pajarito 0 #226 October 8, 2004 Gotta go for a while. Let me think about that one. Later! Jay Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #227 October 8, 2004 QuoteYOU SUCK! (no pun intended! ) Damnit! ...... I have a rule. If it's true it ain't an insult. Please try again Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #228 October 8, 2004 >Children have enough dificulties grwoing up and going through >adolesecene without having a bunch of bizarre pseudo-families shoved in >their face. Two mommies? Two daddies? Better than a mommy and a guy she hates who gave him life. Now that's a way to screw up a kid! >Gee, I wonder which mate I get along bettter with? Is this a question that >young boys and girls should have to ask? ?? Is it really your contention that a young boy's desire for his mother helps him develop his sexuality? Now THAT'S bizarre. Most children have absolutely no desire for their siblings or parents; that's programmed into us. >Now lets teach them that anybody can do anything with anyone. Next thing you know, some white woman will think she can fall in love with a black man! Then it's cats and dogs, living together . . . >Frankly I think that society has given an inch, and the gay community has > taken a mile. First it was look at us "flaming gay in pink feathers" , see > how we live and you must accept us this way. Are you against women in short skirts who "shove their sexuality in your face?" >No, do as you plase SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT HARM OTHERS, or >society in general. In the case of gay "marriage" it absolutely damages > society. I'm married. If Keith, Scott and Jason could get married, it would strengthen rather than weaken my marriage; having an institution be more accepted tends to strengthen it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #229 October 8, 2004 Quote]Children have enough dificulties grwoing up and going through adolesecene without having a bunch of bizarre pseudo-families shoved in their face Define family? One of my best friends in high school was raised by his dad and his dad's bf of 15+years. He came out just fine. In my eyes they were a loving family, not some aberation of nature. Hell most of my friends and myself included are products of single parent households. The definition of 'family' has changed greatly since the 1950's when a nuclear fam was viewed as the norm. Guess what, it will contiunuely change. Get use to it. QuoteTwo mommies? Two daddies? Gee, I wonder which mate I get along bettter with? Is this a question that young boys and girls should have to ask? Do you really believe that showing children these things will not scrrew them up? If so you are only kidding yourself. Its criminal that our schools teach chilldren about homosexuality at all. Now lets teach them that anybody can do anything with anyone. Do you have any hard scientific proof that growing up in a gay household is traumatizing to children. I can tell you one thing that is way more traumatizing to kids, TV. "FACT: The average American child will have watched 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old)." Now that is a scary fact. That fact should scare the bejesus out of any parent. QuoteGay couples are not the same, and are not equal, and nature has absolutely seen to that. Does that mean they should not be allowed to live the way they want to? No, do as you plase SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT HARM OTHERS, or society in general. In the case of gay "marriage" it absolutely damages society. Divorce harms society and kids way more than gay marriage ever will. Ever seen what an ugly divorce does to a family? What about infidelity? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. What about couples who have kids and cant afford them? What about drug abusers who have kids? The list goes on and on as to what harms society, and gay marriage pails in comparison to each one. If your main concern is society, then we should have marriage tests to screen out potential marriage failures. I'm all for it. The test should be based on genetic traits of both adults(screen out potential wife abusers and genetic birth defects to potential offspring), income, and other factors. If two consenting adults who love each other want to start a family what the f is wrong with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #230 October 8, 2004 however, it does not prove that it is as natural as heterosexual unions or that it isn’t an abnormality. Quote your not paying attention obviously, it occurs in all species...... humans are animals (mammals), do you see the connection yet? There’s a big difference between animals and humans. We can decide to act or not to act on impulses So your saying that homosexuals should decide to be like you??...... jeasus, get off your soapbox, if the man or woman is attracted to the same gender then that is what they like, get over it. We can also decide to act based on what we consider to be right or wrongQuote you are quite right, but who died and made you God and said your version of"right and wrong" is the model for the human species? I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong on other levels but that is beside the point I’m trying to make with this post. Without reference to “right” or “wrong”, I just wanted to point out that I think it’s a choice and that it’s not something one “can’t help” or “choose” not to do as is inferred in the quote above. your welcome to your beliefs but you dont have a clue..... RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #231 October 8, 2004 Thanks for all that deep insight Roy! I can tell you did your homework. It was very thought provoking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites D22369 0 #232 October 8, 2004 your welcomeRoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #233 October 9, 2004 QuoteYou might as well say, "all analogies are fallacies". No, only false analogies are fallacies. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #234 October 9, 2004 QuoteIf you claim that you don't recognize a homosexual marriage as valid, that's fine. If the US does not - that's discrimination. Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? I still haven't seen anybody willing to tackle my question about why incest is not OK. You can call it a fallacy to compare it to homosexuality, but answer the question anyway, why is it wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone? Quote>Do you believe all gays are a result of their genetics? I think it is a combination of genetics and developmental factors. And I am sure some can 'convert' - I'm sure if you took a group of heterosexuals you could convert some to homosexuality. Very much not accepted by gay rights groups. Their demand for homosexuality to be given a civil rights status requires that it not be a chosen behavior, it must be accepted as hard wired from birth.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #235 October 9, 2004 frankly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #236 October 9, 2004 Quotefrankly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it. So an adult brother and sister could marry in your opinion? Wow. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #237 October 9, 2004 I really don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or households. Not my business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Misslmperfect 0 #238 October 9, 2004 the point, as i took it, is that its not her problem. nor is who someone chooses to spend their lfe with your problem. and its not YOUR choice. i dont think incest is right. the thought of it alone makes me uncomfortable. but its not my problem if 2 consenting adults choose to take part in such actions. it doesnt affect me or the way i live MY life. thats what i dont get here...no one here that is anti gay marriage, or anti homosexuality in general seems to care that there are real life human beings behind their sexual preferences. since when does equality only matter when its within everyone's comfort zones?! there are people here who argue endlessly about their right to do this, or have that...but they're real quick to argue the rights of people who want different things. how is that fair? and i can say this...i only WISH i had 2 loving dads or moms instead of what i was dealt as a kid. who better to teach a child acceptance and unconditional love of human life then the people who daily rise above all the discrimination and hate the world can throw at you?Oh Canada, merci pour la livraison! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #239 October 9, 2004 QuoteI really don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or households. So you're ok with incest. Got it. Amazing. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #240 October 9, 2004 if it works for them, fine. it's not my problem. what they do or do not do has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever, therefore, I don't care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #241 October 9, 2004 QuoteI still haven't seen anybody willing to tackle my question about why incest is not OK.Quote I'd say looking at it from a purely scientific point of view incest is harmful to the offspring and our survival as a species. Look at the royal familys of Europe. Queen Victoria married her first cousin Prince Albert just look at their offspring. In the Romanovs, Alexi was a hemophelliac. A gene traced to I think Queen Victoria. He wouldnt have made it past his 16 birthday, thus ending the Romanov dynasty. Now looking at it from a social point of view as a social species we are programmed to expect certain types things from certain relationships, when those get confused we get confused. For men try thinking about your mom is a sexual way...oh god eewww. For the girls out there try thinking about your father as a lover not your dad. To say that allowing gay marriage will allow incestial relationship to develop is BS. We are pre programmed to have aversions to copulating with kin. Like many have said it before. The same argument was used with inter-racial marriage in the 1950s, it would lead to borther/sisters marriages. Did it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #242 October 9, 2004 QuoteWhy shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? You're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #243 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? You're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass. You know, if he wanted to suck on his dog's ass, I'd have no objection, moral or otherwise. To each his own, I say. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #244 October 9, 2004 I used to have a next door neighbor. He was always concerned about what other people were doing. He would call the police if someone two blocks over was parked in a manner he deemed unacceptable. He spent more time worrying about what other people were doing then living his own life. You remind me of him. edited to add: You never did answer my question why you hide who you are and whether you actually skydive or not.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #245 October 9, 2004 QuoteYou're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass. Where did that come from and why? Counseling is available.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #246 October 9, 2004 QuoteBecause the standard or definition for what marriage is in the first place and at its basis will have been lost. If you have a contract and the wording is later changed, it is not the same contract. If the wording in that contract is open ended and allows whatever union you prefer (gay, multiple, sister, dog, tree), then where's the standard? Where's the substance? It's not worth nearly what it was. QuoteSorry, but that's faulty logic. If I have a rental agreement with my landlord that allows pets. And you have a rental agreement with your landlord that prohibits pets. How does that effect my contract? They're both rental leases. Yours is different than mine, but what does that have to do with me? I’m talking about elemental design of the marital structure. I tried to add an example but I guess that one might not have been very good. Comparatively speaking, a rental contract would be a higher level than what I’m trying to describe with more workable components. I’m talking about the fundamental requirements for the basic human partnership. The only one which can in and of itself reproduce beyond itself to the next generation is one consisting of a man and woman. QuoteHow has your current, existing marriage be changed in any way, shape, or form since gay marriages have taken place. What is going to be different for a couple that gets married in the future if gays also happen to be married? You say it will change the wording, or the definition. But I asked you, what effect whatsoever will it have? As I stated before, it won’t have a direct and immediate tangible effect on my marriage, except in principle. The fundamental requirement for what marriage is will not be grounded or specifically expressed. It will be a loose and open ended contract that could include anything within its organization that the individual can come up with. Maybe not immediately but I see it as being eventually inevitable. How about this one… A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. If you add one more oxygen atom to the bond, it ceases to be water and becomes hydrogen peroxide. It’s a very subtle change and it is still very similar to water but it has changed to a different substance altogether. The root definition of marriage, makeup, or fundamental reality will also have changed. Blurring the lines for what marriage is and allowing it to consist of whatever the changing winds of opinion say it should be at the time will destroy the fabric that makes it up. It will not be seen as the necessary “rock” of civilization that it has been proven to be for thousands of years in any long lasting culture. This is a very dangerous trend that we’re witnessing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites WhirledWeb 0 #247 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteI really don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or households. So you're ok with incest. Got it. Amazing. It seems to me (and I'm possibly wrong) that this short post is the encapsulation of this entire thread. There seem to be two camps here: One says, "Let people do what they want" The other, "To protect myself and my family, I want to make sure that *they* (whoever *they* are... homos, kissing cousins, dog ass lickers... whatever) aren't doing something that may erode what I've got" I would say that an extreme view in either of these ideals can have detramental effects... and the real challenge is to find that ground where we're able to both have our freedom and still have our safe lives (like it or not, neither camp is going away in the very near future). Tunaplanet (and a couple of others) seems to be pretty passionate about their view of the morally right society that they envisions... and believes that a compromise of that (by sanctifying gay marriage) would degrade centuries of ethical fortitude. Many others on this forum (including myself) seem to be in the frame of mind of... "who am I to legislate what doesn't harm anybody". The key discussion point always comes back to the "harm" part of this sentence. I believe that my life in a committed (gay) relationship bonded by a marriage would only strengthen the fabric of our society... I know full well how much that makes your skin crawl, tuna. (I'm not sarcastic about this at all) The thought of something so dear to you as your faith beliefs being tossed aside and treated with such disrespect (as you might think from your perspective) probably brings out references to you about God's Wrath, Holy Anger, Sodom and Gomorrah and a host of other seeming consequences for what you would think are moral degradations of their respective societies. I get very frustrated when incest and bestiality get brought into this discussion, but I can see why your mind makes the leap. "If we bend on this issue, where is it going to stop?". Instead of throwing it all out, why don't we be rational, and be able to analyze the the "does it harm other people" condition stated above for each major situation (because I think both camps have that part in common) - incest can be debated just as homosexuality as to it's propensity to harm others. I can only speak for myself - I know that my motivation has nothing to do with anything other than feeling respected, feeling like I'm not a second class citizen and being able to live with the same rights that other tax-payers have. How many gay people do you know? How many married gay couples do you know? I think there might be an opportunity to discover a something about somebody else, and maybe even a little about yourself. Sometimes the fear of the unknown is quelled by just discovering a little about that which you didn't know. (everybody hold hands and sing with me) Kum Bay Ah, My Lord... Kum Bay Ah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don't be afraid of death, be afraid of the unlived life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #248 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuote I do not dislike or hate people based on that. No worries. I haven't perceived that from you. QuoteNow, in reference to your post, that’s not what I said. As a matter of fact, I said in one of my prior posts that it wouldn’t affect the survival of a species. Have you been smoking crack with Vinny? I quoted you as saying "Assuming that homosexuality is in fact a natural, however abnormal, occurrence, we should not promote it as a norm like heterosexuality because we’ve learned over thousands of years of civilization that it is not a best course of action with reference to the survivability of a species" because I copied and pasted it from your post. Now maybe you meant sustainability, but my question would be essentially the same. Show me where a species has declined because of homosexuality. Sorry. I missed this one. The responses from everyone were coming in such a flurry yesterday that, during my “speed post viewing” trying to keep up, I skipped right over this one. It was not intentional. Anyway, I gave up smoking crack last week. It might have been a bad week to quit. Again, I’m not trying to imply that the species will diminish due to the presence of homosexuality. The basic ability to reproduce is but one of the reasons that make up the justifiability for a union such as marriage. Anything else is not viable or a suitable “standard” for the basic and fundamental building block for a civilization and it shouldn’t be promoted as such. That’s not to say that you can’t do anything you want with regards to homosexuality, dogasslickality” or whatever else one could imagine. It just shouldn’t be promoted, supported, or recognized in the same way as the heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #249 October 9, 2004 QuoteI’m talking about elemental design of the marital structure..... I’m talking about the fundamental requirements for the basic human partnership. The only one which can in and of itself reproduce beyond itself to the next generation is one consisting of a man and woman. But is marriage fundamentally based on procreation? You don't need to be married to have kids, nor do you need to be married to raise them, in fact you don't need to even have a partner to raise kids succesfully (though it probably makes it easier). Isn't marriage just a gesture of total commitment to another person whether you can have kids with them or not? As others have pointed out no-one has any objection to a sterile couple being married.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #250 October 9, 2004 The Horse is dead. Stop beating it, it's not coming back to life... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 10 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
D22369 0 #232 October 8, 2004 your welcomeRoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #233 October 9, 2004 QuoteYou might as well say, "all analogies are fallacies". No, only false analogies are fallacies. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #234 October 9, 2004 QuoteIf you claim that you don't recognize a homosexual marriage as valid, that's fine. If the US does not - that's discrimination. Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? I still haven't seen anybody willing to tackle my question about why incest is not OK. You can call it a fallacy to compare it to homosexuality, but answer the question anyway, why is it wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone? Quote>Do you believe all gays are a result of their genetics? I think it is a combination of genetics and developmental factors. And I am sure some can 'convert' - I'm sure if you took a group of heterosexuals you could convert some to homosexuality. Very much not accepted by gay rights groups. Their demand for homosexuality to be given a civil rights status requires that it not be a chosen behavior, it must be accepted as hard wired from birth.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #235 October 9, 2004 frankly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #236 October 9, 2004 Quotefrankly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it. So an adult brother and sister could marry in your opinion? Wow. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #237 October 9, 2004 I really don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or households. Not my business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misslmperfect 0 #238 October 9, 2004 the point, as i took it, is that its not her problem. nor is who someone chooses to spend their lfe with your problem. and its not YOUR choice. i dont think incest is right. the thought of it alone makes me uncomfortable. but its not my problem if 2 consenting adults choose to take part in such actions. it doesnt affect me or the way i live MY life. thats what i dont get here...no one here that is anti gay marriage, or anti homosexuality in general seems to care that there are real life human beings behind their sexual preferences. since when does equality only matter when its within everyone's comfort zones?! there are people here who argue endlessly about their right to do this, or have that...but they're real quick to argue the rights of people who want different things. how is that fair? and i can say this...i only WISH i had 2 loving dads or moms instead of what i was dealt as a kid. who better to teach a child acceptance and unconditional love of human life then the people who daily rise above all the discrimination and hate the world can throw at you?Oh Canada, merci pour la livraison! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #239 October 9, 2004 QuoteI really don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or households. So you're ok with incest. Got it. Amazing. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #240 October 9, 2004 if it works for them, fine. it's not my problem. what they do or do not do has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever, therefore, I don't care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #241 October 9, 2004 QuoteI still haven't seen anybody willing to tackle my question about why incest is not OK.Quote I'd say looking at it from a purely scientific point of view incest is harmful to the offspring and our survival as a species. Look at the royal familys of Europe. Queen Victoria married her first cousin Prince Albert just look at their offspring. In the Romanovs, Alexi was a hemophelliac. A gene traced to I think Queen Victoria. He wouldnt have made it past his 16 birthday, thus ending the Romanov dynasty. Now looking at it from a social point of view as a social species we are programmed to expect certain types things from certain relationships, when those get confused we get confused. For men try thinking about your mom is a sexual way...oh god eewww. For the girls out there try thinking about your father as a lover not your dad. To say that allowing gay marriage will allow incestial relationship to develop is BS. We are pre programmed to have aversions to copulating with kin. Like many have said it before. The same argument was used with inter-racial marriage in the 1950s, it would lead to borther/sisters marriages. Did it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #242 October 9, 2004 QuoteWhy shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? You're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #243 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? You're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass. You know, if he wanted to suck on his dog's ass, I'd have no objection, moral or otherwise. To each his own, I say. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #244 October 9, 2004 I used to have a next door neighbor. He was always concerned about what other people were doing. He would call the police if someone two blocks over was parked in a manner he deemed unacceptable. He spent more time worrying about what other people were doing then living his own life. You remind me of him. edited to add: You never did answer my question why you hide who you are and whether you actually skydive or not.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #245 October 9, 2004 QuoteYou're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass. Where did that come from and why? Counseling is available.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #246 October 9, 2004 QuoteBecause the standard or definition for what marriage is in the first place and at its basis will have been lost. If you have a contract and the wording is later changed, it is not the same contract. If the wording in that contract is open ended and allows whatever union you prefer (gay, multiple, sister, dog, tree), then where's the standard? Where's the substance? It's not worth nearly what it was. QuoteSorry, but that's faulty logic. If I have a rental agreement with my landlord that allows pets. And you have a rental agreement with your landlord that prohibits pets. How does that effect my contract? They're both rental leases. Yours is different than mine, but what does that have to do with me? I’m talking about elemental design of the marital structure. I tried to add an example but I guess that one might not have been very good. Comparatively speaking, a rental contract would be a higher level than what I’m trying to describe with more workable components. I’m talking about the fundamental requirements for the basic human partnership. The only one which can in and of itself reproduce beyond itself to the next generation is one consisting of a man and woman. QuoteHow has your current, existing marriage be changed in any way, shape, or form since gay marriages have taken place. What is going to be different for a couple that gets married in the future if gays also happen to be married? You say it will change the wording, or the definition. But I asked you, what effect whatsoever will it have? As I stated before, it won’t have a direct and immediate tangible effect on my marriage, except in principle. The fundamental requirement for what marriage is will not be grounded or specifically expressed. It will be a loose and open ended contract that could include anything within its organization that the individual can come up with. Maybe not immediately but I see it as being eventually inevitable. How about this one… A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. If you add one more oxygen atom to the bond, it ceases to be water and becomes hydrogen peroxide. It’s a very subtle change and it is still very similar to water but it has changed to a different substance altogether. The root definition of marriage, makeup, or fundamental reality will also have changed. Blurring the lines for what marriage is and allowing it to consist of whatever the changing winds of opinion say it should be at the time will destroy the fabric that makes it up. It will not be seen as the necessary “rock” of civilization that it has been proven to be for thousands of years in any long lasting culture. This is a very dangerous trend that we’re witnessing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites WhirledWeb 0 #247 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteI really don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or households. So you're ok with incest. Got it. Amazing. It seems to me (and I'm possibly wrong) that this short post is the encapsulation of this entire thread. There seem to be two camps here: One says, "Let people do what they want" The other, "To protect myself and my family, I want to make sure that *they* (whoever *they* are... homos, kissing cousins, dog ass lickers... whatever) aren't doing something that may erode what I've got" I would say that an extreme view in either of these ideals can have detramental effects... and the real challenge is to find that ground where we're able to both have our freedom and still have our safe lives (like it or not, neither camp is going away in the very near future). Tunaplanet (and a couple of others) seems to be pretty passionate about their view of the morally right society that they envisions... and believes that a compromise of that (by sanctifying gay marriage) would degrade centuries of ethical fortitude. Many others on this forum (including myself) seem to be in the frame of mind of... "who am I to legislate what doesn't harm anybody". The key discussion point always comes back to the "harm" part of this sentence. I believe that my life in a committed (gay) relationship bonded by a marriage would only strengthen the fabric of our society... I know full well how much that makes your skin crawl, tuna. (I'm not sarcastic about this at all) The thought of something so dear to you as your faith beliefs being tossed aside and treated with such disrespect (as you might think from your perspective) probably brings out references to you about God's Wrath, Holy Anger, Sodom and Gomorrah and a host of other seeming consequences for what you would think are moral degradations of their respective societies. I get very frustrated when incest and bestiality get brought into this discussion, but I can see why your mind makes the leap. "If we bend on this issue, where is it going to stop?". Instead of throwing it all out, why don't we be rational, and be able to analyze the the "does it harm other people" condition stated above for each major situation (because I think both camps have that part in common) - incest can be debated just as homosexuality as to it's propensity to harm others. I can only speak for myself - I know that my motivation has nothing to do with anything other than feeling respected, feeling like I'm not a second class citizen and being able to live with the same rights that other tax-payers have. How many gay people do you know? How many married gay couples do you know? I think there might be an opportunity to discover a something about somebody else, and maybe even a little about yourself. Sometimes the fear of the unknown is quelled by just discovering a little about that which you didn't know. (everybody hold hands and sing with me) Kum Bay Ah, My Lord... Kum Bay Ah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don't be afraid of death, be afraid of the unlived life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #248 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuote I do not dislike or hate people based on that. No worries. I haven't perceived that from you. QuoteNow, in reference to your post, that’s not what I said. As a matter of fact, I said in one of my prior posts that it wouldn’t affect the survival of a species. Have you been smoking crack with Vinny? I quoted you as saying "Assuming that homosexuality is in fact a natural, however abnormal, occurrence, we should not promote it as a norm like heterosexuality because we’ve learned over thousands of years of civilization that it is not a best course of action with reference to the survivability of a species" because I copied and pasted it from your post. Now maybe you meant sustainability, but my question would be essentially the same. Show me where a species has declined because of homosexuality. Sorry. I missed this one. The responses from everyone were coming in such a flurry yesterday that, during my “speed post viewing” trying to keep up, I skipped right over this one. It was not intentional. Anyway, I gave up smoking crack last week. It might have been a bad week to quit. Again, I’m not trying to imply that the species will diminish due to the presence of homosexuality. The basic ability to reproduce is but one of the reasons that make up the justifiability for a union such as marriage. Anything else is not viable or a suitable “standard” for the basic and fundamental building block for a civilization and it shouldn’t be promoted as such. That’s not to say that you can’t do anything you want with regards to homosexuality, dogasslickality” or whatever else one could imagine. It just shouldn’t be promoted, supported, or recognized in the same way as the heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #249 October 9, 2004 QuoteI’m talking about elemental design of the marital structure..... I’m talking about the fundamental requirements for the basic human partnership. The only one which can in and of itself reproduce beyond itself to the next generation is one consisting of a man and woman. But is marriage fundamentally based on procreation? You don't need to be married to have kids, nor do you need to be married to raise them, in fact you don't need to even have a partner to raise kids succesfully (though it probably makes it easier). Isn't marriage just a gesture of total commitment to another person whether you can have kids with them or not? As others have pointed out no-one has any objection to a sterile couple being married.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #250 October 9, 2004 The Horse is dead. Stop beating it, it's not coming back to life... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 10 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Keith 0 #242 October 9, 2004 QuoteWhy shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? You're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #243 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy shouldn't I be allowed to marry two women? You're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass. You know, if he wanted to suck on his dog's ass, I'd have no objection, moral or otherwise. To each his own, I say. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #244 October 9, 2004 I used to have a next door neighbor. He was always concerned about what other people were doing. He would call the police if someone two blocks over was parked in a manner he deemed unacceptable. He spent more time worrying about what other people were doing then living his own life. You remind me of him. edited to add: You never did answer my question why you hide who you are and whether you actually skydive or not.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #245 October 9, 2004 QuoteYou're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass. Where did that come from and why? Counseling is available.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #246 October 9, 2004 QuoteBecause the standard or definition for what marriage is in the first place and at its basis will have been lost. If you have a contract and the wording is later changed, it is not the same contract. If the wording in that contract is open ended and allows whatever union you prefer (gay, multiple, sister, dog, tree), then where's the standard? Where's the substance? It's not worth nearly what it was. QuoteSorry, but that's faulty logic. If I have a rental agreement with my landlord that allows pets. And you have a rental agreement with your landlord that prohibits pets. How does that effect my contract? They're both rental leases. Yours is different than mine, but what does that have to do with me? I’m talking about elemental design of the marital structure. I tried to add an example but I guess that one might not have been very good. Comparatively speaking, a rental contract would be a higher level than what I’m trying to describe with more workable components. I’m talking about the fundamental requirements for the basic human partnership. The only one which can in and of itself reproduce beyond itself to the next generation is one consisting of a man and woman. QuoteHow has your current, existing marriage be changed in any way, shape, or form since gay marriages have taken place. What is going to be different for a couple that gets married in the future if gays also happen to be married? You say it will change the wording, or the definition. But I asked you, what effect whatsoever will it have? As I stated before, it won’t have a direct and immediate tangible effect on my marriage, except in principle. The fundamental requirement for what marriage is will not be grounded or specifically expressed. It will be a loose and open ended contract that could include anything within its organization that the individual can come up with. Maybe not immediately but I see it as being eventually inevitable. How about this one… A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. If you add one more oxygen atom to the bond, it ceases to be water and becomes hydrogen peroxide. It’s a very subtle change and it is still very similar to water but it has changed to a different substance altogether. The root definition of marriage, makeup, or fundamental reality will also have changed. Blurring the lines for what marriage is and allowing it to consist of whatever the changing winds of opinion say it should be at the time will destroy the fabric that makes it up. It will not be seen as the necessary “rock” of civilization that it has been proven to be for thousands of years in any long lasting culture. This is a very dangerous trend that we’re witnessing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhirledWeb 0 #247 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteI really don't give a damn about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or households. So you're ok with incest. Got it. Amazing. It seems to me (and I'm possibly wrong) that this short post is the encapsulation of this entire thread. There seem to be two camps here: One says, "Let people do what they want" The other, "To protect myself and my family, I want to make sure that *they* (whoever *they* are... homos, kissing cousins, dog ass lickers... whatever) aren't doing something that may erode what I've got" I would say that an extreme view in either of these ideals can have detramental effects... and the real challenge is to find that ground where we're able to both have our freedom and still have our safe lives (like it or not, neither camp is going away in the very near future). Tunaplanet (and a couple of others) seems to be pretty passionate about their view of the morally right society that they envisions... and believes that a compromise of that (by sanctifying gay marriage) would degrade centuries of ethical fortitude. Many others on this forum (including myself) seem to be in the frame of mind of... "who am I to legislate what doesn't harm anybody". The key discussion point always comes back to the "harm" part of this sentence. I believe that my life in a committed (gay) relationship bonded by a marriage would only strengthen the fabric of our society... I know full well how much that makes your skin crawl, tuna. (I'm not sarcastic about this at all) The thought of something so dear to you as your faith beliefs being tossed aside and treated with such disrespect (as you might think from your perspective) probably brings out references to you about God's Wrath, Holy Anger, Sodom and Gomorrah and a host of other seeming consequences for what you would think are moral degradations of their respective societies. I get very frustrated when incest and bestiality get brought into this discussion, but I can see why your mind makes the leap. "If we bend on this issue, where is it going to stop?". Instead of throwing it all out, why don't we be rational, and be able to analyze the the "does it harm other people" condition stated above for each major situation (because I think both camps have that part in common) - incest can be debated just as homosexuality as to it's propensity to harm others. I can only speak for myself - I know that my motivation has nothing to do with anything other than feeling respected, feeling like I'm not a second class citizen and being able to live with the same rights that other tax-payers have. How many gay people do you know? How many married gay couples do you know? I think there might be an opportunity to discover a something about somebody else, and maybe even a little about yourself. Sometimes the fear of the unknown is quelled by just discovering a little about that which you didn't know. (everybody hold hands and sing with me) Kum Bay Ah, My Lord... Kum Bay Ah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don't be afraid of death, be afraid of the unlived life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #248 October 9, 2004 QuoteQuote I do not dislike or hate people based on that. No worries. I haven't perceived that from you. QuoteNow, in reference to your post, that’s not what I said. As a matter of fact, I said in one of my prior posts that it wouldn’t affect the survival of a species. Have you been smoking crack with Vinny? I quoted you as saying "Assuming that homosexuality is in fact a natural, however abnormal, occurrence, we should not promote it as a norm like heterosexuality because we’ve learned over thousands of years of civilization that it is not a best course of action with reference to the survivability of a species" because I copied and pasted it from your post. Now maybe you meant sustainability, but my question would be essentially the same. Show me where a species has declined because of homosexuality. Sorry. I missed this one. The responses from everyone were coming in such a flurry yesterday that, during my “speed post viewing” trying to keep up, I skipped right over this one. It was not intentional. Anyway, I gave up smoking crack last week. It might have been a bad week to quit. Again, I’m not trying to imply that the species will diminish due to the presence of homosexuality. The basic ability to reproduce is but one of the reasons that make up the justifiability for a union such as marriage. Anything else is not viable or a suitable “standard” for the basic and fundamental building block for a civilization and it shouldn’t be promoted as such. That’s not to say that you can’t do anything you want with regards to homosexuality, dogasslickality” or whatever else one could imagine. It just shouldn’t be promoted, supported, or recognized in the same way as the heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #249 October 9, 2004 QuoteI’m talking about elemental design of the marital structure..... I’m talking about the fundamental requirements for the basic human partnership. The only one which can in and of itself reproduce beyond itself to the next generation is one consisting of a man and woman. But is marriage fundamentally based on procreation? You don't need to be married to have kids, nor do you need to be married to raise them, in fact you don't need to even have a partner to raise kids succesfully (though it probably makes it easier). Isn't marriage just a gesture of total commitment to another person whether you can have kids with them or not? As others have pointed out no-one has any objection to a sterile couple being married.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #250 October 9, 2004 The Horse is dead. Stop beating it, it's not coming back to life... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
