The shameful gay marriage ban.

[Clement]

No a democracy means that people get to elect a representative to speak, act or vote on their behalf. 32 Liberal MP's actually listened to their constituents wishes and voted against the bill. That is true democracy.



Well if that is the case then perhaps you should move to a totalitarian country where all the descisions are made by one or a select group of people. I do not want to live in such a country, I would like to see Canada remain a democracy where people's wishes are heard or at least adheard to on important matters.





When a law is forced upon the citizens without their consent. Or changed against their will then that means that means it is forced.




Prior to the law being changed, I did not see anyone being prevented from 'expressing their love'. Homosexuality was not illegal. People could 'express their love' all they wanted, and they did not need to change the definition of marriage to do so.


Democracy is the people voting to elect their leaders, instead of someone rising up and taking power. Democracy doesn't mean that the government has to ask people how to govern, because if that was the case, we'd never need elections. the guy in charge would simply ask the majority what he should do everytime he needs to make a decision, and by your logic, would always make the right decision and would never need to be re-elected or replaced. We elect people according to their beliefs and goals, because those beliefs and goals are what will dictate their actions once they're in power. if you don't like the decisions they have made, you don't vote for them next time you get the chance.

do you think slavery would have ended if the government had asked the majority of white people if they wanted it to end?

Do you think women would have the right to vote if the government would have asked the men to vote on it?

You can't have the majority voting on the fate of the minority.

[estee]

Democracy is the people voting to elect their leaders, instead of someone rising up and taking power. Democracy doesn't mean that the government has to ask people how to govern, because if that was the case, we'd never need elections. the guy in charge would simply ask the majority what he should do everytime he needs to make a decision, and by your logic, would always make the right decision and would never need to be re-elected or replaced. We elect people according to their beliefs and goals, because those beliefs and goals are what will dictate their actions once they're in power. if you don't like the decisions they have made, you don't vote for them next time you get the chance.

do you think slavery would have ended if the government had asked the majority of white people if they wanted it to end?

Do you think women would have the right to vote if the government would have asked the men to vote on it?

You can't have the majority voting on the fate of the minority.

That last statement was echoed by our previous Prime Minister Jean Chretien. It was perhaps the most poignant and profound thing he ever said.

And I am thankful that the government has finally passed the same sex bill. Now we can move on to more important things.

Of course I'm worried about statements said by Harper and his Tories that he will re-visit the law if he is in power.

Doesn't he realise that rights cannot be taken away when they are given. If dares to do that Canada will become a pariah umongst the other democratic nations of this world.

[Corrina]

Do you think women would have the right to vote if the government would have asked the men to vote on it?



While I agree with your point, the above is actually how women's right to vote in the USA passed.

First, the men in Congress had to pass an amendment to the Constitution, a process which required much lobbying and protesting and sacrifice on the part of the suffrage movement.

Then a set number of states to ratify it. It nearly failed. Time was running out when the TN legislature sat down to vote. It passed by only one vote, a man who was told by his mother that he had better vote for it or she'd be extremely disappointed.

Yeah, it was that close.

One vote.

The building where they voted was in downtown Nashville and there's a plaque commenorating the event.

[Dr. Killbydeath]

Of course I'm worried about statements said by Harper and his Tories that he will re-visit the law if he is in power.

Harper will never take power, because he'll never win Ontario or Quebec. Besides, he's losing control over his own party, as many Conservatives who were formerly PC think that he is too extreme...

[Samurai]

Democracy is the people voting to elect their leaders, instead of someone rising up and taking power. Democracy doesn't mean that the government has to ask people how to govern, because if that was the case, we'd never need elections. the guy in charge would simply ask the majority what he should do everytime he needs to make a decision, and by your logic, would always make the right decision and would never need to be re-elected or replaced. We elect people according to their beliefs and goals, because those beliefs and goals are what will dictate their actions once they're in power. if you don't like the decisions they have made, you don't vote for them next time you get the chance.

do you think slavery would have ended if the government had asked the majority of white people if they wanted it to end?

Do you think women would have the right to vote if the government would have asked the men to vote on it?

You can't have the majority voting on the fate of the minority.
Yes, both of those would have happened by popular vote. The Abolition and Suffrage movements convinced people that it was a worthy change. Nowadays, no one has any patience for that and would rather push things through by govt or judge fiat, no matter how unpopular they are.

And for the record, a Democracy does mean the majority rules. We have a Republic with a few features of direct Democracy in those states with propositions, recalls, and referendums (when they aren't overturned by judge fiat...)

[Dr. Killbydeath]

While I agree with your point, the above is actually how women's right to vote in the USA passed.

First, the men in Congress had to pass an amendment to the Constitution, a process which required much lobbying and protesting and sacrifice on the part of the suffrage movement.

Then a set number of states to ratify it. It nearly failed. Time was running out when the TN legislature sat down to vote. It passed by only one vote, a man who was told by his mother that he had better vote for it or she'd be extremely disappointed.

Yeah, it was that close.

One vote.

The building where they voted was in downtown Nashville and there's a plaque commenorating the event.
Quick sidenote, many of those who voted had wives and never would have eaten another good meal if they had voted against it. Besides, if the women never said anything about it, nothing would have happenned...

[Samurai]

Quick sidenote, many of those who voted had wives and never would have eaten another good meal if they had voted against it. Besides, if the women never said anything about it, nothing would have happenned...
True, but it was still the men who voted and gave women the vote... not just some judge declaring it to be so, which would have cause a backlash and turned public support into animosity...

So, I guess the US must now declare Canadian marriages null and void in the US, right? Or else gay couple can pop across the border, get married, and claim to be married in the US as well...

[Dr. Killbydeath]

Or they can go to Massachusettes and get married there.

[Wolfie]

Personally, as an Ontario resident, I must say I’m extremely proud to be Canadian today. I haven’t felt so proud since Canada was ranked #1 in the UN Quality of Life Index Report, back in 1992.

Weird that I don’t feel threatened whatsoever by this new legislation. And I’m straight and married, go figure.

I also find it ironic that those who will quote as fact that homosexuals are promiscuous are also the ones who would deny them a legal marriage.

As for our government's approach:

Helena:
When a law is forced upon the citizens without their consent.
They did listen to the people who disagreed. Amendments were introduced to ensure no religious group would be forced to accept same-sex marriage. (Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html) Gotta love a democracy.

Also, the MPs weren’t forced to vote any way at all. Members of each party voted for each side of the issue. The fact that the vote still went through, even in the current minority government, to me says that this bill was very much ready to be passed.

Whenever a minority obtains equal rights, feathers are ruffled. That’s just the way it is with Change. Blacks getting to actually sit where they want in a bus? GASP! And women getting to vote? INCONCEIVABLE! One day we’ll all look back on this and be proud that we were one of the nations that led the way. At least, I hope we all will. I know I’m there already! :D

(Hopefully I haven’t repeated what other have said too much – I didn’t have time to read all the posts!)

Wolfie

[Adam Crocker]

Yes, both of those would have happened by popular vote. The Abolition and Suffrage movements convinced people that it was a worthy change.

No they were not. In the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_suffrage#United_States) the amendment for allowing woman's suffrage was passed by the house and senate, and then passed on to the states who ratified the amendment through their legislatures.

As for abolition. Popular vote? See the procedure for passing a constitutional amendment in the U.S. and then refer to the Thirteenth Amendment.

And for the record, a Democracy does mean the majority rules.

Yeah, now see my comments above (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1537526&postcount=2477).

[Samurai]

No they were not. In the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_suffrage#United_States) the amendment for allowing woman's suffrage was passed by the house and senate, and then passed on to the states who ratified the amendment through their legislatures.

As for abolition. Popular vote? See the procedure for passing a constitutional amendment in the U.S. and then refer to the Thirteenth Amendment.



Yeah, now see my comments above (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1537526&postcount=2477).
I said "would have passed a popular vote", not that they did. I know very well how they were actually passed, thank you. But by the time they became laws, most (though not all) Americans agreed with them in principle.

[Adam Crocker]

I said "would have passed a popular vote", not that they did. I know very well how they were actually passed, thank you. But by the time they became laws, most (though not all) Americans agreed with them in principle.

Okay. My apologies then for misreading you.

Still I have to debate this statement. I admit I do not know much about popular support for women's suffrage, but I believe it's a different matter in regards to slavery. Only a small number of Northerners supported measures for the complete abolition of slavery. The newly formed Republican Party drew popular support on the issue in that Northerners only opposed its expansion beyond the Southern States for fear of competition from slave labour. And that's leaving aside that the issue was contentious enough that it contributed to the South seceding from the Union and causing a Civil War in the process. The institution, even though only a small part of the Southern population had proprietary interest in it, was by in large supported (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War#Diverging_cultur es) by ordinary Southerners.

And now this is completely and utterly off topic, but who's that in your avatar? For some reason I'm insanely curious.

[PatrickG]

And now for a brief interlude:

New Dad Thinks Baby Might Be Gay (http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4126&n=3)

[the4thpip]

To the delight of LGBT rights advocates nationwide, the California Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to hear a challenge to the state's domestic partnership law.

The justices unanimously let stand an April 4 ruling from the Court of Appeals that upheld the domestic partnership law, AB 205, which was passed by the Legislature in 2003 and went into effect at the beginning of this year.

Conservative opponents charged that AB 205 contradicted the will of state voters, who approved Proposition 22, which prevents the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Prop. 22 passed in 2000 with 61 percent of the vote, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

The appeals court ruling asserted that Prop. 22's language did not apply to domestic partnerships.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/califhighcourtletspartnerlawstand;_ylt=AlnR4HHePqS 76jQ9WEgOVHBhr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVR PUCUl

[Samurai]

And now this is completely and utterly off topic, but who's that in your avatar? For some reason I'm insanely curious.
It's the Wright Brothers. I've been taking part in the weekly avatar contests over on the Comm Board. There's a new category every week, and this week was "Aviation".

[outlander78]

The Spanish just passed a gay marriage bill.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/30/spain-marriage050630.html

[Pixies Chick]

Personally, as an Ontario resident, I must say I’m extremely proud to be Canadian today. I haven’t felt so proud since Canada was ranked #1 in the UN Quality of Life Index Report, back in 1992.

Weird that I don’t feel threatened whatsoever by this new legislation. And I’m straight and married, go figure.

I also find it ironic that those who will quote as fact that homosexuals are promiscuous are also the ones who would deny them a legal marriage.
Ain't that always the way? My husband says he's suspicious about why single guys should care about gay people being able to get married. In a nutshell, they've got to beat on the gays because if gays are respected, they'd feel less pressure to hide their desires, and it terrifies them.

As for our government's approach:

They did listen to the people who disagreed. Amendments were introduced to ensure no religious group would be forced to accept same-sex marriage. (Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html) Gotta love a democracy.

Wolfie

You got politics on my religion!

Hey, you got religion on my politics!

That's such a common sense approach. I figure the best way to sort out the competing rights is for churches to have the freedom to decide for themselves what they will and won't recognize. The "goods" of the church are theirs for them to apportion or withhold, and that's fine. Social goods regulated by the government are a different matter, and the constitution, not the Bible, is the resource we turn to in determining how far government can go in restricting freedom.

Also, the MPs weren’t forced to vote any way at all. Members of each party voted for each side of the issue. The fact that the vote still went through, even in the current minority government, to me says that this bill was very much ready to be passed.

Whenever a minority obtains equal rights, feathers are ruffled. That’s just the way it is with Change. Blacks getting to actually sit where they want in a bus? GASP! And women getting to vote? INCONCEIVABLE! One day we’ll all look back on this and be proud that we were one of the nations that led the way. At least, I hope we all will. I know I’m there already! :D ....
Wolfie
Yeah, the closer the oppressed group comes to having their rights recognized, the scarier the doomsday scenarios become.

You should be proud. It's a great thing your country has done.

[Mia]

You know I really don't get what the big deal is. We live in a pluralistic society, and we should be able to have all sorts of relationships. Personally I am tickled pink (no pun intended) by this whole thing! I can't wait until Polyandrous marriages are available. I can be married to as many men as I want. What a glorious day that will be! Thank you Mr. Martin for being so open minded!

[Adam Crocker]

It's the Wright Brothers. I've been taking part in the weekly avatar contests over on the Comm Board. There's a new category every week, and this week was "Aviation".

Ah. I tried checking the avatar thread, but could only find last week's.

[the4thpip]

The Spanish just passed a gay marriage bill.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/30/spain-marriage050630.html
Yup, one of the most catholic countries in the world. Full equal rights for same sex couples.

[trickster]

Yup, one of the most catholic countries in the world. Full equal rights for same sex couples.

Whew, now that's a long thread. I see a lot of people seem to think that it's only religious folks (christian or whatever) that oppose gay marriage. Well, I am an atheist and frankly I hate the idea of gay marriage. I can't imagine anything more repulsive than kissing another man. Not that I've tried it, and thankfully no one's come on to me. I can't seem to figure out how come deviant behaviour that usually occurs under extreme conditions (you know, don't drop the soap in the shower :)) is suddenly perfectly normal.

[TCJohnson]

I don't find it particularly apealing either. But just because it is not for me does not mean I would want to force my tastes on everybody else. This is America, and people should have the freedom to live their lives, not the freedom to live my life.

[trickster]

I don't find it particularly apealing either. But just because it is not for me does not mean I would want to force my tastes on everybody else. This is America, and people should have the freedom to live their lives, not the freedom to live my life.

Hell, with this line of thinking, then most of the laws today are forcing someone else's opinions on me. I could twist this to prove society doesn't have any right to punish me for stealing or rape, they're just imposing their own tastes and opinions of what's right and what's not. Hell, even canibalism was acceptable in certain regions of the world that did not share our moral and legal system.

[Spackling Compound]

Hell, with this line of thinking, then most of the laws today are forcing someone else's opinions on me. I could twist this to prove society doesn't have any right to punish me for stealing or rape, they're just imposing their own tastes and opinions of what's right and what's not. Hell, even canibalism was acceptable in certain regions of the world that did not share our moral and legal system.

Rape and stealing aren't consentual. Cannibalism? Now there you have an argument.

[Pixies Chick]

Whew, now that's a long thread. I see a lot of people seem to think that it's only religious folks (christian or whatever) that oppose gay marriage. Well, I am an atheist and frankly I hate the idea of gay marriage. I can't imagine anything more repulsive than kissing another man. Not that I've tried it, and thankfully no one's come on to me. I can't seem to figure out how come deviant behaviour that usually occurs under extreme conditions (you know, don't drop the soap in the shower :)) is suddenly perfectly normal.

Seems to me that bathing is the thing that you ought to avoid, but you should be very happy to see gay people marry so they won't hit on you.

[TCJohnson]

Hell, with this line of thinking, then most of the laws today are forcing someone else's opinions on me. I could twist this to prove society doesn't have any right to punish me for stealing or rape, they're just imposing their own tastes and opinions of what's right and what's not. Hell, even canibalism was acceptable in certain regions of the world that did not share our moral and legal system.

But with stealing and rape and cannibalism you are violating other people's rights. How are gay people getting married violating your rights?

[Wolfie]

I can't seem to figure out how come deviant behaviour that usually occurs under extreme conditions (you know, don't drop the soap in the shower :)) is suddenly perfectly normal.

:confused: Deviant behavior? Extreme conditions? "Suddenly" normal? :confused:

I won't even try to touch that post! I'll just say this: Boy oh boy, it's tough to be different! I think it's safe to assume we're all different and have all felt we don't "fit in" for various reasons at one or more points in our lives. If that's never happened for someone reading this, man, you've had an easy life and I hope you know it.

I'll get slightly more personal here and say that I'm a married woman in my 30s, and I have no children. Now, the norm is that someone in my situation would have children. So I don't fit the norm. Does that mean I'm not "normal"? Maybe you'd say so. Nevertheless, should my right to marriage be revoked? After all, if you're going to be conservative about the institution of marriage, might as well go all the way and agree that folks are supposed to get married for the purpose of having children, right? Doggone it, do I have to go and get divorced now? :eek:

Personally, I'll say it again, I'm happy that even those who don't fit the norm have been given the right to get married.

Vulf!

[Adam Crocker]

Yup, one of the most catholic countries in the world. Full equal rights for same sex couples.

While Spain hasn't had the tradition of entrenched secularism that Northern Europe has it also isn't quite as a Catholic as some people make it out to be. From what I know secularism has been on the rise there. According to this New York TImes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/weekinreview/26loew.html) a recent poll by the Center For Sociological Investigation two-thirds of the country supported the gay marriage law. It also found that they placed upholding strict moral values far below helping the poor and the Church opening up to change. Meanwhile, the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1508519,00.html) notes that in a poll while 82% of Spaniards consider themselves Catholic, only 48% consider themselves practicing Catholics. So it's debatable if the country is as religious as it is made out to be.


Well, I am an atheist and frankly I hate the idea of gay marriage. I can't imagine anything more repulsive than kissing another man.

On the other hand how is finding something icky a good basis for barring it? I find a lot of tiolet humour repulsive. Does that mean there should be laws against it?

I can't seem to figure out how come deviant behaviour that usually occurs under extreme conditions (you know, don't drop the soap in the shower :)) is suddenly perfectly normal.

You seem to be confusing actual physical and romantic attraction to the same sex in everyday life with situational sexual behaviour that is mitigated by what goes on in prisons, including prison rape. There's the deprivation to consider, for one thing. Another is that a good deal of it isn't necessarily about sex, but power, usually prisoners trying to establish dominance over another. Moreover, the prisoners do not actually regard themselves as homosexual. In contrast, men normally attracted to men (and women vice-versa) in everyday life do define themselves as homosexual.

And it certainly didn't become "normal" suddenly, that's if it is even accepted enough yet to be so. Homosexual activity wasn't decriminalized in Canada until 1967 and even then they still faced discrimination and disapproval from much of society. And as opinion polls indicated the opinion on gay marriage is split in Canada. In the U.S. sodomy laws had existed up until 2003. Even then it's not hard to find plenty of societal disapproval for it, and opposition to gay marriage in the country remains pretty stiff.

[Tom]

Whew, now that's a long thread. I see a lot of people seem to think that it's only religious folks (christian or whatever) that oppose gay marriage. Well, I am an atheist and frankly I hate the idea of gay marriage. I can't imagine anything more repulsive than kissing another man. Not that I've tried it, and thankfully no one's come on to me. I can't seem to figure out how come deviant behaviour that usually occurs under extreme conditions (you know, don't drop the soap in the shower :)) is suddenly perfectly normal.
That deviant behavior does not usually occur under extreme conditions. It usually occurs under the most mundane, dare I say it, "normal" conditions. Gay marriage doesn't make homosexuality normal. Nothing can do that. Gay marriage is about not punishing people for being outside the norm.

And tell me, if a white man isn't attracted to black women would that be a good reason to outlaw biracial marriages?

[TCJohnson]

Dear Lord, can anybody who posts in this forum call themselves normal?

[Adam Crocker]

And it certainly didn't become "normal" suddenly, that's if it is even accepted enough yet to be so. Homosexual activity wasn't decriminalized in Canada until 1967 and even then they still faced discrimination and disapproval from much of society. And as opinion polls indicated the opinion on gay marriage is split in Canada. In the U.S. sodomy laws had existed up until 2003. Even then it's not hard to find plenty of societal disapproval for it, and opposition to gay marriage in the country remains pretty stiff.

Why do I keep saying "disapproval" when it's been an uphill battle just get some basic level of tolerance? Damn I'm getting sloppy.

[trickster]

:confused: Deviant behavior? Extreme conditions? "Suddenly" normal? :confused:

I won't even try to touch that post! I'll just say this: Boy oh boy, it's tough to be different! I think it's safe to assume we're all different and have all felt we don't "fit in" for various reasons at one or more points in our lives. If that's never happened for someone reading this, man, you've had an easy life and I hope you know it.

I'll get slightly more personal here and say that I'm a married woman in my 30s, and I have no children. Now, the norm is that someone in my situation would have children. So I don't fit the norm. Does that mean I'm not "normal"? Maybe you'd say so. Nevertheless, should my right to marriage be revoked? After all, if you're going to be conservative about the institution of marriage, might as well go all the way and agree that folks are supposed to get married for the purpose of having children, right? Doggone it, do I have to go and get divorced now? :eek:

Personally, I'll say it again, I'm happy that even those who don't fit the norm have been given the right to get married.

Vulf!
You're stretching it. First of all I'm not conservative about marriage in any way (I believe you should have the right to divorce someone and living with someone without being married is perfectly ok - hell this was even the case in my family for a while), and nowhere does it say that you're supposed a fixed number of kids (if any). Like I said I am an atheist so organized religion doesn't influence me in any way. Basically the question here is that they want to legally marry because it's normal. But if homosexuality is normal (as in "the way our bodies are supposed to work"), how come gays can't have kids? That's all a matter of logic. Evolution/nature (I'm NOT saying god), didn't intend for us to have sex with persons of the same sex.

[TCJohnson]

But since when is marriage about sex? How many married are there who haven't had sex in years? Or impotent men. Women who are too old to have children, does that mean they shouldn't get married again?

My girlfriend cannot have children. It was the way she was born. Evolution/nature made her that way. Does that mean we shouldn't get married?

[Tom]

Basically the question here is that they want to legally marry because it's normal.
Uh, no. They want to get married because they want the 1100+ legal benefits given to straight couples and because they see it as a clear case of discrimination.
But if homosexuality is normal (as in "the way our bodies are supposed to work"),
That's not the definition of normal.
how come gays can't have kids?Gays can have kids just like anyone else. They need a person of the opposite sex to do so, but that's the only diff-- hey! That's not a difference at all!
That's all a matter of logic. Evolution/nature (I'm NOT saying god), didn't intend for us to have sex with persons of the same sex.
Since you are openly ascribing intent to "nature," let me be the first to break it to you: you're not an atheist.

[Charles RB]

I am an atheist and frankly I hate the idea of gay marriage. I can't imagine anything more repulsive than kissing another man.

Well, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. And big whoop if you find it disgusting; I find Crazy Frog disgusting but I have to put up with it being on web ads & phones. If society can put up with that abomination from the Tenth Circle of Hell slouching around, it can damn well put up with people getting married.

I could twist this to prove society doesn't have any right to punish me for stealing or rape, they're just imposing their own tastes and opinions of what's right and what's not

Stealing and rape hurts people, violates the victims rights and isn't consentual. Gay people getting married hurts people as much as straight people getting married, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and is very much consentual (that's the whole point). Your analogy is flawed.

if homosexuality is normal (as in "the way our bodies are supposed to work"), how come gays can't have kids?

Sure they can. Nothing prevents a gay man from passing on his genes and a lesbian from concieving & giving birth; they're still biologically capable of it. We have sperms banks and artificial semination, gay people can use them just like straight people do.

That's also got nothing to do with letting people marry or not. We let infertile people marry, they can't have children.

Evolution/nature (I'm NOT saying god), didn't intend for us to have sex with persons of the same sex.

Evolution is a process and nature is basically the world that biological entities function in. Neither have any conscious intent.

[Ian Boothby]

Whew, now that's a long thread. I see a lot of people seem to think that it's only religious folks (christian or whatever) that oppose gay marriage. Well, I am an atheist and frankly I hate the idea of gay marriage. I can't imagine anything more repulsive than kissing another man. Not that I've tried it, and thankfully no one's come on to me. I can't seem to figure out how come deviant behaviour that usually occurs under extreme conditions (you know, don't drop the soap in the shower :)) is suddenly perfectly normal.

You can't imagine anything more repulsive than two men in love kissing? Anything? War? Murder? Rape? The last seasons of Happy Days?

This post seems fakey. Just pushing buttons for the sake of being outrageous. If you're on the level though, I'm sorry for you and hope you can join the rest of us in the 21st Century one day, it's nice here. We have really good video games.

[Ian Boothby]

This is America, and people should have the freedom to live their lives, not the freedom to live my life.


What a great quote. You should put that on your dollar bill.

[Poka Lola Luau]

I don't think nature would mind at all if we cut down on the breeding.

[Adam Crocker]

Basically the question here is that they want to legally marry because it's normal.

Maybe. It could be a component of that, but that also leaves aside the legal rights and benefits that married couples are able to obtain such as - highlighting what are probably some of the most pertinent - citizenship rights, so they can stay together; visitation rights, so they can see each in the hospital; and child custody rights.

But if homosexuality is normal (as in "the way our bodies are supposed to work"), how come gays can't have kids?

They can have kids. Simply because they are not having sex with someone of the opposite sex in order to reproduce doesn't mean that their reproductive capacity is debilitated.

That's all a matter of logic. Evolution/nature (I'm NOT saying god), didn't intend for us to have sex with persons of the same sex.

But if this is about evolution, why would anyone talk about "intent?" That assumes conscious action by some agent, which is more applicable to belief in a diety guiding things. Evolution is an unguided process (and a pretty complicated one) based on the survival/death of certain species within an environment and their ability to reproduce, as well as the peculiar traits that develop among them - often through mutation - due to many of the factors I listed above.

I don't really know where homosexuality fits in evolution save that I have heard suggestions that it may sometimes serve as a mechanism guarding against overpopulation as certain environmental stressors help to increase the frequency of it.

Of course this leads into what causes it. Among human males so far scientists have found it largely attributable to biological factors. These namely involve a combination of genetic predisposition and stress levels among pregnant mothers which influence hormonal levels in the womb. Among women they have not found evidence for this, but have found that lesbians have oftened turned to women after having poor experiences with men. With bisexuals...well everyone's drawing a blank on that one, though it is worth noting that there's an idea floating about that very rarely is sexual orientation absolute and that people may actually operate on a continuum. There's been some evidence to support it, though as far as I know the matter is hardly settled.

[Adam Crocker]

You can't imagine anything more repulsive than two men in love kissing?

http://humorinthenews.com/archives/2000/2000pix/08-20/08-20-13.jpg

Yeah, forced displays of public affection.

[the4thpip]

I can't imagine why no gay man has ever hit on Trickster. He, like, seems like a total catch. Totally.

[the4thpip]

While Spain hasn't had the tradition of entrenched secularism that Northern Europe has it also isn't quite as a Catholic as some people make it out to be. From what I know secularism has been on the rise there. According to this New York TImes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/weekinreview/26loew.html) a recent poll by the Center For Sociological Investigation two-thirds of the country supported the gay marriage law. It also found that they placed upholding strict moral values far below helping the poor and the Church opening up to change. Meanwhile, the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1508519,00.html) notes that in a poll while 82% of Spaniards consider themselves Catholic, only 48% consider themselves practicing Catholics. So it's debatable if the country is as religious as it is made out to be.



I have family in Spain, and everybody is pretty stunned by how quickly this move towards secularism has happened. Just the last government (a member of the "Coalition of the Willing™) had high ranking cabinet members who were members of the Opus Dei organisation.
And a lot of pubilc funding still goes to the church, and they do still hold a lot of power. I was in Spain during Corpus Christi this year, and my god, do they shut the cities down with their processions.

[trickster]

Stealing and rape hurts people, violates the victims rights and isn't consentual. Gay people getting married hurts people as much as straight people getting married, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and is very much consentual (that's the whole point). Your analogy is flawed.


Sure they can. Nothing prevents a gay man from passing on his genes and a lesbian from concieving & giving birth; they're still biologically capable of it. We have sperms banks and artificial semination, gay people can use them just like straight people do.


Yeah, indeed. And lesbians will be inseminated by... men, which kinda makes you wonder what one's reason for becoming a lesbian is really. Last I checked women don't produce sperm. And as for men giving birth, hmm... that's a tough one too. Supposing they will ever become able to give birth, they'll probably give birth through the ass, or they're gonna have to get a vagina, which means their "joystick" will be gone, taking away most of the pleasure in having sex. But hey, some people cut their penis off so they can become women, which means they end up becoming neither.

[trickster]

I can't imagine why no gay man has ever hit on Trickster. He, like, seems like a total catch. Totally.
Now you done it. You've gone and got me wondering what's wrong with me that no pansy hits on me. Hmm, maybe I'm ugly :) (but you'll never know).
Hmm, could it be because I don't go to gay clubs? Or maybe in my country we don't have that many freaks yet? We're a bit old-fashioned you know.
But hey, now that we're about to join the European Union and one of the conditions we have to fulfil is accepting gay people as normal. That's progress you know. AFAIK as I know they're not asking us to allow them to adopt kids yet, but hey, who knows, could happen later.

Oh, so I used to "intent". MAYBE it was a poor choice of words. Because that's the way it happens. Some animals become adapted for eating grass, others adapt to become carnivores. (hope I got the spelling right).

And if men were supposed to have sex with men, (as in their bodies had evolved towards that) there wouldn't be any women. Oh wait, you don't care about having sex with women anyway.

[thehod]

Now you done it. You've gone and got me wondering what's wrong with me that no pansy hits on me. Hmm, maybe I'm ugly :) (but you'll never know).
Or maybe it because you insist on calling them pansy's. You know you won't get many women hitting on you if you call them bitches as well.

Hmm, could it be because I don't go to gay clubs? Or maybe in my country we don't have that many freaks yet?
Oh I dunno. They've got at least one.

We're a bit old-fashioned you know.
What does that have to do with anything. Do you all ride around on horses, and have fights with the neighbouring tribe?

But hey, now that we're about to join the European Union and one of the conditions we have to fulfil is accepting gay people as normal.
Sounds like a good idea to me.

That's progress you know. AFAIK as I know they're not asking us to allow them to adopt kids yet, but hey, who knows, could happen later.
Nowt wrong with that either.

Oh, so I used to "intent". MAYBE it was a poor choice of words. Because that's the way it happens. Some animals become adapted for eating grass, others adapt to become carnivores. (hope I got the spelling right).
And if men were supposed to have sex with men, (as in their bodies had evolved towards that) there wouldn't be any women. Oh wait, you don't care about having sex with women anyway.
Homosexuality exists, therefore its part of nature, and therefore perfectly natural. Just because something isn't the norm, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

[trickster]

Or maybe it because you insist on calling them pansy's. You know you won't get many women hitting on you if you call them bitches as well.

Oh I dunno. They've got at least one.


What does that have to do with anything. Do you all ride around on horses, and have fights with the neighbouring tribe?


Sounds like a good idea to me.


Nowt wrong with that either.


Homosexuality exists, therefore its part of nature, and therefore perfectly natural. Just because something isn't the norm, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Well, no wonder you've turned gay. if you've spent your time waiting for women to hit on you.
And yes we are old-fashioned, as in most people still have sex with women and think gays are pathetic. We did have a gay parade, and there was about 50 gays and 150 straight gay right supporters. I know they hoped there would be more. And the funny thing is some people actually try to scare other people that they're gay but they're just refusing to admit it. Like you did with me now.

Homosexuality exists, therefore its part of nature, and therefore perfectly natural. Just because something isn't the norm, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Sure, so is paedophilia, and it's definitely not the norm. It's even pretty common, cause I see there's a lot of fuss being made about it.
Not stealing, or respecting someone else's property those are norms. This is something more. And hey you're the ones trying to push this down our throats. You make it sound as if you're some kind of majority that's been opressed for years by a minority (namely heterosexuals) and now you've finally achieved victory or something. Why do you need a law to force yourselves upon us?
And the most strange thing is America is trying to outlaw heterosexual porn, while at the same time legalizing gay sex.

But what the hell, arguing with gays and their supporters is just as pointless as trying to convince Christians that they're indoctrinated.

Among women they have not found evidence for this, but have found that lesbians have oftened turned to women after having poor experiences with men.


Edit. Finally some one makes my point. So I've had bad experiences with women too. Most of us have. So what, should I go gay for that? That's just what I was getting at. Gay people are weak, and they simply can't adapt to a common (so as not to call it normal and be misunderstood again) relationship. So it's all psychological, not physical. Maybe it's because you're too reliant on psychiatrists to get your problems solved for you. And hell, with all you anal retention about anything relating to sex (Janet's boob and the insuing scandal, anyone?) no wonder some of you grow up to be gay later.

[thehod]

Well, no wonder you've turned gay. if you've spent your time waiting for women to hit on you.
Actually, dead straight and married. Thinking back she did hit on me. Or was it the other way around. Alcohol was involved that night, so its a little hazy.

And yes we are old-fashioned, as in most people still have sex with women and think gays are pathetic. We did have a gay parade, and there was about 50 gays and 150 straight gay right supporters. I know they hoped there would be more. And the funny thing is some people actually try to scare other people that they're gay but they're just refusing to admit it. Like you did with me now.
Have a look at the Berlin Love Parade then. Hell, we had one here over a weekend a few months back, and the city was packed. Bloody good fun it was too. I assume you also want black and asian people to be your slaves, and women to spend all the time in the kitchen, because thats old-fashioned thinking too. Or are we only taking the old fashioned values we like now?

Sure, so is paedophilia, and it's definitely not the norm. It's even pretty common, cause I see there's a lot of fuss being made about it.
Conceed this point.

Not stealing, or respecting someone else's property those are norms. This is something more. And hey you're the ones trying to push this down our throats. You make it sound as if you're some kind of majority that's been opressed for years by a minority (namely heterosexuals) and now you've finally achieved victory or something. Why do you need a law to force yourselves upon us?
Its not about pushing a gay way of life upon straight people. Its about being entitled to the same rights as every other married couple. The only difference is the couple is of the same sex, why should that make any difference to anyone.

And the most strange thing is America is trying to outlaw heterosexual porn, while at the same time legalizing gay sex.
Far as I'm concerned, there is nowt wrong with either. And gay sex isn't illegal in America.

But what the hell, arguing with gays and their supporters is just as pointless as trying to convince Christians that they're indoctrinated.
Yep. Just as pointless as Malcolm X and Martin Luthor King arguing for Civil Rights with some elements of the American South. That went nowhere either.


Hang on a minute.

[trickster]

Actually, dead straight and married. Thinking back she did hit on me. Or was it the other way around. Alcohol was involved that night, so its a little hazy.

Have a look at the Berlin Love Parade then. Hell, we had one here over a weekend a few months back, and the city was packed. Bloody good fun it was too. I assume you also want black and asian people to be your slaves, and women to spend all the time in the kitchen, because thats old-fashioned thinking too. Or are we only taking the old fashioned values we like now?

Conceed this point.

Its not about pushing a gay way of life upon straight people. Its about being entitled to the same rights as every other married couple. The only difference is the couple is of the same sex, why should that make any difference to anyone.


Far as I'm concerned, there is nowt wrong with either. And gay sex isn't illegal in America.


Yep. Just as pointless as Malcolm X and Martin Luthor King arguing for Civil Rights with some elements of the American South. That went nowhere either.

Hang on a minute.


And the most strange thing is America is trying to outlaw heterosexual porn, while at the same time legalizing gay sex.

Gay sex may not be, but gay marriage is in some states AFAIK.

And as for not imposing your lifestyle, ever hear of peer pressure? Maybe years from now it'll be as difficult to be straight as it is avoiding drugs. Come to think of it, I've never been approached by drug dealers either. Something must be really wrong with me. Wait there's not too many of them where I live either. Man, what a retarded country I'm living in. Maybe we should do something about it. Oh wait, we're doing our best to join the European Union, so if we do, this is bound to change.



Bloody good fun it was too. I assume you also want black and asian people to be your slaves, and women to spend all the time in the kitchen, because thats old-fashioned thinking too. Or are we only taking the old fashioned values we like now?
So now we can only have fun by being gay? No wonder some people take it up. And well, where I live, we don't know much about slavery. Well, actually we do but we were always on the wrong end of the sword, whip or rifle. Even German rifles (since I take it you're from Germany). And what does slavery have to do with this topic anyway? That's called avoiding the subject. Why not also bring up PETA or Greenpeace while you're at it (which by the way more people should be paying attention to)?

And beleive it or not some women will spend SOME time in the kitchen by their own will even in this country of mine.

[thehod]

Gay sex may not be, but gay marriage is in some states AFAIK.
Two different things. Marriage doesn't mean sex. Ask Bill Clinton.

And as for not imposing your lifestyle, ever hear of peer pressure? Maybe years from now it'll be as difficult to be straight as it is avoiding drugs. Come to think of it, I've never been approached by drug dealers either. Something must be really wrong with me. Wait there's not too many of them where I live either. Man, what a retarded country I'm living in. Maybe we should do something about it. Oh wait, we're doing our best to join the European Union, so if we do, this is bound to change.
Oh come on. You honestly think that if gay marriage is legalised there will be hordes of men dressed in tight white tee-shirts, or women dressed in dungarees roaming the streets going "Psst, wanna try some gay sex." at passers by. Grow up. Kids have peer pressure about a great many things, but turning gay is not one of them.

So now we can only have fun by being gay?
Of course not. All I'm saying is that me, as a straight man, had a great time at Birmingham's gay pride. I wasn't hit on once, which in hindsight should be a little disapointing, but seeing as I was with my wife, its not a total shock. Pity though, because anyone thinking I'm a handsome beast I consider to be a compliment, whether it come from a 6 foot leggy stunner, or a balding fat bloke with bad teeth. The thing is, I know which one I'd respond to.

No wonder some people take it up.
It's not a case of taking it up. People don't choose to be gay, they are born that way.

And well, where I live, we don't know much about slavery. Well, actually we do but we were always on the wrong end of the sword, whip or rifle. Even German rifles (since I take it you're from Germany).
I'm from Birmingham, England. I mentioned the Berlin love parade because it attracts thousands upon thousands of people.

And what does slavery have to do with this topic anyway? That's called avoiding the subject.
I brought up slavery, because you mentioned that you were old-fashioned. Why is anti-gay old fashioned? Why not choose to have black or asian slaves as many households did a hundred years back, that's old fashioned. Why not say you want all women to stay at home and cook the dinner. That's old fashioned. Saying you agree with old fashioned values, and then discounting those that are no longer socially acceptable is a cop out. Its like a Christian who quotes from the bible saying that homosexulaity is an abomination, but forgets that part about christains not being allowed to eat shell fish.

Why not also bring up PETA or Greenpeace while you're at it (which by the way more people should be paying attention to)?
Happen to agree with you here, but PETA and Greenpeace are modern organisations. Bit of a constrasting viewpoint you have there. Old fashioned values, mixed with modern ideologies.

And beleive it or not some women will spend SOME time in the kitchen by their own will even in this country of mine.
My wife spends a great deal of time in the kitchen, but that's because I'm a shit cook, and she's great at it.

[Corrina]

I said "would have passed a popular vote", not that they did. I know very well how they were actually passed, thank you. But by the time they became laws, most (though not all) Americans agreed with them in principle.

Not really, no. As I said the women's right to vote passed by a whisker. It could easily have gone down in flames.

The country was extremely divided over giving women the right to vote. It's only in hindsight that no one minded because, oddly enough, the world did not come to an end when women voted.

Mental note: this country, partially through backlash against the suffrage movement, partially because of economic difficulties and partially because of vets wanting a stable home after they got back from WW II, actually went backwards. Watch a movie from the 1930-1940s, and you'll see that some of them are oddly modern in its attitude towards women and sex, much more so than movies made in 1950. "The Women," "His Girl Friday," are good examples. Still a little behind our times but far ahead of the housewives often depicted in popular culture of the 1950s-early 1960s.

[Spike-X]

I am an atheist and frankly I hate the idea of gay marriage.

Then don't marry a guy. Problem solved.

I can't seem to figure out how come deviant behaviour that usually occurs under extreme conditions (you know, don't drop the soap in the shower :)) is suddenly perfectly normal.

You can't see a difference between a man (or group of men) who usually isn't attracted to other men, using forced sex as a means to establish dominance over another man (or group of men), and two men wanting to share their lives together because they love each other as fully and deeply as any heterosexual married couple??

Are you also unable to see the difference between a man raping a woman and a man and woman getting married?

[Ian Boothby]

Well, no wonder you've turned gay. if you've spent your time waiting for women to hit on you.
And yes we are old-fashioned, as in most people still have sex with women and think gays are pathetic. We did have a gay parade, and there was about 50 gays and 150 straight gay right supporters. I know they hoped there would be more. And the funny thing is some people actually try to scare other people that they're gay but they're just refusing to admit it. Like you did with me now.
Sure, so is paedophilia, and it's definitely not the norm. It's even pretty common, cause I see there's a lot of fuss being made about it.
Not stealing, or respecting someone else's property those are norms.

You call gay people pansies and compare gay folks being in love to being pedophiles. I thought you might have been joking earlier. Just pushing buttons for the sake of pushing buttons. Maybe that's still the case but if it's not...

You're the worst kind of fucking pathetic peice of shit. I normally wouldn't be calling names but you just called my gay friends pansies and put them on the same par as people who rape children. What insult could I use on you that would equal that? I don't know what horrorible ignorant upbringing you had to have turned into such a bigoted pathetic cunt. But I'd say your parents need to write society a letter of apology.

Your words and your attitiude are ridiculous in this day and age and shouldn't be tolerated any more than a guy in a KKK outfit. One day I hope you'll be ashamed at your attitudes, smarten up and stop stinking up the human race with your festering garbage.

Pedophiles. For the love of...

[thehod]

You call gay people pansies and compare gay folks being in love to being pedophiles.

To be fair to trickster, he was responding to a point of mine where I suggested that because homosexuality exists it is, by its very nature, natural, just against the norm, and that things that don't follow the norm aren't necessarily wrong. Following my logic through, that would mean that paedophilia was a natural thing because it exists. I condeeded that my logic was flawed.

I don't think trickster was compairing paedophilia to homosexuality. At least I hope he wasn't.

[Spike-X]

you're the ones trying to push this down our throats.

Nobody's trying to push anything down your throat. I'm so fucking sick of seeing that phrase being thrown around by bigots every time somebody asks them to treat people decently. Nobody's trying to make you turn gay, or marry somebody of your own sex when you don't wish to do so. They simply want the freedom to be able to do so themselves, something that will affect you not one whit (apart from all the sleepless nights you'll spend fuming that people you hate are actually allowed to be happy).

You make it sound as if you're some kind of majority that's been opressed for years by a minority (namely heterosexuals) and now you've finally achieved victory or something.

No, gay people are a minority who have been oppressed for years (decades, centuries...) by a majority. And damn right they've acheived a victory. Let's hope it's repeated elsewhere.

Why do you need a law to force yourselves upon us?

Who's forcing themselves upon you? In what way are they doing so?

Gay people are weak...

Any gay person who has the courage to come out of the closet and live their lives out in the open, having people like you constantly put them down and treat them like freaks, is a hundred times stronger than you'll ever be, you bigoted little troll.

...and they simply can't adapt to a common (so as not to call it normal and be misunderstood again) relationship.

What are you saying here? Men 'turn' gay because they can't get/keep a woman? Your ignorance would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Ian Boothby]

To be fair to trickster, he was responding to a point of mine where I suggested that because homosexuality exists it is, by its very nature, natural, just against the norm, and that things that don't follow the norm aren't necessarily wrong. Following my logic through, that would mean that paedophilia was a natural thing because it exists. I condeeded that my logic was flawed.

I don't think trickster was compairing paedophilia to homosexuality. At least I hope he wasn't.


You said...
“Homosexuality exists, therefore its part of nature, and therefore perfectly natural. Just because something isn't the norm, doesn't mean that it is wrong.”

He said...
“Sure, so is paedophilia, and it's definitely not the norm.”

Seems like a comparison to me. But let's say I'm misreading it. I'm not misreading the rest of his posts and again, in this day and age his kind of nonsensical prejudice shouldn't be tolerated. To call gay people weak, sissies, unnatural and so on is hateful bullshit.

If someone said, "I don't find anything more disgusting than a Jew" or "black people and white people together is unnatural" everyone would jump on the guy. But people like Trickster aren't ashamed to voice similar feelings for gays. He has no problem smearing people because the way they were born makes him feel uneasy. He needs to get over it, plain and simple.
If he wants to debate a point, fine, but when he starts into the name calling then he's insulting friends of mine and that pisses me off.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Now you done it. You've gone and got me wondering what's wrong with me that no pansy hits on me.

I'd be surprised if anyone was interested in you. Ignorance is not exactly a turn-on for many people of any sexual orientation.

[Pixies Chick]

Well, no wonder you've turned gay. if you've spent your time waiting for women to hit on you.
And yes we are old-fashioned, as in most people still have sex with women and think gays are pathetic....

I have never had sex with a woman.

Dang. You neither, huh?

If you ever do, you might find out that there's more to sex than reproduction. Knowing oneself is anything but pathetic.

[Dr. Killbydeath]

Well, no wonder you've turned gay. if you've spent your time waiting for women to hit on you.
And yes we are old-fashioned, as in most people still have sex with women and think gays are pathetic....

Actually, I have sex with women, and I find Christians who can't let other people do what they want pathetic. I have many gay friends, and a few gay people who I don't like. Just like I like some heteros but not others.

Overall, you should realize something: the more content gay men there are, the more pussy for us...

[twilight]

And if men were supposed to have sex with men, (as in their bodies had evolved towards that) there wouldn't be any women. Oh wait, you don't care about having sex with women anyway.

I'm a young gay male and I can't be bothered reading all of your incoherent ramblings but I do have one thing to say.

If God really didnt want men to have sex then surely it wouldn't be pleasurable for them.By your logic if men have sex then the God you claim to rebel against would surely make their bodies burst into flames.Isn't that right?

[TCJohnson]

Guys, Trickster is an obvious troll trying to get your goat. Just put the guy on ignore.

[Tom]

Yeah, indeed. And lesbians will be inseminated by... men, which kinda makes you wonder what one's reason for becoming a lesbian is really.Because they're attracted to women. It's not that hard to figure out.
Last I checked women don't produce sperm. And as for men giving birth, hmm... that's a tough one too. Supposing they will ever become able to give birth, they'll probably give birth through the ass, or they're gonna have to get a vagina, which means their "joystick" will be gone, taking away most of the pleasure in having sex. But hey, some people cut their penis off so they can become women, which means they end up becoming neither.
This has to be a joke. No one is this stupid. Gay men can father children exactly the same way straight men do.

[Tom]

And if men were supposed to have sex with men, (as in their bodies had evolved towards that) there wouldn't be any women.
If men were supposed to get blow jobs, then a woman's ovaries would be in the back of her throat.

[Tom]

Well, no wonder you've turned gay. if you've spent your time waiting for women to hit on you.
And yes we are old-fashioned, as in most people still have sex with women and think gays are pathetic. We did have a gay parade, and there was about 50 gays and 150 straight gay right supporters. I know they hoped there would be more. And the funny thing is some people actually try to scare other people that they're gay but they're just refusing to admit it. Like you did with me now.



Sure, so is paedophilia, and it's definitely not the norm. It's even pretty common, cause I see there's a lot of fuss being made about it.
Not stealing, or respecting someone else's property those are norms. This is something more. And hey you're the ones trying to push this down our throats. You make it sound as if you're some kind of majority that's been opressed for years by a minority (namely heterosexuals) and now you've finally achieved victory or something. Why do you need a law to force yourselves upon us?
And the most strange thing is America is trying to outlaw heterosexual porn, while at the same time legalizing gay sex.

But what the hell, arguing with gays and their supporters is just as pointless as trying to convince Christians that they're indoctrinated.


Edit. Finally some one makes my point. So I've had bad experiences with women too. Most of us have. So what, should I go gay for that? That's just what I was getting at. Gay people are weak, and they simply can't adapt to a common (so as not to call it normal and be misunderstood again) relationship. So it's all psychological, not physical. Maybe it's because you're too reliant on psychiatrists to get your problems solved for you. And hell, with all you anal retention about anything relating to sex (Janet's boob and the insuing scandal, anyone?) no wonder some of you grow up to be gay later.
I stand corrected.

You really are that stupid.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I stand corrected.

You really are that stupid.

I fear you're right, Tom.

Hopefully he won't breed.

[Karl J. Barnes]

If men were supposed to get blow jobs, then a woman's ovaries would be in the back of her throat.

And then we would STILL need to wear condoms!...I just had a nasty picture of ,if this were true(ovaries in the back of the mouth), how women would give birth.

[Charles RB]

And lesbians will be inseminated by... men, which kinda makes you wonder what one's reason for becoming a lesbian is really. Last I checked women don't produce sperm. And as for men giving birth, hmm... that's a tough one too.

Boy, did you miss the point.

And that point is "a gay man can still impregnate a woman and a lesbian can still be impregnated". They're still biologically capable of doing so.

And with artificial insemination, they can pass on sperm and concieve without getting coital. Long live science!

they're gonna have to get a vagina, which means their "joystick" will be gone, taking away most of the pleasure in having sex.

I think 53% of the world's population may differ there.

You've gone and got me wondering what's wrong with me that no pansy hits on me.

Well, do you want the full list? Calling them "pansies" is a pretty good reason for why they're not hitting on you.

Hmm, could it be because I don't go to gay clubs?

Gay people go to normal bars as well. There's no gay club or bar up in Aberystwyth, but that doesn't stop the university's LGB society going to three seperate pubs each week. (All our societies at Aber seem to based on the principle of "right, let's all go to the PUB!", in fact...)

Or maybe in my country we don't have that many freaks yet?

Unless you live on the Planet Skaro and exterminated anyone not pure, you will have gays in your country. Their not being open about it doesn't mean they're not there.

And if men were supposed to have sex with men, (as in their bodies had evolved towards that) there wouldn't be any women.

Homosexuality exists in nature. This suggests nature doesn't really give a monkey's.

Well, no wonder you've turned gay. if you've spent your time waiting for women to hit on you.

You know, that's really not how it works.

And hey you're the ones trying to push this down our throats. You make it sound as if you're some kind of majority that's been opressed for years by a minority (namely heterosexuals) and now you've finally achieved victory or something. Why do you need a law to force yourselves upon us?

Because wanting to be allowed to exist safely is being forced upon people. Right.

Gay people are weak, and they simply can't adapt to a common (so as not to call it normal and be misunderstood again) relationship.

Lemme get this straight. In your opinion, gay people can't adapt to heterosexual relationships so they deliberately become gay and stay gay despite the ever-present threat of prejudice, bigotry, ostracisation and potential violence against them?

That's not a sign of being weak, that's a sign of being one hard bastard if you conciously choose to deal with all that because you want to do something that suits you better. Frankly, any gay person having the guts to come out makes them much braver than you and me.

Maybe it's because you're too reliant on psychiatrists to get your problems solved for you. And hell, with all you anal retention about anything relating to sex (Janet's boob and the insuing scandal, anyone?) no wonder some of you grow up to be gay later.

So, by "old-fashioned", you mean "ignorant".

Maybe years from now it'll be as difficult to be straight as it is avoiding drugs

See above. Do you actually know how homosexuality works?

[Noah Johnson]

Guys, guys, look at this trickster fellow. There's really only two options here.

1. He's a troll, in which case he's totally creaming in his cornflakes about how annoyed we all are by his crap.

2. He really is this much of a dimwitted bigot, who may or may not also be fifteen. He's not going to be persuaded by logic, evidence, human decency, or anything else. He's already demonstrated that, assuming he's not a troll, he's incapable of grasping the most basic logical points in the arguments being made. Why waste energy on him when the world's already wasting space and oxygen on him? We're all mature enough to simply take it as read that he's a worthless little tool, and go back to talking about something we're interested in.

[Adam Crocker]

And a lot of pubilc funding still goes to the church, and they do still hold a lot of power.

I know, and it seems that Zapatero's government wants to change that by giving public funding to other religions as well.

I can't imagine why no gay man has ever hit on Trickster. He, like, seems like a total catch. Totally.

I went to a gay bar with some friends once and I never got hit on.

Later a friend tells me that guys were telling her that I was 'cute' but they figured I wasn't gay. So I guess gaydar does exist.

That said insulting another poster has nothing to do with the conversation at hand Pip and is just in poor taste.

[the4thpip]

Hey, I'm not the one who called him a dimwitted bigot. I just said I find him totally alluring. Growl. :evilsmile

[Adam Crocker]

Sure, so is paedophilia...

Y'know I actually regret standing up to you know in regards to Pip's insult.

Homosexuality is not comparable to paedophilia. Most gay people in relationships are consenting adults. It is not harmful as paedophilia is with adults preying on children.


And the most strange thing is America is trying to outlaw heterosexual porn, while at the same time legalizing gay sex.

That's because while the right supported the anti-sodomy laws they were struck down by the courts.

Edit. Finally some one makes my point. So I've had bad experiences with women too. Most of us have. So what, should I go gay for that? [...] Gay people are weak, and they simply can't adapt to a common (so as not to call it normal and be misunderstood again) relationship.

Did you actually read my post about what is known to cause homosexuality, or did you ignore it because you wanted to post inflammatory nonsense as opposed actually listening to people and engaging in reasoned debate? It's not necessarily psychological, especially since any attempts to "cure" homosexuality have proven to be abject failures and psychologically harmful.

And for the record, no one's trying to force on you anything and I fail to see how treating gays with the same rights and respect you should treat other people is forcing anything down anyone's throats.

In any case I'm ignoring your more incoherent posts and putting you on ignore.

And Pip, I completely retract my earlier statements in regards to your shot at the man. Had I read the rest of the thread before I posted I would've never have bothered to stick up for him.

[the4thpip]

Y'know I actually regret standing up to you know in regards to Pip's insult.

(...)

And Pip, I completely retract my earlier statements in regards to your shot at the man. Had I read the rest of the thread before I posted I would've never have bothered to stick up for him.
Oh, ok then.

Trickster smells. Badly.

[Dr. Killbydeath]

With his nose?

[Pia Guerra]

I guess this proves that some people can't handle being compassionate, decent human beings. They have to have a reason to be generally polite and in Trickster's case the reason is that he gets to have a group to bash and look down on.

Perhaps that's why so many of these self righteous types are fighting equal rights for gays, without people they can look down on, feel justified in looking down on and be supported by their peers and religious/government institutions in looking down on...well, what's the point in being nice if there's no high horse as a pay off? Why, you'd have to be nice just for the sake of being... nice.

That's important to remember in debates such as these, the opposition is basically fighting for the "right" to be mean to people,to dehumanize people, to be allowed to treat people like dirt. They are fighting for their "right" (and some even feel it's a god given one at that) to take away someone else's happiness just because that someone's nature is different to a non-existent "norm".

It happened during the women's rights movement, it happened during the civil rights movement. There were always a bunch of yahoos terrified they'd have to face up to the fact that they weren't so big after all, that their falsely elevated status in the world wasn't guaranteed, that they'd have to stand up on things like character and merrit (GASP!).

You can have whatever opinions you please, it's a free society, but you do not have the right to impose your opinions and beliefs on others. And why would you when it just makes you look like an ignorant prick?

[Cam63]

I don't think trickster was compairing paedophilia to homosexuality. At least I hope he wasn't.

Yes he was, mate.

Trickster is a tool and no, he's not a sharp one.

[the4thpip]

I hope that people don't mind when I make fun of people like Trickster.
After about 20 years of knowing I'm gay, laughter is pretty much all I have for tools like him.

[Cam63]

Maybe Trickster will wake up to himself one day. You never know.

[the4thpip]

Maybe Trickster will wake up to himself one day. You never know.
Well, we've all woken up to somebody we never should have brought home, I'm sure.

[the4thpip]

Church of Christ Committee Passes Same-Sex Marriage Resolution
By Charles Odum
Associated Press Writer


ATLANTA (AP) - A committee of United Church of Christ representatives approved a resolution Sunday that moves the church one step closer to becoming the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage.

The resolution supported by the UCC's president, John H. Thomas, drew overwhelming support and was recommended for approval when the General Synod votes on it Monday.

It would specify that bisexual and transgender persons merit the same support and protections as gays and lesbians. The wording was revised Sunday, however, to included the "recognition that this resolution may not reflect the views or current understanding of all bodies within the gathered church."

UCC churches are autonomous, meaning the leadership does not create policy for its more than 5,700 congregations.

Still, members of the committee acknowledged Sunday that some congregations could pull out of the church entirely if the same-sex resolution is approved as written.

"There are churches and individuals who will be deeply, deeply wounded by this decision," said committee member Emily Jean Gilbert of Allentown, Penn. "I ask you to treat these people with respect and honor their feelings."

Sunday's debate and votes continued the church's tradition of support for gays and lesbians. In the early 1970s, the UCC became the first major Christian denomination to ordain an openly gay minister. The church declared itself to be "open and affirming" of gays and lesbians 20 years ago.

In addition to the same-sex resolution, which was submitted by the Southern California and Nevada Conference, the committee of about 50 church representatives voted against adopting a resolution declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Some argued the same-sex resolution contradicts Biblical instructions.

"Throughout the Scriptures, marriage is always defined as being between one man and one woman," said the Rev. Brett Becker, pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas.
http://info.mgnetwork.com/printthispage.cgi?url=http%3A//ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB571WYPAE.html&oaspagename=www.tbo.com/ap/story.htm&image=tbologo80x60.jpg

[the4thpip]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050704/stt050703.gif

[Spackling Compound]

Hindus and hindon'ts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_eu/spain_gay_marriage)

[HomerJay]

Church of Christ Committee Passes Same-Sex Marriage Resolution
By Charles Odum
Associated Press Writer


ATLANTA (AP) - A committee of United Church of Christ representatives approved a resolution Sunday that moves the church one step closer to becoming the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage.

The resolution supported by the UCC's president, John H. Thomas, drew overwhelming support and was recommended for approval when the General Synod votes on it Monday.

It would specify that bisexual and transgender persons merit the same support and protections as gays and lesbians. The wording was revised Sunday, however, to included the "recognition that this resolution may not reflect the views or current understanding of all bodies within the gathered church."

UCC churches are autonomous, meaning the leadership does not create policy for its more than 5,700 congregations.

Still, members of the committee acknowledged Sunday that some congregations could pull out of the church entirely if the same-sex resolution is approved as written.

"There are churches and individuals who will be deeply, deeply wounded by this decision," said committee member Emily Jean Gilbert of Allentown, Penn. "I ask you to treat these people with respect and honor their feelings."

Sunday's debate and votes continued the church's tradition of support for gays and lesbians. In the early 1970s, the UCC became the first major Christian denomination to ordain an openly gay minister. The church declared itself to be "open and affirming" of gays and lesbians 20 years ago.

In addition to the same-sex resolution, which was submitted by the Southern California and Nevada Conference, the committee of about 50 church representatives voted against adopting a resolution declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Some argued the same-sex resolution contradicts Biblical instructions.

"Throughout the Scriptures, marriage is always defined as being between one man and one woman," said the Rev. Brett Becker, pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas.
http://info.mgnetwork.com/printthispage.cgi?url=http%3A//ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB571WYPAE.html&oaspagename=www.tbo.com/ap/story.htm&image=tbologo80x60.jpg

This is the denomination I belong to, BTW...

[TheLyle]

That's important to remember in debates such as these, the opposition is basically fighting for the "right" to be mean to people,to dehumanize people, to be allowed to treat people like dirt. They are fighting for their "right" (and some even feel it's a god given one at that) to take away someone else's happiness just because that someone's nature is different to a non-existent "norm".

Y'know what I don't get... why is it that no one ever says this when that specifically is the issue? After Hawaii had it's battle over marriage, the next battleground was an anti-harassment policy that the Board of Education was persuing. I read the resolution, it basically said that it wasn't okay to beat up another kid or for an adult to look another way to bullying for any reason (including sexual orientation).

Now some religious groups faught this policy saying the usual stuff about not wanting the schools to promote homosexuality. Throughtout the whole deal I kept waiting for someone to say "You're objecting to a policy that says it's not okay to beat up a kid just because he or she seems gay. Why are you fighting to beat on gay kids?" That's what they were fighting for but even the left-leaning alternative newsweekly treated it as a he said/she said story.

Siiiigh.

[anthony!]

I guess this proves that some people can't handle being compassionate, decent human beings. They have to have a reason to be generally polite and in Trickster's case the reason is that he gets to have a group to bash and look down on.

Perhaps that's why so many of these self righteous types are fighting equal rights for gays, without people they can look down on, feel justified in looking down on and be supported by their peers and religious/government institutions in looking down on...well, what's the point in being nice if there's no high horse as a pay off? Why, you'd have to be nice just for the sake of being... nice.

That's important to remember in debates such as these, the opposition is basically fighting for the "right" to be mean to people,to dehumanize people, to be allowed to treat people like dirt. They are fighting for their "right" (and some even feel it's a god given one at that) to take away someone else's happiness just because that someone's nature is different to a non-existent "norm".

It happened during the women's rights movement, it happened during the civil rights movement. There were always a bunch of yahoos terrified they'd have to face up to the fact that they weren't so big after all, that their falsely elevated status in the world wasn't guaranteed, that they'd have to stand up on things like character and merrit (GASP!).

You can have whatever opinions you please, it's a free society, but you do not have the right to impose your opinions and beliefs on others. And why would you when it just makes you look like an ignorant prick?


Wow. Thats a pretty sweeping judgement of people who disagree with you.

[Pixies Chick]

Wow. Thats a pretty sweeping judgement of people who disagree with you.

You mean like deciding who can or can't be married based on their sexual preference?

[PatrickG]

Y'Know what I think most people here are dancing around but scared to say?

That it's immoral to deny gay people marriages. I feel it. I'm sure many of you do. But we (especially as a society) discuss this issue like it's about raising a two cent sales tax to support schools. We talk a lot about society and what's good for society and bad for society. We talk about bigotry.

But how many people on the national stage really have the balls to say that they believe that a ban on gay marriage is immoral? To discuss this as a *moral* issue and not one of benefits?

You can talk about discrimination all day long but I think some people won't get it until you outright state that you believe that gay marriage is not only moral but commendable... and that banning gay marriage is a sinful, hateful, immoral policy.

I'm serious. Call Fred Phelps a sinful man. Use the language of religious ethics and people will see how great this divide is. That just because, say, you and I happen to be straight doesn't mean that gay rights is an issue we're debating to pass the time but that we believe that a ban on gay marriage is evil, sinful, hateful, malicious and totally immoral.

[Screwtape]

You mean like deciding who can or can't be married based on their sexual preference? You bet!

Opinions are opinions. They don't make people monsters or demons and if you think someone's ideas are dangerous or evil you should probably let them express those ideas as much as they want to. Otherwise you look closed-minded and afraid.

[anthony!]

You mean like deciding who can or can't be married based on their sexual preference?

Thats irrelevant to the blatant hypocritical ignorance coming from people who continue over and over again to use irrational and emotional appeals as the foundation for their arguments, particularly on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

I'd at least respect the pro-gay marriage advocates on this board if they attempted the slightest efforts to demonstrate a rounded knowledge as to WHY some don't believe in the "right" to a same-sex marriage. Its utter nonsense to heavy-handedly chalk it up to "oh they hate gay people" or "they're afraid to admit its really okay" or "well, they're from Kentucky". If anything, thats pretty bigotted in and of itself.

[PatrickG]

Alright... My takes on why people would reject gay marriage:

Literalist interpretation of the Bible/religious texts.

Fine. But this should have no bearing on law.

Concern over the definition of marriage changing. Concern that society can redefine itself too quickly, too easily.

Social norms should be able to turn on a dime, IMO. This argument doesn't hold water with me.

Concern over population reduction/demographic concerns/beliefs rooted in sociological studies that indicate that homosexuality and sexuality represent the downfall of a society.

Without even challenging these studies, I don't see why the goal of a society should be to thrive. I believe that securing individual liberty in the short term is worth it whether or not this country is here 300 years from now. IMO, the means justify the ends.

I consider all three of these cases to be hateful and bigoted and representative of inflexible thinking.

[Noah Johnson]

Yeah, screw the completely-theoretical arguments about "What's good for society" that just turn into competing editions of "What If...?" only written by slashfic authors.

The central question, to my mind, is this: Does "equal protection under the law" mean equal protection under the law, or does it not? And if you're going to take the latter position, I'm going to need to hear some fearsomely impressive reasons why.

[Ian Boothby]

Thats irrelevant to the blatant hypocritical ignorance coming from people who continue over and over again to use irrational and emotional appeals as the foundation for their arguments, particularly on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

I'd at least respect the pro-gay marriage advocates on this board if they attempted the slightest efforts to demonstrate a rounded knowledge as to WHY some don't believe in the "right" to a same-sex marriage. Its utter nonsense to heavy-handedly chalk it up to "oh they hate gay people" or "they're afraid to admit its really okay" or "well, they're from Kentucky". If anything, thats pretty bigotted in and of itself.

I've listened to many many many arguments against the right to gay marriage and none of them hold water. None of them are based on logic. They break down to people who are opposed on relgious grounds, on the basis that it will lessen current hetro marriages, that it's unnatural, that marriage is traditionally for making babies, or that it just makes them feel gross to see same sex folks kissing. I've NEVER heard an argument that doesn't fit into these categories.

Religion is myth and myth shouldn't have an effect on law and human rights.
If your marriage is so fragile that it can't stand gays being married that's your problem.
Gayness occurs in nature, so it's natural.
Marriage traditionally was about women as property. If people needed to have babies to get married then those past childrearing years should be banned too. They're not so it's not fair to hold gays to that rule.
All romantic stuff is gross through someone's eyes.

Give me a good, solid logical reason gay shouldn't have the same right to be wed as straights? Canadian courts couldn't find one.

[Crowley]

Very well said Ian.

The fun part is that the Bible collapses on its own inconsistencies based on this argument.

[Spackling Compound]

Thats irrelevant to the blatant hypocritical ignorance coming from people who continue over and over again to use irrational and emotional appeals as the foundation for their arguments, particularly on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

I'd at least respect the pro-gay marriage advocates on this board if they attempted the slightest efforts to demonstrate a rounded knowledge as to WHY some don't believe in the "right" to a same-sex marriage. Its utter nonsense to heavy-handedly chalk it up to "oh they hate gay people" or "they're afraid to admit its really okay" or "well, they're from Kentucky". If anything, thats pretty bigotted in and of itself.

Some of my favorite things here:
1. The people who deride people who believe in an afterlife. But when it comes to Fred Phelps, Howard Stern or the al-quiada, there's a barrage of such crap as: "If there was a Hell, I want them there" or more pussy-like, "Not that I believe in Hell, but if I did, then they should be there rotting and tormented".

2. Ian's position that anyone who believes in God is knowingly believing in a make-believe fantasy. It's like BDSM role play I suppose in Ianworld: "I love Jesus. Yes, I love Jesus so much. What? Vote on gay marriage? Say the saftey word so I can get out of this suit and vote what is real." Please.

3. That people think religious folks are irrational but then the argument for gay marriage is based on the concept of "love" that is also scientfically, legally non-existent.

[Charles RB]

Some of my favorite things here:
1. The people who deride people who believe in an afterlife. But when it comes to Fred Phelps, Howard Stern or the al-quiada, there's a barrage of such crap as: "If there was a Hell, I want them there" or more pussy-like, "Not that I believe in Hell, but if I did, then they should be there rotting and tormented".

This is because we Atheists are bitter people who don't like such folks as Phelps and Bin Laden, and the idea of them going to Hell is attractive.

[TCJohnson]

Religion is myth.

That is what Ian believes. Feel free to disagree with him. I repectfully disagree with him. That is what is so great about both our countries. We can disagree with other people's religious view points.

However, since we all have the right to disagree and we cannot agree on which religious viewpoint is right, we should not be forcing them on other people. You should have the right to think gay marriage is a sin, you should have the right to think what gay people do is disgusting. But people should respect gay people's rights as american citizens, and let them life their lives with the freedom America promises. Keep your right to should homosexuality is a sin, but don't deny the rights of gays to marry.

[Spackling Compound]

Keep your right to should homosexuality is a sin, but don't deny the rights of gays to marry.


I will vote with my conscience which is informed by my religion. If I don't vote or am not allowed to vote, you can have all the gay marriages you want.

Understand that Christians don't seperate their belief from public policy. For good or ill, that is.

And now we go back to the Moebius circle which is this debate.

The shameful gay marriage ban:YEAR ONE

[EdContradictory]

I think most Americans, even those morally opposed to homosexuality, recognize that there is an inequity between the rights of gays and straights.

And the reason for that inequity is the lack of separation of church and state when it comes to marriage.

The solution is for the state to give out civil unions and the church to perform marriages.

There are extremists in the anti-gay camp (as opposed to those who are just ignorant, don't know any gays, or just find it kind of icky and would prefer not to "see" it), however, who do not want gays to have anything that even approximates marriage. But I do believe they are a minority and most religious Americans would want a fair resolution to the issue, but not at the expense of their religious beliefs. That solution is civil unions.

My big issue with civil unions as they exist now is that they would be a form of segregation. But if they were all that government offered, that would no longer be the case. And churches could marry who they want and deny the legitimacy of the marriages of whoever they see fit. So UU would marry gays in a church setting, but Baptists could dismiss such marriages in their minds if they wanted to. Some religious people already deny the legitimacy of marriages performed by the state, so it would really be no different than that.

[PatrickG]

I will vote with my conscience which is informed by my religion. If I don't vote or am not allowed to vote, you can have all the gay marriages you want.

Understand that Christians don't seperate their belief from public policy. For good or ill, that is.


Here's where I have a problem. I believe public policy should not be moral or ethical in nature. It cedes moral authority to the state. It cedes state objectivity to whatever belief system is held by the majority.

IMO, the state exists to provide the basic tools for civilization, not to create, maintain or impose a culture or system of values. The state creates a framework in which people can exist. The state should and must remain as invisible and inobtrusive as possible for the maximum benefit of individual liberty.

I can't support the idea of voting on conscience. I believe in voting based purely on amoral, analytical reason to the greatest extent that we are capable of doing so as human beings.

If there was a magical supercomputer that wasn't built by human beings, I'd oppose democracy. If God, whom I can only suppose to be a being of infinite reason, were to speak audibly to the people of the world, I'd oppose democracy.

But as it stands, human beings are sadly the most reasonable beings on the planet when it comes to day-to-day issues and ultimately, I believe that for a democracy to thrive, it must be an attempt at rule by reason -- not rule by the people or rule by the moral. Rule by reason.

Morality is a beast with which we must all wrestle privately.

[Screwtape]

That is what Ian believes. Feel free to disagree with him. I repectfully disagree with him. I disrespectfully disagree with him and think he's a combative jerk.

[TheLyle]

I've thought the same in the past... that we should separate marriage and civil unions, making marriage a purely religious institution that only included rights that your religious organization can grant you. A good many of people aren't against equal rights, but do pause when it comes to changing their idea of marriage. (I think, too, a lot of people don't fully understand what marriage inequity means because a lot of the rights of marriage are taken for granted. People are frequently shocked to learn that my partner is taxed when his company gives me health benefits... since we're not married in the eyes of the IRS the insurance is seen as additional income.)

This would be the quickest way to make same-sex marriage happen because many of those ministers who do believe in marriage equity will have more power to bless the LGBT couples in their congregation.

I also wonder what would happen in such a case to divorce. Will people who belong to institutions that disapprove of divorce remain married but dissolve their civil unions? Would that make annulments less of a way to get around divorce?

[EdContradictory]

I also wonder what would happen in such a case to divorce. Will people who belong to institutions that disapprove of divorce remain married but dissolve their civil unions? Would that make annulments less of a way to get around divorce?
That's for the Catholics to figure out. ;)

[Spackling Compound]

I've thought the same in the past... that we should separate marriage and civil unions, making marriage a purely religious institution that only included rights that your religious organization can grant you. A good many of people aren't against equal rights, but do pause when it comes to changing their idea of marriage. (I think, too, a lot of people don't fully understand what marriage inequity means because a lot of the rights of marriage are taken for granted. People are frequently shocked to learn that my partner is taxed when his company gives me health benefits... since we're not married in the eyes of the IRS the insurance is seen as additional income.)

This would be the quickest way to make same-sex marriage happen because many of those ministers who do believe in marriage equity will have more power to bless the LGBT couples in their congregation.
That's been suggested before and I'm sure there wouldn't be much of a stink about that legally. Socially, we (opposition to Gay Marriage) will just have to deal, I suppose.
And..LGBT...that may be a broader civil union problem. Gay is one thing, transgender or bisexual may provide a bit of an issue as far as monogamy is concerned. I'm not sure if all gays would want to be lumped in to a LGBT tent.

I also wonder what would happen in such a case to divorce. Will people who belong to institutions that disapprove of divorce remain married but dissolve their civil unions? Would that make annulments less of a way to get around divorce?
A civil union or a civil marriage doesn't have any recognition in the Catholic Church only a "sacramental" marriage.

[Tom]

Opinions are opinions. They don't make people monsters or demons and if you think someone's ideas are dangerous or evil you should probably let them express those ideas as much as they want to. Otherwise you look closed-minded and afraid.

I disrespectfully disagree with him and think he's a combative jerk.
Irony.
____

[Spackling Compound]

Irony.
____
guffaw..

Levels of evil in descending order of offensiveness:

Telemarketers
Satan
Hitler
Demons
Monsters
Men who wear sandals and fanny packs
Combatative jerks

[Boldido]

Understand that Christians don't seperate their belief from public policy. For good or ill, that is.

Holy Moly!!! I have to disagree with you on this one SC in an very respectful non-Boothbyesque manner. There are numerous aspects of my religion that I would vehemently oppose as legislation: Birth control, working on Sundays, masturbation, etc.

Many deeply religious people want to see the strong separation of church and state continue and also see an injustice in the continued gay marraige ban.

[Spackling Compound]

Holy Moly!!! I have to disagree with you on this one SC in an very respectful non-Boothbyesque manner. There are numerous aspects of my religion that I would vehemently oppose as legislation: Birth control, working on Sundays, masturbation, etc.

Many deeply religious people want to see the strong separation of church and state continue and also see an injustice in the continued gay marraige ban.
I stand by my remarks. If you would believe that working on Sunday was detrimental to your salvation, wouldn't you as a Christian want to see others not jeopardize theirs? I think the Boothby opinion has validity when it comes to answers such as yours.

When you think of the beliefs of Christians as linked to the salvation of the soul, then either you want others to find their way to heaven or not. To vote for something that you morally oppose is telling others, "Go to Hell. I don't care" and to do so, in my moral opinion, is to jeopardize your salvation as well.

Again, and this goes back to a zillion pages ago on this thread, if you don't want a moral approach to law, then don't allow those guided in every aspect of their lives to vote on laws. It's that simple.

[Boldido]

I stand by my remarks. If you would believe that working on Sunday was detrimental to your salvation, wouldn't you as a Christian want to see others not jeopardize theirs? I think the Boothby opinion has validity when it comes to answers such as yours.

When you think of the beliefs of Christians as linked to the salvation of the soul, then either you want others to find their way to heaven or not. To vote for something that you morally oppose is telling others, "Go to Hell. I don't care" and to do so, in my moral opinion, is to jeopardize your salvation as well.

Again, and this goes back to a zillion pages ago on this thread, if you don't want a moral approach to law, then don't allow those guided in every aspect of their lives to vote on laws. It's that simple.

I don't want to drift the thread too much, but doesn't the key to salvation lie in the fact that what you do or choose to do comes from your love for god, not your fear of of the government.

If I follow all the outward signs of a religion but have no love for God in my heart, how can I have salvation?

[Dreadstar]

guffaw..

Levels of evil in descending order of offensiveness:

Telemarketers
Satan
Hitler
Demons
Monsters
Men who wear sandals and fanny packs
Combatative jerks

I've only had personal experience with 4 of those, so I'd have to go:

Combatative jerks (like me, for example)
Demons
Telemarketers
and (minor change)
Men who wear socks with their sandals and fanny packs.

Though I suspect that the Venn diagram of the four has a *LOT* of overlap. I suspect that all telemarketers wear socks with their sandals, for example, and most socks/sandals guys are telemarketers.

[Dreadstar]

I stand by my remarks. If you would believe that working on Sunday was detrimental to your salvation, wouldn't you as a Christian want to see others not jeopardize theirs? I think the Boothby opinion has validity when it comes to answers such as yours.

When you think of the beliefs of Christians as linked to the salvation of the soul, then either you want others to find their way to heaven or not. To vote for something that you morally oppose is telling others, "Go to Hell. I don't care" and to do so, in my moral opinion, is to jeopardize your salvation as well.

Again, and this goes back to a zillion pages ago on this thread, if you don't want a moral approach to law, then don't allow those guided in every aspect of their lives to vote on laws. It's that simple.
It's noble to care about your fellow man, and hope/pray that he finds salvation.

It's fascism to legislate salvation upon him.

[JeffreyWKramer]

3. That people think religious folks are irrational but then the argument for gay marriage is based on the concept of "love" that is also scientfically, legally non-existent.

Emotions exist. Different emotional states have distinct biochemical and neurological substrates which can be observed. Love is fairly complex as emotions go, but the same thing applies.

In other words, the existence of love has been experimentally validated. God still hasn't.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Understand that Christians don't seperate their belief from public policy. For good or ill, that is.
Actually, many Christians do exactly that. Most American Christians accept that religious doctrine is a poor basis for law, and that if they are allowed to force their doctrine on others, some day some other religion might force its doctrines on them.

But then, there are also those religious folk with fascistic leanings.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's noble to care about your fellow man, and hope/pray that he finds salvation.

It's fascism to legislate salvation upon him.

Well put, Dread.

[Spackling Compound]

It's noble to care about your fellow man, and hope/pray that he finds salvation.

It's fascism to legislate salvation upon him.

Sure. It could be any sort of non-democratic government.

[Pixies Chick]

Thats irrelevant to the blatant hypocritical ignorance coming from people who continue over and over again to use irrational and emotional appeals as the foundation for their arguments, particularly on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

I'd at least respect the pro-gay marriage advocates on this board if they attempted the slightest efforts to demonstrate a rounded knowledge as to WHY some don't believe in the "right" to a same-sex marriage. Its utter nonsense to heavy-handedly chalk it up to "oh they hate gay people" or "they're afraid to admit its really okay" or "well, they're from Kentucky". If anything, thats pretty bigotted in and of itself.

And there's nothing but your ego that could make you feel that I would have to comply with that request.

I don't care what you believe. Really don't. I care what you DO. You can't be a believer in Democracy and believe that you have the right to deny people equal treatment based on your religious opinion of their behavior. You have a set of principles that should guide you in the public realm, and God isn't in them. They are neutral by design because they do not assume that anyone is capable of knowing the complete Will of God. Not churchgoers, not anybody. I don't have to know WHY you think it's good or bad or indifferent. I just need to look to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and see if it is allowed. Civil Rights legislation contradicts prejudice based on class or demographic category. That's enough for me.

And your semi-hysterical rant that you're so misunderstood doesn't exactly add credence to your complaint about emotional appeals. Stop whining and get over the fact that we won't let you use the God card to trump the constitution. God doesn't belong to you.

[Spackling Compound]

Democracy is an interesting concept in the experiment that we call America.

I understand that many (most?) of you are wholly appalled that Christians would vote on the matter of their personal (communal) conscience rather than following a census approach to what most people think is fair or to define common good in teleological, sotierological parameters.

However, it is also interesting to note that when we do consider "common good" as the starting point of our decisions, we constantly ask, "what do the women want?", "what do the gays want?", "what do the Blacks want?", "what do the Hispanics want?". If we consider that each "group" would vote on what is important to their community, then we have to note that there will be a difference of opinion.

Christians are a segment of society that have opinions too. Just as much as "Black people" and "Gay people" and "Hispanic people", "Christians" will vote on things in a way that agrees with their community.

A dyed-in-the-wool Black voter will vote on what is good for his/her community first and the common good second. Or define the common good as what is good for his/her Black community. Rarely is there a conflict in the "Black" good and the "common good". However, you bring up reparations, for example, there may be a different sentiment. I am sure most of the posters here would approve government paybacks to Blacks due to the enslavement of Black people dating over 500 years in America. But some may not. If they voted against reparations, however, would that make them enforcing a view that denies the common good?