Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29th February 2004, 02:30   #41
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Quote:
Do people with cancer choose to have cancer? Do children born MS CHOOSE to have MS? Saying that gays might being born gay doens't make it acceptable. Perhaps it's more like smoking: it's started and now the person is addicted. It's a possiblity, either way, I don't think there will ever be a definate answer to the origins of homosexuality.
If they are born with it then it must be accepted. Maybe not embraced wholey or rewarded because they are out of the gene pool or whatever. But you can't disapprove of someone based on something they can't control. Such as sex/gender race or disability or weight(weight is one of the things you cannot discriminate against when someone is applying for a job as long as they are able). And comparing homosexuality to an addiction is horrifyingly offensive. You practically could've called it a virus.



Quote:
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS construction. If you want seperation of church and state, then the construct of marriage should be taken out of the government. Being a relgious construct, those who constructed it should be allowed to regulate who is allowed "in". Non-students have no purpose being inside a classrom; gays have no right being inside marriage.
Marriage is ORIGINALLY a religous thing but you have to account for shotgun weddings and the FACT THAT ATHEISTS CAN MARRY. Or that illegal aliens marry so they can be citizens. The basis of marriage came soley from relions then people passed laws that benefited married couples for whatever reason and to make society greater. The thing you have to take into account "Is homosexual marriage damaging to society?" This is what the question SHOULD be. Not is homosexual marriage moral?


Quote:
This is an interesting statement. Why is murdering wrong? isn't because the majority of people believe it is wrong? Isnt'that where all morals come from? If it's not about majority then why do we vote? why not just pick a president that gives equal rights? How do we decide what equal rights are? the minority?
Murder is wrong because its a fundamental fact that everyone understands the sacredness of life itself. The golden rule of almost ALL religions is "Treat others the way you would like to be treated." Also if I remember correctly we had the Volstead Act. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a majority of the people that wanted it. I'm also pretty sure that the majority also didn't want Bush in presidency.



Quote:
love does not equate marriage.
Love can and will (state/nation pending) allow marriage to take place regardless of gender.

Quote:
But the consitution gives rights to "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" there's no statement about marriage. Part-time employees get no benefits, gays get no marriage.
=/ Marriage would fall under the pursuit of happiness part. Part-time employees do get benefits depending on where you work. Employees of all kinds get benefits. People of all genders should have the option of marrying whomever they choose.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 04:19   #42
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Quote:
Marriage is ORIGINALLY a religous thing

well there you have it. Seperate it from government. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state.


Since it is a religous construct, why force religion (Christianity mainly) to have to accept gays into their system of marriage when it is CLEARLY against their doctrine? Does this make sense? By making gay marriage legal would then chruchs be able to refuse them marriage? if yes, then what's the differnce from now? and if no, aren't you imposing on religion something they are against?


Gays can be united by a court. They can not be married in a chruch. By being gay they have chosen to be non-christion and so they have to make their own ceremony. No one is stopping them from making their own ceremony. They can then ask the government to recognize that and give it all teh benefits of marriage. The courts will have a lot less problmes with that then imposing gay marriage on chruches.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 05:00   #43
LateNiteMilkman
Junior Member
 
LateNiteMilkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: a Cardboard Shack
Posts: 4
Bitching & Moaning, Thats All I've Been Hearing Lately

I'm sick and Tired of People Pissing and Moaning About Gays getting married cuz it seems like nowadays they are the only ones who are REALLY respecting and honoring the meaning and sanctity of Marriage. I mean cmon!!! Look at what Britney did in Las Vegas where the Hell were all these Protesters when she pulled that stunt, now that right there is a BIG Smack in the face to meaning of Marriage. Or what about when Jennifer Lopez married her Choreographer and Divorced him wat a month later. I mean CMON!!! Look at all the examples of this type of crap, and my question is Where the hell where these Bible-Thumping narrow-minded idiots and why didn't they speak up then???
AND FINALLY Let Me Make This Clear To ALL OF AMERICA, I myself am Catholic and a Heterosexual and I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGES, The Constitution itself guarentees Life, Liberty, and The Pursude of Happiness, and how dare the government of these United States deny this happiness, this sacred and beautiful ritual from those who will truely honor and respect it better than those, in which it was quote unquote "ment for" who disreguard it on a daily basis.

[On a Side Note]
This posting is that of my own opinion, For Those Who May Find This Offensive, or maybe Against it, I extened an Apology to those people, and REMIND Them that this is my opinion.
LateNiteMilkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 05:14   #44
InvisableMan
Ninja Master!
(Forum King)
 
InvisableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hotel California
Posts: 4,332
theres a big difference between marriage and civil union.

bush is only saying that to get the anti gay vote, as he is doing the illegal alien thing to get the mexican vote.

it's something all politicians do. it's called selling your soul to the devil.
InvisableMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 05:46   #45
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
well there you have it. Seperate it from government. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state.


Since it is a religous construct, why force religion (Christianity mainly) to have to accept gays into their system of marriage when it is CLEARLY against their doctrine? Does this make sense? By making gay marriage legal would then chruchs be able to refuse them marriage? if yes, then what's the differnce from now? and if no, aren't you imposing on religion something they are against?


Gays can be united by a court. They can not be married in a chruch. By being gay they have chosen to be non-christion and so they have to make their own ceremony. No one is stopping them from making their own ceremony. They can then ask the government to recognize that and give it all teh benefits of marriage. The courts will have a lot less problmes with that then imposing gay marriage on chruches.
Aright I'm trying to stray away from the church aspect because mainly if you get married in a church without a marriage license from the court you are NOT considered married from the states point of view. This extends to ALL religions. Sure you can have a ceremony and a bunch of talk, but without documentation you might as well have done the whole thing on a nude beach.

What is also ludicrus is that the state will recognize you as a married couple due to "Common Law" which means that if you live with someone long enough you are considered married.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 05:52   #46
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Re: Bitching & Moaning, Thats All I've Been Hearing Lately

Quote:
Originally posted by LateNiteMilkman
I'm sick and Tired of People Pissing and Moaning About Gays getting married cuz it seems like nowadays they are the only ones who are REALLY respecting and honoring the meaning and sanctity of Marriage. I mean cmon!!! Look at what Britney did in Las Vegas where the Hell were all these Protesters when she pulled that stunt, now that right there is a BIG Smack in the face to meaning of Marriage. Or what about when Jennifer Lopez married her Choreographer and Divorced him wat a month later. I mean CMON!!! Look at all the examples of this type of crap, and my question is Where the hell where these Bible-Thumping narrow-minded idiots and why didn't they speak up then???
AND FINALLY Let Me Make This Clear To ALL OF AMERICA, I myself am Catholic and a Heterosexual and I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGES, The Constitution itself guarentees Life, Liberty, and The Pursude of Happiness, and how dare the government of these United States deny this happiness, this sacred and beautiful ritual from those who will truely honor and respect it better than those, in which it was quote unquote "ment for" who disreguard it on a daily basis.

[On a Side Note]
This posting is that of my own opinion, For Those Who May Find This Offensive, or maybe Against it, I extened an Apology to those people, and REMIND Them that this is my opinion.

I am agnostic and am against gay marriage(obviously). To quote brittany spears' marriage as normal is a terrible grievance. It has been speculated that 50% of married couples divorce, but if you think about about how many of those people divorce more than once? If you made the statistic on how many have divorced ONCE, you would have a lesser number. Many poeple try very hard to respect the "sanctity of marriage".

Other than legally, is it different to be 21 than it is to be 20? on the same token, how does being married change your feelings for somoene else? do you love someone MORE becuase you're married? It's ridiculous. Gays wanting to be able to be married is like a 1st grader crying because he couldn't be part of the "Club".


Give gays their benefits, that's the responsibility of the government. It is NOT the government's place to tell the church what marriage is.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 06:04   #47
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Re: Re: Bitching & Moaning, Thats All I've Been Hearing Lately

Quote:
I am agnostic and am against gay marriage(obviously).
Quote:
Give gays their benefits...
nice champ you managed to contradict yourself in under 3 paragraphs.


Quote:
Gays wanting to be able to be married is like a 1st grader crying because he couldn't be part of the "Club".
Thats not why homosexuals are getting married whatsoever.

btw: Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 06:12   #48
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
@GqSkrub: It IS up to the government NOT the church to legalise an union. PERIOD. I've filled out the legal paperwork before, I know. The only reason people get married in churches or other such religious ceremonies, is to have that union recognized by their religion. And for you to say that: "Many poeple try very hard to respect the "sanctity of marriage".", read below:


Bush = crock of shit

The whole idea that a legalized union between same sex couples will bring down the institution of marriage, is just utter bullshit. Heterosexual couples do that all the time with cheating, abuse, "open" marriages, and so forth.

I've been leery of Bush's habit of throwing his religious views into topics from the get-go. As head of our country, he is responible for upholding the Constitution, which is explicit in itself with the seperation of Church and State.
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 06:13   #49
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Marriage is not the same as benefits, champ . I'm against giving gays the term "marriage" but i'm not in any way against giving the benefits that marraige would entail. subtle, but key difference.


<edit>
@shyshy:

Legal union is different than marriage is it not? aren't we talking about marriage in churches? as in the ceremony and the entire shebang?



and comments on some heterosexuals cheating is a generalization. It's like saying black people are thieves because they've mugged many people i know. Because some people do it does not make it ok for more poeple to do it.
</edit>

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 06:28   #50
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
Legal union is different than marriage is it not? aren't we talking about marriage in churches? as in the ceremony and the entire shebang?
[/B]
There are churches that have said that they would be happy to do a "sanctified" ceremony. I'll have to look those up later. A legal union IS marriage, if in doubt, click on the link

The definiton of Marriage
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 08:58   #51
Wiser87
Senior Member
 
Wiser87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: California, USA
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
Marriage is not the same as benefits, champ . I'm against giving gays the term "marriage" but i'm not in any way against giving the benefits that marraige would entail. subtle, but key difference.
What I don't think YOU understand, is that Bush is trying to prevent gays from not only getting married, but from getting the legal rights as well.

What gives you (or Bush) the right to impose your religious views on them?

Can't answer that?

That's because it's ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I want to see you give a LEGAL reason to back up your claims.
Wiser87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 11:11   #52
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I believe we were talking about marriage as the union of two people recognized by the state/nation. Lots of religious people get married in court before in church.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 21:36   #53
Ivory_blue
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8
I believe marriage is sacred and a bond between people who love each other. Who cares if they are man and man; man and woman, or woman and woman? If you care so much then you never understood real love in the first place.
Ivory_blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 23:23   #54
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
why only marriage to one person than? should it then be legal to marry at one time as many people as you want?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2004, 23:48   #55
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
Another odd point: The church is against gay marriage and all, but why are there so many pedophile priests?
Against gay marriage--but gay?

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2004, 18:44   #56
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
I want more gay males. Lots more. Like, 95% of the population of males. And they can get married, whatever, and then we use cloning to make gay babies.

Then we can get rid of this damn overpopulation, and there will be 5 straight women for every straight man.

It will be good.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2004, 18:48   #57
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I'd almost like that there should be 99.99% of the population bisexual females and they kill off all males except me.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2004, 18:58   #58
Raz
Forum King
 
Raz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,470
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
why only marriage to one person than? should it then be legal to marry at one time as many people as you want?
How about the fact that it's none of your damn business who wants to get married. It's union of two people who love each other. Maybe more than two would like to be married, it remains NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Marriage may or may not have something to do with religion. If it does not, then no-one should be able to dismiss what consenting adults do as long as they harm no-one else in the process. It is just a piece of paper saying these people wish to remain together for the rest of their life.

Raz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2004, 19:20   #59
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
so perhaps it's not so much GAY marriage but marriage in general that needs to be reworked? Take the religion out of marriage?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2004, 19:48   #60
Raz
Forum King
 
Raz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,470
No need for changing the whole thing. Just stop discriminating which type of couples can and can not have a piece of paper. Marriage is already relatively separate from religion if people wish it to be.

Raz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2004, 19:57   #61
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
It's time to break out the facts machine...

FACT: A marriage, before it has been consummated, can be annulled, as if it had never happened. If Britney and Jason didn't have sex, then they were never married.

FACT: Homosexuals cannot have conventional heterosexual intercourse.

(Tangent:
FACT: Sperm are unlike other cells in the body in two distinct ways: They can fuse with other cells (as is shown by the fact that they fuse with the female's ova) and they send out a biochemical immunosuppressant signal to the recipient's immune system, so they don't get killed off before the fusion has time to be completed.

FACT: The vaginal area is designed* to resist fusion with the sperm. The anal area isn't, and when the sperm fuse with the somatic cells in the anal area, it dramatically increases the risk for anal-rectal cancer.
(* designed either by creation or evolution, it doesn't matter which)

FACT: The vaginal area is designed* to resist pathogens, much moreso than the anal area, so that when sperm come into the vaginal area, they do not create an immunoreceptive environment. The anal area is very sensitive to immunosuppressants, and this increases the risk of anal-rectal cancer and of infection.)

FACT: Anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy (for both homosexuals and heterosexuals), from the perspective of immunology.

Given these facts, what conclusion would you draw about gay marriage?
___________________________________
Quote:
From http://lifeissues.net/writers/dem/de...ansamesex.html
The realm of the biological provides abundant and compelling data that demonstrates the radical inequality between hetero- and homosexual union. Recent studies in the field of immunology are especially enlightening. For example, it is well established that spermatozoa are capable of penetrating somatic cells and fusing with their nuclei. This should not be surprising since spermatozoa are capable of fusion with the nucleus of the female's egg cell. However, there is a crucial difference between these two kinds of fusion. In the latter case, normal fertilization, a new human being is formed. But in the former case, the fusion of spermatozoa with somatic nuclei can result (and do result) in a malignant transformation of the invaded cells. Richard J. Ablin (the discoverer of the PSA [prostate specific antigen] factor in screening for cancer of the prostate) and Rachel Stein-Werblowsky have reported that, "anal intercourse is one of the primary factors in the development of anal cancer."3

Semen possesses a number of immunoregulatory macromolecules. These chemical agents are vitally needed so that the woman's immune system does not reject her partner's spermatozoa as foreign substances. In this instance, these immunoregulatory macromolecules act as mild immunosuppressants so that, from an immunological point of vies, a two-in-one-flesh intimacy can be achieved. Anal intercourse, however, involves a certain amount of maceration whereby the basal layer is exposed to spermatozoa which may eventually invade and fuse with somatic nuclei in an epidermoid tumor.4 Here, the presence of immunosuppressant agents do not assist in achieving anything like a two-in-one-flesh union, but produce an immunopermissive environment that is favorable for the perpetuation of spermatozoa induced tumors and other pathologies.

In his book, The Permissive Society, Boris Sokoloff, M.D., former director of the A.P. Cooke Memorial Cancer Laboratory and the Southern Bio-Research Laboratory at Florida Southern University, views cancer as a deadly form of cellular disorder. "The rebellious cells, the cancerous ones," he goes on to say, "are possessed by a pronounced permissiveness syndrome.... We may say that cancerous cells flatly reject law and order."5 Permissiveness, whether in the organism or in life, can reach an extreme at which it becomes destructive to both. The radical difference between an immunosuppressant that creates the possibility of both a two-in-one-flesh intimacy together with the formation of new human life, on the one hand, and an immunopermissive environment that is congenial to the formation of a variety of pathologies, including cancer, is essentially the difference between life and death, order and disorder.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2004, 20:11   #62
Raz
Forum King
 
Raz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,470
I would give the conclusion that everyone should be given the facts and decide amongst themselves. Then you mind your own business.

Raz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2004, 00:01   #63
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
so perhaps it's not so much GAY marriage but marriage in general that needs to be reworked? Take the religion out of marriage?
There IS no religion in the marriage we are all discussing. There is marriage the document which says that you remain together and then there is the ceremony which is based on whatever religion you consider yourself practicing.

Raz said it best, the union of two people is none of your business nor is it in anyway damaging to the way you live or the way society works.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2004, 00:25   #64
White Raven
Little Winged One
 
White Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada, now UK
Posts: 4,165
'Those whose minds are but the smallest
Are those who cannot bear to experience change
And move on from tradition.'


Times change. If two consenting horny adults want to have sex in whatever way they deem acceptable, that's perfectly fine with me.

If two people fall in love and want to get married, that's fine with me.

Yes, marriage is a union between a man and woman. It's 2004. Get over it. Let them get married.

just as feathery as ever | portfolio | a poignant quote
White Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2004, 19:22   #65
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
It's time to break out the facts machine...

FACT: A marriage, before it has been consummated, can be annulled, as if it had never happened. If Britney and Jason didn't have sex, then they were never married.

FACT: Homosexuals cannot have conventional heterosexual intercourse.

(Tangent:
FACT: Sperm are unlike other cells in the body in two distinct ways: They can fuse with other cells (as is shown by the fact that they fuse with the female's ova) and they send out a biochemical immunosuppressant signal to the recipient's immune system, so they don't get killed off before the fusion has time to be completed.

FACT: The vaginal area is designed* to resist fusion with the sperm. The anal area isn't, and when the sperm fuse with the somatic cells in the anal area, it dramatically increases the risk for anal-rectal cancer.
(* designed either by creation or evolution, it doesn't matter which)

FACT: The vaginal area is designed* to resist pathogens, much moreso than the anal area, so that when sperm come into the vaginal area, they do not create an immunoreceptive environment. The anal area is very sensitive to immunosuppressants, and this increases the risk of anal-rectal cancer and of infection.)

FACT: Anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy (for both homosexuals and heterosexuals), from the perspective of immunology.

Given these facts, what conclusion would you draw about gay marriage?
___________________________________


your facts are unfounded. White blood cells fuse with cells. why can't homosexuals have conventional heterosexual sex? they lose that ability? By your same arguement, oral sex is unhealthy too. But it's so good.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2004, 19:51   #66
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
your facts are unfounded.
I cited my source. Cite yours.

Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
White blood cells fuse with cells.
Yes, but white blood cells fuse with cells to eliminate them. Sperm fuse with cells to procreate, that is, to create a hybrid cell.

Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
why can't homosexuals have conventional heterosexual sex? they lose that ability?
I might have been unclear. I thought that I wasn't. What I MEANT was that two homosexuals of the same gender cannot have conventional (penile-vaginal) heterosexual intercourse with each other.

Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
By your same arguement, oral sex is unhealthy too.
Probably; I don't know. I might look into it at a later date.

Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
But it's so good.
[sarcasm]Nice counter-argument. Very scientific. It completely proves that my arguments are wrong. I bow in submission to your argumentative skills.[/sarcasm]

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2004, 00:05   #67
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
By your same arguement, oral sex is unhealthy too. But it's so good.
His arguement is justified by dental dams and why prostitues sometimes need stomach pumps. Sperm is practically undigestible.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2004, 22:51   #68
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
I cited my source. Cite yours.



Yes, but white blood cells fuse with cells to eliminate them. Sperm fuse with cells to procreate, that is, to create a hybrid cell.



I might have been unclear. I thought that I wasn't. What I MEANT was that two homosexuals of the same gender cannot have conventional (penile-vaginal) heterosexual intercourse with each other.



Probably; I don't know. I might look into it at a later date.



[sarcasm]Nice counter-argument. Very scientific. It completely proves that my arguments are wrong. I bow in submission to your argumentative skills.[/sarcasm]


You cited sources? no you didn't.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2004, 23:01   #69
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Sure I did... I put the article I was getting my information from DIRECTLY under my fact list. As well as a link to the website it came from.
Here's the website again; I'm not posting the whole quote again.
http://lifeissues.net/writers/dem/de...ansamesex.html

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2004, 23:31   #70
White Raven
Little Winged One
 
White Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada, now UK
Posts: 4,165
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
You cited sources? no you didn't.
Look, I hate to be a bitch here, but you're making yourself look like more and more of a moron every time you say stuff like this...

If you'd simply read properly what Nimelennar had said in the first place, you wouldn't be going off about this.

Who cares if he cited sources or didn't? It turns out he did -- He didn't contradict himself, you did, several times. His argument makes more sense than yours.

Of course homosexuals can't have conventional heterosexual intercourse. That was made clear the first time.

Now, it doesn't matter if you dislike the notion of gay marriages or not. Just outright and say it. It's your opinion, stop changing it to suit other people's eyes.

[/irritable]

just as feathery as ever | portfolio | a poignant quote
White Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2004, 04:44   #71
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Its coo that homosexuals want to marry eachother its ok with me. My mom is hard core catholic and its ok with her. I dont think my dad likes the idea but he hasn't said anything relevant.

So what do they get now that San Deigo is it? and Portland people of the same gender can marry eachother? They get the right to be called married by the government, the tax benifits, the posibility of adoption (isn't it that you have better chances of adpoting if you are married?). Thats all the benefits I can think of really. Oh and if when partner divorces the other they can now screw eachother over just like heterosexual couples.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2004, 04:53   #72
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Quote:
Originally posted by White Raven

He didn't contradict himself, you did, several times. His argument makes more sense than yours.



i will bow to reason. WHere do i contradict myself? There have been squabbles over the definition of religion but do I have blantantly obvious contradictions in my arguements?



Quote:
Now, it doesn't matter if you dislike the notion of gay marriages or not. Just outright and say it. It's your opinion, stop changing it to suit other people's eyes.

[/irritable]

My opinion is and always has been: the notion of gay marriage doesn't make sense. It doesn't really affect me if it happens or not. Someone brought up a thread on it and I simply responded on how I didnt' think it made sense. No need for name calling Raven.


I then direct this question specifically at you: If gay marriage is legalized and accepted by the state, can churches legally refuse gay marriages? There's more at stake here than just the happiness of two people.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th March 2004, 23:57   #73
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
THERE ARE NO HOMOSEXUALS BEING MARRIED IN CHURCHES.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2004, 04:03   #74
White Raven
Little Winged One
 
White Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada, now UK
Posts: 4,165
Doesn't make sense eh?

So say you loved someone more than life itself. You wanted to get married. Then someone told you 'Oh, you can't get married, you're straight.'

Now that doesn't make sense.

Your contradictions were made obvious by Nimelennar.

And I didn't call you an idiot, if you will care to notice, I said you were making yourself look like one. Doesn't mean you are one.

just as feathery as ever | portfolio | a poignant quote
White Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2004, 05:54   #75
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Marriage is still sacred, and if the christian church isn't willing to marry homosexuals, then they can still go to the registry and make it legal. After (or before, for that matter), they can go do whatever ceremony they want to do. Hire a guy and put him in a priest's robes and make him do the ceremony in the park, it'll look real anough, and the ceremony isn't the legally binding part, it's the signing of the marriage certificate the way i understand it. Do a handfasting, do a ceremony outside of church with a phony minister, do a ceremony with a Rabbi if you can convince one to do it, whatever. It doesn't really bother me if the christian church accepts something as good or not, to tell the truth. After all, they're responsible for more death and suffering over the last 2000 years than any plague, so why the hell should we listen to them for moral guidance?
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2004, 07:38   #76
magrat
Junior Member
 
magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 11
i reckon marriage is so important and I reckon that the ppl who complain about gay marriage really have got nothing better to do with their time.
If people thought more before they get married maybe there wouldn't be so many divorces.
magrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2004, 12:54   #77
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Exactly, gay people put more effort into it because it's so much more of a headf**k for them to actually GET married that if they aren't entirely sure about it, they just find it too damn hard, but straight people have far less obstacles in the way, and have a greater chance of making a mistake of who they marry.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2004, 17:54   #78
toqer
Winamp's Little Stalker
(Member)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under a bridge
Posts: 796
I always thought that the reason the goverment gave married people special exemptions was because they would eventually make babies (i.e. new taxpayers)

The tax exemptions are really weird in the US though... For a newly married couple that doesn't own a house or have any children, the tax rate is actually *HIGHER* than that of a single person.

I'm all for gays getting married though.. Let them get raped at the higher tax rate for not having children like my wife and I are now, and they'll soon find out what it is.. Uncle sam only loves you if you make babies.

BTW: 4 years dating, 7 years married. 11 years total.
toqer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2004, 18:49   #79
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by t0qer
The tax exemptions are really weird in the US though... For a newly married couple that doesn't own a house or have any children, the tax rate is actually *HIGHER* than that of a single person.
now, this is probably a dumb question, but i take it you mean two single people, yeah?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2004, 19:29   #80
toqer
Winamp's Little Stalker
(Member)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under a bridge
Posts: 796
If my wife and I had just "lived" together unmarried, in our old apartment, our taxes would have been cheaper than us being married living there.
toqer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump