Old 5th April 2004, 21:48   #161
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Jefferson

I think Jefferson was an agnostic of sorts.

Yep, I'm pretty sure.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2004, 23:02   #162
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Wow, I've been gone from this thread for a while......

xzxzzx, zootm and electricmime have stated my position perfectly.


Nimelennar--your arguments--ex, the anal sex one and this bad dating argument, if that is what it really is--would only be valid if they ONLY happened once gay people are married. Your arguments are pointless and illogical because

Quote:
A legal certificate that, in essence says, "sure, endanger your own health as much as you want?" Of course it will change things for the worse.
1)heteros can have anal sex, too; 2)ever heard of a condom?
3)Riiigghhhttt......according to this logic, straight and unmarried gay people never have anal sex.

Quote:
magazine article
3)Yeah, magazine articles always speak the "Divine Truth"
4)Yeah, straight people never cheat on their wives

Quote:
Didn't you read the post above by whiteflip? America is underpopulated. Canada is very underpopulated. We could support many many more people if we could just cut down on our use of resources.
This argument doesn't really support either side of the discussion. But you are saying that more people = good. That's not true. Besides, If more hungry people got enough "resources", then this would be much different. So, according to your argument, we multiply and multiply until we have only enough resources to feed ourselves, while others starve, and then say "Oops..." as we run out.....?

Quote:
I'm against legally recognized "same-sex civil unions," because they take the world one step closer to casting off every piece of morality and people, literally and metaphorically, fucking each other over whenever they feel like it, because it benefits themselves and no one else.
Right....... This is such a stupid argument that it is funny....

1)Straight people fuck each other, literally and metaphorically, all the time.
2)This spreads STDs.
3)Gays don't spread STDs.
4)Straight = bad. Gay = good. 5)[sarcasm]Looks like we should cut off all the straight guy's dicks so they can't go fucking, doesn't it?[/sarcasm]

Besides, it looks like your argument(s) center around the idea that is gays get marriages or civil unions, laws will be ignored. there will be mass chaos, etc......read the following very carefully.
IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN

Quote:
The world does need more ... morally grounded people.
Wow, I agree with you for a change......if there were more morally grounded people in the world, there would not be such stupid opposition to gay marriage.


Quote:
My opinion is and always has been: the notion of gay marriage doesn't make sense.
So because you don't like it, you believe that there should be a stupid ammendment created in order to stop people from persuing happiness?

As for your argument about polygamy, I'm not going to bother refuting it as polygamy and homosexuality are very different and have already been refuted.

Quote:
People will marry other people if they're just going to live together for a few months, never loving each other, maybe not even liking each other that much, just for a few spare dollars, and then getting divorced when they move out. That's what I see in the future, and that's another reason I'm against same-sex marriage.
Yeah, this is already happening a lot, except it is ONLY in heterosexual marriages. Do you remember what the subject of this thread was originally about? Once again, thi is a useless argument....

In addition:

gays can't transmit STDs like AIDS and therefore contribute to this 'common good' or whatever it was;


Gays can adopt children who need parents. That sure as hell looks like it halpes the "common good" to me. unless you don't like giving kids parents.

I am still waiting for a half-decent reason why gay marriage should not be allowed.......
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 01:26   #163
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
You see, that's what I hate about holding minority opinions. Everyone gangs up on you. Jeex, I'm gone a couple hours and stuff piles up on me. Oh well...

You know what? I was going to post lengthy replies to all the people who have opposed my statements since my last post, but instead, I think that I'm just going to summarize my reply to each post:

electricmime: I do think that adultery and divorce are worse thatn same-sex marriage.

And for all of your denial, the vast majority of homosexuals would like to have sexual relations, and anal sex is the traditional way for homosexuals to do it.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with people wanting to spend lives together, but I do see something wrong with shattering the traditional ethical system to do it.

mikeflca:
There are more homesexuals practising anal sex than heterosexuals, and many don't use condoms, and I'm saying that a goverment license to do so is wrong, not that it never happens.

My point is that there was no outcry about that article, it was considered normal.

My point about civil-sanctioned heterosexual marriages wasn't so much that they promoted children, as much as they promoted a moral place to raise their own biological children.

My argument is not that laws will be ignored as much as accepted morals. No one yet has explained how same-sex marriage helps the world as a whole, only how it helps the individuals.

Moral grounding guarantees acceptance, not approval.

Phew... If I missed anything important, please reiterate it and I'll come back to it.
I'll close with this:
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...J%20HOPE01.htm

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 6th April 2004, 03:12   #164
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
I'll give a longer reply later, but basically, a govt marriage license does not say 'go have anal sex'. The only real way to stop the horrific spread of anal cancer due to anal sex is to cut off everyone's dick. Your argument in a way says that hetero's can get the backside in a mariiage while
gays can't.

In additon,
what about lesbian women? they can't really ......do much in that area.....so they should be allowed to get married while guys can't?

Quote:
My point is that there was no outcry about that article, it was considered normal.
???

I gave some reasons about why it helps the world.......no STD transfers and it will help get kids adopted. Now you tell me: How does stopping people from persuing happiness help the world as a whole?

I'll get to your link later, I have stuff to do.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 04:43   #165
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
My argument is not that laws will be ignored as much as accepted morals. No one yet has explained how same-sex marriage helps the world as a whole, only how it helps the individuals.
and my argument is that helping individuals is helping the world as a whole.

your arguments only support an all-out ban on state-recognised marriages - same sex or no. in fact, you alluded to this in your second last post. is that your position?

i'm not too sure about that argument at all. marriage is a well-known and followed principle of our society - it's held by many religions, and even by people without religion. what is happening is that it is only being recognised legally under certain conditions. some may be justifiable, but is the condition that the couple be of different sexes?

the writer of the articles you cite has some interesting thoughts about "rights", also. a lot of his views are correct, but his rage in many places is not directed at where you seem to interpret it. it's more about activists refusing to accept certain facts than the actual facts themselves. which is fair comment, but irrelevant to this argument.

i don't believe that "morals" should be taught in school, although i had a "Religious and Moral Education" course at my school that was not "preachy", in the sort of way that teaching "morals" would be. it was more about getting people to question their own morals and judgements, which is something i respected about the course. also, we learned in broad terms about all major religions, and did not at any point concentrate on christianity (despite the fact we have services in schools in this country).

Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
And I don't think there's anything wrong with people wanting to spend lives together, but I do see something wrong with shattering the traditional ethical system to do it.
feel free to justify that in any way whatsoever in your own time. none of your arguments thus far have said a thing about it. how's having both people the same sex "shattering" anything? what exactly is being shattered? what is different?

a little comic relief

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 05:11   #166
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
I am for gay marriage, my parents friends were 10th in line the day they said gays could marry in san francisco.

mikeflca: maybe i read it wrong but, gays DO transmit AIDS, anal intercourse drastically increases the chances of receiving AIDS.

Nimelennar: I hope you're gay cause you are making alot of generalizations about gays. And i read through ur long thread real fast but did u want to make anal sex illegal?

The AMA recognizes the anus as a sexually eroginous zone...just like the vagina...its still considered sexual intercourse

As for it being against a "traditional ethical system" most of your arguements are religious, not ethical! at least get that right. Last time i checked the US constitution upholds the rights of the individual, not the group! hey commie, go back to the soviet union! (hope not to offend anyone from russia)


I do see the validity of the whole polygamy thing, cause if u talk about gay marriage then you uncork a whole bunch of different questions? If gays argue they should be married cause they love each other, true polygamists really do love each other...its not just for the sex.

And for all the politicians saying that gay marriage is immoral...last time i checked you guys arent exaclty at the top of GOD's "nice" list.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 10:36   #167
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Nim, if you seriously think the US is underpopulated, you're wrong. If it was underpopulated, you wouldn't have any starving people, no homeless people, and no unemployement. You can't support the ones you have, and you think gay marriage should be banned because it DOESN'T make the problem WORSE?
Cut down on your major overuse of resources, then fix everything else wrong with your country, stop declaring illegal wars on the rest of the planet, and then I might be tempted to NOT throw things at you.

Half your arguments are against anal sex. Read the anal sex thread here, most of your arguments are debunked entirely there, by straight people. And if anal sex is your best argument against SSM, then what about lesbians?

Your arguments about 'morraly wrrong' are completely broken in more ways than I can even start to evaluate. So people are gay. So what? Who's to say they won't raise children in a proper, loving household? Who's to say they can't instill good morals in thier adopted children? How is creating a stable, loving family environment that can adopt children in need against the common good?

Stop with the religious based crap, and come up with some REAL arguments, that haven't already been debunked a couple of times already.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 16:23   #168
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
@Tavernology**applause**

@billyvnilly--oops. Yeah, I should have left it at most "normal" STDs and not included HIV. my bad. But it has probably more or less the same risk as getting HIV from someone HIV positive as if you were doing it......normally, so to speak.

sorry bout the bad grammar.....
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 16:38   #169
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
i dont want to argue the fine points of anal sex and stds, but anal is even more likely to transfer any std than normal sex. It has more microscopic tears and tears more easily, which is how most stds get in. --btw im a medical student.


screw your grammar, we dont need no stinking grammar
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 16:39   #170
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
You know what? I can't argue against 4 people at the same time. Such an act isn't a debate, it's a slaughter. I can't raise a single valid point without it being dissected and attacked on every front. As such, I have five things left to say, and then I will stay out of this thread until other people with the same views as I have come, and leave these last few ideas:
billyvnilly: Yes, I do think it should be illegal. Regardless of whether it provides sexual sitmulation, the body just wasn't designed to handle it. As to your outher point, the Constitution up holds both the rights of the individual and the society. If the good of the society is thrown out in favor of the good of the individual, you get the situation described by many in this thread: overpopulation, starvation, wars, economic waste, the list goes on...

Tavernology: the society we have in place right now doesn't work. Tear down the system we have now, replace it with a working system, THEN worry about whether or not same-sex marriage is ethical. Don't throw another moral question on the rickety cart that is society. It'll collapse.

zootm: I wasn't using his arguments to support mine, I was using them to show that there are some homosexuals who think that there are problems within the homosexual community that need to be solved before the marriage issue is taken on. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Question: if marriage is "a well-known and followed principle of our society," should our principles change with the trends of society?

Lastly, mikeflca, I wan't trying to say that at all. I was trying to say that these bodies evolved a certain way for a certain reason, and anal sex wasn't one of them. Neither was lesbian sex. Heterosexual sex WAS one of them. We should respect that in our definition of marriage.

Farewell, and I hope that someone can take up my end of the argument in my absence. Every argument needs a devil's advocate, to keep the issue within realistic bounds.

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 6th April 2004, 16:41   #171
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
Question: if marriage is "a well-known and followed principle of our society," should our principles change with the trends of society?
of course. [edit]as we go through the process of time, our society evolves - i think that passing off archaic traditions like these sort of things is necessary.[/edit]

cheers for the interesting argument if that's you off, but i don't think your arguments were completely relevant to the case in hand.

[edit]and as for making anal sex illegal, i think that that is unjustifiable, stifling to personal freedoms, unenforcable and wrong.[/edit]


Last edited by zootm; 6th April 2004 at 16:58.
zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 16:48   #172
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar billyvnilly: Yes, I do think it should be illegal. Regardless of whether it provides sexual sitmulation, the body just wasn't designed to handle it.
read the part about the American Medical Association...

Quote:
Question: if marriage is "a well-known and followed principle of our society," should our principles change with the trends of society?
hey yeah thats a good point...hey you know 200 years ago there were slaves, and only 50 years ago blacks couldnt eat at or goto white public places...but now...omgwtf, they are treated just like us white people...oh if only we had not followed the trends of society...

Quote:
Lastly, mikeflca, I wan't trying to say that at all. I was trying to say that these bodies evolved a certain way for a certain reason, and anal sex wasn't one of them. Neither was lesbian sex. Heterosexual sex WAS one of them. We should respect that in our definition of marriage.
Dont worry about it, its not like they are gonna make babies together and pass on their "gay" gene to their kids...gay people's evolutionary line ends with them


btw im not a racist i was just bring that point up
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 16:56   #173
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
You may or may not be reading this, Nimelennar, but regardless, you might want to notice....

Quote:
I can't raise a single valid point without it being dissected and attacked on every front.
This wouldn't be a problem if your points were valid and you have a real reason to show how gay marriage is horribly wrong etc etc etc.....you don't and it isn't, thus you have this problem.



Quote:
Yes, I do think it should be illegal.
Holy shit, that is one of the most rediculous things I have ever heard. But even if it was made illegal, that is an isue that applies to everyone, gay and straight, and gay/lesbian people could still get married because marriage Does not mean sex, even if that's what a lot of people do when they get married. This is a useless topic as the whole anal sex argument has been refuted, debunked, and destroyed in every possible way.

Quote:
Cut down on your major overuse of resources, then fix everything else wrong with your country, stop declaring illegal wars on the rest of the planet, and then I might be tempted to NOT throw things at you.
Let's not get into one of these "let's see how much we can bitch about the U.S." debates....This is an irrelevant subject.

Quote:
i dont want to argue the fine points of anal sex and stds, but anal is even more likely to transfer any std than normal sex. It has more microscopic tears and tears more easily, which is how most stds get in. --btw im a medical student.
I thought that for most STDs to get transferred, there had to be direct contact between pubic areas....?

And, of course, what about lesbians?


Quote:
Lastly, mikeflca, I wan't trying to say that at all. I was trying to say that these bodies evolved a certain way for a certain reason, and anal sex wasn't one of them. Neither was lesbian sex. Heterosexual sex WAS one of them. We should respect that in our definition of marriage.
Respect it in our definition of marriage........right. Should I even bother repeating myself again?
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 17:04   #174
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
I thought that for most STDs to get transferred, there had to be direct contact between pubic areas....?

And, of course, what about lesbians?
stds are transmitted by bodily fluids or by contact. The anus is considered a sexual organ (even if that is a secondary use). Lesbians...i dunno how rampant stds are among them...but say one has a cut in their mouth and goes down on the ohter, she could get an std from that person
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 17:06   #175
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Raising valid points without them getting attacked, eh? Um... If he raised valid points, they WOULDN'T GET attacked.

Tavernology: the society we have in place right now doesn't work. Tear down the system we have now, replace it with a working system, THEN worry about whether or not same-sex marriage is ethical. Don't throw another moral question on the rickety cart that is society. It'll collapse.

Um.. That relates in no way whatsoever to what I posted, as near as I can tell.

Well, at least he's gone, and if only removing all opposition to people's happiness was that easy, the world would truly be a blissful place.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 19:25   #176
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Ok, how about I come up with everything I can think of against gay "civil unions":
  1. Being gay is immoral, therefore gay civil unions are immoral.
  2. Even if being gay is not immoral, gay parents are clearly immoral and/or corrupting the youth to be gay, and therefore they should not be able to adopt.
  3. Anal sex is baad, mmkay?
  4. Men and women makin' babies is good, mmkay?

Um. That's all I can think of. Your best argument, Nimelennar, is that gay marriage doesn't fit into your perfect society, because marriage itself doesn't really fit into it. However, that is not a workable argument, unless you're preaching an entire political ideology. We're talking about gay marriage and/or civil unions in today's world.

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 6th April 2004, 19:48   #177
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
xzxzzx: i cant tell if you are joking or if you are that big of a conservative bigot?

2. Oh of course, "clearly" gay parents are immoral. Clearly isnt that good of an arguement.

3. Is it bad when men and women have anal sex? cause if it is, a hell of a lot of people are immoral...and if it is immoral when straight people have sex, should married couples that do it get divorces?

4. as for your 4th point, who cares if gays marry...they arent going to be making babies...so who cares if they are married or have civil unions.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 20:32   #178
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Okay, back for one last post. I'm dropping all of my arguments, and leaving everyone with this. I've quoted from it, it's where I got the magazine article from (I'm sorry, it was a journal) It reinforces my beliefs, if not exactly my arguments, perfectly.

Ethics & Medics, Volume 27, Number 12, December 2002, pp.2-3

The Irony of Same Sex Marriage


Same-sex marriage? The "choice and diversity" crowd would be well advised to read the gay press, which normally tows the activist partyline, but which lately has been replete with articles, editorials, and letters lambasting and lampooning the whole idea of sam-sex marriage. Such conspicuous irony should not and must not be lost in the miasma of political correctness. Contrary to media and public perception, most gays and lesbians neither need nor want gay marriage. Even the January 14, 2001, gay wedding spectacle at Toronto's Metropolitan Community Church was shunned and scoffed at by the gay community.

As an openly gay male, I have no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and always will be the great human norm. But the feel-good, pop-culture mentality facilely equates homosexuality with heterosexuality and asks no deep quesstions about human psychology behind the superficial liberal-vs.-conservative, freedom-vs.-oppression dichotomy.

So, I formed HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Etremism) in 1997 to a) expose the lies, myths, distortions, and propaganda of modern gay activism; b) deconstruct the oppression and victimology politics; and c) give a credible voice to happy, successful, and independant gays. In April of 2001, I was asked to prepare an affidavit on behalf of the respondents in the same-sex marriage cases being heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that Canada discriminated against gays and lesbians by not allowing them to marry, but that the discrimination is justified under the Charter of Rights because marriage is the institution on which family is built, and the biological reality is that same-sex and heterosexual relationships can never be the same. In contrast, Superior Court judges in Ontario and Quebec recently determined that the present definition of marriage violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and accordingly, they concluded Canada must rethink the legal definition of marriage because the prohibition against legally sanctioned gay and lesbian unions is discriminatory and unconstitutional. In recognition of the rulings' profound implications on a deeply rooted social institution, the courts have suspended it for twenty-four months to give Parliament time to study and comply. Undeniably, the next two years will be crucial.

The Stabilizing Effects of Marriage


Most Canadians believe that gays and lesbians should be able to pursue any brand of consensual sex as we see fit and form whatever relationships that make us happy. But I reject the activist mantra that my dignity and my relationships are devalued because the state will not codify same-sex marriage. And I'm not so insecure and so selfish as to demand that marriage be redefined for everyone else. Marriage is not an arbitrary convention and is not meant to change with the times. We are not talking about music, fashion, or art. We are talking about an institution whose four prohibitions--you can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relative--have been grounded in morality and in law for millenia. Humankind yearns for these stabilizing factors in our kaleidoscopic world, and if we abandon these standards, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral. If gay marriages are permitted (a perogative of the most decadent Roman emperors), why not polygamy? Why not brother and sister or parent and child?

It is significant to note that an interfaith coalition of Roman Catholics, Sikhs, Muslims, Anglicans, and Evangelicals, intervened in the court challenges to the Marriage Act and will be present for the upcoming federal study. That such a diverse body of religious organizations, all of whom have numerous disagreements in matters of doctrine, theology, and practice, are unanimous in their defense of marriage, clearly shows a universal, pressing concern for this issue. So gays need to stop complaining about sincere Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are merely exercising their constitutional rights to free speech about homosexuality and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs over the provincialism and amoralism of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow philosophy.

There is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. And there is no conclusive scientific evidence as to the biological, genetic, psychological, and sociological influences on sexual orientation. The modern change of opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as a scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science. It is a transformation of public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as "progress," it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practises supported by a counter-culture restatement of gnostic moral relativism.

Le Deluge


It is well documented that long term relationships and fidelity are extremely rare in the gay world. Homosexual men are relentlessly searching for "Mecca"--even if it is just for a weekend. Same-sex marriage will not quell the gay male compulsion for libidinal excess. Recently, Xtra, Canada's gay and lesbian biweekly, ran a feature on getting married and still staying available, which, at first glance, seems satirical, but which is actually a serious guideline on how to have one's cake and eat it too. Another article in the same journal spoke of the perverse irony that the right to marry is being fought by gay and lesbian middle-aged partners who are already in domestic relationships, their youth gone, their kids growing or grown, and their parents shrinking before their very eyes.

In its affidavit in support of same-sex marriage, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) contends that if gays and lesbians are excluded from that which is available to the rest of society, we will always remain marginalized and stigmatized. Gay activism has always been naive in its beligerent confidence that "homophobia" will disappear with massive and forced education of the benighted. But such relentless indoctribation cannot be achieved without fascist obliteration of all freedoms. And since freedom always trumps diversity and tolerance, you can rest assured that any perceived threat to freedom will result in a societal backlash which will guarantee oppression of all homosexuals. The unhappy truth is that male homosexuality will never be fully accepted by the heterosexual majority, who are obeying the dictates not of "bigoted" society or religion, but of procreative nature.

By far, the scariest and most insidious corollary to same-sex marriage is same-sex adoption (already legal in some jurisdictions). This is child abuse. Children need a biological mother and father. We know this is not always possible, even in the context of opposite-sex marriage, but we do not solve the problem or alleviate the inconsistency by augmenting it. Children are not meant to be guinea pigs for social engineering experiments.

When society allows men to marry men and women to marry women it perpetuates the alienation of the sexes and contributes to the ever-increasing crisis in the sex roles. As gay liberation took hold, gay males, feeling ebullient from their new-found freedom, descended into a bacchanalia of narcissism and promiscuity. Strange parisitic diseases soon began appearing, and by 1981, a "gay cancer" was identified as AIDS. We must honestly admit that even gay men's attempt to create a world without women failed catastrophically. We cannot and must not ignore the lessons of history and natural law. Again and again, it has been shown that whenever humankind fails to protect time-honored political, moral, and social institutons, whenever humanhind attempts to embrace pride as a virtue and mainstream behavoiur that contravenes natural law, civilization fails--always and without exception. Let's not repeat the cycle.
John McKellar
President, HOPE
Toronto, Ontario
Canada

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 6th April 2004, 21:51   #179
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
xzxzzx: ... a conservative bigot?
Conservative? I am insulted! I demand satisfaction!

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 6th April 2004, 21:54   #180
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
im just saying thats pretty much right wing propaganda...or do you consider yourself liberal
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2004, 22:32   #181
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
im just saying thats pretty much right wing propaganda...or do you consider yourself liberal
If I were not a gentleman, I would oust you myself!

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 7th April 2004, 08:23   #182
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
billy, I'm pretty sure he was just giving Nim the shit he so rightly deserves.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2004, 08:49   #183
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
So one article, based on a heap of uncited and untested articles is reason to stop gay marriage, especially considering that most of it's arguments are based entirely on religious CRAP, too?

Phuck that for a joke.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2004, 21:50   #184
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
Originally posted by Tavernology
billy, I'm pretty sure he was just giving Nim the shit he so rightly deserves.
Well if thats true im glad...i lose a piece of my soul everyday i find another right wing conservative exists. and how the hell did i not notice the sarcasm
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2004, 21:59   #185
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
I would be insulted if I were called a Conservative or a Liberal.

I'm a Libertarian.

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 7th April 2004, 22:38   #186
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
If we are going to debate gay marriages, we have to seperate legality from morality, as they are very different.


legally, gays can not marry, and that's it. Should they be entitled to marry? Perhaps. The constitution guarantees everyone the right to persue happiness, but happiness and marriage are not the same thing. This is a matter for courts, but can be debated as much as you deem worthy. I do not believe that this is a black and white case. It's not so obvious that gays should be allowed to marry. The benefits that most hetero couples get are because of their increased dependants (children). Homosexual couples do not enjoy this privelege, so why should they get the benefits? Understandably, things like health insurance require no children and are benefits of couples, but does the heart of the fight here really revolve around health benefits? I think there is more.


Morally, is it wrong? Well we'd have to agree on how to judge morals. what would make my morals better than yours or vice versa? Should all morals be ok as long as they don't hurt anyone else? well then we get into ideas of suicde things like chain gangs (are they HURTING anyone?), also, things like alcoholism and drug addiction come into question. Definately shades of gray in that room.
Should morals be based on religion and my religion is better than yours? definately not. Reference Nazism for more information.
If anyone can think of a way of which to judge morals then tell me, because i don't know any. Armed with this knowledge, how can anyone argue that thier beliefs are better? Being gay is moral, being gay is immoral. Sadly, human understanding is not infinate so we have to live with both of these ideas at the same time.




I readily admit that the extent of my knowledge is limited. If i have said something grossly incorrect, please don't be an ass about it. I apologize in advance for my ignorance. But if i didn't play devíl's advocate, there would be no arguement.

No sig here folks.

Last edited by GqSkrub; 7th April 2004 at 22:56.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 13:25   #187
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Well, there's no real reason i can see that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. OK, fine, strip the exrta benefits from them unless they adopt. Then it's fair, isn't it?

Religiously, the christian god says it's immoral. But frankly, he's NOT my god. So I have no reason to listen to what his followers preach. I say, let them get married. If you're worried about benefits, don't give it to them, and then everyone can be happy, at least for a while.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 13:31   #188
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
I'm a Christian who believes that one some level, homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Why? Marriage is already morally meaningless. The divorce rate is way too high to assign any value to it under our current system. A common law marriage is hardly any great leap in any direction, moral or otherwise.

We can't defend the CURRENT sanctity of an institution that ignores one of it's primary directives more than half of the time.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 13:39   #189
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
"'Till Death Do Us Part"
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 15:19   #190
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 Phyltre
I'm a Christian who believes that one some level, homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Why? Marriage is already morally meaningless. The divorce rate is way too high to assign any value to it under our current system. A common law marriage is hardly any great leap in any direction, moral or otherwise.

We can't defend the CURRENT sanctity of an institution that ignores one of it's primary directives more than half of the time.

well drugs crimes are hardly enforcable and a vast majority of rape go unpunished. so should we then let everyone buy drugs and go rape people?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 18:49   #191
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
I think we should let people buy drugs, and tax them. Personally, I hate drugs and would never even allow myself to be a close friend of someone who used them--but then, I'm not God. I'm not going to restrict other people's activities based on my outlook.

As for rape, I think you'd find it a little hard to defend. It's what we call a "violent crime." Even a Libertarian believes in stopping those.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 19:20   #192
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Actually, GqSkrub, I think drugs should be legalized, rather than having a huge drug underground.

Making drugs illegal makes the problem hidden, and creates an enourmous drug underground which funds drug cartels - no one's friend.

Drug use is a personal thing. Forcing someone else to take drugs should be a crime, just as rape is, because it's someone's will forced on another.

Here's my philosophy: Do anything you want, as long as it doesn't force someone else into it, and doesn't damage anyone else - that's why rape, murder, assault, etc would be illegal, while drug use wouldn't be.

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 8th April 2004, 19:43   #193
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Hah! I pegged the Libertarian!!!

I knew it!!!

--733t hax0r d00D

Last edited by Phyltre; 8th April 2004 at 20:21.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 19:54   #194
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by Phyltre
Hah! I pegged the Libertarian!!!
Oh, wow. You are so über. You are leet haxor, d00d.

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 8th April 2004, 21:11   #195
Abarabusto
Member
 
Abarabusto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: A small cave on the planet siiikar with broadband access
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
well drugs crimes are hardly enforcable and a vast majority of rape go unpunished. so should we then let everyone buy drugs and go rape people?
Wow, how can you group those two together. Drugs hurt no one but the person doing them and in my opinion should be legalized. I can't believe we continue to destroy peoples lives over something as benign as marijuana.
Abarabusto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 22:34   #196
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
GqSkrub:

First you said that it is nearly impossible to say that one person's morals are better than another person's and stuff like that....I agree with you there.

And then you say that gay marriage is immoral?

Does anybody other than me see the contradiction in those statements?
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2004, 23:00   #197
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
GqSkrub:

First you said that it is nearly impossible to say that one person's morals are better than another person's and stuff like that....I agree with you there.

And then you say that gay marriage is immoral?

Does anybody other than me see the contradiction in those statements?
HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah you hypocrite
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 07:48   #198
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx

Here's my philosophy: Do anything you want, as long as it doesn't force someone else into it, and doesn't damage anyone else - that's why rape, murder, assault, etc would be illegal, while drug use wouldn't be.

I think the best way I've heard that idea put is "Do as thou wilt, but harm thee none."

Yeah, drugs SHOULD be legal, especially marijuana. If it was legal, it would be considerable cheaper, it's NOT a 'gateway' drug, in spite of what some people think, and if everything was legal and cheaper, then the Govt would be getting much more tax $$ instead of spending taxes to fight drugs, and the rate of drug-related crime would drop.

And drugs and rape are two VERY different things.
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2004, 09:13   #199
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Tavernology: Actually, my theory of why marijuana is not legal is that it is not really taxable. The reason it's not taxable is anyone with a back yard (in many places of the country) can grow marijuana. It's a fucking weed (ha-ha).

There was an empty lot near where I live where the stuff just grew like crazy - I only knew about it because some guy got busted for taking marijuana from the lot (the plants were destroyed, of course).

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 9th April 2004, 09:26   #200
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Well, it's legal in Amsterdam, and as I understand it, (Probably not correct, but meh) it's illegal to grow it yourself, like it's illegal to grow tobacco in Australia, but you can buy it from coffee shops, etc. They get taxed for it. So growing it's still illegal, but you can buy it from the corner store, and they get taxed for selling it to you.

I think, but I might be wrong.
Tavernology 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