believe in. And, I really don't care if gay people marry... (after all, it is the people who marry themselves)... it's government recognition of these unions that I oppose.

Anyway, I've wasted enough of my free time on this issue so goodnight!

[mykevermin]

Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are vastly different in terms of political ideology. It's like saying "I like Noam Chomsky and Ronald Reagan." Well, not quite that...but bloody close. Socially libertarian and socially...hmm...puritanical. Quite different indeed.

[Hex]

I'm not a bored 4chan troll... it's worse than that... gasp, I'm a Ron Paul and Alan Keyes supporter who currently has the week off from work and doesn't know what to do with all the free time. Plus, my brain has been fried by sleeping 5 hours a night and working 80-90 hour weeks for the last several months...

Dude, I do use some hyperbole for effect... but the basic argument is what I believe in. And, I really don't care if gay people marry... (after all, it is the people who marry themselves)... it's government recognition of these unions that I oppose.

Anyway, I've wasted enough of my free time on this issue so goodnight!

... Okay? I work sixteen hours a day with medical school, get about that much sleep a night and still maintain a 4.0. I wasn't aware this concerned our sleep schedules.

If that sort of regressive, stone age logic is what you believe in, then fine. The rest of society, however, is obviously choosing to march forward. I highly doubt that you're actively screaming from the street corner against straight people getting married, so until you do, cram that argument where the sun doesn't shine. All you're doing now is making it so that I have less social rights than you do. That's oppression. Here I thought in Amurikkur we were against oppression! I guess you're only against persecution when it benefits you, am I right?

"Anyway, I've wasted enough of my free time on this issue so goodnight!"

yeah, must be pretty fucking easy for someone who doesn't have to worry about whether or not they have marriage rights to sleep at night. The fact that this issue is downplayed so much is a testament to how backwards people are.

[BigT]

... Okay? I work sixteen hours a day with medical school, get about that much sleep a night and still maintain a 4.0. I wasn't aware this concerned our sleep schedules.

If that sort of regressive, stone age logic is what you believe in, then fine. The rest of society, however, is obviously choosing to march forward. I highly doubt that you're actively screaming from the street corner against straight people getting married, so until you do, cram that argument where the sun doesn't shine. All you're doing now is making it so that I have less social rights than you do. That's oppression. Here I thought in Amurikkur we were against oppression! I guess you're only against persecution when it benefits you, am I right?

"Anyway, I've wasted enough of my free time on this issue so goodnight!"

yeah, must be pretty fucking easy for someone who doesn't have to worry about whether or not they have marriage rights to sleep at night. The fact that this issue is downplayed so much is a testament to how backwards people are.

Everyone is confusing my arguments about marriage... I have never said that I am against marriage between straight people... I merely said that I am against government recognition of marriage. As a Catholic, I consider it a religious rite and could care less about whether the gov't officially recognizes it or not. But don't get me wrong, I do respect it as a sacrament... jeez, from the responses I'm getting here it feels like I'm in San Fran...

BTW, good luck with med school.
Here are a few tips:
1. If you're put on the spot with a differential and can't think of anything, just invoke the thyroid gland, syphilis, constipation, or my favorite diagnosis: malingering.
2. If you see nipple rings on a chest radiograph plus a consolidation, get an HIV test (especially if you practice in San Fran, West LA, or Downtown San Diego).
3. Don't fuck with the pancreas.
4. More than 3 drug allergies = an Axis 2 diagnosis (with >95% sensitivity and specificity).
5. The attending is always right... especially surgeons, pulm/CC, and cardiologists.
6. Sleep is important for mental health.
7. Never touch a rash!... scabies and syphillis are great imitators... slathering oneself in permethrin or taking penicillin G is no fun...

Now to get some sleep for real... ;)

[Friend of Sonic]

Life is ironic. I think marriage is a pointless and archaic ritual. Yet, I am legally allowed to marry my girlfriend. However, the gay couples who believe in the institution are not allowed to do so.
It really makes no sense why so much money is being spent to fight this. I can only assume that taxpayer's dollars are being spent on pushing these amendments and bills to ban same sex marriage. To me that's outrageous. There's people dying of hunger who wouldn't have to be dying of hunger if we spent the money for them instead. But we'd rather spend that money to make sure that it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Stupid, stupid America.

I also heard a rather interesting radio ad this evening. It told of a story of an old widow recalling when she married her husband. They were so poor "They didn't have two nickels to rub together!" For the marriage, her husband wore a suit one size too big. Then they kept slipping in a bunch of references to God. How it was the plan to be married and how God would ensure them success or some shit like that. Then it's revealed the husband had passed away and in rememberance, each of their five sons wore oversized suits to their wedding. Then the announcer of the ad says, "A marriage is a special bond-- it means the gathering of a woman, man and family. Help keep a clear and defined definition for marriage-- vote proposition 202."

I was floored. I was completely blind sided by the commercial. It was completely playing like some commercial for a church. I also found it particularly offending to my common sense that a family unit would have to be lead by a male and female head. America has some serious problems. I wish they'd stop focusing on shit like this.

[Paco]

We cayunt have them faygits ruin'un tha sanctuty uf marruge!

I continue to assert there is zero reason why equal marriage should be prohibited.



Breaking news: Spousicide has increased 798% following the ban on divorce. It's like New Order's 1963, but in reality. :lol:

Also,


Really fucking classy. Top notch argument right there, going after the effeminate like that. Because, you know, all homosexual individuals are flamboyant men, right? Protip: as with most stereotypes, the "queen" image isn't as common as you might think. It's just flamboyant, so knuckledragging reactionist thinking like that is of course going to pick up on it. Again, classy move.

The fight is for the principle. To be made equal in the eyes of the law as we non-heteros have a right to be.

Obviously you are not a fan of the lawls. I know that most of them aren't the queens. I know a lot of homosexuals aren't flaming or in your face. "Just in San Fransisco" But I do stand by my statement that I think they're idiots for fighting so hard for this when in reality it just adds government intervention and a way to fleece someone. I wish I had what gay civil unions had on hetrosexual couples. I wish I could bail out at any time and keep my posessions.

And they seem to be fighting for the right to be punched in the nuts. If that's what makes them happy then go for it. Just remember that what they have right now is superior in material possessions as they don't get the three ring circus known as Divorce Court.

[thrustbucket]

I've been changed, you're right thrust, marriage is important and unlike what you and BigT have said about the government staying out of marriage I agree with what you and BigT have said about how the government should define marriage through law.
No, the government really has no business defining marriage. They can define civil unions; which should be defined by any two (or more) people that want to get into legally binded/benefiting contracts.

What does not make any sense are those people that are so hell-bent on completely "sanitizing" religion from government, and at the same time want so badly to keep the admitadly archaic/religious practice of marriage recognition and defining IN government. That's like fighting for the banning of guns while also lobbying for tax breaks for ammo manufacturers.

Once those that cringe at any semblance of the religious in government realize that marriage really is just an overlooked religious tradition and symbol that crept in the back door of the country's founding framework, they will realize they are working counter to their own secular goals when trying to meddle with marriage instead of abolish it.

What's the point in getting married if you're not planning on having children, right? That's the whole point, so I'd rather not have these assholes mucking up my definition of marriage by being allowed to deviate from that.

Cute.
Two primary things that sum up my views on gay marriage:

1- It's absolutely true that marriage is founded on and rooted in religious family creation social devices believed by our ancestors to be the primary building blocks of society. You can't escape that fact. However, that being said -

2- I don't give a flying fuck about gay marriage, legalized or not. Society today makes a mockery at every turn of marriage, traditional or not, so who cares? I just can't stand the hollow hypocritical arguments that run rampant about it on both sides.

[mykevermin]

I have never said that I am against marriage between straight people... I merely said that I am against government recognition of marriage.

Let's see how anti-government you'd remain the moment you realize that government recognition of marriage coincides hand-in-hand with inheritance rights in the absence of a will, custody of children, visitation rights/power of attorney in the case of serious medical injury (but I'm sure you knew that).

I don't believe for a second that a good ol' boy Republican ideologue can comfortably fathom, for even one second, the idea of his spouse's wealth and child becoming the property of the state because an accident happened early enough in life that a will was not drafted by said spouse.

Which is more or less what you're proposing here. Government abandonment of marriage as a legal principle = government not recognizing the legal rights of married spouses (and what that implies). And let us not forget the "cut off your nose to spite your face" aspect of many state-level constitutional "redefinitions" of marriage that were on general ballots in 2004/2006 also rendered legally null concepts of "common law marriages."

So your stuff becomes Uncle Sam's, in the end, because of your bigotry. And you're a small government Republican.

But even beyond that, the argument is misleading because it's premised on the idea that society doesn't benefit from marriage as an institution. Which is stupid. And wrong. And shortsighted. Think of the potential teachers in California who might apply for work in a state that allowed gay marriage/was open (whether or not they were gay themselves). Think of the tourist cottage industry that Massachusetts has become by allowing out of state couples to marry. That's BILLIONS in tourist revenue; taking entrepreneurial advantage of the bigoted masses who made sure their states didn't become like Mass.

I simply see this as issue you've shown yourself willing to be (1) untruthful about, (2) contradictory about, (3) willing to harm yourself over rather than allow passage, (4) falsely based on an inappropriate and unethical extension of your area of expertise into one in which you are not even an expert, but not even properly trained, (5) dishonest about your true intentions (government abandonment of marriage recognition, and (6) willfully ignorant of the social functions of marriage in order to keep your viewpoint. What have I forgotten?

[lilboo]

I always thought about how gay marriage would HELP the economy. Maybe not FIX the problem, :lol:, but gays USUALLY have more disposable income = bigger & expensive weddings.

Plus, our registries would be from high end store, which again, cost more money than usual 8-)

[mykevermin]

I don't think anyone has much in the way of disposable income these days.

And that's, in itself, premised on a stupid kinda "Birdcage" stereotype of gays.

[depascal22]

This shouldn't be about letting govt define marriage. It should be about people having the right to visit their spouse in the hospital, access the finances, and get insurance. You can say you don't want the government to mess around with this but how else do gay people get the same civil rights that straight people do?

It's not like everyone just started letting black people into schools and the good bathrooms. We needed laws to protect the minorities from being oppressed and we do now. It wasn't about hurting white people. It was about helping black people.

[evanft]

BigT's bigotry has earned him a proud new spot on my ignore list.

[Hex]

And they seem to be fighting for the right to be punched in the nuts. If that's what makes them happy then go for it. Just remember that what they have right now is superior in material possessions as they don't get the three ring circus known as Divorce Court.

I guess you haven't had something deprived of you by the government the way we have. The "lawls" about marriage sucking and why we would want it gets so mediocre after a while. Shut the fuck up and let the people enjoy it who want to. :roll:

A lot of you keep saying they. I think that's a cute dissociation when a handful of us are here, debating with you on this unfairly divisive issue. Stop relegating this issue to the gays or they. It persecutes me, it persecutes lilboo, and it involves just about every other non-straight member of this forum.Do you just not have the stones to tell me to my face that it's okay not to have the same rights under the law you do? It's okay when you can be aloof and uncaring at some name on a message board, but I doubt most of you would go up to a non-heterosexual individual and say "Hay, guess what? I don't think you deserve equal rights because you happen to fall in love with the same gender" because they'd probably give a fuckin' black eye.

BigoT BigT: You mean I can't just willy-nilly invoke a Kausch-Whipple procedure whenever I want? Man, medicine just got boring.

1- It's absolutely true that marriage is founded on and rooted in religious family creation social devices believed by our ancestors to be the primary building blocks of society.

So now we're getting into the term marriage, right? Last time I looked, Common Law Marriages had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the rights afforded by a religious marriage's contract. Yet when two straight people get "married" outside of the religious context (common law marriage), the conservatives don't get so upset. Unless you count that nasty hag Doctor Laura. Her voice, it's like razors in my ears.

YER SHACKIN UP

I think the term marriage when related to religion is just a straw man to try to validate dehumanizing, appalling hatred for individuals for no good damned reason.

[depascal22]

I've assisted during a couple of Whipple procedures. They suck big fat balls. 10 hours of belly surgery with no end in sight.

Back to the issue. I still haven't heard any good evidence that gays getting married will destroy the institution of marriage. I haven't heard that anyone will hurry up to divorce their wife so they can marry their boyfriend. I keep hearing that kids will grow up with messed up ideas about divorce. Surprise! They already do think that marriage is messed up. All of us have divorced parents or know someone with divorced parents. How is that image of marriage any better than gay marriage?

[lilboo]

I've assisted during a couple of Whipple procedures. They suck big fat balls. 10 hours of belly surgery with no end in sight.

Back to the issue. I still haven't heard any good evidence that gays getting married will destroy the institution of marriage. I haven't heard that anyone will hurry up to divorce their wife so they can marry their boyfriend. I keep hearing that kids will grow up with messed up ideas about divorce. Surprise! They already do think that marriage is messed up. All of us have divorced parents or know someone with divorced parents. How is that image of marriage any better than gay marriage?

2 MENZ CANT MAKES BABIEZ!11!!1
:whee:

[BigT]

I guess you haven't had something deprived of you by the government the way we have. The "lawls" about marriage sucking and why we would want it gets so mediocre after a while. Shut the fuck up and let the people enjoy it who want to. :roll:

A lot of you keep saying they. I think that's a cute dissociation when a handful of us are here, debating with you on this unfairly divisive issue. Stop relegating this issue to the gays or they. It persecutes me, it persecutes lilboo, and it involves just about every other non-straight member of this forum.Do you just not have the stones to tell me to my face that it's okay not to have the same rights under the law you do? It's okay when you can be aloof and uncaring at some name on a message board, but I doubt most of you would go up to a non-heterosexual individual and say "Hay, guess what? I don't think you deserve equal rights because you happen to fall in love with the same gender" because they'd probably give a fuckin' black eye.

BigoT BigT: You mean I can't just willy-nilly invoke a Kausch-Whipple procedure whenever I want? Man, medicine just got boring.



So now we're getting into the term marriage, right? Last time I looked, Common Law Marriages had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the rights afforded by a religious marriage's contract. Yet when two straight people get "married" outside of the religious context (common law marriage), the conservatives don't get so upset. Unless you count that nasty hag Doctor Laura. Her voice, it's like razors in my ears.

YER SHACKIN UP

I think the term marriage when related to religion is just a straw man to try to validate dehumanizing, appalling hatred for individuals for no good damned reason.


I agree with people who say that we should not be speding money on this issue... unfortunately, I'm guilty of being too verbose and involved in this... when it's an issue who only gay activists and religious extremists should be bickering about. But, I'm over it... I cast my vote and now my current interest in this issue may be summarized with the following image:

http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=normalcareometeryb9.jpghttp://img136.imageshack.us/img136/671/normalcareometeryb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Back to more important issues like the economy and will I become gay after I endure the ass raping congress, Obama, and the California legislature will put me through over the next decade or so... as Medicare continues its dive toward bankrupcy and reimbursements continue to fall yearly (they are already so low that we already basically treat Medicare patients at a financial loss... and that's why private hospital never want to take Medicare patients if they can avoid it), we'll just see tax increases and government pressure to treat people for free... then as we move toward socialized medicine, our salaries will fall to the level of common plebians (despite having ridiculous loans after being fleeced by medical schools who charge whatever students can obtain via loans):
http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=germanyak8.gif
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7388/germanyak8.gif (http://imageshack.us)


BTW, at the institutions I've worked (west coast), we have referred to it as a Whipple procedure... I wonder if it's a regional thing... in either case, if a surgeon starts talking about a Whipple, you know you're pretty much fucked.

[Sc4rfac3]

I've assisted during a couple of Whipple procedures. They suck big fat balls. 10 hours of belly surgery with no end in sight.

Back to the issue. I still haven't heard any good evidence that gays getting married will destroy the institution of marriage. I haven't heard that anyone will hurry up to divorce their wife so they can marry their boyfriend. I keep hearing that kids will grow up with messed up ideas about divorce. Surprise! They already do think that marriage is messed up. All of us have divorced parents or know someone with divorced parents. How is that image of marriage any better than gay marriage?
A couple years back i used to work in a school. There was this couple of gay men that had 2 kids going to the school. They where awesome parents they came to every pta meeting bake sale whatever school function we had. They made sure that their kids where on point. I have nothing but respect for them. That being said if i was in Cali i would vote against the ban.

[BigT]

BigT's bigotry has earned him a proud new spot on my ignore list.

Simple minds ignore the truth...

[Msut77]

Simple minds ignore the truth...

Thing is when people like you use the word truth they do not actually mean something like factually correct or rational or even reflecting reality.

If someone puts you on ignore it should not be for your bigotry but because your posts are usually equal parts asinine and inane which I call asinane.

[BigT]

Let's see how anti-government you'd remain the moment you realize that government recognition of marriage coincides hand-in-hand with inheritance rights in the absence of a will, custody of children, visitation rights/power of attorney in the case of serious medical injury (but I'm sure you knew that).

I don't believe for a second that a good ol' boy Republican ideologue can comfortably fathom, for even one second, the idea of his spouse's wealth and child becoming the property of the state because an accident happened early enough in life that a will was not drafted by said spouse.

Which is more or less what you're proposing here. Government abandonment of marriage as a legal principle = government not recognizing the legal rights of married spouses (and what that implies). And let us not forget the "cut off your nose to spite your face" aspect of many state-level constitutional "redefinitions" of marriage that were on general ballots in 2004/2006 also rendered legally null concepts of "common law marriages."

So your stuff becomes Uncle Sam's, in the end, because of your bigotry. And you're a small government Republican.

You assume that I agree with the way that government handles inheritance. Do you think that this issue would be dealt with in a vaccuum? I would propose that government should allow us to specify any beneficiary we would want for inheritance purposes... in a simple, neutral document.

But even beyond that, the argument is misleading because it's premised on the idea that society doesn't benefit from marriage as an institution. Which is stupid. And wrong. And shortsighted. Think of the potential teachers in California who might apply for work in a state that allowed gay marriage/was open (whether or not they were gay themselves). Think of the tourist cottage industry that Massachusetts has become by allowing out of state couples to marry. That's BILLIONS in tourist revenue; taking entrepreneurial advantage of the bigoted masses who made sure their states didn't become like Mass.

I simply see this as issue you've shown yourself willing to be (1) untruthful about, (2) contradictory about, (3) willing to harm yourself over rather than allow passage, (4) falsely based on an inappropriate and unethical extension of your area of expertise into one in which you are not even an expert, but not even properly trained, (5) dishonest about your true intentions (government abandonment of marriage recognition, and (6) willfully ignorant of the social functions of marriage in order to keep your viewpoint. What have I forgotten?

When did I say that society does not benefit from marriage... the black community has proven to us without a doubt that lack of marriage and a high percentage of illegitimate children creates a complete clusterfuck:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2549126620080727

Marriage is great, I just do see why the federal government should be involved in it. I personally do not believe that society benefits from activist imposing recognition of homosexual marriage upon us. But, hell, if a state votes for gay marriage it should be honored... the federal gov't lacks the authority to either ban gay marriage outright or legalize it across the board.

And I apologize for not being liberal ivory tower beard scratcher... but some of these things just boil down to life experience and common sense.

[thrustbucket]

Let's see how anti-government you'd remain the moment you realize that government recognition of marriage coincides hand-in-hand with inheritance rights in the absence of a will, custody of children, visitation rights/power of attorney in the case of serious medical injury (but I'm sure you knew that).

I don't believe for a second that a good ol' boy Republican ideologue can comfortably fathom, for even one second, the idea of his spouse's wealth and child becoming the property of the state because an accident happened early enough in life that a will was not drafted by said spouse.

Which is more or less what you're proposing here. Government abandonment of marriage as a legal principle = government not recognizing the legal rights of married spouses (and what that implies). And let us not forget the "cut off your nose to spite your face" aspect of many state-level constitutional "redefinitions" of marriage that were on general ballots in 2004/2006 also rendered legally null concepts of "common law marriages."

So your stuff becomes Uncle Sam's, in the end, because of your bigotry. And you're a small government Republican.

Every single issue you bring up can be solved by legal civil unions between a party of two or more.

The fact that a CEREMONY is usually required BY THE GOVERNMENT, in order to be legally married, should be evidence enough for you that marriage belongs in the realm of religion, not the halls of justice.


A lot of you keep saying they. I think that's a cute dissociation when a handful of us are here, debating with you on this unfairly divisive issue. Stop relegating this issue to the gays or they. It persecutes me, it persecutes lilboo, and it involves just about every other non-straight member of this forum.Do you just not have the stones to tell me to my face that it's okay not to have the same rights under the law you do? It's okay when you can be aloof and uncaring at some name on a message board, but I doubt most of you would go up to a non-heterosexual individual and say "Hay, guess what? I don't think you deserve equal rights because you happen to fall in love with the same gender" because they'd probably give a fuckin' black eye.

Like I said in my last post, I ultimately don't care about legalized gay marriage. But what bothers me about it is that it STRENGTHENS governments influence in our lives, where it should be cut all together.

Let me put this into an analogy you might easier understand: I am going to assume you are anti-capital punishment. Even if you aren't, pretend you are for a moment -

If a bunch of people in your state proposed a proposition to be voted upon that allowed the vote between executions being a gunshot to the head or the electric chair. Or, maybe they put on the ballot an initiative that lets you vote between giving painful executions to child killers, or letting them have equal executions as any other condemned.

What would you vote? How would you ultimately feel about the initiative/proposition? If you are anti-capital punishment you are likely going to be annoyed that it's there in the first place and wish that executions themselves were non-existent. You are going to be annoyed that state resources and everyones energy is focused on meddling with something you don't believe in anyway, right?

So now we're getting into the term marriage, right? Last time I looked, Common Law Marriages had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the rights afforded by a religious marriage's contract. Yet when two straight people get "married" outside of the religious context (common law marriage), the conservatives don't get so upset. Unless you count that nasty hag Doctor Laura. Her voice, it's like razors in my ears.
Exactly. And further proof why modern marriage is a joke. It's already been redefined by the decay of values and family structure time and time again in the past century.

I think the term marriage when related to religion is just a straw man to try to validate dehumanizing, appalling hatred for individuals for no good damned reason.
That's your choice. The reason marital roots in religion keeps getting brought up is just for perspective. A religion can also openly welcome homosexuals, and their marriage. And that's fine. I don't think anyone here is against that. But for an institution that is often (even in this thread) referred to as "sacred", it's really kind of ironic to also see people try and secularize it.

The attempt to further secularize something that was never historically secular is what bothers me about all this, and why I bring up religious roots.


Back to the issue. I still haven't heard any good evidence that gays getting married will destroy the institution of marriage. I haven't heard that anyone will hurry up to divorce their wife so they can marry their boyfriend. I keep hearing that kids will grow up with messed up ideas about divorce. Surprise! They already do think that marriage is messed up. All of us have divorced parents or know someone with divorced parents. How is that image of marriage any better than gay marriage?
It isn't.

I know there are many people out there that DO believe gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, but I'm not in that boat, and I don't think BigT is either. We are just bothered that so much fuss is being made about amending something that shouldn't be there in the first place (see my analogy above).

[depascal22]

They're making a big fuss out of it because there's no other way to guarantee civil rights. Schools didn't integrate themselves. Women weren't just given the right to vote. Those rights had to be fought for and legislated because the people in power never want to give minorities any sort of foothold in normal American society.

In a just world, we would never need to have this conversation. We don't live in a just world. You have to fight for your rights and the legislature is the only place to do it.

[thrustbucket]

What you don't get is that I am fighting for rights, on a much grander scale, of the people to not have government influence in their lives. All this is, is a skirmish in the larger battle, to grant more authority to government and/or solidify it.

You still aren't getting it. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH OPPRESSING PEOPLE where I am concerned. It has to do with being frustrated at so many people being so OK with government involvement in marriage, that they fight for even more. That's what this is all about to me.

Making an already bad idea more widespread and fair doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea.

From my point of view, it's like you have a kid complaining to their dad that he doesn't hit them as much as the other kids, and the whole nation is siding with the kid. I'm stepping back and scratching my head at the whole debacle. Sure, if he hit that kid more, it would be more fair, but maybe he shouldn't hit any kid....? Just a thought... that makes me a minority here.

[depascal22]

I understand you're fighting the good fight. I'm just saying it will never work. How do you propose to make America recognize that all spouses should have the right to make medical decisions, claim assets, or be included in a family health plan? If you can't do it by law, how would you do it?

People used your same argument against the Civil Rights Act. Why should the government legistlate that we have to let Blacks into our schools? Isn't it our right to separate them?

[RAMSTORIA]

I understand you're fighting the good fight. I'm just saying it will never work. How do you propose to make America recognize that all spouses should have the right to make medical decisions, claim assets, or be included in a family health plan? If you can't do it by law, how would you do it?

People used your same argument against the Civil Rights Act. Why should the government legistlate that we have to let Blacks into our schools? Isn't it our right to separate them?

you dont define them as a spouse. partners for everyone! marriage stays "sacred". everyone wins.

[thrustbucket]

Ramastoria is right, I've outlined this several times on this page alone.

Civil Unions.

Totally secular. And it covers all legalities. You allow anyone, or any group, to have one if they fill out the paper work. Require all currently married people to fill out the paperwork if they want to have a civil union and keep legal rights.

And most importantly, it's future proof. When any other minority or fringe group wants to fight and use government resources to debate and redefine, they won't have to. A civil union will cover every situation by virtue of what it is.

Then, if you want, go get married in the church of your choice that allows whatever or whoever type of marriage you want.

[lilboo]

Someone explain this to me:

Fuck religion.
I don't need to be MARRIED in a CHURCH.
I don't need any sort of blessing on my life that I spend with my BF.

However,
WHY is it wrong for us to be bound together legally? Why are you some of you against *THAT*.

It sickens me that it seems like most people don't have a problem with gays having EVERY SINGLE RIGHT as a married couple HOWEVER, they are throwing a FIT if we use the term "Marriage"

It's RIDICULOUS. People are arguing over a DEFINITION. Shut UP. I hope EVERYONE who doesn't support this, has GAY CHILDREN. I want YOU to be the reason why YOUR KIDS don't have equal rights to you.

Not everyone gives a shit about God and religions, so don't worry, I don't have my "MARRIAGE" at a church.

[RAMSTORIA]

Someone explain this to me:

Fuck religion.
I don't need to be MARRIED in a CHURCH.
I don't need any sort of blessing on my life that I spend with my BF.

However,
WHY is it wrong for us to be bound together legally? Why are you some of you against *THAT*.

It sickens me that it seems like most people don't have a problem with gays having EVERY SINGLE RIGHT as a married couple HOWEVER, they are throwing a FIT if we use the term "Marriage"

It's RIDICULOUS. People are arguing over a DEFINITION. Shut UP. I hope EVERYONE who doesn't support this, has GAY CHILDREN. I want YOU to be the reason why YOUR KIDS don't have equal rights to you.

Not everyone gives a shit about God and religions, so don't worry, I don't have my "MARRIAGE" at a church.

you answered your own question when you prefaced your statement by saying "fuck religion". youre forgetting that half of america disagrees with you there.

[The Crotch]

If a bunch of people in your state proposed a proposition to be voted upon that allowed the vote between executions being a gunshot to the head or the electric chair. Or, maybe they put on the ballot an initiative that lets you vote between giving painful executions to child killers, or letting them have equal executions as any other condemned.
That's... what the fuck? I just got back from class and started going through this thread, and... man... Is that the worst fucking example in the history of worst fucking examples ever?

I mean... god dammit, I usually make a point of not making throw-away "that's stupid" posts on this subforum, but...

Christ. That's horrible.

[lilboo]

you answered your own question when you prefaced your statement by saying "fuck religion". youre forgetting that half of america disagrees with you there.

But who is making this a religious thing?! All we are asking for is to be LEGALLY partnered with each other, and everyone who doesn't matter (aka straight people) seem to have an opinion that's interfering in my life.

[Hex]

then as we move toward socialized medicine, our salaries will fall to the level of common plebians (despite having ridiculous loans after being fleeced by medical schools who charge whatever students can obtain via loans)

The only reason I see for doctors to make as much as they do is to pay for their education. Outside that, as someone who's going to become a doctor, many are overpaid. Nurses and MAs bust their asses, doing most of the work in a clinical setting yet they barely make enough to live on. Nurses are the most overworked, underpaid individuals in the industry, and it's sickening. I'm not saying doctors should make shit pay; I'm saying that loans aside, doctors make altogether too much money.

If you're a doctor for the pay, and not the patients, then you're in the wrong damned profession.

But that's another debate thread.

Thrustbucket, I'm trying to wrap my head around your logic. Do you want to do away with marriage altogether? To eliminate this so-called big gubmint interference in one's life from everyone's lives? Somehow I don't think that'll go over well with all of the straight people.

Equal marriage doesn't hurt you. This thoroughly laughable struggle to keep a minority from something as simple as wedding the individual they love is just.. No wonder so many people hate humanity.

Yet again, BigoT, you don't care because you're happy and free to fucking marry. Good for fucking you. Because you don't think it's an important issue doesn't mean it isn't.

It's a pretty big fucking issue to us. Think about our perspective. Civil unions? Separate but equal. Common Law Marriage is secular (thank goodness). If a church wants to wed a homosexual couple, then they've got a better grasp on Jeebus than the rest of them, but in other cases, Common Law Marriage should apply to everyone.

You can keep struggling for your backwards, paleolithic concept of "trudishnul valyews" and nuclear familes but it's a fact that society has changed. Those concepts don't commonly apply anymore (as well they shouldn't). People grow up without 1950's McCarthy values and live their lives just fine.

And thrust? You allegorized love to execution. What the fuck. We're not killing people by kissing, jesus christ.

[depascal22]

you dont define them as a spouse. partners for everyone! marriage stays "sacred". everyone wins.


But don't you have to legislate that? Everyone is saying that government should stay out of the whole affair but doesn't there have to be a law that allows civil unions/marriage?

The whole argument for this wasn't that marriage = civil union but it was about government interference. All I'm saying is that I don't understand how you give people any rights without some guarantee from the government. If you don't have any government sanction, all those rights just become wishes.