HOMO-Marriage or Fag Unions? [Archive]

beelzebub

02-20-2006, 09:04 PM

"Str8" people don't have tax discounts in mind when they (we) holler & yell about gay marriage. It's the fact that thousands of years of marital tradition is being threatened.[QUOTE=Zzyzx]

Yeah? That’s makes sense straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

I guess tradition wasn’t threatened by the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage.

I guess you are saying gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[QUOTE=Zzyzx] But, hey, it's none of my business. Go for it. I'd vote "sure, why not" for you. My only request is that you call it a "union" rather than a "marriage" (but still have all the same rights & privileges as a marriage). Why the fuss about terminology? A "marriage" is between a man & woman, simple. A "union" is... whatever.

Well I agree with this part. I think we queers need our own name. You str8s have marriage. Though, I don’t see the big fuss over the preservation of the name anyway.

Proud 2 b White

02-20-2006, 09:14 PM

Zzyzx

02-20-2006, 10:50 PM

Finally!! Bullshit.com's very first ultra-psycho! Let the flame wars begin!

Back to reality....

I guess you are saying gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

My sarcasm detector highlighted your entire post, beelzebub. Impressive. Change is bad to a lot of people. Unfortunately, you'll need their support in order to get the books changed. I'm just calling it like it is, not defending them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If gettin' hitched is essential to your happiness, then great. Good for you. I'm all right with it. It's the "endowed by their Creator" part that others (ultra-psycho, for example) have trouble with. Those "certain unalienable Rights" apparently have some qualifications.

And that's all I have to say about that...

beelzebub

02-21-2006, 08:32 PM

Finally!! Bullshit.com's very first ultra-psycho! Let the flame wars begin!

I am not sure what you mean here. I think that you are talking about the proud 2 b white .... redneck asshole?

Back to reality....
My sarcasm detector highlighted your entire post, beelzebub. Impressive.

I do what I can :rolleyes:

Change is bad to a lot of people. Unfortunately, you'll need their support in order to get the books changed. I'm just calling it like it is, not defending them.

Thanks. I agree.

If gettin' hitched is essential to your happiness, then great. Good for you. I'm all right with it.

Hitched? Well all I want is the same treatment as other people. I am not asking the churches open their doors and let us marry in there. I am not even keen or the word "marry". At the end of the day all I want are the same benefits that other couples (str8) get. I only think that’s fair.

It's the "endowed by their Creator" part that others (ultra-psycho, for example) have trouble with. Those "certain unalienable Rights" apparently have some qualifications. And that's all I have to say about that...

Ever heard of separation of Church & State? I think we will win whether or not the general populous wants it or not.

beelzebub

02-21-2006, 08:38 PM

I cant believe that fags......... BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA bullshit BLA BLA BLA ..............aint right.

Talk about your STUPID FUCKIN RED NECKS. Go an get some education before you type on your PC again dumbass. :mad:

this_is_bullshit

02-21-2006, 09:30 PM

beelzebub

02-22-2006, 08:38 PM

Aside from you, who cares? I don't think it means diddly if you can have a marriage certificate or not, marriage is a union, not the piece of paper. Geez.

I think you don’t know what’s happening around you if you think it’s just me who cares. Pay attention to current events and then revamp your ideas.

I do care about that single sheet of paper because it gives us validation:

If my partner is in the hospital I want to be able to enact his wishes not have his parents called in the Bahamas and have them decide. Now we have to have a legal document drawn and keep it with us always in the event this happens. (Another piece of paper)

If my partner dies I want to make decisions that he wants concerning the funeral, type of burial, blab bla bla (everything else) Right now he has to have this in his will (another piece of paper)

Right now if my partner dies the son he adopted will go to his family. He has to have a special legal document drawn so the child we have raised does not go to his family (another piece of paper)

There are HUGE numbers of examples and EVERY LAST one of them requires another piece of paper to prove that we are with each other. That we can decide what we have built stays with us.

Do you see now? :confused:

Brains_Behind_Operation

02-23-2006, 10:04 AM

I've always teetered on this issue. It's been implanted into my head from a very young age that same sex relationships were wrong, no questions asked. Then I started asking questions...such as what is marriage all about? To my understanding it is the declaration of a couple's love and life to eachother, not distinguishing sexes.

On the other hand, I think that the government sees it more as the best way to encourage procreation, which is why they get tax breaks - statistics show that eventually it will pay off better for society in the long run. People will have kids, generally children from families where the bond still exists grow up better and give back to the economy more than those who grew up in another situation. Supposedly gays would fit the bonded example if they could procreate, but that's impossible. Yet gays can and do adopt. The question now becomes can they properly raise this adopted child in toay's society?

Push that aside though, maybe the problem is with the government. Why should people get tax breaks just because they're married? If they don't have children they very likely may be doing worse for the economy because of these tax breaks. Maybe that's the direction that we need to start going, take away tax breaks just because of marriage, because a union of two people doesn't automatically mean an increase in the economy.

That being said, I think that gays should be allowed to marry, though it will take society, (and myself) a longtime to accept it. I still think that gay relationships are sick and twisted and probably always will, but that's just an oppinion implanted from a childhood in a conservatist houshold.

beelzebub

02-23-2006, 08:53 PM

That being said, I think that gays should be allowed to marry, though it will take society, (and myself) a longtime to accept it. I still think that gay relationships are sick and twisted and probably always will, but that's just an oppinion implanted from a childhood in a conservatist houshold.

I agree with most of what you had to say. I think that your opinion is very equitable and fair. I do; however, find objection to "sick and twisted". I understand how someone brought up in a conservative household can be trained to believe that. I too was raised in such an environment. I rose above this level of understanding because I had to.
I do wish that others would not see me and my family this way. My lifestyle is just as sick and twisted as any other human beings lifestyle. I wake up, go to work, come home feed the kid and two dogs, watch TV, do some work and go back to bed. The only difference really is that I have a male as a partner instead of a female. I don’t do drugs, have orgies, miscellaneous sex partners, or any other abnormal things. I don’t see how I am sick or twisted.

Brains_Behind_Operation

02-23-2006, 10:01 PM

I don’t see how I am sick or twisted.

I wouldn't expect you to, if you did then you'd probably not have chosen that lifestyle. I simply think that it's wrong and unnatural for guys to do that. Note that I did say guys, I'm sorry to admit that I find it arousing watching two sexy women go at it. So maybe I'm the one who's really sick and twisted.

beelzebub

02-24-2006, 08:33 PM

I wouldn't expect you to, if you did then you'd probably not have chosen that lifestyle. I simply think that it's wrong and unnatural for guys to do that. Note that I did say guys, I'm sorry to admit that I find it arousing watching two sexy women go at it. So maybe I'm the one who's really sick and twisted.

Chose the lifestyle (and I do mean STYLE!) but did not chose gay.

Brains_Behind_Operation

02-24-2006, 09:14 PM

Chose the lifestyle (and I do mean STYLE!) but did not chose gay.

On the contrary, regardless of what your initial preferences may have been you have the power to change them. Gayness was a choice. You also have the choices of returning to the closet or forcing yourself to prefer women, it is possible. The question is, how far are you willing to go to change your preferences? Not saying that you should or have any need to.

"You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

beelzebub

02-24-2006, 09:32 PM

On the contrary, regardless of what your initial preferences may have been you have the power to change them. Gayness was a choice. You also have the choices of returning to the closet or forcing yourself to prefer women, it is possible.

So if this is true could you change to prefer men? I doubt it.
I say this because I tried to change myself. I went to counseling, I focused on women while masturbating, I prayed (when I was young) and I did whatever I could. IT NEVER WORKED. I am what I am. Why change something that was apart of me to placate people like you?
Returning to the closet is a choice because it’s HIDING WHAT I AM from people like you. I can do that easily. I cannot HIDE from myself.

The question is, how far are you willing to go to change your preferences? Not saying that you should or have any need to.

Now... I have no desire to change. I am very comfortable with who and what I am. There is no need to change because I recognize that the motive for change bears no other growth than I can already reach in my current state.

Brains_Behind_Operation

02-25-2006, 03:55 AM

There is no need to change because I recognize that the motive for change bears no other growth than I can already reach in my current state.

In that case, I suggest you make a change of location.;) If the state you are living in doesn't allow you to grow, move to a more opinionated state. New York is relatively close, and I'm sure there's many there who'd be thrilled to give you plenty of motivation to rethink your ways.:D

beelzebub

02-25-2006, 08:22 AM

In that case, I suggest you make a change of location.;) If the state you are living in doesn't allow you to grow, move to a more opinionated state. New York is relatively close, and I'm sure there's many there who'd be thrilled to give you plenty of motivation to rethink your ways.:D

Hu hu hu..... Jee that was funny ha ho ha.................................

Brains_Behind_Operation

02-25-2006, 10:41 PM

At least you are human enough to enjoy some humor at your expense.

beelzebub

02-26-2006, 05:18 PM

I dont think you got the sarcasam in my text.

I didn't find it funny.

Brains_Behind_Operation

02-26-2006, 09:10 PM

My computer's sarcasm detector has been in the shop since day one at this site, but the message was passed without static anyways. My message just reflected the sarcasm in the other direction.

beelzebub

03-03-2006, 10:50 PM

It would seem that Bullshit is all gay friendly. Fag lovers and the sort.

It amazes me that people dont care. When I was growing up everyone cared and no body talked about it. Same dance different song.

hkdbadreligion

03-05-2006, 02:59 PM

Gay marriages should be legal because it doesnt harm anyone. It wouldnt effect me or any third party if there were legally married gay couples. On adoption, there are a lot of orphans that need homes and a couple shouldnt be denied a child because of their orientation. Some straight couples that adopt could be white trash or abusive. A child would be much better off with a gay couple than white trash couple.

buttless_wonder

03-12-2006, 01:41 AM

I see no reason to deny gays the misery I suffered, have at it.

vulcan

03-15-2006, 03:33 AM

everything is against nature is not right. I have a relative practicing homosexuality, and I see him once in a while, and I love him, but I am telling you none of them are faithful to their couples, my relative, well he has a younger guy must of the time around, but is true his older companion is still around I think they get a younger cock every years and they have three in one game. There is not such thing as faithfulness in a gay relationship, why they should, there is nothing to control them.But they are so stupid, they believe the goverment is not behind their "legalization" of marriage. Bubba check again. The goverment wants to know how many one sex couple we have around. If I were one of them I should be very consern all democracies end up as a Republic, or dictadorship, our is not going to be an exception. So when ever somebody in the future wants to go hunting cocks and carpets, they just have to go to the civil register. I don't know but if I were one of you guys I will move to Arizona with one or two of my buddies and keep it quiet. Don't you? After all things are changing and is in the near future my prediction. Maybe Bush is going to be king after all.
God Save the KING!!!:cool:

vulcan

03-15-2006, 03:37 AM

white trash have no money to adopt a child

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-15-2006, 10:05 AM

There is not such thing as faithfulness in a gay relationship,

That's just stupid. It's like saying anyone who quits all TV must be an ignorant communist. There is no reason that gays can't be faithful, or aren't faithful.

After all things are changing and is in the near future my prediction. Maybe Bush is going to be king after all.
God Save the KING!!!:cool:

Hardly. The way that things are going, Bush is going to be assassinated before his second term is up. There is no chance that the US is going to switch its control system without a major successful invasion.

General Septem

03-16-2006, 03:12 PM

Marriage is a union, more specifically it is a sacred union between a man and a woman. To redefine marriage makes it less sacred. That said there are a lot of "str8" marriages that are equally as pejorative toward marriage.

If you want some kind of union, at this point I don't really give a flying American flag. But not marriage; it would be an abomination to floccinaucinihilipilificate a sacred bond by redefining it like that. Plus the fact that I don't want the right to marry another man, and since American rights apply to everyone, that's what would happen.

General Septem

03-16-2006, 03:17 PM

I'm sorry to admit that I find it arousing watching two sexy women go at it.
I'm afraid I must concur. But I don't think that makes me sick or twisted, as long as I avoid it. I don't think anyone can be held culpable for things out of their control. But if someone is in control and does something they know is wrong, they are culpable. But they can still be forgiven, and in fact we as humans are obligated to forgive them.

General Septem

03-16-2006, 03:25 PM

By the way.

Actually, why don't I just link to this:

http://omegaplus.blogspot.com/2005/10/catholics-are-not-homophobics.html

hkdbadreligion

03-18-2006, 11:26 PM

hkdbadreligion

03-18-2006, 11:30 PM

floccinaucinihilipilificate

Yeah, I sometimes make up words too. But mine you can actually pronounce and slightly understand what I mean.

General Septem

03-18-2006, 11:34 PM

Yeah, I sometimes make up words too. But mine you can actually pronounce and slightly understand what I mean.

Floccinaucinihilipilification:
n 1. The act of deeming something as worthless

other forms
floccinaucinihilipilificate: v to deem something worthless

Floccinaucinihilipilification is officially considered to be the longest word in the English language, a title once held by the word antidisestablishmentarianism.

hkdbadreligion

03-18-2006, 11:56 PM

Cool stuff. I was only joking. Homer said it to Tony Hawk on the 300th episode of the Simpsons.

beelzebub

03-24-2006, 08:38 PM

everything is against nature is not right.

I assume you mean "Everything that is against nature is not right." How is homosexuality against nature?

I have a relative practicing homosexuality, and I see him once in a while, and I love him, but I am telling you none of them are faithful to their couples.

You must have been high or drunk as you wrote this. I have several friends who are faithful to their partner. I have some friends who are committed to their partner but fool around. And then there are others who never settle down. I see the same thing in heterosexual relationships.

The rest of what you have to say is gibberish.

General Septem

03-24-2006, 08:44 PM

I assume you mean "Everything that is against nature is not right." How is homosexuality against nature?

What is against nature is sexual gratification by any means other than vaginal intercourse. This is against nature regardless of sexual preference; the only difference is that "straight" people have no desire to do so.

beelzebub

03-24-2006, 08:54 PM

What is against nature is sexual gratification by any means other than vaginal intercourse. This is against nature regardless of sexual preference; the only difference is that "straight" people have no desire to do so.

Many primates such as chimpanzees masturbate. Bonobos have heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Canines copulate with inanimate objects. Birds do not have a vagina. Worms do not have a vagina.
There is a wasp that copulated with an orchid mimic.
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/orchid.jpg

All of these organisms are successful in life. If an organism displays traits that are against nature it becomes extinct. How are these examples against nature?

General Septem

03-24-2006, 09:00 PM

Many primates such as chimpanzees masturbate. Bonobos have heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Canines copulate with inanimate objects. Birds do not have a vagina. Worms do not have a vagina.
There is a wasp that copulated with an orchid mimic.
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/orchid.jpg

All of these organisms are successful in life. If an organism displays traits that are against nature it becomes extinct. How are these examples against nature?

It doesn't apply since animals aren't intelligent. Animals kill each other, too, but a human could never get away with that. And second of all, obviously only mammals can have vaginal intercourse to begin with, and I didn't think I needed to make that clear. But they're still animals, so it still doesn't matter.

As humans, our sexuality is created to be unitive and procreative.

beelzebub

03-24-2006, 09:25 PM

It doesn't apply since animals aren't intelligent.

Humans are classified as animals.

Animals kill each other, too, but a human could never get away with that.

There are several examples where humans get away with murder.
Argument: null & void

And second of all, obviously only mammals can have vaginal intercourse to begin with, and I didn't think I needed to make that clear.

you said:

What is against nature is sexual gratification by any means other than vaginal intercourse.

So therefore all animals that do not have a vagina are against nature.
You are wrong.

I will adjust your statement: "For mammals to have sexual gratification by any other means other than vaginal intercourse is against nature"

This is a judgment that does not make sense. Mammals hat have sexual gratification outside of intercourse: Bonobos (Homosexual & Heterosexuals sex) Dogs (Sex with anything) Whales (Homosexual & Heterosexual sex) the list can go on & on. Anything that is against nature causes the demise or extinction of the species. Since homosexuality has been recorded since the roman empire and our population had exponentially increased since that time. This logic is a fallacy.

As humans, our sexuality is created to be unitive and procreative.

Unitive: True, However; Unitive does not have to be limited to heterosexual relationships. As I said Bonobos (a type of primate) uses sex as a means of forming social bonds.

Procreative: True but sex is not used only for this purpose therefore it cannot be used as the definitive rule against "non-natural"

General Septem

03-24-2006, 09:30 PM

I didn't bother to quote you since most of it is rambly and irrelevant.

If all you're going to do is haggle over stupid bullshit symantecs, then you've proven to me that I am right. Animals weren't even part of the argument when I said, "What is against nature is sexual gratification by any means other than vaginal intercourse." You only prove to be weak by attempting to use it as an argument.

Even more pointless is you putting words in my mouth. You adjusted my statement as follows:

"For mammals to have sexual gratification by any means other than vaginal intercourse is against nature"

More accurately, the statement is:

"For humans to seek sexual gratification by any other means other than vaginal intercourse is against nature"

(Not only is it against nature, but it is also selfish.)

Just because we survived it doesn't make it any less disordered - particularly since only 3% of the population engages in homosexual intercourse.

Bottom line: redefining marriage would make it less sacred, and that is an abomination.

Humans are technically animals but the difference is that we are intelligent. Therfore we "oughtta know better" for lack of a better term.

I rephrase myself on the "getting away with it" bit. Murder by definition is the unjustified killing of another human being. It is impossible for animals to commit murder because they lack intelligence.

beelzebub

03-24-2006, 09:59 PM

Animals weren't even part of the argument when I said, .........

You said "It doesn't apply since animals aren't intelligent."

You made it part of the argument.

For humans to seek sexual gratification by any other means other than vaginal intercourse is against nature

Opinion & debatable

Just because we survived it doesn't make it any less disordered - particularly since only 3% of the population engages in homosexual intercourse.

Disordered does not mean "against nature" there are many examples of organisms that are disordered. In arthropods, reptiles, birds, and mammals (as well as many others) young are destroyed to insure the dominant partner procreates.

Bottom line: redefining marriage would make it less sacred, and that is an abomination.

Marriage is a human conception. Not involving biological principles.

But if you want ...
Brittany Spears 2 day marriage has shot heterosexual marriage all to hell.
Blacks should then be not be allowed to marry whites (sacred - historical)
etc etc etc

Humans are technically animals but the difference is that we are intelligent. Therfore we "oughtta know better" for lack of a better term.

Therefore

This is a myopic view of intelligence. African Gray Parrots can interpret the difference between Shape and Color. Primates can speak in sign language.

General Septem

03-24-2006, 10:13 PM

You said "It doesn't apply since animals aren't intelligent."

You made it part of the argument.

I didn't say that until long after I'd said the original comment, and in which time you'd already brought it up. Pay attention.

Disordered does not mean "against nature" there are many examples of organisms that are disordered. In arthropods, reptiles, birds, and mammals (as well as many others) young are destroyed to insure the dominant partner procreates.

"Disorder" is the abscense of order; a malfunction. Murder and lust are disordered because they are unnatural - for humans, who posess reasoning and intelligence.

Marriage is a human conception. Not involving biological principles.

That's an entirely different matter - I was bringing my post back to my original point as to why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

Brittany Spears 2 day marriage has shot heterosexual marriage all to hell.

Actually, you're right. I never said there weren't a vast multitude of straight people that likewise pervert and trample upon the sanctity of sexuality.

Blacks should then be not be allowed to marry whites

It doesn't work that way. Basically the only differences between blacks and whites are their ancestry, and melanin content in their skin. There may be other physiological differences, but a black man and a white man are still both human males of the same species when it comes to our genes. There's a big difference between heritage and gender.

This is a myopic view of intelligence. African Gray Parrots can interpret the difference between Shape and Color. Primates can speak in sign language.

So can psychotics, but they still don't know right and wrong.

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-25-2006, 02:10 AM

In arthropods, reptiles, birds, and mammals (as well as many others) young are destroyed to insure the dominant partner procreates.

So in support of this argument that you made, you should then be 'destroyed' to insure that the dominant of our species procreates. You obviously are very unlikely to procreate because you resist doing what your sexual status requires to assist in the procreation act. This supports the fact that it is wrong to be gay and that they should all be killed.

-Would a "hail Hitler" be in order here?:D

Carlos lopez

03-25-2006, 02:47 AM

I hate when somebody wants to impose their views, I think if you want to be a queer that's fine with me, but do not impose that in the rest of the people, really I think you lesbians and queers should have classes and education to face you guys to your Gay life style. Must of the queer I know have all kind of sickness and mental sickness and depression there is nothing wonderful in their way of life, and their shouldnt be. This is just a bunch of shit. And queer life style is nothing but sadness, full of lust and sickness,and I am talking about serious sickness like schizophrenia, HIV Hepatitis C is rampant among gays, herpes, is number one among them and other, like Chlamydia must of the gay man have Chlamydia in their mouth and or their throats, and thrichomonas in their penises giving sickness like ballanatis the penis get really swollen of vaginosis to the female you have to treat them again and again.Skin cancer problems is rampant among them like MRSA this disease is resistant to antibiotics, Pseudomona folliculatis very commun among gays from the shower or gay gym. Acute vaginitis from lesbians is serious and commun because they insert things contaminated in their vagina, and skin cancer is commun this is just to name some.All those involved in this life style knows this is true. And this si very serious. So no wonder they have a "day Gay-lesbian pride day" because they are ashamed the rest of the year. I just feel sorry for them and I include them in my prayers CIAO.

spankin-it

03-29-2006, 03:30 PM

If a gay couple wants to get married great. let them. Its none of my fucking business if they get married and its no one elses fucking business either. Who the fuck am I, or any one else to decide who can and cant get married. Do I think its nasty? do think guy on guy lovin is gross? sure I do, but that dosnt mean I have any right what so ever to say that its not allowed. I mean fuck, the constitution clearly states that all men and women are created equal and given all of the same rights. and the American constitution just happens to be something that I kinda, sorta, absolutly fucking belive in. I dont understand people who want it illegal and not allowed, I mean it dosnt hurt them any if ted and gary down the street are married or not. Its a bunch of fucking assholes trying to push thier belives on the rest of the country and that is bullshit.

General Septem

03-29-2006, 04:31 PM

It most certainly does affect me. And we are all equal. Marriage is and always has been a union between a man and a woman. Regardless of your sexual preference. So it's not like gay people are being discriminated against, because straight men can't mary other straight men either. As for the Constitution, I "absolutely fucking" don't believe in it.

beelzebub

03-29-2006, 06:57 PM

beelzebub

03-29-2006, 07:08 PM

It most certainly does affect me.

No it does not. This only thing it affects is you nose because you like to stick it in everyone else’s business.

And we are all equal. Marriage is and always has been a union between a man and a woman. Regardless of your sexual preference.

Well we could discuss many things that marriage has been (e.g. not between blacks & whites, a form of ownership of women)

But... Really all I want are the same tax breaks given to srt8 people. The same benefits and governing laws. I don’t give a shit what it is called (civil union domestic partnership etc...) I just want to be treated just like every one else.

So it's not like gay people are being discriminated against, because straight men can't mary other straight men either.

Of course we are discriminated against. I can list many ways I have been discriminated against. This is one of them. I am not allowed to enjoy the same rights as others based on my sexuality. Passing judgment on a group of people based on assumed characteristics is the essence of discrimination.

As for the Constitution, I "absolutely fucking" don't believe in it.

I understand that you may disagree with it (though I wonder why) but it exists and it governs this country. You have to deal with that. You can whine and bitch (which you are an expert at) but it is the way it is.

beelzebub

03-29-2006, 07:32 PM

So in support of this argument that you made, you should then be 'destroyed' to insure that the dominant of our species procreates.

"Originally Posted by beelzebub In arthropods, reptiles, birds, and mammals (as well as many others) young are destroyed to insure the dominant partner procreates."

This argument was made to show that heterosexual organisms (nature) do things that would be considered against nature (disordered). Homosexual activity according to G-S was disordered.

I proved him wrong (i.e. homosexuals are disordered and therefore wrong because heterosexuals are not disordered) just like I proved that you didn't comprehend. (as usual)

You obviously are very unlikely to procreate because you resist doing what your sexual status requires to assist in the procreation act.

"Resist" implies that I am holding back my natural instinct. This is NOT THE CASE AT ALL! I am fulfilling what I want to do. I do not desire or want to be with a woman.

[QUOTE=Brains_Behind_Operation] This supports the fact that it is wrong to be gay and that they should all be killed. -Would a "hail Hitler" be in order here?:D

Oh I see. This was a joke. ha... ha... ha... Funny (not)

General Septem

03-29-2006, 09:45 PM

No it does not. This only thing it affects is you nose because you like to stick it in everyone else’s business.

It does affect me, because that is not the society I want to live in.

Well we could discuss many things that marriage has been (e.g. not between blacks & whites, a form of ownership of women)

Interracial marriage as far as I know has never been forbidden by the Catholic Church. Likewise, this "ownership of women" thing is a common completely wrong bullshit that many people think is true but it really isn't. Male dominance is merely an observation of the natural instincts. It's scientifically proven that women instinctively seek out men who posess qualities that would help them survive the supposed appocalypse. Girls by nature are simply attracted to guys who are "in charge". You can be loving and still be in charge, and as proof, I love my wife more than anything else worldy.

But... Really all I want are the same tax breaks given to srt8 people. The same benefits and governing laws. I don’t give a shit what it is called (civil union domestic partnership etc...) I just want to be treated just like every one else.

If all you want is tax breaks, you're getting married for the wrong reason. Shit, they should give tax breaks to any couple. Sign a paper and that's it. They shouldn't even call that marriage. All that accomplishes is to floccinaucinihilipilificate marriage even more.

Of course we are discriminated against. I can list many ways I have been discriminated against.

My condolences. I had nothing to do with it.

This is one of them. I am not allowed to enjoy the same rights as others based on my sexuality. Passing judgment on a group of people based on assumed characteristics is the essence of discrimination.

But you see, that's the thing. You'r entitled to the same thing I am - you just don't accept it because you don't like it. Nobody's stopping you from marrying a woman and enjoying the tax benefits but yourself. If you don't want to, that's not my problem.

I understand that you may disagree with it (though I wonder why) but it exists and it governs this country. You have to deal with that. You can whine and bitch (which you are an expert at) but it is the way it is.

Well I'd leave if I had somewhere better to go. Unfortunately, because of people like you, I can't have MY wish - MY choice and live in an antidisestablishmentarian state. Countries like America has "liberated" them all.

General Septem

03-29-2006, 09:47 PM

"Resist" implies that I am holding back my natural instinct. This is NOT THE CASE AT ALL! I am fulfilling what I want to do. I do not desire or want to be with a woman.

That's exactly his point. You don't want to be with a woman, and in order to procreate, you would have to. That's what the point he's making is.

beelzebub

03-29-2006, 10:05 PM

That's exactly his point. You don't want to be with a woman, and in order to procreate, you would have to. That's what the point he's making is.

Uhhh then I would say that he should write what he wants to say instead of what he wrote.

"You obviously are very unlikely to procreate because you resist doing what your sexual status requires to assist in the procreation act. This supports the fact that it is wrong to be gay and that they should all be killed."

When he added the part "you resist doing what your sexual status requires" he added a new perspective. If I answer the question he posed with this perspective then I would have accepted his premise as true.

I do not accept it.

Therefore the point he is making IS WRONG because it is NOT TRUE because I have given the reason behind his fallacy.

General Septem

03-29-2006, 10:08 PM

When he added the part "you resist doing what your sexual status requires" he added a new perspective. If you answer the questions he posed with this new perspective then you accept his premise.

I do not accept it.

Therefore the point he is making IS WRONG because it is NOT TRUE because I have given the reason behind his fallacy.

What he meant by your sexual status is the fact that you are male. Because you are male, you have to have sex with a woman to procreate - yet you don't want to do that, in other words you resist doing that.

beelzebub

03-29-2006, 10:11 PM

What he meant by your sexual status is the fact that you are male. Because you are male, you have to have sex with a woman to procreate - yet you don't want to do that, in other words you resist doing that.

It is not that I do not want to procreate. It is that I am sexually attracted to a male.

The desire to procreate is still there. I am not denying any part of myself I am doing what comes natural to me.

Therefore there is NO RESISTANCE there is only following what I want to do.

General Septem

03-29-2006, 10:14 PM

It is not that I do not want to procreate. It is that I am sexually attracted to a male.

The desire to procreate is still there. I am not denying any part of myself I am doing what comes natural to me.

Therefore there is NO RESISTANCE there is only following what I want to do.
But the fact is that you can't procreate because you "resist", or if you want to play the symantecs game, refuse to do what is required of you, a male, to procreate. You refuse to have sex with a woman. If there is another way to have a child, I'd be interested to know.

beelzebub

03-29-2006, 10:26 PM

But the fact is that you can't procreate because you "resist", or if you want to play the symantecs game, refuse to do what is required of you, a male, to procreate. You refuse to have sex with a woman. If there is another way to have a child, I'd be interested to know.

GS get this through your head. I RESIST only society’s pressure to do what they want me to do. The only thing that is required of me is to exist or not exist. That’s fucking it! You put that twist on it.

I have a child (adopted) and I can have a child without having sex with a woman (in vitro fertilization)

I am gay because it is what comes natural to me. There is not resistance involved. Semantics is not involved. Your narrow mind is involved. You do not understand because you are closed to understanding anything other than your own reality. You cannot understand because of your limited stage in consciousness.

General Septem

03-29-2006, 10:51 PM

GS get this through your head. I RESIST only society’s pressure to do what they want me to do. The only thing that is required of me is to exist or not exist. That’s fucking it! You put that twist on it.

I have a child (adopted) and I can have a child without having sex with a woman (in vitro fertilization)

I am gay because it is what comes natural to me. There is not resistance involved. Semantics is not involved. Your narrow mind is involved. You do not understand because you are closed to understanding anything other than your own reality. You cannot understand because of your limited stage in consciousness.
I'm not the issue here. I was only clarifying what BBO was saying.

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-29-2006, 11:47 PM

I am gay because it is what comes natural to me. There is not resistance involved. Semantics is not involved. Your narrow mind is involved. You do not understand because you are closed to understanding anything other than your own reality. You cannot understand because of your limited stage in consciousness.

Please! You brought up the entire issue about semantics in the first place. I have no doubt that any intelligent person would understand the point that I was trying to make, (GS is a perfect example of one of these intelligent people.) YOU twisted my meaning only to create a new argument that does nothing for the issue being addressed, except mock it. I used the word 'resist', you can call it your natural inhibition and substitute the word 'refuse'. The point is that to procreate (e.g. create a child) you (as a man) must engage in sexual activity with a woman, (yes, today's sciences provide other options, but speaking entirely naturally here). But your preferences do not allow this act. So call it what you will, the point still stands strong.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 07:13 PM

Please! You brought up the entire issue about semantics in the first place.

You really dont pay attention. I was saying that in this case it is not sysmantics. Inother words, dumass, that it is about another issue. Pay attention FOR ONCE!

I used the word 'resist', you can call it your natural inhibition and substitute the word 'refuse'.

NO NO NO NO. Resist means
1. To strive to fend off or offset the actions, effects, or force of.
2. To remain firm against the actions, effects, or force of; withstand: a bacterium that resisted the antibiotic.
3. To keep from giving in to or enjoying.

None of that applies with me being gay. I am giving into my desires. I am giving into my enjoying. I am not inhibiting anything.

So call it what you will, the point still stands strong.

Wrong. This is a worthless statement.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 07:25 PM

Beelzebub you are the biggest dumbass ever. BBO is trying to make a point and you're ignoring the entire fucking post because of one word he said. If you won't respond to him, respond to this:

So in support of this argument that you made, you should then be 'destroyed' to insure that the dominant of our species procreates. You obviously are very unlikely to procreate because you won't do what your gender requires to assist in the procreation act. This supports the fact that it is wrong to be gay and that they should all be killed.

(It could be said, however, that you "remain firm against the action of" having sex with a woman, or at least would if a naked woman was thrown at you.)

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 07:46 PM

Beelzebub you are the biggest dumbass ever. BBO is trying to make a point and you're ignoring the entire fucking post because of one word he said. If you won't respond to him, respond to this:

Little boy... I will not relent on that point because it lies at the heart of your conservative, narrow-minded & bigoted views. Str8 people think that we gays choose to be this way. This is simply not true. We may choose to live the lifestyle but we do not choose to be attracted to the same sex.

So in support of this argument that you made, you should then be 'destroyed' to insure that the dominant of our species procreates.

I answered this point some time ago. I brought up several examples of animals that destroy their infants as an example of how nature does things that would be considered against nature (disordered). Homosexual activity according to G-S was disordered. So therefore his argument fails to say that Homosexuality is not natural.

You imply a condition in this statement that must be addressed before I can answer it. You imply that heterosexuals are dominant. This is not true.

Perhaps you are saying: How would homosexuals interfere with the procreation of our heterosexual members of our species? What? We gays are trying to hump the men as they are having sex with their women? Well hate to tell you but we use a hole that wont interfere with the ejaculation of the male. Possible the lesbians could interfere. Yes, the lesbians.............. Dykes would beat the str8 males and steal their women. The fem. lesbian would interfere with male penetration of the vagina as their head would be in the way as they munched on carpet. Makes sense!

You obviously are very unlikely to procreate because you won't do what your gender requires to assist in the procreation act. This supports the fact that it is wrong to be gay and that they should all be killed.

It would be better if you said “...procreate because you can’t fuck a pussy"
That would be better and I agree :-)

It could be said, however, that you "remain firm against the action of" having sex with a woman, or at least would if a naked woman was thrown at you.)

In this case I would remain limp at having a naked woman thrown at me.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 07:55 PM

Little boy... I will not relent on that point because it lies at the heart of your conservative, narrow-minded & bigoted views. Str8 people think that we gays choose to be this way. This is simply not true. We may choose to live the lifestyle but we do not choose to be attracted to the same sex.

Actually I don't doubt for a minute that you have no choice.

I answered this point some time ago. I brought up several examples of animals that destroy their infants as an example of how nature does things that would be considered against nature (disordered). Homosexual activity according to G-S was disordered. So therefore his argument fails to say that Homosexuality is not natural.

It is against human nature to do that which is disordered. What animals do is not of my concern.

No perhaps this is of a different point. You imply a condition in this statement that must be addressed before I can answer it. You imply that heterosexuals are dominant. This is not true.

Well we're dominant in the survival role because we procreate.

Now how would homosexuals interfere with the procreation of our heterosexual members of our species? What we gays are trying to hump the men as they are having sex with their women? Well hate to tell you but we use a hole that wont interfere with the ejaculation of the male. Possible the lesbians could interfere. Yes, the lesbians.............. Dykes would beat the str8 males and steal their women. The fem. lesbian would interfere with male penetration of the vagina as their head would be in the way as they munched on carpet. Makes sense!

That makes no sense whatsoever.

It would be better if you said “...procreate because you can’t fuck a pussy" That would be better and I agree :-)

In this case I would remain limp at having a naked woman thrown at me.

But either way, you can't procreate, which is the point here.

I'm not even saying that you should be destroyed because you can't procreate. In fact I don't even know what the hell the point is. I think BBO was just making a sarcastic reference to your post that animals kill their young.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 08:05 PM

Actually I don't doubt for a minute that you have no choice.

Great. Thanks. Now I don’t think that you are among the thousands that do.

It is against human nature to do that which is disordered. What animals do is not of my concern.

We are animals. Humans that is.

Well we're dominant in the survival role because we procreate.

Actually the ability of an individual to survive has nothing to do with its reproductive potential. I survive quite well without procreation thank you. What you should say is that STR8 people will have offspring of their own and we won’t. SO WHAT?

That makes no sense whatsoever.
I know. It was my pathetic attempt to be funny.

But either way, you can't procreate, which is the point here.
We can procreate we just don’t. and......SO WHAT?

I think BBO was just making a sarcastic reference to your post that animals kill their young.

I think BBO can't tell ass from a hole in the ground. He cannot follow conversations. He makes shit up and he twists what was said into something not intended to suite his own purposes.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 08:09 PM

We are animals. Humans that is.
Non-humans then. I'm a little higher than a dog, thank you very much.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 08:20 PM

Non-humans then. I'm a little higher than a dog, thank you very much.

Original quote by you: "It is against human nature to do what is disordered"

Disordered. I can think of many disordered things in our society.
I looked up the word
1. A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
2. A breach of civic order or peace; a public disturbance.
3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.

Hummm Can you see that saying, "Homosexuality is disordered and because of this it goes against human nature" doesn’t make a good argument?
If you want to say this then; there cannot be any disorder in humanity other than that which is found in homosexuals.
Since you can find disorder in all aspects of humanity; homosexuality fits right on in.

Being higher (you must mean intelligence) doesn’t make you any less akin to the dog.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 08:24 PM

Hummm Can you see that saying, "Homosexuality is disordered and because of this it goes against human nature" doesn’t make a good argument? If you want to say this then there cannot be any disorder in humanity other than those that are homosexual. Since you can find disorder in all aspects of humanity homosexuality fits right on in.

En contrare, there is a lot of disorder. All we ever do is allow more and more of it.

Being higher (you must mean intelligence) doesn’t make you any less akin to the dog.

I'm higher in more things than intelligence.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 08:27 PM

En contrare, there is a lot of disorder. All we ever do is allow more and more of it.

No shit Sherlock. That was exactly what I was saying. So therefore you cannot say that because homosexuals display disorder they go against humanity.

[QUOTE=General Septem]I'm higher in more things than intelligence.

No.. you are just as evolutionarly evolved as the dog or the worm. cest la vie

General Septem

03-30-2006, 08:31 PM

No shit sherlock. That was exactly what I was saying.

How does this prove your point?

I didn't say they go against humanity. I said they go against human nature, which is a very different thing. Just because a lot of people commit disordered acts doesn't make than any less against human nature.

No.. you are just as evolutionarly evolved as the dog or the worm.

As we are both human I assume you feel the same way of yourself. Either that or you're full of shit, which is probably the case anyway.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 08:33 PM

How does this prove your point?

The acts that humans do IS human nature. Therefore disorder is apart of human nature.
Think of it as an extreme forms of a bell shaped curve. also called a "Natural Curve"
http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/psy101/forsyth/normal.gif

[QUOTE=General Septem] As we are both human I assume you feel the same way of yourself. Either that or you're full of shit, which is probably the case anyway.

Of course I see it that way.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 08:34 PM

read my posting again. You started your reply before my edit.

No shit. Read mine. :D

Of coure I see it that way.
With spelling like that, I can only agree.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 08:40 PM

No shit. Read mine. :D

no shit read mine

With spelling like that, I can only agree.

Why, I have no idea what you are talking about.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 08:44 PM

The acts that humans do IS human nature. Therefore disorder is apart of human nature.
Think of it as an extreme forms of a bell shaped curve. also called a "Natural Curve"
http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/psy101/forsyth/normal.gif

That depends on your definition of "human nature". Whether or not it is, it is still disordered.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 08:51 PM

That depends on your definition of "human nature". Whether or not it is, it is still disordered.

Who cares? If you want to call it disordered, go ahead. I agree that it is not the "norm" but norm is a statistical mean to which none of us wholly belong.

It is disordered: to have neurosies, cancer, narrow urethra (like king of the hill), wait till after 17 (or so) to have a baby, to live past 50. etc etc...

none of these are wrong or bad. They just are.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 09:01 PM

It is disordered: to have neurosies, cancer, narrow urethra (like king of the hill),

There is a stark contrast between these examples of physical ailments, and gravely disordered acts. Likewise having been born gay isn't a gravely disordered act; using one's sexuality selfishly is.

wait till after 17 (or so) to have a baby, to live past 50. etc etc...

Neither are those examples gravely disordered acts; in this day and age people's lives are much more drawn out thanks to new technology. I agree kids don't grow up fast enough, 13-year olds used to be considered adults, most 16-year olds shouldn't have the brains of a microwaved potato, etc., but that's a problem with society. I grew up a lot faster than most but even I was a moron until more recently than I'd like to admit. And then there are people like you who don't show signs of ever having grown up. It's a problem but it's not a gravely disordered "act".

In our society it would be almost disordered to have a baby before 17, particularly since you can't really get married before then. Plus, our sexual peak is at 18 for males and 21 for females, so I don't know where you get that figure from.

beelzebub

03-30-2006, 09:24 PM

Likewise having been born gay isn't a gravely disordered act; using one's sexuality selfishly is.

This makes no sense. Gay sex is no more / less selfish than heterosexual sex.

Neither are those examples gravely disordered acts; in this day and age people's lives are much more drawn out thanks to new technology.

Wrong! It’s a perfectly fine example. Drawing ones life out is a disorder from the natural.

I agree kids don't grow up fast enough, 13-year olds used to be considered adults, most 16-year olds shouldn't have the brains of a microwaved potato, etc., but that's a problem with society. I grew up a lot faster than most but even I was a moron until more recently than I'd like to admit.

Until recently!?!?! ha ha check again! You are still the moron you were.
Your chances of fertilization go down after the age of 25. Therefore not getting pregnant before then (when your body is prime for it) is a disorder from the natural state.

In our society it would be almost disordered to have a baby before 17, particularly since you can't really get married before then.

Actually, your have a greater chance of fertilization and parturition at 17 - 21. 21 is the last peak.

Here you use law as an excuse. You contradict yourself from when you said that the law was not an excuse for abortion.

General Septem

03-30-2006, 09:41 PM

RE: This makes no sense. Gay sex is no more / less selfish than heterosexual sex.

Sure it is. You're only having sex for your own pleasure.

RE: Wrong! It’s a perfectly fine example. Drawing ones life out is a disorder from the natural.

You aren't getting it. Just because we can treat ailments doesn't make it disordered, not in the same way that murder is "disordered".

RE: Until recently!?!?! ha ha check again! You are still the moron you were.
Your chances of fertilization go down after the age of 25. Therefore not getting pregnant before then (when your body is prime for it) is a disorder from the natural state.

Well which the fuck is it, 17 or 25? I'll have a houseful of kids by the time I'm 25. But even at that, waiting until past then is not a disordered act; it isn't wrong on a moral basis. Perhaps it isn't the best way to do it, but it's still very possible to have kids after 25, in fact for the most part nowadays people wait until after then.

RE: Actually, your have a greater chance of fertilization and parturition at 17 - 21. 21 is the last peak.

So which is it, 17, 21, or 25?

RE: Here you use law as an excuse. You contradict yourself from when you said that the law was not an excuse for abortion.

Since when did I use law as an excuse? First of all, it's our culture - 17 is considered too young nowadays, although it would not be disordered necessarily to have kids at 17. But to have sex outside of marriage is selfish, and as long as you can't get married until a certain age, then having sex before then must inevitably be selfish since you weren't married. Completely different.

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-30-2006, 10:17 PM

You really dont pay attention. I was saying that in this case it is not sysmantics. Inother words, dumass, that it is about another issue. Pay attention FOR ONCE!

If it is not about symantecs then why do you care so much that I used one word when another would have been more suitable? You did understand the meaning didn't you?

NO NO NO NO. Resist means
1. To strive to fend off or offset the actions, effects, or force of.
2. To remain firm against the actions, effects, or force of; withstand: a bacterium that resisted the antibiotic.
3. To keep from giving in to or enjoying.

None of that applies with me being gay. I am giving into my desires. I am giving into my enjoying. I am not inhibiting anything.

Again, it is not about symantecs, use whatever word you feel is appropriate, I don't doubt that an intelligent being would understand the message.

Wrong. This is a worthless statement.

The statement pointed out that your preferences don't allow you to participate in the procreation act, (in other words you refuse to have sex with women). If this is wrong, then why do you claim to be gay and that you would never even become aroused if a naked woman fell into your lap?

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-30-2006, 10:44 PM

This makes no sense. Gay sex is no more / less selfish than heterosexual sex.

I agree with beelzebub on this issue. The statistics will show that the act of sex between heterosexuals is performed much more often than not because of nothing more than what G-S calls a selfish act. Very seldom (in the terms of averages) will they be doing this with the goal of creating another human life on their list of goals for the evening. I doubt that even G-S has never done any selfish act as such, even with just himself as the sole participant. I don't see anything wrong with that, but certain religions do. Regardless, it is a religious issue and should be left to the religion threads. Let's address the politics in the politics arena.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 06:09 AM

I agree with beelzebub on this issue. The statistics will show that the act of sex between heterosexuals is performed much more often than not because of nothing more than what G-S calls a selfish act. Very seldom (in the terms of averages) will they be doing this with the goal of creating another human life on their list of goals for the evening. I doubt that even G-S has never done any selfish act as such, even with just himself as the sole participant.
I never said that only homosexuals can be guilty of lust. There are six categories of lust and homosexuality fits in to one of them. Also, I never said that the goal of creating a life has to be there either. Openness to life must be, but that doesn't have to be your goal. What I meant by selflessness is giving yourself as a gift to your spouse, rather than taking her for yourself. It's a mindset thing.

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 09:20 AM

Also, I never said that the goal of creating a life has to be there either. Openness to life must be, but that doesn't have to be your goal. What I meant by selflessness is giving yourself as a gift to your spouse, rather than taking her for yourself. It's a mindset thing.

Nevertheless, it still appears to be a weak argument that creates more controversy than support for your cause.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 09:35 AM

Nevertheless, it still appears to be a weak argument that creates more controversy than support for your cause.
Actually, the fact that the homosexual act is lust is the very reason it's wrong. I think the whole world is already in too much shit to try and fix it at this point, which is why I'm basically saying I give up, and just let tham have some union of their own with tax benefits - but don't call it marriage, because that would be like calling bathing "baptism" or eating "communion", just wrong.

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 09:40 AM

General Septem

03-31-2006, 09:52 AM

But the heterosexual acts are done primarily in the interest of lust also, just because it's possible for a child to be created does not make the lust any more acceptable when the same intentions are being made.

For this argument you must look beyond the possibilities and understand that the intent is what matters.
Not all heterosexual acts are done in lust, though. The categories of lust are fornication, rape, adultery, seduction, incest, and unnatural vice.

The unnatural vice, which covers anything other than vaginal intercourse between a human male and human female, stands out from the others in that it is intrinsically wrong. The worst is beastiality, but it also includes homosexuality, masturbation, etc.

The other categories of lust are only extrinsically wrong (as long as they still involve vaginal intercourse, and if they don't they also violate unnatural vice), because the "devices" are being used correctly, but under the wrong circumstances. The unnatural vice is intrinsically wrong because animals and humans weren't meant to have sex, and anuses weren't meant to accept penises.

That said it is still possible for lust to appear within marriage, but in that case it is not the act that is neither intrinsically nor extrinsically wrong but rather thoughts related to the act.

Therefore, since there is a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual acts, the two can be judged differently.

And yes, this does mean that "being a homosexual" is not wrong, only having homosexual intercourse.

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 10:24 AM

But do you participate in any of these lustful acts? I find it hard to believe that you never masturbate when there's no wife around to appease your manhood. This would create a hypocrite of you.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 11:02 AM

But do you participate in any of these lustful acts? I find it hard to believe that you never masturbate when there's no wife around to appease your manhood. This would create a hypocrite of you.
I used to, but I quit. Even if I did, though, wouldn't make it any less wrong. We're all human and we all make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should let two men (or women) get married.

Also, I don't have sex to appease my manhood, I do it because I love my wife (not that I'm married, but that doesn't change who I am so it still applies).

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 01:14 PM

I used to, but I quit. Even if I did, though, wouldn't make it any less wrong.

So just what is wrong about these acts then? You've said that it's unnatural, but most things that humans do is unnatural. Cooking and processing our food for example. Our transportation systems are also unnatural, but this doesn't make them wrong. It's just ways that we have found that are better than nature. It could be argued that our ability to be unnatural is what makes us human.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 01:33 PM

So just what is wrong about these acts then? You've said that it's unnatural, but most things that humans do is unnatural. Cooking and processing our food for example. Our transportation systems are also unnatural, but this doesn't make them wrong. It's just ways that we have found that are better than nature. It could be argued that our ability to be unnatural is what makes us human.
Unnatural and against nature are two different things. It's classified as "unnatural vice" but what it basically means is that you're using perverse methods to "get off".

You're arguing with me a lot on issues I thought we agreed on. You're not having a change of heart are you? :/

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 01:42 PM

Unnatural and against nature are two different things. It's classified as "unnatural vice" but what it basically means is that you're using perverse methods to "get off".

You're arguing with me a lot on issues I thought we agreed on. You're not having a change of heart are you? :/

I do agree with your main issues, just not this one. Its footing is too weak. I use some of these perverse methods to get off, and I see no reason not to. I don't understand why you think that having sexual pleasure as a reason even to have sex with your wife is a bad thing. I was just hoping that you could give up this weak argument because it doesn't appear to help the cause.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 01:59 PM

I do agree with your main issues, just not this one. Its footing is too weak. I use some of these perverse methods to get off, and I see no reason not to. I don't understand why you think that having sexual pleasure as a reason even to have sex with your wife is a bad thing. I was just hoping that you could give up this weak argument because it doesn't appear to help the cause.
My point is merely that the only prominent issue here is that it's wrong for two men or two women to have sex. That's basically the only problem with "homosexuality", and chaste homosexuals don't even have that problem.

If you don't think two men having sex is wrong, then what do you have against homosexuality?

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 03:58 PM

If you don't think two men having sex is wrong, then what do you have against homosexuality?

Don't get me wrong, I think that it is wrong. I've just learned that it is something that I'm going to have to accept and deal with.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 04:03 PM

Don't get me wrong, I think that it is wrong. I've just learned that it is something that I'm going to have to accept and deal with.
I agree with you that we should be more accepting of the people. I don't think we should accept the behaviour, but at the same time we all do things that are wrong. I don't judge anyone, but at the same time, I really don't want same-sex marriage to be made legal - to me, it's like a big "fuck you" to the sanctity of marriage.

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 04:14 PM

I don't judge anyone, but at the same time, I really don't want same-sex marriage to be made legal - to me, it's like a big "fuck you" to the sanctity of marriage.

That's not true, you do judge people, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as you accept it. We all judge people, but it's okay because everyone is entitled to his opinion. I do agree with the marriage thing though, they're spitting on the history and heritage that comes with marriage. In essence, it's asking us to change what we hold most dear because they are unable to create something of their own.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 07:33 PM

Well, I hope I don't judge people. I certainly try not to. That doesn't mean I don't judge behaviour, but all in all I'm really not the one judging the behaviour either, I'm just going by doctrine that I believe in. That's why I feel it's important to say that I've got nothing against homosexuals as people. But perhaps I am somewhat judgmental. I consider judgmental to mean that you wish someone to hell, which I don't, but who knows. Anyway, I think I've rambled enough. :p

Brains_Behind_Operation

03-31-2006, 11:03 PM

Well, I'd have to say that my understanding of being judgmental is simply thinking less of a person because of choices they make or who they are. Basically finding reasons why they're not as good as you are. Everyone does it, but it's much more acceptable than being hypocritical, which many people do as well.

General Septem

03-31-2006, 11:06 PM

I would say that's a good definition of being judgmental. I certainly try not to do that, it's possible that I do, but I hope not.

A3N

03-31-2006, 11:31 PM

GAYS SUCK! wtf is wrong with you guys??
Dont have enuff testosterone? Get a life!

General Septem

03-31-2006, 11:32 PM

WTF????
Man you are one fucked up piece of shit!
Who is?

(insert filler text to circumvent the annoying "minimum message length" here)

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 06:10 PM

RE: This makes no sense. Gay sex is no more / less selfish than heterosexual sex.

Sure it is. You're only having sex for your own pleasure.

You must still be a virgin. I bet you at least 90% of the people have sex for pleasure. No one thinks of the baby while they are having sex. AN YOU CANNOT TELL ME that str8 people dont have sex for pleasure!

And so what if we have it for pleasure? It's not selfish! Its a biological need. You get pleasure from eating chocolate, from exercising from a good book and I would never call these selfish. What a stupid thing say about sex!

Well which the fuck is it, 17 or 25? I'll have a houseful of kids by the time I'm 25. But even at that, waiting until past then is not a disordered act; it isn't wrong on a moral basis. Perhaps it isn't the best way to do it, but it's still very possible to have kids after 25, in fact for the most part nowadays people wait until after then.

So therefore people who wait after this age are disordered! There, I broke one more of the foundations of your argument!

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 06:58 PM

[quoted quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by General Septem
You must still be a virgin. I bet you at least 90% of the people have sex for pleasure. No one thinks of the baby while they are having sex. AN YOU CANNOT TELL ME that str8 people dont have sex for pleasure! [/quoted quote]

It appears that beelzebub is once again trying to make it appear that someone said something that they never did. Not sure how it even helped out his case either. If you're really going to try and convict someone of saying something they didn't, one tip would be to type the way that they do! I have yet to see anyone EXCEPT beelzebub use the pseudonym 'str8.' Don't give your lies away THAT easily.

General Septem

04-01-2006, 07:40 PM

And so what if we have it for pleasure? It's not selfish! Its a biological need. You get pleasure from eating chocolate, from exercising from a good book and I would never call these selfish. What a stupid thing say about sex!

Well no shit it's partially for pleasure, it's when it does become selfish that it becomes wrong. It is not solely pleasure.

So therefore people who wait after this age are disordered! There, I broke one more of the foundations of your argument!

I have had it up to here with your fucking symantics game. By "disordered" I mean perverse, which should be obvious to anyone with his head not up his ass.

By the way, I don't give a flying fuck if perverse is what I should've said in the first place, so before you even say that, get bent.

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 08:27 PM

Well no shit it's partially for pleasure, it's when it does become selfish that it becomes wrong. It is not solely pleasure.

Your problem with Homosexuality AND Abortion lies with sex! You believe that we are here to suffer as do many x-tians. I believe that we are here to enjoy life and sex is apart of it! I believe that it is HORRIBLE to have sex out of obligation. If you ask MOST people you will see that sex is a physical connection that they use to enjoy. Never do they plan sex for the sole purpose of reproduction.

I have had it up to here with your fucking symantics game. By "disordered" I mean perverse, which should be obvious to anyone with his head not up his ass.
By the way, I don't give a flying fuck if perverse is what I should've said in the first place, so before you even say that, get bent.

THEN WHY THE HELL DIDNT YOU JUST SAY THIS!

Perverse adj.

1. Directed away from what is right or good; perverted.
2. Obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn.
a. Marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict.
b. Arising from such a disposition.
3. Cranky; peevish.

#1's definition - This is your opinion. We are debating whether this term can be applied to gay.

#2's definition - Persisting in error-

Are you saying?
Not being able to have children makes my partner & I "in error"
Having sex with a man is persisting in error?
My life is persisting in error?

#3's definition - cranky & peevish

I don’t think that this can apply. You can try to use this but I will cut you to ribbons.

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 08:33 PM

[QUOTE=beelzebub]

It appears that beelzebub is once again trying to make it appear that someone said something that they never did. Not sure how it even helped out his case either. If you're really going to try and convict someone of saying something they didn't, one tip would be to type the way that they do! I have yet to see anyone EXCEPT beelzebub use the pseudonym 'str8.' Don't give your lies away THAT easily.

You are a total idiot that cannot follow a conversation. I was not quoting anyone. If I was I would use the standard that I have used SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST: Quoting the name before and at the end as I have done in this reply to your blatant STUPIDITY. I was giving a synopsis of his position in my own words!

DUMBASS!

General Septem

04-01-2006, 08:38 PM

You are a total idiot that cannot follow a conversation. I was not quoting anyone. If I was I would use the standard that I have used SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST: Quoting the name before and at the end

And at the end? What the hell...

as I have done in this reply to your blatant STUPIDITY. I was giving a synopsis of his position in my own words!

DUMBASS!

Then why did you quote me as having said:

"You must still be a virgin. I bet you at least 90% of the people have sex for pleasure. No one thinks of the baby while they are having sex. AN YOU CANNOT TELL ME that str8 people dont have sex for pleasure!"

I think the dumbass is not me.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 08:41 PM

1. Directed away from what is right or good; perverted.

#1's definition - This is your opinion. We are debating whether this term can be applied to gay.

I believe it can. The general consesus is that gay fornication is directed away from what is right and from what is good. *Let the blood run cold.*

2. Obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn.

Yes, this can be seen as an act that is wrongly self-willed or stubborn. You have been very stubborn about every little post you've made about it. *And now the blood begins to boil*

3. Cranky; peevish.

I don’t think that this can apply. You can try to use this but I will cut you to ribbons.[/

You have been nothing but cranky and peevish the entire time. :D
*Finally veins start to break through the skin under the pressure.*

Can you tie my ribbons in a bow around a box filled with dog shit and give it to yourself as a present?

General Septem

04-01-2006, 08:42 PM

Your problem with Homosexuality AND Abortion lies with sex! You believe that we are here to suffer as do many x-tians. I believe that we are here to enjoy life and sex is apart of it! I believe that it is HORRIBLE to have sex out of obligation. If you ask MOST people you will see that sex is a physical connection that they use to enjoy. Never do they plan sex for the sole purpose of reproduction.

Go back and read my post again. :rolleyes:

Particularly, "no shit it's partially for pleasure", and "it is not solely for pleasure". Both of these suggest that pleasure is involved. You are also dead wrong in thinking that reproduction is even on my mind.

THEN WHY THE HELL DIDNT YOU JUST SAY THIS!

Disordered also means perverse, but you insisted in playing the symantics game with the word so I just decided to change it so something that someone with a more limited education could understand.

#1's definition - This is your opinion. We are debating whether this term can be applied to gay.

Continue on:

#2's definition - Persisting in error-

Are you saying?
Not being able to have children makes my partner & I "in error"
Having sex with a man is persisting in error?
My life is persisting in error?

Having sex with a man. It's not because you can't have kids, that doesn't even come into the equation. "It" simply doesn't go "there".

#3's definition - cranky & peevish

I don’t think that this can apply. You can try to use this but I will cut you to ribbons.

You are cranky and peevish, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you bend over. :D

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 08:44 PM

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 08:45 PM

You are a total idiot that cannot follow a conversation. I was not quoting anyone. If I was I would use the standard that I have used SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST: Quoting the name before and at the end as I have done in this reply to your blatant STUPIDITY. I was giving a synopsis of his position in my own words!

DUMBASS!

You did just that. Go and look at it, it appears in the standard quoted box, with G-S listed as the writer, the same as you've done it every time in the past, unless you had screwed up with the quoting system. Don't blame me of being the idiot until you are certain.

General Septem

04-01-2006, 08:47 PM

General Septem

You are now being stupid. I was speaking to BBO.

Answer your fucking questions! Not someone elses! Shit! Are we having a debate or an orgy!
You posted it on a public forum, and in the post to which BBO was referring, you quoted me wrongly. If anything you should've told BBO that you weren't talking to him, but you shouldn't have done that either since either way makes you look like a dumbass.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 08:51 PM

General Septem

You are now being stupid. I was speaking to BBO.

Answer your fucking questions! Not someone elses! Shit! Are we having a debate or an orgy!

I bet you have 2 profiles. You and BBO are one in the same!

I'll take you up on that bet. I've got a house (completely unmortgadged,) worth around $200,000; I'll bet that against your pride.

Also, we are having a debate, though you'd probably prefer that we do both simultaneously.

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 09:17 PM

I'll take you up on that bet. I've got a house (completely unmortgadged,) worth around $200,000; I'll bet that against your pride.

I seriously doubt that someone as ignorant as you could get a mortgage! In any event: BIG fucking Deal! I could care less. And please … please never try to spell mortgage again! Anyway, I own many properties in the DC metropolitan area and in Dallas (now) worth 6x you pittance.

Also, we are having a debate, though you'd probably prefer that we do both simultaneously.

No dumbass! I would prefer the person with whom I ask questions, regarding prior conversation, to respond to those questions. I don’t think that is asking too much even in a public debate. I know it is logical to use questions directed to someone else in your personal context of debate (as you and G-S have done many times in the past). I don’t think that YOU have a clue of what I have said but the people who read this bullshit will understand.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 09:36 PM

I seriously doubt that someone as ignorant as you could get a mortgage! In any event: BIG fucking Deal! I could care less. And please … please never try to spell mortgage again! Anyway, I own many properties in the DC metropolitan area and in Dallas (now) worth 6x you pittance.

The point wasn't whether or not I could get a mortgage, or whether it held any stature over your assets. All I was getting at was that I was willing to bet that much against your pride because you are stupid enough to propose such a bet.

No dumbass! I would prefer the person with whom I ask questions, regarding prior conversation, to respond to those questions. I don’t think that is asking too much even in a public debate. I know it is logical to use questions directed to someone else in your personal context of debate (as you and G-S have done many times in the past). I don’t think that YOU have a clue of what I have said but the people who read this bullshit will understand.

No, it's not asking much, but there is nothing wron with others adding their two cents. I have shown much more understanding of the actual issues being presented throughout this entire posting than you have. Try not to spew off on such mindless tangents and stick to the issues in the future.

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 09:55 PM

The point wasn't whether or not I could get a mortgage, or whether it held any stature over your assets. All I was getting at was that I was willing to bet that much against your pride because you are stupid enough to propose such a bet.

I really don’t care!

No, it's not asking much, but there is nothing wron with others adding their two cents. bla bla bullshit bla bla bla

If you have a problem with the other two cents then STATE THAT PROBLEM! Don’t try (and I do mean try) to make the core of my argument fallible by combining it with your objection.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 10:05 PM

[QUOTE=beelzebub]I really don’t care!

[QUOTE]

If you don't care then why are you making such a big deal of it?

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 10:25 PM

If you don't care then why are you making such a big deal of it?

You said:

I'll take you up on that bet. I've got a house (completely unmortgadged,) worth around $200,000; I'll bet that against your pride.

I would say anyone who wants to put their property up as collateral for a debate is "making a big deal out of it". More so than I. Someone needs to drink some water and go to bed!

Also, we are having a debate, though you'd probably prefer that we do both simultaneously.

Questions, comments and statements geared and personalized for a conversation specific to another person are OUT OF CONTEXT for you. Therefore NO you do not have a logical recourse to use them.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 10:39 PM

You said:

I would say anyone who wants to put their property up as collateral for a debate is "making a big deal out of it". More so than I. Someone needs to drink some water and go to bed!

Far from it. When a person knows he has a winning hand without a doubt, there is no reason not to bet it all. I've had plenty of liquids tonight and am certain that I'll wake up feeling no different than had I not had a drop of alcohol.

Questions, comments and statements geared and personalized for a conversation specific to another person are OUT OF CONTEXT for you. Therefore NO you do not have a logical recourse to use them.

Well that sounds like an opinion! Guess what? My OPINION is that they're even moreso out of context for you. Forget it! Either stop using these or accept that they're coming, especially when your competition is drunk and still giving strong opposition.

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 10:53 PM

Far from it. When a person knows he has a winning hand without a doubt, there is no reason not to bet it all.

Then you are not winning without a doubt because you BET it.

Well that sounds like an opinion! Guess what? My OPINION is that they're even moreso out of context for you. Forget it! Either stop using these or accept that they're coming, especially when your competition is drunk and still giving strong opposition.

No dumbass it is not an opinion it is the way one debates. Obiously YOU dont know how to do it. I am ignoring you now.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 10:59 PM

No dumbass it is not an opinion it is the way one debates. Obiously YOU dont know how to do it. I am ignoring you now.

Yes, an opinion is something that is used very often for debate. Once again, you are negating something with a definition of something that is one in the same.

Ignoring someone is nothing more than a realization that is made by a lesser minded individual who concedes that he cannot win the debate and refuses to admit to concede that he has lost it.

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 11:06 PM

GAYS SUCK! wtf is wrong with you guys??
Dont have enuff testosterone? Get a life!

Ignorant ass! What’s wrong? You cannot think past a few visceral utterances?

General Septem

04-01-2006, 11:07 PM

Ignorant ass! What’s wrong? You cannot think past a few visceral utterances?
...but gays do suck. Literally...

beelzebub

04-01-2006, 11:09 PM

...but gays do suck. Literally...

Tell that to the lesbians.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-01-2006, 11:18 PM

Tell that to the lesbians.

Gay has a different meaning from lesbian. I have not heard of a word that infers only Men in the homosexual context. But gay is accpetable enough and passes the meaning. SUCK ON!

beelzebub

04-02-2006, 10:22 AM

...but gays do suck. Literally...

I gess then str8 men lick then? How many licks does it take to get to the center ...?

...and str8 women suck as well.

General Septem

04-02-2006, 12:05 PM

I gess then str8 men lick then? How many licks does it take to get to the center ...?

...and str8 women suck as well.
I was only joking when I said that in the first place. :P

beelzebub

04-02-2006, 01:25 PM

I agree with you that we should be more accepting of the people. I don't think we should accept the behaviour, but at the same time we all do things that are wrong. I don't judge anyone, but at the same time, I really don't want same-sex marriage to be made legal - to me, it's like a big "fuck you" to the sanctity of marriage.

I still don’t see how 2 people who love each other can destroy an institution that was built on that principle. Sanctity is defined as:
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred :

What the hell is so sacred, holy or godly about marriage? I mean shit! If you are going to say it is all these things then there shouldn't be anything to contradict it. What about the Drive in marriage booths Vegas? How about Henry the 8's multiple marriages and murder of his wives? What about the marriage in the Middle East where women are treated like poker chips or in India where wives are bought and sold like cattle. One African I met had to give 3 cows for his wife. When she died he wanted a refund!

If it is so godly why are Christians more likely than non-Christians to experience divorce? (Among Christians, 27% report they've gone through a divorce; only 24% of non-Christians report that they have.)
http://www.pollandquiz.com/divorce_rate-1.html
And once again all the Hollywood marriages that counted in hours or days instead of years.

If marriage is such a big deal then why isn't it shown to be that way? What’s so sacred about it? I understand that you may want it to be that way but denying people to get married because you say it will destroy something that marriage doesn’t even have is dilusional and makes you look sanctimonious.

I could care less about the fucking name. Call it whatever! I just feel that I deserve the same tax breaks and legal status that others enjoy.

General Septem

04-02-2006, 01:38 PM

I still don’t see how 2 people who love each other can destroy an institution that was built on that principle. Sanctity is defined as:
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred :

What the hell is so sacred, holy or godly about marriage? I mean shit! If you are going to say it is all these things then there shouldn't be anything to contradict it. What about the Drive in marriage booths Vegas? How about Henry the 8's multiple marriages and murder of his wives? What about the marriage in the Middle East where women are treated like poker chips or in India where wives are bought and sold like cattle. One African I met had to give 3 cows for his wife. When she died he wanted a refund!

If it is so godly why are Christians more likely than non-Christians to experience divorce? (Among Christians, 27% report they've gone through a divorce; only 24% of non-Christians report that they have.)
http://www.pollandquiz.com/divorce_rate-1.html
And once again all the Hollywood marriages that counted in hours or days instead of years.

If marriage is such a big deal then why isn't it shown to be that way? What’s so sacred about it? I understand that you may want it to be that way but denying people to get married because you say it will destroy something that marriage doesn’t even have is dilusional and makes you look sanctimonious.

I could care less about the fucking name. Call it whatever! I just feel that I deserve the same tax breaks and legal status that others enjoy.

For the thousandth time, I never said homosexuals were the only ones pissing on the sanctity of marriage, but that doesn't give anyone any reason to let them. What Brittney Spears did should not be called marriage.

As for Christians themselves getting divorced, I don't care; I'm Catholic. I would imagine a big factor in Christians getting divorced is that one of them is Baptist and the other is Lutheran (for example). Neither of them want their kids to be raised by the other parent, which doesn't do much for the whole trust aspect. Then they get into arguments over which parent the kids go to Church with, which should never be an issue because they should all go to Church as a family anyway. It's for this reason and a few others that I would never marry a non-Catholic. I'd date one, but not marry.

If all you want is tax breaks, I see no reason against giving them to you. I don't give a shit anymore.

beelzebub

04-02-2006, 01:56 PM

For the thousandth time, I never said homosexuals were the only ones pissing on the sanctity of marriage, but that doesn't give anyone any reason to let them. What Brittney Spears did should not be called marriage.

What I am saying is this SO CALLED sanctity DOES NOT EXIST. It is an illusion that people have. Marriage is no more than a contract between two people. And yes Brittany did have that contract and backed out of the deal before the ink dried. Its still marriage.

As for Christians themselves getting divorced, I don't care; I'm Catholic. I would imagine a big factor in Christians getting divorced is that one of them is Baptist and the other is Lutheran

By the way, you are a christian. You believe that Jesus was the son of god and all that crap. I dont get Catholics that dont understand that.

If all you want is tax breaks, I see no reason against giving them to you. I don't give a shit anymore.

Well great! But I said All the Legal Status as well. Like if my partner is in the hospital we have to get his family on the phone to make decisions and I cannot visit him because I am not considered his family and if he dies our son comes into question as to where he goes because adpotion documents cannot have two unmarried people on it. ETC ETC ETC

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-02-2006, 02:46 PM

What I am saying is this SO CALLED sanctity DOES NOT EXIST. It is an illusion that people have. Marriage is no more than a contract between two people. And yes Brittany did have that contract and backed out of the deal before the ink dried. Its still marriage.

Yes, it is an illusion, the trait of sanctity is just that. It creates a feeling that is preferred, and it is defined differently for different people on different subjects. In the case of marriage, it would lose much of its sanctity for most of us if we allow gays to get married as well; simply because how we define marriage and hold it sacred. Many of us see it as more than a contract between two people, the difference is that the government could care less.

Well great! But I said All the Legal Status as well. Like if my partner is in the hospital we have to get his family on the phone to make decisions and I cannot visit him because I am not considered his family and if he dies our son comes into question as to where he goes because adpotion documents cannot have two unmarried people on it. ETC ETC ETC

So get all that legal status! Marriage itself has nothing to do with these things, the government tacked them onto it. They should tear all those things back off and redeclare them as rights of two people who agree to them in some legal document, let's just call it a union. Many marriages have a problem with these extra legal issues that are inserted into them and would probably be better off if they had a separate agreement that defined these for them if they so chose. Just find yourself your own word for this extra control that you are looking for. That's the only limitation that we're giving.

General Septem

04-02-2006, 03:04 PM

What I am saying is this SO CALLED sanctity DOES NOT EXIST. It is an illusion that people have. Marriage is no more than a contract between two people. And yes Brittany did have that contract and backed out of the deal before the ink dried. Its still marriage.

It does exist. It used to be more prevalent but it still exists. I know a lot of marriages in which the husband and wife truely love each other and go together perfectly. The ones that don't just give it a bad name.

By the way, you are a christian. You believe that Jesus was the son of god and all that crap. I dont get Catholics that dont understand that.

You're right, technically Catholics are Christians. In fact, we're the original Christians, and arguably the only true Christians. Unfortunately, the term "Christianity" was hijacked by the Protestants, so I always refer to myself as Catholic. Second of all, my point was that I don't care about "most Christians this" or "most Christians that". If "most Christians get divorced", then most Christians are wrong. If "most Christians don't have anything against abortion", then they are wrong. Catholicism has everything very clear-cut.

Well great! But I said All the Legal Status as well. Like if my partner is in the hospital we have to get his family on the phone to make decisions and I cannot visit him because I am not considered his family and if he dies our son comes into question as to where he goes because adpotion documents cannot have two unmarried people on it. ETC ETC ETC

Well go ahead then. I think the line here is the difference between sacremental marriage and legal marriage. Legal marriage is the tax breaks and legal status, whereas sacrimental marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman who become one flesh - you know, that thing that slowly becomes driven out of existance due to people not giving a shit. My problem is when this line is crossed. There's a difference between legal marriage and sacremental marriage, but when someone talks about "their marriage", it's hard to know whether their wife is just a legal member of their family or a part of their heart, a part of themselves.

beelzebub

04-02-2006, 08:18 PM

It does exist. It used to be more prevalent but it still exists. I know a lot of marriages in which the husband and wife truely love each other and go together perfectly. The ones that don't just give it a bad name.

Ok, then you agree. There are people who are "married" that do not display the sanctity you say it should. Therefore the so called "sanctity has been (from the beginning no doubt) never been such a pure thing. Therefore you cannot say that homosexuality will tarnish that purity because IT NEVER EXISTED.

If "most Christians get divorced", then most Christians are wrong. If "most Christians don't have anything against abortion", then they are wrong. Catholicism has everything very clear-cut.

If Christians (who are supposed to be closer to god than non-Christians) get more divorces then that should tell you that it is not as GOD-LIKE as you suppose. If fact marriage is not holy at all. Therefore the so called "sanctity has been (from the beginning no doubt) never been such a pure thing. Therefore you cannot say that homosexuality will tarnish that purity because IT NEVER EXISTED.

There's a difference between legal marriage and sacramental marriage, but when someone talks about "their marriage", it's hard to know whether their wife is just a legal member of their family or a part of their heart, a part of themselves.

So don’t have your Churches marry homo's. I am very much OK with that. I don’t think I have the right (or anyone else) to tell you "YOU MUST RECGONIZE THIS UNION!" That would be against the core of what I stand for: Individual Rights!

General Septem

04-02-2006, 08:22 PM

If Christians (who are supposed to be closer to god than non-Christians) get more divorces then that should tell you that it is not as GOD-LIKE as you suppose. If fact marriage is not holy at all. Therefore the so called "sanctity has been (from the beginning no doubt) never been such a pure thing. Therefore you cannot say that homosexuality will tarnish that purity because IT NEVER EXISTED.

You're an idiot.

So don’t have your Churches marry homo's. I am very much OK with that. I don’t think I have the right (or anyone else) to tell you "YOU MUST RECGONIZE THIS UNION!" That would be against the core of what I stand for: Individual Rights!

This is why I'd side with anyone who would wage war with America.

beelzebub

04-02-2006, 08:55 PM

You're an idiot.

Cant win can you small boy?

This is why I'd side with anyone who would wage war with America.

Thats why I would see you put into jail. Ok not really but you do need to lay off posting that shit on the internet! You can get into some trouble and there are ways to track you without you giving your name. (Internet Protocol Address)

General Septem

04-02-2006, 08:58 PM

Cant win can you small boy?

That's not it, I'm just tired of your same old bullshit. Come back when you've got something original.

Thats why I would see you put into jail. Ok not really but you do need to lay off posting that shit on the internet! You can get into some trouble and there are ways to track you without you giving your name. (Internet Protocol Address)

Yeah, and with the new Patriot Act, that's actually something to be worried about now. Even though the millions of hardcore bukkake and scat pages which pose much more of a threat than some stupid bullshit that a badass pirate with big nuts posts on some forum get unnoticed.

beelzebub

04-02-2006, 09:14 PM

That's not it, I'm just tired of your same old bullshit. Come back when you've got something original.

Why don’t you bring up something that I haven't successfully debated! Why cannot you & that ass BBO concede when you have lost an argument? Why don’t you stick with one topic and stop changing them or adding separate ones to deviate the conversation in an attempt to not answer a direct line of questions?

I am sure that if we were to have a true debate you would see. Not that I am suggesting that at all I have not desire to talk or even meet any of you. I have enough studetns to teach.

At first I though this was going to be a fun way to talk with someone about issues. I see that this form of debate lacks something. It’s slow and people don’t follow the debate rules (unless it benefits them). I am tired. I perhaps I will come back perhaps not.

I hope you open your mind and stop feeling that someone elses priviacy is your business. And probably this hits more to home: Stop thinking that there is a score card kept on your actions -and- that if you do something against an idea that it somehow hurts the idea.

General Septem

04-02-2006, 09:21 PM

Why don’t you bring up something that I haven't successfully debated! Why cannot you & that ass BBO concede when you have lost an argument? Why don’t you stick with one topic and stop changing them or adding separate ones to deviate the conversation in an attempt to not answer a direct line of questions?

If you're the only one who thinks you're successful, then you probably weren't. Unless you're one of those "educators" who, because you ahve a degree, are never wrong. Yes, I know I spelled "have" wrong; get bent.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-02-2006, 11:38 PM

Why don’t you bring up something that I haven't successfully debated! Why cannot you & that ass BBO concede when you have lost an argument?

Every time that we submit an argument that you can't debate against, you don't try. You simply hide behind a wall of insults that you blast out because you can't admit that you are unable to argue your side well enough.

Why don’t you stick with one topic and stop changing them or adding separate ones to deviate the conversation in an attempt to not answer a direct line of questions

This defines you and your style of posting on this site much more than it does either myself or G-S. I probably shouldn't even acknowledge the new things that you throw in there, but I can't help but show you where you are wrong with these as well.

beelzebub

04-28-2006, 02:54 PM

Every time that we submit an argument that you can't debate against, you don't try. You simply hide behind a wall of insults ... but show you where you are wrong with these as well.

You fail on many points you make. I show you facts and you ignore them.
I only use insults with people who refuse to learn... like yourself.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-28-2006, 03:23 PM

You fail on many points you make. I show you facts and you ignore them.
I only use insults with people who refuse to learn... like yourself.

It's one thing to say that you do and quite another to actually do it. Stop hiding behind your lies and just try to prove your intelligence --- intelligently.

beelzebub

04-28-2006, 06:26 PM

It's one thing to say that you do and quite another to actually do it. Stop hiding behind your lies and just try to prove your intelligence --- intelligently.

You completely ignore the truth and RAMBLE about nothing.
I do not need to prove anything to you.
You are a pathetic fly in my web.

General Septem

04-28-2006, 08:07 PM

You completely ignore the truth and RAMBLE about nothing.
I do not need to prove anything to you.
You are a pathetic fly in my web.
We see through your bullshit is what it is. It looks like rambling to you because you just don't get what we're saying.

As for being a fly, you're the one going by the name beelzebub.

beelzebub

04-28-2006, 09:01 PM

We see through your bullshit is what it is. It looks like rambling to you because you just don't get what we're saying.

I feel the same way about you (or should I say ... about you two). You and Brains have teamed up and like to compliment each others arguments. You feed off of each other diatribe and practice sycophantic arguments. Birds of a feather eh?

As for being a fly, you're the one going by the name Beelzebub.

Ha ha ha good point!

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-29-2006, 04:24 PM

I feel the same way about you (or should I say ... about you two). You and Brains have teamed up and like to compliment each others arguments. You feed off of each other diatribe and practice sycophantic arguments. Birds of a feather eh?

Ha ha ha good point!

Sycophantic eh? I feel that's going a bit far, especially from your standpoint. I don't consider myself or G-S a powerful person, from whom one could gain through flattery. Just remember, you are the one who gave us the label.

I'm not teaming up with anyone. It just so happens that we both understandably disagree with you, and find the need to point out why - sometimes using one another's arguments as examples.

beelzebub

04-29-2006, 06:27 PM

... and find the need to point out why - sometimes using one another's arguments as examples.

Well at least you can see why I see you as teaming up.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-29-2006, 07:20 PM

Well at least you can see why I see you as teaming up.

Sure, but I'm sure that a big strong intelligent gay man like you claim to be can handle two people who post completely valid logical arguments.

beelzebub

04-29-2006, 08:50 PM

Sure, but I'm sure that a big strong intelligent gay man like you claim to be can handle two people who post completely valid logical arguments.

Obviously I can. It seems that you cannot handle this big strong gay man by yourself. You need your partner in "crime" to help you along.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-29-2006, 08:55 PM

Obviously I can. It seems that you cannot handle this big strong gay man by yourself. You need your partner in "crime" to help you along.

Far from it. I appreciate others showing that they agree with me, but without him my actions would be no different. Defining it as crime is ludicrous. We're trying to point out why things being debated in these forums ought to be crimes, not trying to keep these things which would otherwise be crimes legal.

beelzebub

04-29-2006, 09:05 PM

...Defining it as crime is ludicrous. ...

You are so anal retentive. It is a saying that symbolises people like: The Lone Ranger & Tonto, Batman & Robin etc...

Try to not be such a pussy.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-29-2006, 09:10 PM

You are so anal retentive. It is a saying that symbolises people like: The Lone Ranger & Tonto, Batman & Robin etc...

Try to not be such a pussy.

Why? Are you afraid of a pussy? Or is it that you are jealous of pussies because you wish you had one? Stop being such a moron, and find an argument that doesn't make me more certain of how wrong you must be to be gay.

beelzebub

04-29-2006, 09:20 PM

Why? Are you afraid of a pussy? Or is it that you are jealous of pussies because you wish you had one? Stop being such a moron, and find an argument that doesn't make me more certain of how wrong you must be to be gay.

Stop being such a moron, and find an argument that doesn't make me more certain of how wrong you must be to be stupid.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-29-2006, 09:28 PM

Stop being such a moron, and find an argument that doesn't make me more certain of how wrong you must be to be stupid.

***I know you are but what am I?****

Just give it up and grow up.

beelzebub

04-29-2006, 09:30 PM

***I know you are but what am I?****

Just give it up and grow up.

Backatya.... feel free to grow as needed. (I reccomend at least 20 more years)

General Septem

04-29-2006, 10:15 PM

Backatya.... feel free to grow as needed. (I reccomend at least 20 more years)
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/nou-47985.jpg
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/nou-37800.jpg

Adolf Hitler

04-30-2006, 12:51 AM

fuckin' faggots.......not only should gay mariiage remain illegal, but being a faggot should be a crime too punishable by death.

Brains_Behind_Operation

04-30-2006, 01:06 AM

well, thanks for your opinion. You've just given the homos in here (beelzebub) a perfect example that he will ignorantly use to stereotype every last one of us who is against gay marriage. Thanks for pushing the cause a century in the wrong direction.

Adolf Hitler

04-30-2006, 01:15 AM

how often does the homo log on?

Adolf Hitler

04-30-2006, 01:39 AM

General Septem

04-30-2006, 07:28 AM

I have a question. What makes you think that as a gay couple you deserve tax benefits? Why to you think straight couples get tax benefits? Why does anyone get tax benefits? Tax benefits are an incentive for contributing to society. For example, business owners get tax benefits as an incentive for more people to start businesses. Why? Because businesses are good for the economy. They help to create jobs. So what about married people? Because straight people traditionally have children. Mind you, some couples aren't having children, and I don't think they deseve the tax benefit either. But the government set up the rules, and straight married people get tax benefits because having children is good for society. It is impossible for a gay couple to have children, which makes you relatively worthless.

beelzebub

04-30-2006, 11:58 AM

and I don't think they deseve the tax benefit either. But the government set up the rules, and straight married people get tax benefits because having children is good for society. It is impossible for a gay couple to have children, which makes you relatively worthless.

The tax incentive that I am referring to is given to anyone that is married. I don’t know what contribution marriage creates to society. It would appear that the US government favors married people over single people or people that cannot be married.
The exemptions for children are given to anyone with children (which we got last year).

I would assume your lack of tax knowledge comes from your age.

General Septem

04-30-2006, 12:05 PM

The tax incentive that I am referring to is given to anyone that is married. I don’t know what contribution marriage creates to society. It would appear that the US government favors married people over single people or people that cannot be married.
The exemptions for children are given to anyone with children (which we got last year).

I would assume your lack of tax knowledge comes from your age.
No, I was providing insight as to why the government favors married couples - because married couples DO contribute to society by having children or at the very least are in a position to do so. Additional exemptions are added when a couple has children, but the lack of those taxes from the begining assists greatly in easing financial burden so that "we don't have the money" is less likely to be an excuse for not having children. Gay couples are worthless to society (as a couple, not the people themselves), so why give them tax benefits?

I think you misunderstood me because obviously you thought I was saying the benefits were given only to couples with children.

beelzebub

05-01-2006, 03:47 PM

No, I was providing insight as to why the government favors married couples - because married couples DO contribute to society by having children.

Gay couples are worthless to society (as a couple, not the people themselves), so why give them tax benefits?

I will summarize what I understand you’re saying: You feel that Gay couples are "worthless" because we do not create children of our own. I totally disagree with you.

I am surprised at this statement because you are a Catholic. Your entire religion is filled with people who don’t have children. I would agree that the vast majority of your religion (esp. Popes) have not made a contribution to society (actually they were a detriment) but what about Mommie Theresa?

Second... Just because you don’t have kids does not mean that you are "worthless to society"

Heterosexual Prime example:
Bill and Melinda Gates have are major contributors to society and yet do not have children. Ever heard of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Ever heard of Microsoft?

Six of the 41 men who served as president had no children, the last one being Warren Harding, who married a divorcee five years his senior in 1891. The marriage lasted 32 years, but produced no offspring.

Childless presidents: James Buchanan, James Knox Polk, Andrew Jackson, James Madison, and George Washington.

I assume that you would say these presidents were worthless to society as well?

Homosexual examples of major movers and shakers in social reform and development:
Walt Whitman (U.S. poet, author, 19th c.), Oscar Wilde (Irish author, 19th c.) Marcel Proust (French author, 20th c.), Gertrude Stein (U.S. poet, author, 20th c.) Alice B. Toklas (U.S. author, 20th c) Federico Garcia Lorca (Spanish author, 20th c.), Leonard Bernstein (U.S. composer, 20th c), Tennessee Williams (U.S. Playwright, 20th c.) Andy Warhol (U.S. artist, 20th c.)

I believe that I have well proven my point that having children is not an indicator of your worth to society.

General Septem

05-01-2006, 09:43 PM

I totally disagree with you that people who don’t have children are worthless to society.

If you will go back and re-read my post, you will note that I specified "as a couple, not the people themselves".

How does a marriage contribute to society? By having children. Any other way any given married couple contributes to society is not an intrinsic characteristic of marriage. What about single parents? That's a good point. However, studies have been done, and anyone with a bit of common sense and enough balls to say something slightly politically incorrect will tell you that people need to be raised by a mother and a father. A man can only give certain things, and a woman can only give certain things. That doesn't mean a single parent can't raise a child; it's simply better if a child has two parents.

The people themselves may be contributing to society, but the marriage - which is what's being benefitted by tax cuts - does not contribute unless they have kids. Having kids is the only way a marriage physically contributes to society, but it's a very important contribution - so the government encourages, rewards, and asissts in having children. It's pointless to introduce outside reward, encouragement, nor assistance to homosexual marriages because they're not going to have children anyway.

Heterosexual Prime example:
Bill and Melinda Gates have are major contributors to society and yes have no children. Ever heard of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

I don't know the specifics of Bill Gates's contribution to society, but I do know of one in particular that he does recieve tax benefits for - he owns Microsoft. I don't know what the Gates Foundation is about, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the fact that Bill and Melinda are married. They co-founded it, but two friends could just as easily have done the same. The fact that they are married is all but worthless to society. Since, however, the possibility for having children is present, should they choose to do so, they are not completely worthless - which is what a gay couple would be since the possibility of producing children as a couple does not exist.

Childless presidents: James Buchanan, James Knox Polk, Andrew Jackson, James Madison, and George Washington.

I believe that I have well proven my point that having children is not an indicator of your worth to society.

I believe I have well proven my point that you misread my post (or in this case, skipped over part of it completely).

beelzebub

05-01-2006, 10:36 PM

I don't know the specifics of Bill Gates's contribution to society, but I do know of one in particular that he does recieve tax benefits for - he owns Microsoft. I don't know what the Gates Foundation is about, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the fact that Bill and Melinda are married. BLABLABLABLA...

You forgot to list all the MARRIED CHILDLESS Presidents. I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge. It’s obvious to me that you & BBO are incapable of saying: "Oh I see, well I was wrong, let’s move on." It’s not a big fucking deal. This is what is disappointing when talking to you.

I have proven my point..... Completely.

YOU GET THE TAX CUT FOR FILING JOINT with or without kids. Hell I claimed my kid on the last years taxes, so OBVIOUSLY we get the tax break for having children. It has nothing to do with married people's potential for child contribution.

And another thing... So you feel that 2 Old married people who won’t have children shouldn’t get the tax break for filing joint? You feel that people born sterile shouldn't get the tax break? That’s fine if you do but man... you are really NARROW!

General Septem

05-01-2006, 10:43 PM

You forgot to list all the MARRIED CHILDLESS Presidents.
Actually, I excluded most of your examples - it's pointless to go through every single example when the answer is the same for each. Obviously you still didn't catch my point.

Read this slowly if you have to. A marriage's only physical contribution to society is the production of children. Anything else one contributes to society is not based on the marriage.

"Gay couples are worthless to society (as a couple, not the people themselves), so why give them tax benefits?"

beelzebub

05-01-2006, 10:45 PM

I excluded most of your examples because it's pointless to go through every single example. Obviously you still dind't catch my point.

Read this slowly if you have to. A marriage's only physical contribution to society is the production of children. Anything else one contributes to society is not based on the marriage.

"Gay couples are worthless to society (as a couple, not the people themselves), so why give them tax benefits?"

Perhaps you should read mine again!

And this is beside the point. YOU SAID that homosexual couples were "WORTHLESS" because we didn’t produce children for "society". WELL that's why I have listed all of those examples showing countless people who have contributed VOLUMES to society and were "married" without children! IF you want to say that gay people don’t make more members of society. Well that’s wrong too. We do. I have donated to the sperm bank and I have 2 recipients. I know many ... many other men who have children. So you are WRONG again.

General Septem

05-01-2006, 10:50 PM

And another thing. YOU GET THE TAX CUT FOR FILING JOINT with or without kids. Hell I claimed my kid on the last years taxes, so OBVIOUSLY we get the tax break for having children.

No shit? Married couples simply recieve additional tax benefits because the financial break makes the prospect of having children less unattractive.

If it's not about the kids, then what would you say it is?

General Septem

05-01-2006, 10:54 PM

And this is beside the point. YOU SAID that homosexual couples were "WORTHLESS" because we didn’t produce children for "society". WELL that's why I have listed all of those examples showing countless people who have contributed VOLUMES to society and were "married" without children!

I saw your list - my point is not that the people themselves were worthless, but that the marriage had no effect on their contribution to society. Is that clear enough for you?

IF you want to say that gay people don’t make more members of society. Well that’s wrong too. I have donated to the sperm bank and I have 2 recipients.

And again, that has nothing to do with your marriage. Particularly because you aren't married.

beelzebub

05-01-2006, 10:56 PM

No shit? Married couples simply recieve additional tax benefits because the financial break makes the prospect of having children less unattractive.

If it's not about the kids, then what would you say it is?

Good point. I can see that. But I also think that they receive the tax break because they use one form. Furthermore I think that they get the tax break because it is favoritism.

Another thing.... We do contribute to society by adopting children that no-one wants. Otherwise the system would be over-run with orphans. My little boy would be in foster care of an orphanage but we wanted him. We take care of him and we are raising him to be a contributing member of society. How is this not a contribution?

What is so different (other than the obvious) about a gay couple raising a family and a str8 couple raising a family?

AND - for all practical purposes I AM “married”. Whether you recognize it or not is of little importance to me. Aside… I prefer to say I am in a union, marriage is for str8 people.

General Septem

05-01-2006, 11:23 PM

Another thing.... We do contribute to society by adopting children that no-one wants. Otherwise the system would be over-run with orphans. My little boy would be in foster care of an orphanage but we wanted him. We take care of him and we are raising him to be a contributing member of society. How is this not a contribution?

It is a contribution and I think you should be compensated for it. And you are - you recieve tax benefits for it. But again, it doesn't have anything to do with marriage. Single people can adopt too.

I think the whole tax thing needs to be revamped anyway, though. We get penalized for making money, owning property, and investing. There's just something wrong with that. I like the idea they had - a federal sales tax. No more tax loopholes for the rich, no more being penalized for the money you make, no more working for the government, no more papers at the end of the month - no more debate :D

beelzebub

05-01-2006, 11:26 PM

It is a contribution and I think you should be compensated for it.

I think the whole tax thing needs to be revamped anyway, though. We get penalized for making money, owning property, and investing. There's just something wrong with that.

I thank you ... and I agree with you. :)

General Septem

05-01-2006, 11:27 PM

I thank you ... and I agree with you. :)
It's nice to know we can agree. :D

Brains_Behind_Operation

05-01-2006, 11:35 PM

I thank you ... and I agree with you. :)

Finally! Common grounds have been found! That said, marriage, other than the governmentally recognized form of it, is a religious thing. Allowing gays to use the same word for their union is going to far for my tastes.

beelzebub

05-01-2006, 11:43 PM

Finally! Common grounds have been found! That said, marriage, other than the governmentally recognized form of it, is a religious thing. Allowing gays to use the same word for their union is going to far for my tastes.

The world is becomes light as darkness flees from us!

Paisleyspeaker

06-06-2006, 11:25 AM

Why should the goverment have anything to do with marriage, which is a sacrament. It's just another example of them putting their hands in our pockets.. They charge you to get married, then charge you even more to get a divorce. Then they create the gay marriage issue, yes the government created it by trying to legislate a religious sacrament. if they had just kept their noses out of it, homosexuals wouldn't have to have marriage to have the same legal rights. And they should have to same rights. And it's about far more than tax breaks General. Could you imagine not being able to be at your wifes bedside as she lay dying, because you are not considered family. And what if while she lay there, she had to wait for treatment, or wait for her wishes to be fufilled because they have to contact her parents before anything can be done, even though you are right there. That equallity isn't about religion , but legal rights. It would hurt nothing to give these rights to all couples.

General Septem

06-06-2006, 11:37 AM

Those rights could be shared amongst close friends, too.

Paisleyspeaker

06-06-2006, 11:41 AM

You are absolulty right, who has a right to try to control love, caring, and compassion?

beelzebub

08-09-2006, 03:32 PM

General Septem

08-09-2006, 07:39 PM

I never said you shouldn't have those rights though. That's just caring and compassion. Like I said, I'm an anarchist. Well, neo-anarchist. There's a lot of things I just don't think the government should be involved in in the first place. And at the same time, there are some things that can't be legislated away.

I'm a "neo"-anarchist because I don't think our society as it is can handle it. I think anarchism is kind of idealistic.

beelzebub

08-09-2006, 09:28 PM

I never said you shouldn't have those rights though. That's just caring and compassion.

Did I say you didn't think that? GS I was commenting on why I love women, in general. Thanks for sharing.

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-09-2006, 09:34 PM

Did I say you didn't think that? GS I was commenting on why I love women, in general. Thanks for sharing.

:p If you love women so much why don't you sleep with them?:p

beelzebub

08-09-2006, 09:52 PM

:p If you love women so much why don't you sleep with them?:p

Probably the same reason that you dont sleep with men.

Brains_Behind_Operation

08-10-2006, 12:38 PM

Well thanks for clearing that up.:rolleyes: Please don't tell me that you couldn't see the intended childish satire in that comment.

Ape-Shit

08-10-2006, 03:44 PM

For those interested let the record indicate that I Ape-Shit am Straight. However, In the past, present and hopefully in the future some of my closest friends are either Bi or Gay. I have seen the devastation of a Gay Couple losing their counter part along with all of their joint assets. To be stripped of your love one is a horrible thing, yet to be stripped of your loved one and all of your worldly possessions is another. If they were married or had a joint union this would never have happened. If they were married, perhaps they could of had health insurance, to assist in the medical cost, perhaps they could of had life insurance, to assist in the burial. On and on and on. Only closed minded people can't see that human behavior is just that, human behavior. Gays are no different than you or me, with the exception of their sexual preference. Some of the best times in my life was laying with two Bi girls (oh brother what a time that was). So yes, I would vote to give Gays the right to Marriage or Civil Union. It's only comprehensible and the right thing to do..!

beatingdeadhorses

09-04-2006, 10:11 AM

I don't know what all the fuss is about...and I'm talking about gays wanting to marry. I've been married..twice. And it sucked ass..twice. All marriage really does is say "I'm dumb enough to put half of what I've busted my ass for up for grabs if you decide to change your mind." If you want to get married, be my guest. Marry your aunt's cat, for all I care. Just remember to rathole some run money should the need come up..and it probably will.

Brains_Behind_Operation

09-04-2006, 11:00 AM

And all that birthdays and Christmas are is a way of forcing your friends and family to give you stupid little things that you really don't want or will ever use....there is more to things than the negative side of it that you are able to see. The spiritual meaning of these sorts of things is what matters most, and since marriage was created by the church as a spiritual way to combine the life of a man and a woman, allowing two men or two women to become married takes much away from its spiritual meaning.

superdudewahoo

09-04-2006, 01:01 PM

thats bullshit, no pun intended, love is love regardless of sex. Those who love others of the same sex can not help the fact that they do and an oppresive government doesnt make theyre social problems any easier at all. We all need to back off of the homosexuals out there and mind our own damn business, theyre not fucking me in the ass so its none of my business.

Brains_Behind_Operation

09-04-2006, 04:33 PM

And why do they need a marriage, a religious union, to define this love? Why can they not call their own union something else? The problem is that they are taking down the mea ning of a religious act by trying to make it acceptible for homosexuals when the church never intended it to be. Let them declare their intentions to one another, just call it something other than marriage. It spits in the face of what a marriage truly is.

beelzebub

09-04-2006, 06:18 PM

The spiritual meaning of these sorts of things is what matters most, and since marriage was created by the church as a spiritual way to combine the life of a man and a woman, allowing two men or two women to become married takes much away from its spiritual meaning.

It is no longer exclusively a church domain and spiritual my ass! Marriage has lost that (if it ever had it) A LONG TIME AGO. I could give a rat’s ass about the church connections. ALL I WANT IS EQUITY. If two people of the opposite sex have rights and privileges then we deserve the same. I don’t want to have to draw up a contract for every fucking thing that str8 people have with marriage. Call it civil union or partnership whatever the hell you want. A rose by any other name and crap.

superdudewahoo

09-04-2006, 10:20 PM

if marriage is still considered such a holy union, why is it no big deal for atheists or other religiously oriented individuals to be married? It's simple, the republicans dont like to give anyone tax breaks unless theyre filthy rich already and dont need one. So how can you argue against it now when in fact it has nothing to do with the sanctity of what marriage was once considered???

Ape-Shit

09-08-2006, 09:38 PM

Whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Think about that....!

General Septem

09-09-2006, 09:34 AM

Whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Think about that....!

Oh, is that why you wear tampons and watch chick flicks with a box of tissue in your lap?

beelzebub

09-15-2006, 09:32 PM

Oh, is that why you wear tampons and watch chick flicks with a box of tissue in your lap?

What a load of bullshit.

If you are going to make a cutting remark please try and make it rational.

General Septem

09-16-2006, 12:13 AM

What a load of bullshit.

If you are going to make a cutting remark please try and make it rational.

It was no more irrational than saying "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". "Geese" wear panties, bras, eat lots of calcium, and watch chick flicks, and that sure as hell isn't good for me or any other "gander". In fact most men for whom these things are good, end up in mental hospitals.

rawsugar

09-21-2006, 04:18 PM

General Septem

10-04-2006, 08:02 PM

Do Catholics oppose same-sex marriage because they think sex is dirty? Do they not want others to have fun?

The Catholic Church takes a very high view of marriage and human sexuality. As the account of Genesis shows, marriage and sexuality were created by God and given to mankind as gifts for our benefit. Scripture records God's statement that "it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen. 2:18). As a result, "a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Some may forego the good of marriage to serve a higher calling (cf. Matt. 19:10-12), but it is a good nevertheless.

Marriage is a conduit through which God's grace flows to the couple and their children.1 The Catholic Church understands marriage between a baptized man and woman to be a sacrament, a visible sign of the grace that God gives them to help them live their lives here and now so as to be able to join him in eternity.2 For Catholics, marriage is social as well as religious, but its religious aspects are very important. The Bible repeatedly compares the relationship between man and wife to that between God and Israel (cf. Hos. 9:1) or between Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. 5:21-32). For Catholics, marriage is a holy vocation.

Since the Church sees marriage as holy, it believes it must be treated with reverence. It also recognizes that marriage is basic to the health of society and therefore a public institution that must be defended against harm.

Marriage is a public institution. Consequently, proposals that could harm the institution of marriage must be subjected to the same sort of objective analysis that we give any public policy question. Marriage is not just a private matter of emotion between two people. On the contrary, its success or failure has measurable impact on all of society. Rational analysis yields solid, objective reasons for limiting marriage to one man and one woman-reasons anyone can agree with on purely secular grounds.

Our analysis will show that prohibition of homosexual marriage is not just a "fairness" issue, nor does it require anyone to "force religious dogma" down anyone else's throat. Nor is it a manifestation of hatred, as proponents sometimes suggest.

Continued: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

yea_thats_right1

11-30-2006, 01:50 AM

I cant believe that fags are out in the open tellin people about their nasty perverted ideas. Yall should be put into therapy and changed back to normal and if ya cant then they should lock yall up so you dont turn other like you.

Marriage!?!?!?! ha ha I cant picture two dudes or two gals at a ceremonie kissin and huggin on each other. It just aint right and God will look on yall like you are crazy. Send you to hell

As for kids. I think they should take them out of youralls nasty preverted house so they can live a normal life. Fuckin fags screwing up kids aint right.

you are a close minded jerk.... if you dont want to be gay then dont... if you dont thing gays should be allowed to get married then dont do it... OH yea....
GOD LOVES ALL OF HIS CHILDREN... there is no where in the bible where it is written "GOD HATES GAY PEOPLE" pfffffttt get over yourself.... ill tell you one thing god does look down on... hatred... and you got it kid... you think its wrong to be gay? i think its wrong that youre white.

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 02:40 AM

I cant believe that fags are out in the open tellin people about their nasty perverted ideas. Yall should be put into therapy and changed back to normal and if ya cant then they should lock yall up so you dont turn other like you.

Marriage!?!?!?! ha ha I cant picture two dudes or two gals at a ceremonie kissin and huggin on each other. It just aint right and God will look on yall like you are crazy. Send you to hell

As for kids. I think they should take them out of youralls nasty preverted house so they can live a normal life. Fuckin fags screwing up kids aint right.

Excuse your bigotry you homophobe.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay marriage. Im hetero, but I am in full support of gay rights! They are people just like everyone else and as such deserve the same rights as everyone else.

This is exactly the sort of drivel I expect from you Christian conservative types.

General Septem

12-06-2006, 03:42 PM

Excuse your bigotry you homophobe.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay marriage. Im hetero, but I am in full support of gay rights! They are people just like everyone else and as such deserve the same rights as everyone else.

This is exactly the sort of drivel I expect from you Christian conservative types.

Gay people already have the exact same rights that straight people do, and I don't think they deserve anything more than that.

A homophobe is someone who is deathly afraid of anything to which the term "homo" would apply, not someone who disagrees with the gay community's political views.

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 05:46 PM

I didn't state that they do not have the rights I am stating that they have the rights and should be allowed to keep said rights.

Homophobia can be applied to discrimination or hatred of homosexuals.

Perhaps Misohomostic would suit your tastes better?

General Septem

12-06-2006, 05:50 PM

I didn't state that they do not have the rights I am stating that they have the rights and should be allowed to keep said rights.

Nobody's trying to take anyone's rights away.

Homophobia can be applied to discrimination or hatred of homosexuals.

Which you accuse anyone who disagrees with the gay political beliefs of.

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 06:57 PM

Pardon? Do you not know who is running America? A right wing conservative! Of course he is trying to take gay rights away.

And for the record, i was referring to that person as a homophobe because of his expressed disgust at homosexual practices.

General Septem

12-06-2006, 08:11 PM

Pardon? Do you not know who is running America? A right wing conservative! Of course he is trying to take gay rights away.

He's not trying to take anyone's rights away. Gay people have and always have had the exact same rights as straight people have. A single adult male can marry a consenting and unrelated single adult female. Sexual preference doesn't even come into play.

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 10:21 PM

But a single adult male cannot marry a consenting single adult male. This is the crux of the problem and a breach of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which states-

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

As the case Brown .vs. the Board of Education ruled that blacks and whites were equal (and thus segregation was unconstitutional), this also applied to any group including homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders.

General Septem

12-06-2006, 10:24 PM

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 10:54 PM

That arguement is exactly the one the right wing uses against homosexual marriage. And no thy dont. Straight people have the right to marry whom we want to, gay people do not. Im sure that once the supreme court is stacked with Democrats they will share this POV.

Perhaps it is time that we stop keeltowing to obsolete values from a former age.

ajk

12-06-2006, 11:18 PM

Perhaps it is time that we stop keeltowing to obsolete values from a former age.

Just because they are old doesn't mean they are obsolete, nor does it make them any less relevant. Wrong is wrong regardless of what the world says, and regardless of what year it is.

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 11:25 PM

Why is it wrong? Perhaps because of a little phrase in Leviticus?

If I were going to make laws I wouldnt base them upon a work of fiction.

ajk

12-06-2006, 11:27 PM

It's not fiction, it is and always will be truth, God's eternal truth till the end of time.

General Septem

12-06-2006, 11:33 PM

Straight people have the right to marry whom we want to, gay people do not.

No. We can't marry anyone we want to, nobody can. I, for example, could not marry my sister if she were alive, nor my cousin, nor anyone who is already married, nor anyone under the age of seventeen as that is the age of consent in this state. Once I am married, I won't be able to marry anyone since I'll already be married.

It is not that we have a right to marry who we want to and that gays do not. Single adult males have the right to marry a consenting single adult female.

Period.

What we want is not part of the equation.

Don't want to get married under these terms? Then don't get married.

The fact of the matter is that we all have the same rights. Period.

Nobody ever told a gay person that he can't get married because he's gay. They'll tell him he can't get married because he wants to marry another guy. Whether he is gay or straight does not come into play. Marriage is not between two men or women, it is between a man and a woman.

Period.

There's no reason for two men to get married, and there's no reason for two women to get married.

If two men want to have a contract that allows tax benefits and allows them to see each other if one is in the intensive care unit, fine. That's something that can be shared by friends, gay or straight. But there never has been and never will be a reason for two men or two women to get married. Ever.

The purpose of marriage is not "because we can". The purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to start a family. Family is the core of any society.

Two men cannot raise a child together. Period. Whatever anyone tells you, anyone who knows anything about parenting and isn't too chickenshit to say something that isn't politically correct will tell you that a child needs a man and a woman as parents. Anyone who knows anything and isn't too chickenshit to say something that doesn't fall into the realm of political correctness will tell you that a man and a woman are very different, and children brought up by two men rather than a man and a woman do not receive the same upbringing. Many of these children develop problems related to their childhood because they did not have a mother to nurture them, and because another man tried to fill that role, and vice versa.

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 11:33 PM

ajk

12-06-2006, 11:40 PM

Oh i see and who wrote said bible?
Humans. Men. Fallible, corrupt, imperfect humans with delusions of the universe.
I dream about the day when sexual orientation is a thing of the past.

Anyway, this topic is not about the bible, its about the civil right, or lack thereof of homosexual people to be married. It is not wrong, it doesnt hurt anybody, deal with it.

First off sexual orientation in and of itself isn't bad, nor are we judging the person themselves. It's the act we are judging. There's a big difference there.

As far as not hurting anybody, it does. The kids get affected as GS mentioned before, and the sacrament of marriage itself and what it stands for is cheapened as a result. If gays are allowed to marry, then should animals be too? Or what about humans and animals? See what happens? You allow gays to marry, and you open the door to other possibilites as well. Where would you draw the line?

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 11:47 PM

How does it hurt children? It only hurts because people tell them that homosexuality hurts them. Sociology 101.

And btw, marriage is not a sacrament, it is two people expressing their love through a ceremony. You and your kind make it a sacrament.

As for zoophilia, I dont really care. I believe people should have the right to love and be with whoever they wish.

General Septem

12-06-2006, 11:48 PM

How does it hurt children?

Read my post... that's how.

Ausinus

12-06-2006, 11:53 PM

Two men cannot bring forth a child, but they can raise one (its called adoption).

Now let me make the point clear and simple.

If a single straight male is in love with a single straight female, they can marry. If a homosexual male is in love with a homosexual female, they cant. You are denying the gays the right to express love through marriage.

Homosexuality does not hurt anyone. It does not create little gremlins that eat kids. Kids are only harmed by it because society tells them to be harmed by it. Before Judaism, everyone accepted homosexuality because there were no social stigmas attached to it. Children were not harmed by it then due to this.

ajk

12-06-2006, 11:54 PM

And btw, marriage is not a sacrament, it is two people expressing their love through a ceremony. You and your kind make it a sacrament.

As for zoophilia, I dont really care. I believe people should have the right to love and be with whoever they wish.

Well see that right there is a product of the culture. If you let anyone and everyone marry who they want, then marriage means nothing at all. It is a sacrament too, granted to us with God's Grace.

General Septem

12-06-2006, 11:55 PM

Two men cannot bring forth a child, but they can raise one (its called adoption).

If you ignore the whole two men being inadequately equipped to raise a child thing.

ajk

12-06-2006, 11:56 PM

Two men cannot bring forth a child, but they can raise one (its called adoption).

That's not his point. What's he saying is, when a child is raised in a gay or lesbian household, his or her idea of what marriage is becomes skewed. He or she might wonder why their friends have a mommy and a daddy, while they have two daddies. It confuses them. Beyond that, they may become more masculine or feminine depending on how they are raised. A child needs one of each, to balance out the masculinity of the dad, and the feminity of the mom.

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 12:03 AM

If a child is confused, explain it. They are gay. Some men like other men. Some women like other women. Some men like women and vice versa.

It doesnt matter if they are masculine or feminine. In fact, I could mention a few people who could use a bit of feminimity.

And how are they inadequately equipped to raise a child? They love, they can put on bandages, they can make food....its just a matter of people overcoming the barrier which these narrow minded morals have created.

ajk

12-07-2006, 12:06 AM

It's not about narrow minds, it's about playing God and deciding what is right and what isn't, when there are some things that are wrong no matter how you slice it.

Besides that it still will affect the kid as he grows older, regardless of what you tell him or her. It could end up turning them gay too, and the more of that you get, the less babies end up being born in the world.

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 12:08 AM

General Septem

12-07-2006, 12:10 AM

ajk

12-07-2006, 12:10 AM

Let me tell you something.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

If the only reason that homosexuality is bad is that god doesnt like it, then there is no detriment and thus it can become law.

Your christian values and belief in god have no place in the judicial system.

Well then I guess I will see you in Hell then, because if you continue to believe that and reject the truth, that's where you'll be going.

There is a detriment too (beyond the obvious), you're hurting God the one who created you and wants you to live with him in eternity.

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 12:14 AM

Well if preaching equality and civil liberty is the reason for it, then sign me up and get the fuel ready cos hell here i come!

ajk

12-07-2006, 12:15 AM

Easy to say that now, I can assure you you won't like it when you're there. As the bible says, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have fun.

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 12:18 AM

Oh I will. I relish it.

Cos I know that Satan is the prechristian god of pleasure originally! Betcha dun know that.

So Im gonna wail and gnash my teeth? Well I must be in hell cos I do that when driving.

who897

12-07-2006, 01:10 AM

If your so worried about a gay couple raising kids, that should definatly bring you on the side of abortion to prevent, what you think of as bad, gay parents. At least you know that kid's chance of being beaten, molested, and other wise abused will be a shit ton less likely then if they were in a heterosexual parental situation. I don't know bout you but a gay couple could nurture a child better then some folks that I've seen in my days. I have also never seen a gay man go looking for a fight, so apparently you want to show youngsters that it's alright to promote violence, shame on you.

AJK, let me tell ya something, I entered a pack with God, the Devil, and Jesus. Upon my death, I'll be fucking the Devil up the ass, God will be licking my taint, and the Devil will be giving Jesus a blow job, and everything will be just merry. It's gonna be one big gay fuck fest.

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 01:17 AM

Thank goodnes, a person who agrees with me!:D

This right wing trash is giving me headache

ajk

12-07-2006, 01:27 AM

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 01:43 AM

No he wont because his bodily functions will cease and nothing will happen.

ajk

12-07-2006, 01:54 AM

Trust me I know the truth. You can believe what you want, but in the end you'll see you were wrong.

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 01:59 AM

Why will I regret it? What will happen?

ajk

12-07-2006, 02:03 AM

If you keep rejecting God more then likely you will end up spending the rest of your days in Hell as I said before that's what would happen. That's when you'll regret not accepting truth.

Ausinus

12-07-2006, 02:10 AM

And that was the coup de gras, ladies and gentlemen. Irrefutable evidence that he is judging me for my beliefs.

That is the flaw in your arguement. By your definition, even people who do good will go to hell if they deny the existence of god. That means people like Bill Gates will go to hell.

ajk

12-07-2006, 09:52 AM

I'm judging your beliefs that I know are wrong, but not you as a person. And just because a person may do good on earth doesn't mean they will be saved per se. If they won't accept that which is true why should they be? Now if they were never made aware of the truth, that is different. In that case I would think they would be saved because of Jesus dying on the cross for all.

twisted_screams

12-07-2006, 11:57 AM

I'm a queer and I think that we should defiantly have Gay Unions. I am sick and tired of str8 people deciding that we shouldn't have the same tax discounts as they get.

Arrogant narrow-minded STR8 assholes. :mad:

Furthermore we should be allowed to adopt children as a couple instead of signally. :D

I don't know about tax discounts but i agree it shouldnt be just male female unions it should be any human being that wants to make the commitment should have the right to marry.
I can see why this could be a pain in the ass to people that have partners yet not married. Upon death there is always the fight of who gets the house etc. I also believe wether homosexual or not that if you live with some one more then a year that they should be able to add them to all insurances.
Before i quit my job i was told in order to add my fiance to my insurance we would have to be married 90ty days. I asked why because i still have to pay more if i add him. I could see if i was paying nothing to add him but it was going to be like 67.00 more a month.

Anyway i am all for homesexual marriage and straight marriage it is the commitment that should be seen and not the gender

I also know of two lesbian friends of mine that were given two beautiful little boys to raise and they are doing a great job of it. Once again i think it should be based on the commitment and not the gender

General Septem

12-07-2006, 12:04 PM

I'm going to repost it because the bullshit catfight just now seemed to have buried it:

No. We can't marry anyone we want to, nobody can. I, for example, could not marry my sister if she were alive, nor my cousin, nor anyone who is already married, nor anyone under the age of seventeen as that is the age of consent in this state. Once I am married, I won't be able to marry anyone since I'll already be married.

It is not that we have a right to marry who we want to and that gays do not. Single adult males have the right to marry a consenting single adult female.

Period.

What we want is not part of the equation.

Don't want to get married under these terms? Then don't get married.

The fact of the matter is that we all have the same rights. Period.

Nobody ever told a gay person that he can't get married because he's gay. They'll tell him he can't get married because he wants to marry another guy. Whether he is gay or straight does not come into play. Marriage is not between two men or women, it is between a man and a woman.

Period.

There's no reason for two men to get married, and there's no reason for two women to get married.

If two men want to have a contract that allows tax benefits and allows them to see each other if one is in the intensive care unit, fine. That's something that can be shared by friends, gay or straight. But there never has been and never will be a reason for two men or two women to get married. Ever.

The purpose of marriage is not "because we can". The purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to start a family. Family is the core of any society.

Two men cannot raise a child together. Period. Whatever anyone tells you, anyone who knows anything about parenting and isn't too chickenshit to say something that isn't politically correct will tell you that a child needs a man and a woman as parents. Anyone who knows anything and isn't too chickenshit to say something that doesn't fall into the realm of political correctness will tell you that a man and a woman are very different, and children brought up by two men rather than a man and a woman do not receive the same upbringing. Many of these children develop problems related to their childhood because they did not have a mother to nurture them, and because another man tried to fill that role, and vice versa.

twisted_screams

12-07-2006, 12:16 PM

Two men cannot raise a child together. Period. Whatever anyone tells you, anyone who knows anything about parenting and isn't too chickenshit to say something that isn't politically correct will tell you that a child needs a man and a woman as parents. Anyone who knows anything and isn't too chickenshit to say something that doesn't fall into the realm of political correctness will tell you that a man and a woman are very different, and children brought up by two men rather than a man and a woman do not receive the same upbringing

Who says men arent capable of nurturing. Your wrong there and some men would make a much better parent then alot of women i know.
It all depends on the person period. And just for the record marriage is not about procreation i can do that with a tube and turkey baster if need be. Marriage is about commitment. I am 35 can no longer have kids i have lived with my boyfriend for a year now and We are getting married not to create another child and (most of mine are almost grown) not to raise our children but because we want the piece of flippin paper that shows that we are married so that when i am old and cant speak for myself any more that when the doctor comes out to say i am in my last moments. The words can be heard through out the hospital " Sir" Your wife wishes to tell you good bye"

General Septem

12-07-2006, 12:20 PM

Who says men arent capable of nurturing.

Only an idiot. I on the other hand said men alone aren't capable of nurturing. Men and women are different. Men lack things women have and women lack things men have. I never said men can't nurture. I said a child needs parents, and that is a father and mother.

It all depends on the person period. And just for the record marriage is not about procreation i can do that with a tube and turkey baster if need be. Marriage is about commitment. I am 35 can no longer have kids i have lived with my boyfriend for a year now and We are getting married not to create another child and (most of mine are almost grown) not to raise our children but because we want the piece of flippin paper that shows that we are married so that when i am old and cant speak for myself any more that when the doctor comes out to say i am in my last moments. The words can be heard throught out the hospital " Sir" Your wife wishes to tell you good bye"

I never said marriage was all about having kids, I said it was about family.

twisted_screams

12-07-2006, 12:31 PM

General Septem

12-07-2006, 12:54 PM

And two brothers are what " friends"
the're family and for the record im not trying to push my opinion on you. I just think that the only thing that one sex can do better then another is grow the child in a uterus for 9 months. ANd thats only because men dont have a uterus. Most will agrue that the male can lift more do harder labor etc, ok in some instances that may be but what about the mother that lifts the car off her child when its hurt, or what about the man that cleans house and takes care of the kids while the mom works. No one should put anyone into a box like that me personally i can do anything a man can do ( even pee standing up its messy but it can be done) and i am sure that there are men out there that can do the same i as do.

And like i said I am not trying to gode you into a fight, I am just hoping you will allow yourself to see all sides of the spectrum:)

Of course. But anyone can tell you there are differences between men and women. Major physical difference besides the genital area are the chromosomes and hormones. Men have testosterone and women have estrogen. Like it or not these chemicals have a major effect on our bodies, and testosterone affects men differently than estrogen affects women.

That's not to say some men can't be brought up to be somewhat feminine or vice versa, but by nature men are the strong protectors and the women are the ones who care for the young. These are the basic summaries of the hormones, but it extends further than that.

I'm sure you aren't attracted to your boyfriend because he's weak or because he'll do what you tell him to do. You're attracted to him for the same reason you call him the "boss", unless that's a sarcastic title. I don't know the guy but I'm assuming what you find attractive about him is the same thing all women look for in men - strength. In one way or another at least. Maybe he doesn't have big muscles but he's strong in other ways. Perhaps he's a good leader, or perhaps he is good at being in control.

Women tend to make impulsive decisions such as impulsive spending or engaging in a one-night stand with a guy that she knows she'll regret the next day but just needs physical attention. A man who cares for his woman would, out of love, prevent her from making decisions that could harm her or the two of them as a couple. Examples being, "we really don't need that, it would be a waste."

In the same way, men can make cold and callous decisions, and women can inspire compassion.

Claiming that men and women are no different except for the genitals is unreasonable. It only serves to symbolize how people can ignore cold, hard facts because the truth is too "politically incorrect" and offensive to people who look for things to get offended by, when it shouldn't be offensive at all. Feminists should be trying to advance the femininity of women, not undermine their gender by trying to be men.

yea_thats_right1

12-07-2006, 01:45 PM

Many of these children develop problems related to their childhood because they did not have a mother to nurture them, and because another man tried to fill that role, and vice versa.

Ok so should it also be illegal to bea single father? Single fathers try to fill the role of mother and father... and vice Versa.... right?? :)

twisted_screams

12-07-2006, 02:46 PM

as far as hormones go yes there is a difference but as far as myself and the Boss go its a different kind of relationship which i have decided to post on a new thread smiles wickedly feel free to post comments:D

twisted_screams

12-07-2006, 03:03 PM

and please remember that women are capable of making cold and calus deccissions as well as men being hormonal at times. I know women that will go out screw a man just for the satifaction of getting the male to cheat on his girlfriend and then never speak to the man again. Just like i know some men that are emotional recks that spend money like water and make stupid deccissions.
As far as my finace goes? He is strong but loving he takes care of me but i also take care of him and if i ever thought that he might be in danger I will be the chick with the shock gun behind him. You can be strong in more then one way.:)

General Septem

12-07-2006, 04:45 PM

Ok so should it also be illegal to bea single father? Single fathers try to fill the role of mother and father... and vice Versa.... right?? :)

You make do when you have to. I was raised mostly by my father too, because my mom died when I was 14. When I was younger she was very important to my growth though (not so much towards the end but I still loved her).

Obviously if something unfortunate happens, then it's different. You make do with what you've got. And besides the kid'll understand because he'd know that he was supposed to have a mother but she died.

Planning on having a kid so you can raise him yourself or with someone of the same sex is an entirely different matter. The two aren't even the same thing.

General Septem

12-07-2006, 04:45 PM

I know women that will go out screw a man just for the satifaction of getting the male to cheat on his girlfriend and then never speak to the man again. Just like i know some men that are emotional recks that spend money like water and make stupid deccissions.
As far as my finace goes? He is strong but loving he takes care of me but i also take care of him and if i ever thought that he might be in danger I will be the chick with the shock gun behind him. You can be strong in more then one way.:)

Yes, some men can be weak just like some women can be weak. I didn't mean to imply that women are weak and that men are strong, just that men and women are strong in different ways. But just because one is a man does not mean he will be strong. Any guy who will let a girl talk him into cheating on his girlfriend does not deserve to be called a man.

I have no problem with women being independent. And I don't think these "gender roles" described in the Bible about how wives and husbands should act is supposed to imply that it's the law for them to take these roles, but that in an unconditionally loving relationship these things would just happen naturally, which in your case it would seem to be.