im from massachusettes where gay marriage is legal im not gay but i support there right to marry.
what do you think.......for it
against it
care less
states right
for a constitutional ban
Printable View
im from massachusettes where gay marriage is legal im not gay but i support there right to marry.
what do you think.......for it
against it
care less
states right
for a constitutional ban
Perverted, disgusting, warped, let's get things straight here, people that want to make love to the same sex have something wrong with their heart, soul, and mind.
Does anyone ever STOP to THINK that your life was born from heterosexuality, YES HELLO everyone that was born, was born from a Mother and Father, unless you did something unnatural, like artificial insemination.
Lets face it we live in a warped and perverted world, with the views of these people trying to say this is OK, well I'm sorry it's wrong.
Man was intended to have a mate as a woman, and vice versa, anyone that does not think this way has something wrong with them, and these people need some serious help.
What's sad is even a small child knows the differences of what's right and wrong because this is something born into our nature, genes, etc.. and you can never take it away.
I feel sorry for kids being born from gay couples that are getting artificial insemination, can you image one day the child asking where is my father, or mother?, to one day find out the truth.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
i agree with das
I'm all for gay marriage. Banning gay marriage isn't going to stop people from being gay. To me, it's just a modern day act of bigotry. I think that being gay isn't always a choice and possibly genetic, maybe there's a chemical imbalance in the brain, whatever.. It's genetic that most men are attracted to women, so why can't it be genetic to be attracted to the same sex? I don't care if two gay people get married, but I don't think they should be second class citizens. If we ban gay marriage, I think it should be acceptable to show prejudism to gays. Either way, stopping gay marriage won't stop homosexuality. Violent protests wouldn't be acceptable today because they would be seen as Unamerican acts and acts of Terrorism. We need a gay version of Malcom X? Hell yes.
Das, with a view like yours, I hope you don't believe in premarital sex, which is more disgusting than homosexual intercourse to me. Oral sex is disgusting too, it's just as bad as premarital sex. Instead of having sex for a child, you're getting the pleasure as you would from sex, but have no chance in having a child. This is considered sinful in some religions as far as I know.
adam and eve,,not adam and adam,,but ok how about eve and eve and me
From my moral standpoint I see homosexuality as wrong. But this is America, and if you think its cool then good for you, aint my business, you know? And no, I don't "hate" on gays, at all. Just sick of having to embrace homosexuality.
That said, I don't see how gay marriage is even an issue. Marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman, as stated in holy writings. How this involves the government, and how th government can say who is or is not your partner is beyond me.
my honest opinion and freedom of speech,,forget the eve and eve joke,,,fucking fags and queers move to lepord island,and take your stupid dykes with you,,there,,i feel better,,,,
fuckin homophobics...grow a brain. You's think your betta than them coz their different. Theres a thing called discrimination, but no...America fought a war against Nazis but struggled to overcome the same things their fighting against. American society has still alot to overcome and its people like you who contribute to that.
http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/
Points In Defense of Gay Marriage
Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. Gay couples are denied significant rights when they are not allowed to marry, and this results in injustices. The arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage do not merit the legal support of the state, since the state's job is not to promote popular morality or opinion, but the rights of its citizens.
* Rights denied to committed gay couples:
The General Accounting Office of the Federal Government in 1997, in a 75 page brief prepared for the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee enumerated some 1,049 laws giving rights to married heterosexual couples (http://www.marriageequality.com/facts/index.htm). These rights are denied to gay couples. In an Editorial from March of 2000, the New Jersey Law Journal gives some examples of rights denied to committed same-sex couples(1). ??Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges? workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans?the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse?? and many others. These ins
tances of discrimination based on the preference for legally married couples effect many people negatively when they least expect it. Unmarried heterosexual couples, however, have the option of being legally married. Same-sex couples have no such recourse.
* The Legal Precedent and the Constitutional Case:
The closest parallel in our legal history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950??s (Interracial Marriages in America). These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks. Hannah Arendt, a journalist and intellectual of the ??50??s and ??60??s, as quoted by Andrew Sullivan in ??Why civil union isn't marriage,? (2) argued against the miscegenation laws, saying, ??The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' ... and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.? Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, goes on to say, ??Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people ?? to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? Not a close call.? This being said, can we deny that the right to marriage - to whomever one might choose - is constitutionally guaranteed?
Keeping gay marriage illegal also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union in 1996, (3) ??The law [against same-sex marriage] discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one's ability to marry depend on one's gender.? The ACLU goes on to say, ??Classifications which discriminate on the basis of gender must be substantially related to some important government purpose?tradition by itself is not an important government purpose. If it were, sex discrimination would be quite permissible; discrimination against women has a pedigree in tradition at least as long and time honored as that of discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage.?
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is preservation of tradition cited as a power or intention of our government. There is no constitutional basis for denying gay couples marriage, and every constitutional reason why our government should actively pursue legalizing gay marriage in order to give gay men and lesbians their rights as equal citizens of the United States and to ensure their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness that every American is guaranteed. Our government's purpose is to defend the rights of the people, and in this instance our government has undoubtedly failed in its duties.
At one time it was considered perverted and unnatural for black and white people to want to marry each other. Despite protests from the prejudiced, the Supreme Court defended the rights of the people. Now who would say that a black and a white should not be allowed to marry? It would be considered the height of bad taste and racial prejudice. I am confident that after gay marriage is legalized, it will soon be considered just as prejudiced to say that they should not have that right as it is today to say that different races should not marry.
Some responses to anti-gay marriage arguments:
* One of the first claims that seems to come up when gay marriage is discussed is that homosexual relations/relationships are not biologically natural. Same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children through their union.
"Consider this. If there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation, strange consequences would follow. A state could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent. If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives. The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood. If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason." (4)
* Another popular argument is that allowing gays to marry will further degrade the already struggling institution of marriage.
??As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society??s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation. When not so long ago it was illegal in parts of America for blacks to marry whites, no one could claim that this was a trivial disenfranchisement? To outweigh such a serious claim it is not enough to say that gay marriage might lead to bad things. Bad things happened as a result of legalizing contraception, but that did not make it the wrong thing to do. Besides, it seems doubtful that extending marriage to say, another 3 or 5 percent of the population would have anything like the effects that no-fault divorce has had, to say nothing of contraception. By now, the ??traditional? understanding of marriage has been sullied in all kinds of ways. It is hard to think of a bigger affront to tradition for instance, than allowing married women to own property independently of their husbands or allowing them to charge their husbands with rape. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition.?(5)
* Appeals to the tradition of marriage are illogical.
The appeal to tradition in denial of gay marriage rights has many inconsistencies. E.J. Graff, author of What is Marriage For? in 1996 points out many of them. He says ??Very little about marriage is historically consistent enough to be 'traditional.' That it involves two people? Then forget the patriarch Jacob, whose two wives and two concubines produced the heads of the twelve tribes. That it involves a religious blessing? Not early Christian marriages, before marriage was a sacrament. That it is recognized by law? Forget centuries of European prole ??marriages? conducted outside the law, in which no property was involved. That it??s about love, not money? So much for centuries of negotiation about medieval estates, bride-price, morning gift and dowry (not to mention bride-burnings in today??s India).? (6) Every appeal to tradition in preservation of the present marriage laws falls into the same pit of illogically. Marriage has been different in each society throughout the ages and throughout the history of the United States.
* Even some conservatives advocate the inclusion of gays in the marriage institution.
Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University in 1999, along with many self-proclaimed conservative advocates of gay marriage, argues that allowing gays to marry would increase stability in gay relationships and discourage promiscuity in the gay population. He says, ??State interests in the recognition and promotion of marriage include the promotion of stability, the limitation of the disorganized breakdown of relations, and the provision of a home for the production and rearing of children.? (7) You can't accuse gays of being promiscuous, if you won't allow them access to an institution that, amoung other things, works to limit promiscuity in society.
* Many people, trying to be tolerant, say that gays should have an institution for defining their partnerships legally, but they don't want gays to be included in what they see as the heterosexual-only institution of marriage. They want gay marriage to be called something else, just to define it as different. Here's the problem with the 'civil union' approach:
In Vermont a court recently legalized not marriage for gays, but a ??civil union? which affords same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of married couples, but without calling it ??marriage.? While I applaud Vermont??s court system for this step in the right direction, a new institution for gay couples is not the answer. It simply affirms their second-class status in American society. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the policy of ??separate but equal? with regard to race was struck down as being unconstitutional, because separate can never be equal. Creating a separate institution for gay couples is just as unequal and unconstitutional as creating separate institutions for blacks and whites.
* Some claim that gay people are not being discriminated against in any way. The argument often sounds like this: Gay people are allowed to marry--they're allowed to marry people of the opposite gender.
In response to this argument I refer you again to the words of Andrew Sullivan (2): ??Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people ?? to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband?" In America we are granted, as an unalienable right, the right to pursue our happiness. If we tell gay people that the only people they can marry are those they aren't attracted to or can't love romantically, then we are violating this right.
* One of the better, less bigotted arguments against gay marriage is that the advantages that go along with legal marriage are not a right, but a reward given by our government for behavior it approves of.
Our government was set up from the very beginning, as an institution whose goal was the preservation of the rights of its citizens. Nowhere in either the constitution or the declaration of independence is there outlined a governmental responsibility or power to reward behaviors the government or the masses like. Our government??s job is to protect the rights of all of us, including those of us that are gay, not to uphold the irrational prejudices of the masses, as it is doing in this case. It is the government??s responsibility not to uphold in this case the prejudiced will of the people, no matter how much of a majority they constitute (and it's growing smaller every day folks) but to defend the rights of its people. Period.
* The concept of gays, even committed gay couples, raising children seems to be anathema to many people.
There has never been any evidence that children of gay couples (either biological or adopted) are harmed by their environment. In many cases these children seem to be more well adjusted than their "normally" raised counterparts. From T. Richard Sullivan, PhD affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, and Albert Baques, social worker with the B.C. Ministry for Children and Families, 1999 we learn that ??The assumption that a gay and lesbian orientation is anathema to child rearing reflects homophobia and the idealization of a particular family structure that is assumed to be morally superior?[In fact though, research shows that]no differences in well-being and normative functioning have been found between children reared by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbian or gay parents. 'The fear that children raised by homosexuals will grow up to be lesbian or gay suggests that it would be awful if that were the case. In order to prove that they are worthy parents, lesbians and gay men have had to prove that they are not likely to raise children who will grow up to be like them' (Benkov). This despite the fact that studies of over 300 offspring of gay or lesbian parents in twelve different samples have indicated no evidence of significant disturbances in the development of sexual identity.? (8)
In addition, common evidence that children of gay couples are healthy and normal is that they grow up to lead heterosexual lifestyles. What if you told a Christian couple that it was bad if their children grew up to be Christians? I doubt that would go over very well. But this is what gay couples are told every day. The only way their children can be normal, can prove that their parents haven't harmed them, is if they grow up to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. Granted, many gay couples would never wish their struggles against prejudice on their children, but telling them that if their children grow up to be like them they are horrible parents--I call that a subtle form of psychological torture.
The other problem with assuming that heterosexual households are the superior environment for raising children is this: "[Gay couples and their children] present family units many in our society believe to be outside the mainstream of American family life. The reality, however, is that most children today do not live in so-called "traditional"?families with a stay-at-home mother and a father who works from 9:00 to 5:00. According to Bureau of Census statistics, twenty-five percent of children today are born out-of-wedlock to single women, mostly young, minority, and impoverished; half of all marriages end in divorce; and married couples with children now make up only twenty-six percent of United States households. It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past." (9)
Again, there is a conservative argument in favor of allowing gay couples to not only raise their own children without interferance, but to adopt children. Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University in 1999 argues: ??same-sex couples are having and raising children, even if those children are not produced though their union. Indeed, some states recognize both members of same-sex couples as the legal parents of the same child, precisely because this will promote the best interests of that child. Thus, some commentators?? claims notwithstanding, the state??s interest in assuring that children will have a healthy, supportive environment in which to thrive militates in favor of the recognition of same-sex marriage rather than against it.? (7)
i think everyone's opinons are equal (including this one).
1. Right vs. privilege: Gay activists talk about the "right" to get married. Yet in the next sentence they talk about obtaining a marriage license. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, the state must have a standard for issuing a license. We don't give a license to anyone who wants to drive a car. You must know basic information and demonstrate an ability to drive. We don't grant a medical license to just anyone. Someone must demonstrate a level of competence. Marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege that the state can and should regulate.
2. Devalues marriage: Giving same-sex couples the right to marry devalues true marriage. Imagine if at the next awards ceremony, everyone received an award. Would anyone value the award if everyone received one? Any adult is permitted to marry another adult of the opposite sex. But you can't marry a child, you can't marry a blood relative, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry someone of the same sex.
3. Basic biology: Homosexual relations deny the self-evident truth that male and female bodies complement each other. Human sexuality and procreation is based upon a man and a woman coming together as one flesh. Marriage between a man and a woman promotes procreation and makes intimate sexual activity orderly and socially accountable.
4. Public health: Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body. The International Journal of Epidemiology reports that the life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 10 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, researchers estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday.
5. Counterfeit: Arbitrarily granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple doesn't constitute marriage. It is a counterfeit of true marriage. It is like trying to tape two same-sex electrical plugs together to form an electrical current.
6. Monogamy/fidelity: Same-sex marriage will not be monogamous. One lesbian writer calls gay marriage "monogamy without fidelity." Another homosexual columnist writes of "a broader understanding of commitment." A recent Dutch study found that homosexual relationships last, on average, about 1-1/2 years and that men in those relationships have an average of eight partners per year outside their main partnership.
7. Children: Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal family unit. It promotes procreation and ensures the benefits of child rearing by the distinct attributes of both father and mother. Two research papers by Timothy Dailey for Family Research Council (Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk and Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse) document concerns about children raised in gay marriages.
9. Majority rule: A recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that public opposition to gay marriage is increasing. In July, 53 percent opposed same-sex marriage. By October 59 percent were opposed to same-sex marriage.
10. Popular vote: States legislatures have already spoken to the issue of same-sex marriages. Thirty-seven states have already passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. In 1996 Congress also passed a national DOMA.
11. Religion: The Bible teaches that homosexuality is not natural and is wrong (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Other religions also concur with this judgment.
12. Emotional: Gays and lesbians are relationally broken people. Just as in heterosexual marriage, two broken people cannot produce a whole, healthy unit. However, heterosexuals can get help for their brokenness and repair the relationship, but the relationships of homosexual couples are intrinsically and irreparably flawed.
http://www.probe.org/docs/samesex-pts.html
If marriage is a privilege it's one that's awarded to all hetrosexuals (of consentual age) - what basic information and ability do they have possess? The ability to perform sexual intercourse??? Not even that, it's not like they make you sit a test.Quote:
1. Right vs. privilege: Gay activists talk about the "right" to get married. Yet in the next sentence they talk about obtaining a marriage license. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, the state must have a standard for issuing a license. We don't give a license to anyone who wants to drive a car. You must know basic information and demonstrate an ability to drive. We don't grant a medical license to just anyone. Someone must demonstrate a level of competence. Marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege that the state can and should regulate.
People have been devaluing marriage forever, divorce rates show that.Quote:
2. Devalues marriage: Giving same-sex couples the right to marry devalues true marriage. Imagine if at the next awards ceremony, everyone received an award. Would anyone value the award if everyone received one? Any adult is permitted to marry another adult of the opposite sex. But you can't marry a child, you can't marry a blood relative, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry someone of the same sex.
You can't marry a child because we have age of consent laws to protect children.
Marrying a close blood relative is incestuous but depending on the closeness there are exceptions made.
Marrying someone who is already married is Bigomy.
Male and female bodies are compatible for intercourse to conceive children.Quote:
3. Basic biology: Homosexual relations deny the self-evident truth that male and female bodies complement each other. Human sexuality and procreation is based upon a man and a woman coming together as one flesh. Marriage between a man and a woman promotes procreation and makes intimate sexual activity orderly and socially accountable.
Procreation doesn't need promotion.
Who wants "orderly" sexual activity ??? ~lol~
I know plenty of married couples who are socially unaccountable.
I never heard that before - provide documented proofQuote:
4. Public health: Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body. The International Journal of Epidemiology reports that the life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 10 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, researchers estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday.
I would have thought that homosexuals had more to fear from random acts of homophobic violence.
Granting a marriage license to anybody doesn't constitute a marriage. Two people coming together in love and respect is what constitutes a marriage.Quote:
5. Counterfeit: Arbitrarily granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple doesn't constitute marriage. It is a counterfeit of true marriage. It is like trying to tape two same-sex electrical plugs together to form an electrical current.
Hetrosexual marriages are not guaranteed to be monogamous either. My sister in-law has been with her partner for 20years - you can't generalise about people in that way.Quote:
6. Monogamy/fidelity: Same-sex marriage will not be monogamous. One lesbian writer calls gay marriage "monogamy without fidelity." Another homosexual columnist writes of "a broader understanding of commitment." A recent Dutch study found that homosexual relationships last, on average, about 1-1/2 years and that men in those relationships have an average of eight partners per year outside their main partnership.
The ideal family unit is one where children are raised in love and safety, whether that be with same sex parents, hetro parents, grandparents, whoever.Quote:
7. Children: Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal family unit. It promotes procreation and ensures the benefits of child rearing by the distinct attributes of both father and mother. Two research papers by Timothy Dailey for Family Research Council (Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk and Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse) document concerns about children raised in gay marriages.
Terrible isn't itQuote:
9. Majority rule: A recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that public opposition to gay marriage is increasing. In July, 53 percent opposed same-sex marriage. By October 59 percent were opposed to same-sex marriage.
Where's the love, the compassion, the tolerance????? :(
Who raised these people??? :rolleyes: :p
Hopefully things will change.Quote:
10. Popular vote: States legislatures have already spoken to the issue of same-sex marriages. Thirty-seven states have already passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. In 1996 Congress also passed a national DOMA.
I can't be arsed to answer this tired old 'pull outta the bag as needed' crap.Quote:
11. Religion: The Bible teaches that homosexuality is not natural and is wrong (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Other religions also concur with this judgment.
Intrinsically and irreparably flawed eh?Quote:
12. Emotional: Gays and lesbians are relationally broken people. Just as in heterosexual marriage, two broken people cannot produce a whole, healthy unit. However, heterosexuals can get help for their brokenness and repair the relationship, but the relationships of homosexual couples are intrinsically and irreparably flawed.
Widespread discrimination and generalisations are always helpful :rolleyes:
Howdy juggalo420,Quote:
Originally Posted by juggalo420
I'm against gay marriage and I believe that there needs to be a Constitutional ban,in order to protect us from activist,liberal judges. Being a conservative Christian and a strong believer in traditional family values,is another degree of opposition that I have against gay marriage. The most I would accede to-is a civil union.
Gays don't reproduce,they recruit..which is why America's children,are under assault from them and are being exploited sexually in our schools,in order to promote the homosexual agenda,part of which,I believe,is to lower the age of consent to have sex with a child,because the younger the recruit,the more compliant and suggestable,the recruit is. There are schools,where children of kindergarden age,have been subjected to sessions of sexual education,which consisted of teaching the children how to masturbate and explore the world of oral sex,older children have also been 'taught',the fine art of fisting.
I believe that the natural progression of a gay agenda,to secure marriage rights,will also lead to other sexual perverts demanding 'rights' as well..such as pedophiles,the incestuous and bestialists. They all have several things in common,they 'recruit',entice and seduce-their partners and they all want to ban Christianity and any other religion,that bans their favorite form of perversion. In several countries around the world,like Saudi Arabia,where I worked once,homosexuality is a crime punishable by death..why is it that homosexuals aren't condemning Islam ?
Homosexuals,constitute a fraction of the populace,yet they demand that all of society and religious faith-change to suit their twisted desires. Homosexuals are driven by desire and impulse..which is why few are faithful,and most are promiscuous to a deadly fault..with deadly consequences for everyone..in the form of STD's and Aids.
Are you saying homosexuals are just same sex paedophiles? because I find that remark deeply offensive :eek:Quote:
Gays don't reproduce,they recruit..which is why America's children,are under assault from them and are being exploited sexually in our schools,in order to promote the homosexual agenda,part of which,I believe,is to lower the age of consent to have sex with a child,because the younger the recruit,the more compliant and suggestable,the recruit is.
Show me where. Have you have proof that this has happened :confused:Quote:
There are schools,where children of kindergarden age,have been subjected to sessions of sexual education,which consisted of teaching the children how to masturbate and explore the world of oral sex,older children have also been 'taught',the fine art of fisting.
I know plenty of Christians in the gay community ~ whether their chosen Religion acknowledges them openly or not.Quote:
They all have several things in common,they 'recruit',entice and seduce-their partners and they all want to ban Christianity and any other religion,that bans their favorite form of perversion.
There you go again :rolleyes: Just because a person is gay doesn't make him/her a paedophile. A homosexual is a person attracted to someone of the same sex. A paedophile is someone who preys on children for their own sexual fullfilment. Just because you're trying to lump the two together doesn't make it so. I know plenty of sexually abused people (myself included) most of the ones I know are women who were abused men - not women who were abused by women. A paedolphile is a danger to children. A homosexual in a same sex consentual relationship with another adult isn't.Quote:
I believe that the natural progression of a gay agenda,to secure marriage rights,will also lead to other sexual perverts demanding 'rights' as well..such as pedophiles,the incestuous and bestialists.
Aids and STD's are as much a problem for the hetrosexual as for the gay community.Quote:
Homosexuals are driven by desire and impulse..which is why few are faithful,and most are promiscuous to a deadly fault..with deadly consequences for everyone..in the form of STD's and Aids.
The rate of incidence for STD's and Aids,is higher for gays,because of the proportional ratio,and higher degree of promiscouity and infidelity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lulu
Homosexual Urban Legends - The Series
The above,is a link to a site that has many things related to this discussion.
Have a good one...Torog
I think they are some things we've just gotta agree to disagree on.
I'm sorry that your daughter was preyed upon by that creature but he's a paedophile first and foremost. I was targeted by a married relative with children of his own but I don't believe that all men are abusers.
We have to get away from generalising and discriminating against whole because of the actions of a poisonous few.
I wish you and yours all the best.
Lulu xx :)
Howdy LuLu,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lulu
Thanx for your kind words..I agree-that we should just agree to disagree on certain subjects..but that shouldn't keep us from discussing things..because sorting out our feelings and beliefs..is a good thing.
I wish the best for you and yours as well..Have a good one...Torog:)
i cant believe you actually believe thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Torog
Howdy Ghost,Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
It was difficult for me to believe at first-until I read actual reports of California teachers trying to educate kindergarden-age children,how to masturbate,explore same-sex relationships and the intricacies of oral sex..done without a parents permission or knowledge. I don't believe that all gays advocate this approach to usurping parental authority and coercing tolerance,however-the radical gay activists believe that the ends justify the means..it is they ,whom I am opposed to..as both a father and a Christian.
Have a good one...Torog
"California teachers trying to educate kindergarden-age children,how to masturbate,explore same-sex relationships and the intricacies of oral sex..done without a parents permission or knowledge"
Maybe that is true, but I dont believe that it has anything to do with homosexuals, or the gay marriage debate. Linking homosexuality with that issue is just an attempt to muddy the water - either by you or whoever you heard that from.
The way I see it, Torog, is that gay marriages dont HURT anyone.. If they want to do it then who are we to judge? It is none of our business, yours or mine! And also, just because some people think it is wrong, doesnt mean it should be banned!! If that was the case, then cars would be banned because some people dont like to use them; cigarettes would be banned because some people dont like to smoke; the colour red would be banned because some people prefer blue.... do you see what I mean? just because you dont agree with it, doesnt mean its your choice to say if it should be allowed or not.. im not trying to have a go at you, just trying to make you see my point of view.
-GHoST-
:)
fuck this shit,,i was raped by 3 fucking queers at gunpoint in the milatary,,ever sence then,,they are fags and queers and sick indaviduals like dykes and lesbos,,get the fuck off this planet you fucking queers and lesbos,,remember freedom of speech people,,dont deny my right
i know a girl that got raped by a straight male.. actually, i know more than one girl that has been raped by straight guys. That doesnt mean that all straight guys are rapists, does it? im sorry to hear about what happened to you, hempheadack, its awful.. but just because of that one terrible event, you cant call all homosexuals rapists...
i am not sorry,,i have the ability to say and vent my freedom of speech,,you dont have to understand or give compassion at all ,,i dont need shit,,it happened to me not you,,,with that said,,im done,,thank you,,
holy shit i actually agree with torog on this oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Torog
:eek:
lulu you said "I know plenty of Christians in the gay community ~ whether their chosen Religion acknowledges them openly or not." yea there are a bunch of them, which i dont understand because, well, according to their own rules they're going to "hell". whats up with that exactly? maybe someone can explain that to me because i have been wondering about that one. my only solution is that they dont take their religon seriously :confused:
but whatever lets all smoke a phat blunt :cool:
he didnt call them rapists he called them..er.."sick indaviduals" :D for the recordQuote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
Yup I agree fuck all queers, faggots, bull dykes, everything that has to do with that sick fuckin' society, should be put on an island in the middle of the ocean so no heterosexual person needs to even accomodate such sickness. They are sick individuals, predators who prey on each other = aids, std's, god damn what has our country come to...
i cant believe im hearing this same bullshit from so many people
gay people arent the "sick" people.. youre the fucking "sick" people, for being such prejudice fucks. this shit has pissed me off
after the sick indaviduals raped me,they told me they were going to kill me if i opened my mouth and turned them in,,,i never did untill 2 yrs ago,,i finally was able to talk about it, ( happened1976,),,i have a son,,now a new girlfriend with 3 kids,,i am a asshole when it comes to careing for my kids,they are so much protected by me,,i will not allow them to go to mall,movies,i pick them up,drop them off at school,,i tell them not to trust anybody when away from house,,keep with 2 or more and parent with no matter what,,they no how i feel and i try not to let them name sling like i do but it is real hard ,,i was going to be killed after being raped,,luckilly i was so scared at that young age 16 when i went in,,i lied about my age fore 4 months before finally being able to go into boot camp,,but i was listed a g-man now,,i had the world to look at,,then sick fucks like queers who never had a real piece in there lives,,came along and did that to me,,ill go to my grave being a fag and dyke hater,,i know the real them,,,they are sick and perveted fucks,,my freedom of speech and opinion
The way I look at it, 50-60% of straight ppl who get married end up divorced. With more than half of us fucking it up, we are in no postion to judge who should be able to marry. Just my opinion.
The rate of Aids is higher in gays because they can't get pregnant, so they don't use protection. If people are gonna be gay, I don't mind, it won't change my life. But not letting them get married will make them second class citizens. If there is a constitutional ban on gay marriage, I WILL be a straight up, blatent homophobe. If I see two gay men together, I will scream "Get the fuck out of here you faggots!" and throw bibles at them. I will celebrate Matthew Shepards death. I will start an agenda against men who are cheerleaders. I will become the biggest bigot towards gay people possible. I will seriously have given up all hope if gay marriage is banned. People get married for no reason, marriage is NOT sacred anymore. Religion does not show a role in most people's sexual lives and lives in general, otherwise wouldn't you think most people would save their virginity till marriage? Wouldn't the divorce rate be lower? If religion was apart of peoples lives, why would we sin so much? I wish I was religious, so my life wouldn't seem so scary. But if you really believe in heaven, WHY would you risk it by commiting so many god damn sins?
Some of you people make me sick. Hempheadjack, I can understand why you hate them, and I do think that is a good enough reason to hate them. Although, not all gays are of the violent nature. Just like how all blacks really don't smoke crack or are bad parents.
well said,and also gald to say i agree with you 100 percent on all all all,one ,more thing,,when growing up,a marrige was a man and woman,,kids,,no divorce,,our family is cath,,we did not believe in divorice,,we tried to work it out,,,we went to hell in a hand basket,,i speak for my opinion only,,
Hey all...Im not gay, but i do believe in gay marriage. i have done a ton of research and written a few papers about it for school. for the record i am also catholic. the catholic church does not agree with gay marriage, but that does not mean that in order to be a catholic you must disagree with gay marriage. the statement issued by the church was just that-a statement. it was NOT doctrine (catholic doctrine has been added to only 2ce in the past 100 years). because it was a statement and not doctrine, it is more or less optional. this is hard for conservative catholics to swallow, but the church supports a practice called "responsible dissent" which is where someone can choose to disagree with certian catholic points of view as long as those disagreements do not interfere with the axioms of the catholic church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphoric
the main thing i keep coming back to is that i dont really think we have the right to say whether or not someone has the "right" to get married. i am of the opinion that marriage ought to be given to those who vhemently want it, not just straight people. if people are in love, why not get married?
for those who say that it is against biological stuff, so is oral, anal, masterbation, using a condom or birth control, etc. these violate the philosophy of aristotle called telos, which says that something is most like itself when it is doing what it was meant to do. for instance, a knife is most knife like when it is cutting something. in the same way, a sperm is most spermy when it is fertelizing an egg. by having oral, anal, masterbating or having gay sex, it is all not letting the sperm do what they were meant to do. so if you are against gay marriage for that reason, you are being hypocritical if you engage in any of that, condoms included.
for those who say that gay marriage is not right because it ruins the institution of marriage, i do not agree. i see no way that having a loving set of parents will make a child grow up tramatized. i see the point that a healthy home needs both a male and a female for balance, but that is not true. think about single parents. not all kids of single parents come out fucked up. in addition, nearly 60% of hetero marriages end in divorce, thrusting a child into a broken home, which i think would be less desirable than having a love from aset of dads or moms. (that is just a guess-im from a "traditional family")
i guess im just more liberal on this than a lotta people are. but i think we should all chill out with the derrogatory remarks. please remember that the original question was not asking for you opinion of gay PEOPLE, it was asking about gay marriage. lets not loose the forrest through the tress. chill out, inform yourself, back your arguments up, and smoke a bowl. :cool:
doubble posting suck, im sorry, but i forgot to add that i dont understand why people are talking about it ruining marriage and people will get married for no reason. no they wont...people have gotten married do get married and will continue to get married out of love, and i say why stop love? allowing gay marriage wont make people get married that dont want to, it will allow those who are in love a chance to express it, just like you and i.
also, not allowing gays to marry is actually more unconstitutional because it denies them about 300 rights that married coupples have. for instance, an unmarried gay coupple pay more in taxes, do not get certian healthcare breaks, they pay more for heath insurance than married coupplesetc. there are tons of other example but i forgot. look em up, its astounding!
anyone with comments can email me at [email protected]
i love talking about this because i think it is an important subject that we all should be familar with, whether we agree or not.
dave :cool:
Rave Dave, I agree with you.
Also, I'm not gay, but I'm just really disappointed that we REALLY are considering banning gay marriage. This singles out a race of people, and takes away their rights, and we're adding it TO THE CONSTITUITION. I can unstand that maybe certain chapels won't marry gays, but this is the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to protect our rights, not limit them. Back in the day, the Federalists saw no need for the Bill Of Rights, since the Constitution protected the people's rights.
And to HempHeadJack, what if certain people are raped at a young age by straight people and that made them turn gay? Would them being gay bother you? I know it's hard to trust homosexuals after that, since there really isn't that many of them, and homosexuality is not completely understood, but try to understand the person's background before you try to judge someone, which you may not be a judgemental person at all, but it's just food for thought.
anybody that gets raped at gunpoint by other men of your own service or woman at that fact,,well i just cant explain enough on what i feel,,hope it never happens to anyone ever ,,i can forgive but not forget,,thats what sucks,,big doobies to all,,
Hey Potatoes. I agree with your first point. I too am a constitutional purtist. we have really only had 17 ammendment to the constitution since the late 1700's (because i dont really count the bill of rights - i see them as part of the constitution because they were necessary for it to get ratified in the first place.) these 17 ammendments are there to protect our rights, and i think that by adding ammendments *excuse the phrase* "willy0nilly" will in escence water down the validity of the constitution. our country is as strong as it is because her have adhered to the guidlines set in place by brilliant men over 200 years ago. look at other countries if you need proof: there are scores of central- and south american countries that have a constitution, but it has been added to and changed so much that there is no respect for it and therefore also for the government. we need to keep it pure for it to be valid.
and to hemphead...it sounds like you arent really asking for sympathy, and i understand that. know that those or us who are in favor of expanding the rights of gays are not doing so for the reason that we like to see people get hurt. on the contrary-we (i should speak for myself,) I believe that by keeping gay marriage banned we are hurting far FAR more people than we are helping. gust a guess, but i imagine that if gays are allowed to marry, the instances of assult and whatnot will likely go down, because theoretically, this action of allowing gays to marry would make it be more accepted. maybe then heterosexuals will be less likely to assult homosexuals, and vice versa. im all about freedom, equality, tollerence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
gay people arent the "sick" people.. youre the fucking "sick" people, for being such prejudice fucks. this shit has pissed me off
that kinda pissed me off at you ghost.
i could call you fag lover ??since im so prejudice
no i dont think they need killed or abused,they need medicated or something
at least a sex change, science has a way to make this right but it will never happen some people just are sick motherfuckers and nothing will change that.
whatever is "normal" they go against it to stand out,to be different yet they want treated just like everyone else
its like asking me to say YOUR JUST LIKE ME except you have two heads
let me get this str8...you say
im sick in a prejudice way becuase seeing two same sex people all lovey dovey makes me feel same way as if i saw some dude fuck a dog
its not right,unnatural and as sickening to me as any other human indecent act.right up there with RAPE MURDER .its just fucked up SICK fuckers who want to take,Feelings of brotherhood and consider them love? lust? like a desease,it needs a cure.
its a sexual cancer of the mind
there is no man i ever thought was sexy,,so i dont have it
just the thought of some pansy ass bitch turns my stomach
im not prejudice ghost,they can do whatever in PRIVATE,so long as i dont got to hear this Gay Rights crap,they have the right to remain silent i wished they would,yes go hide your sick ass with ya butthole buddy and please know,america will never except your perverted ways as NORMAL
cuase its not normal thinking
it may well be genetic,some screwed up dna code
ive seen two headed cows,frogs ect.so thats my take on it
please note
the anus was not made for sexual acts
its a poopchute
i dont gay bash,but i wont sit back watch them bash my beliefs
i blame your parents if your gay,
they had you,and if they were gay you wouldnt exist
they raised you and they never tuaght you how to be real man or woman
instead they just let a fucked up society infected by perverts have you
and teach you that its ok to be a pervert cuase see there millions of them so it must be right,
WRONG
keep your gayness to your self please
i dont want to know
im not gay.......... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by NowhereMan
hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR
pokes you with a stick
ouch you say
wasnt that fun
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by NowhereMan
Z, i guess this is another thing we're gonna have to agree to disagree about :p
**passes Z the joint**