Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Your avatar seems gay Whirly but seriously,it makes more sense in these less socially progressive nations than in America

Originally posted by Black Rob
Your avatar seems gay Whirly but seriously,it makes more sense in these less socially progressive nations than in America

Chuck Norris is not gay Rob He is awesome.

Just proves that intolerant, prejudice idiot bigots are in countries other then the US. No big surprise.

This anti-gay stuff makes me so angry! They dont have the f*cking rights to rule other peoples lives!! ranting bann rifle

It doesn't piss me off one bit. Why? I'm not gay, and I'm uncaring for other human beings. In fact, I have no soul.

Changes concerning same sex relationships have been slower in predominantly Roman Catholic countries.

marriage is a religious piece

unions recognized by the state now there is that......

Originally posted by soleran30
marriage is a religious piece

unions recognized by the state now there is that......

Marriage is not necessarily a Religious "piece"...except if you accept eversy religion to have the right, not only christianity.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Marriage is not necessarily a Religious "piece"...except if you accept eversy religion to have the right, not only christianity.


well at the end of the day I would hope that gays would be given the ability to form unions recognized by the state.............however when I think about the rules that would have to be placed on top of so called unions ugh tedious............

once civil unions become recognized at least in the USA a TON of changes will have to occur to make them effective.

Originally posted by soleran30
well at the end of the day I would hope that gays would be given the ability to form unions recognized by the state.............however when I think about the rules that would have to be placed on top of so called unions ugh tedious............

once civil unions become recognized at least in the USA a TON of changes will have to occur to make them effective.

Why? Same Sex couples should have the exact same rights hetero couples have. What's the problem?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? Same Sex couples should have the exact same rights hetero couples have. What's the problem?


for one we cannot really go and say same sex couples because that is biased against hetero couples so a new definition of couple needs to be defined.

Whats the time period for it to take affect or are there any? What tax pieces do they get compared to hetero couples...............who is then to tell me I don't have a civil union with my dog and he is entitled to my estates and I claim him as a dependant. I realize some of that is corny however its these same types of things that will get brought into play.............lawyers love to play semantics and lawyers write the laws.

How is that biased against hetero couples.
What time period? They should just be allowed right away. The same as hetero Couples. Now beside me not seeing a problem with you marrying a dog, that'S not what would be allowed...it should just be allowed for every adult human to marry the adult human they wish to marry (if they consent)

But that'S all just made harder than it needs to be...Gay people should have the same rights as heterosexual people...that'S all...and why shouldn't they? It's easy, it worked in most of europe, it will work in the US...it just isn't done there...

Originally posted by Bardock42
How is that biased against hetero couples.
What time period? They should just be allowed right away. The same as hetero Couples. Now beside me not seeing a problem with you marrying a dog, that'S not what would be allowed...it should just be allowed for every adult human to marry the adult human they wish to marry (if they consent)

But that'S all just made harder than it needs to be...Gay people should have the same rights as heterosexual people...that'S all...and why shouldn't they? It's easy, it worked in most of europe, it will work in the US...it just isn't done there...

Well I am not saying that it wouldn't work in USA however I was making lame comments on my dog and such because that does come into play for tax laws and such. Clearly the dog piece is just an illustration........even visitation rights don't work for same sex unions in the USA for hospitals and such. So thats what I mean by interpretation and making clearly defined rules ACROSS the board...........then to make sure same sex unions recognized by the state don't receive laws that will violate hetero marriage/couples rights.

How would they violate hetero rights?

And wouldn't visitation rights work the second that homo marriages were allowed? I really, really don't see your point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would they violate hetero rights?

And wouldn't visitation rights work the second that homo marriages were allowed? I really, really don't see your point.


ok once again its about making the laws work and coincide and not contradict current laws.

Originally posted by BackFire
Just proves that intolerant, prejudice idiot bigots are in countries other then the US. No big surprise.

Marriage is a human right not a heterosexual privilege.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Marriage is a human right not a heterosexual privilege.


who says its a human right anyway? Is it recogonition of a union of 2 people or is it the associated priveleges in a marriage?

Originally posted by soleran30
for one we cannot really go and say same sex couples because that is biased against hetero couples so a new definition of couple needs to be defined.

Whats the time period for it to take affect or are there any? What tax pieces do they get compared to hetero couples...............who is then to tell me I don't have a civil union with my dog and he is entitled to my estates and I claim him as a dependant. I realize some of that is corny however its these same types of things that will get brought into play.............lawyers love to play semantics and lawyers write the laws.
How is it biased against heterosexual couples?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Marriage is a human right not a heterosexual privilege.


Shouldn't heterosexuals have more rights than homosexuals according to evolutionary theory? Think about it. Those who have a better chance of procreating through sexual intercourse, are definately more evolved than those who can not...correct? And nature also seems to produce more hetero's than homo's..so this means that the hetero gene is superior to the homo one..right?

So it all just boils down to "survival of the fittest." In this case, heterosexuals have a better chance of surviving and passing on their taxable inheritances for the following reasons:

1) Nature produces more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

2) Heterosexuals have the evolved ability of producing more "taxable" offspring.

Damn..finally found an argument that Modern Evolutionary theory can be used to support.

Fin

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Marriage is a human right not a heterosexual privilege.

Now I wouldn't say that. But if it is a right it should be a human right...for everyone.

Originally posted by Eis
How is it biased against heterosexual couples?

because of how laws are worded today and how they might explain a union................the definition is what is most critical for this..........is there a time period, what are the benefits (health, tax), so my point is that whatever is done for civil unions or whatever you want to call them we need to make sure they are clearly explained and encompass all unions (relationships) not just same sex or hetero.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Shouldn't heterosexuals have more rights than homosexuals according to evolutionary theory? Think about it. Those who have a better chance of procreating through sexual intercourse, are definately more evolved than those who can not...correct? And nature also seems to produce more hetero's than homo's..so this means that the hetero gene is superior to the homo one..right?

So it all just boils down to "survival of the fittest." In this case, heterosexuals have a better chance of surviving and passing on their taxable inheritances for the following reasons:

1) Nature produces more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

2) Heterosexuals have the evolved ability of producing more "taxable" offspring.

Damn..finally found an argument that Modern Evolutionary theory can be used to support.

Fin

Not really.

a) is your arguement flawed
and
b) just because evolution is a scientific truth (pretending that it is) doesn't mean that huan culture has to behave according to it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Shouldn't heterosexuals have more rights than homosexuals according to evolutionary theory? Think about it. Those who have a better chance of procreating through sexual intercourse, are definately more evolved than those who can not...correct? And nature also seems to produce more hetero's than homo's..so this means that the hetero gene is superior to the homo one..right?

So it all just boils down to "survival of the fittest." In this case, heterosexuals have a better chance of surviving and passing on their taxable inheritances for the following reasons:

1) Nature produces more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

2) Heterosexuals have the evolved ability of producing more "taxable" offspring.

Damn..finally found an argument that Modern Evolutionary theory can be used to support.

Fin
Um, why are those who have a better chance of procreating through sexual intercouse more evolved than those who have less chances?
And isn't it possible nature produces more heterosexuals because the "gay gene" is more rare?

Originally posted by soleran30
because of how laws are worded today and how they might explain a union................the definition is what is most critical for this..........is there a time period, what are the benefits (health, tax), so my point is that whatever is done for civil unions or whatever you want to call them we need to make sure they are clearly explained and encompass all unions (relationships) not just same sex or hetero.
I see.

Originally posted by Eis
Um, why are those who have a better chance of procreating through sexual intercouse more evolved than those who have less chances?


Well..according to Darwinian theory..those who have a greater chance of producing healthy fertile offspring, are the more evolved species.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well..according to Darwinian theory..those who have a greater chance of producing healthy fertile offspring, are the more evolved species.
Not really.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well..according to Darwinian theory..those who have a greater chance of producing healthy fertile offspring, are the more evolved species.
Didn't know that...
So I guess that makes me an undeveloped being.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really.
So Im not an undeveloped being?!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well..according to Darwinian theory..those who have a greater chance of producing healthy fertile offspring, are the more evolved species.


however that shouldn't define rules for a civil union. If thats the case burn all invalids or disabled people before they can create more devil spawn

Originally posted by Eis
Didn't know that...
So I guess that makes me an undeveloped being.


So Im not an undeveloped being?!

No you aren't...although I don't really know you, you might be...better check your local priest to be sure

Originally posted by Bardock42
No you aren't...although I don't really know you, you might be...better check your local priest to be sure
Im not a christian
and christianity's banned here anyway...

Originally posted by Eis
Im not a christian
and christianity's banned here anyway...

really? Where are you from?

Originally posted by Bardock42
really? Where are you from?
from? or where I live?

Originally posted by Eis
from? or where I live? Let's do both...just for fun.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Let's do both...just for fun.
How about? No.
My nationality and my current location are strictly confidential.

Gotta watch out for those stalkers, you know?

Originally posted by Eis
How about? No.
My nationality and my current location are strictly confidential.

Gotta watch out for those stalkers, you know?

Dammit...and I was soo close.

I know
But seriously, how hard can it be? How many countries is are there that christianity is illegal?

Originally posted by Eis
I know
But seriously, how hard can it be? How many countries is are there that christianity is illegal?

UI don't know. to be all honest I didn't know there were any.

Originally posted by soleran30
however that shouldn't define rules for a civil union. If thats the case burn all invalids or disabled people before they can create more devil spawn

Well if you think about it..that's kind of the direction we're headed in..many people would choose to abort children found to have genetic defects..if they were able to detect the defect before birth. Homosexuality could easily be categorized as but another defect....

Originally posted by Bardock42
UI don't know. to be all honest I didn't know there were any.
Hmm... not the smartest person I see...

Originally posted by Eis
Hmm... not the smartest person I see...

HEY.......that'S not nice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
HEY.......that'S not nice.
Well, you're still awesome.

So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?

And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.

What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?

And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.

What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?


well there is why I said they need to clearly define what this union would mean.......its benefits etc etc otherwise its just a huge clusterf*** that isn't worth looking at.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?

And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.

What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?
For ****'s sakes, it's not a lifestyle CHOICE!
How ****ing hard is it to understand?

And, no it will never be categorized as a "genetic defect"

The Genetic argument..

If homosexuality is considered a "genetic" defect..should the law give some sort of grant to the medical industry, to research the condition and possibly provide a cure for it. You know..kind of like they do for aids/cancer/diabetes..etc..

Originally posted by Eis
For ****'s sakes, it's not a lifestyle CHOICE!
How ****ing hard is it to understand?

And, no it will never be categorized as a "genetic defect"

Choosing to have sexual intercourse with whomever one wants is a "human right".. correct? Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to a horse or cow? One could make the argument that having sexual relations with these animals..is a much kinder then using them for food or travel. At least the animal is getting some sort of gratification from a sexual act..and it still gets to stay alive as well right?

And why shouldn't the law allow a man to have intercourse and get remarried to his dead wife? After all..he was married to the wife at one time.

If the law is about human equality when determining which lifestyle choices should be deemed as legal marriages..then it's only fair that it applies to all types of lifestyles..not just hetero or homo..

Because horses can't speak or comunicate in anyway with a human being.

The woman is dead, gone. I find this argument quite silly.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Choosing to have sexual intercourse with whomever one wants is a "human right".. correct? Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to a horse or cow? One could make the argument that having sexual relations with these animals..is a much kinder then using them for food or travel. At least the animal is getting some sort of gratification from a sexual act..and it still gets to stay alive as well right?

And why shouldn't the law allow a man to have intercourse and get remarried to his dead wife? After all..he was married to the wife at one time.

If the law is about human equality when determining which lifestyle choices should be deemed as legal marriages..then it's only fair that it applies to all types of lifestyles..not just hetero or homo..

I think a man should be able to marry a horse if the horse can clearly show that it wants to marry the man. Wait..that'S not possible? Well I guess that won't work then...

Originally posted by Eis
Because horses can't speak or comunicate in anyway with a human being.


Horses can communicate..just not on the same level as human beings. They have different types of mating rituals, territorial behavior..etc.



Exactly if she's dead, then she has no more right to her body..correct? In most countries, her husband is the one who gets to claim her after she passes. So why should the law stop him from doing what he chooses with the her dead body? He's not hurting anyone..is he? What if he want's to still qualify for various marriage benefits on his tax return? Why shouldn't he be able to qualify for the same benefits as an individual who has a living spouse?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think a man should be able to marry a horse if the horse can clearly show that it wants to marry the man. Wait..that'S not possible? Well I guess that won't work then...

Well what about if the man owns the horse? Doesn't right of possession..equate to being able to do what one wants with what they possess? Why should the government be able to tell the man what he can do with his possessions?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well what about if the man owns the horse? Doesn't right of possession..equate to being able to do what one wants with what they possess? Why should the government be able to tell the man what he can do with his possessions?

Of course not, since it is required that the person or horse agrees...possesion does not do that.

Never thought about it this way but still... its sick and wrong

And as for the horse, if horses could talk and think like us I wouldnt have anything against hore-man unions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course not, since it is required that the person or horse agrees...possesion does not do that.



Thats why I said several pages ago that there must be clearly defined rules for this to work on any level and the amount of abuse that will be encountered will be enormous...................right or wrong it is what it is.

Yup, possession is irrelevant to consent.

But what's the point? Whom is just throwing out idiotic statements to wind people up. Every sensible person knows that the gender you prefer (if any) to partner with is a private matter up to the individual that is absolutely immoral to legislate against (just as it would be silly to legilsate against liking blondes), and trying to make that equivalent with beastiality is simply the act of a moron.

The Baltic States are only going to have to reverse their legislation if they want to stay as part of the European Block; the Human Rights Act makes sure of that. Discrimination against homosexuality is illegal.

Originally posted by soleran30
Thats why I said several pages ago that there must be clearly defined rules for this to work on any level and the amount of abuse that will be encountered will be enormous...................right or wrong it is what it is.

What. The rule's are easy, every human being has the right to marry another huan being given that they agree to do so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup, possession is irrelevant to consent.

But what's the point? Whom is just throwing out idiotic statements to wind people up. Every sensible person knows that the gender you prefer (if any) to partner with is a private matter up to the individual that is absolutely immoral to legislate against (just as it would be silly to legilsate against liking blondes), and trying to make that equivalent with beastiality is simply the act of a moron.


absolutely or an act of brilliance in taking advantage of tax laws.................which is why at least in the USA for it to work we would need a serious revamp on ton of laws. Also realize my views are strictly based on a USA system not European.

If that is actually true it only speaks very poorly of the US. Somehow I doubt it.

whob, you amaze me with your typical gay=animalf***er arguement.

whether it's genetic or a product of environment, people are gay. they dont choose to be gay.

we are talking about a mutually consentual civil union between two human beings who may or may not intend to raise a family. they feel they are entitled to the same protections and benefits as any other two people who are in love and intend to live out their lives together.

somehow you manage to connect this with f***ing a corpse, simply because you find the act of being gay disgusting. well thats fine. as i always say, i find the idea of fat ugly people f***ing to be disgusting, but shall we equate them to necropheliacs as well and not allow them to marry?

ok, now its time for the "ITS NOT NATURAL" argument and then we merge with the endless clusterf*** that is the "homosexuality chosen or genetic" thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course not, since it is required that the person or horse agrees...possesion does not do that.

Depends on how you classify the term "agreement." If a man has lived and had sexual relations with animal for many years..and each time the man sets the animal free, the animal then decides to come back to him, could that then be considered as an agreement between the two parties?

No, and you know it, and basic common sense knows it.

These ridiculous examples are just a waste of time, whob.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Depends on how you classify the term "agreement." If a man has lived and had sexual relations with animal for many years..and each time the man sets the animal free, the animal then decides to come back to him, could that then be considered as an agreement between the two parties?

Well basically ..NO. But that's not the point. The Law is just for human/human relationships..so there won't be that problem.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well basically ..NO. But that's not the point. The Law is just for human/human relationships..so there won't be that problem.

living human/living human you mean

Well in a society where same sex partners cannot get the same treatment as heterosexual partners changing the law in the USA is going to be scrutinized and probably abused to some extent with what whob has said as disturbing as that may seem.

Originally posted by soleran30
Well in a society where same sex partners cannot get the same treatment as heterosexual partners changing the law in the USA is going to be scrutinized and probably abused to some extent with what whob has said as disturbing as that may seem.

um how?

how is it possible for a homosexual couple to abuse the system in a way which is unique from the way in which many heterosexual couples abuse the system?

Originally posted by PVS
living human/living human you mean
Whob sure does have an imagination.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, and you know it, and basic common sense knows it.

These ridiculous examples are just a waste of time, whob.

Okay..obviously the "evolutionary" gap between man quadrapedal animals is to large, how about between a man and an ape. Many apes are intelligent enough..to communicate using limited sign language...corrrect? So would a union between a man and say a female gorilla be acceptable..if of course..the female gorilla agreed to such a union? After all..men and apes are of the same family..correct?

Originally posted by PVS
living human/living human you mean
well yes....dead people usually don't agree to stuff........

Originally posted by PVS
um how?

how is it possible for a homosexual couple to abuse the system in a way which is unique from the way in which many heterosexual couples abuse the system?


this just comes down to how the laws are defined and executed. Right now there aren't the laws in place for say health coverage of same sex partners............just one example. So the laws have to be defined as to what is acceptable to the society at the moment. So does that mean in 50 years who's to say humans don't have the right to put their animals on their health coverage.

Clearly this is a radical piece here however anyone that has lived for awhile knows there will be some whack jobs that feel its their right for this to happen. So we just need to be clear and define what unions are acceptable (very very clearly cuz attornies love to spin words in the law) and make sure there is an overhaul of current laws to protect the proper live human/live human piece.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay..obviously the "evolutionary" gap between man quadrapedal animals is to large, how about between a man and an ape. Many apes are intelligent enough..to communicate using limited sign language...corrrect? So would a union between a man and say a female gorilla be acceptable..if of course..the female gorilla agreed to such a union? After all..men and apes are of the same family..correct?

Ok let e ask you that again..is an ape a human? If the answer is no.....then NO

Originally posted by soleran30
this just comes down to how the laws are defined and executed. Right now there aren't the laws in place for say health coverage of same sex partners............just one example. So the laws have to be defined as to what is acceptable to the society at the moment. So does that mean in 50 years who's to say humans don't have the right to put their animals on their health coverage.

Clearly this is a radical piece here however anyone that has lived for awhile knows there will be some whack jobs that feel its their right for this to happen. So we just need to be clear and define what unions are acceptable (very very clearly cuz attornies love to spin words in the law) and make sure there is an overhaul of current laws to protect the proper live human/live human piece.

there are laws set firmly in place that not only is bestiality NOT a "life choice" but in fact a crime which is easily punishable by imprisonment for cruelty and rape of an animal.

you seem to argue that gays should not be permitted benefits because some people would see that as a green light to screw a dog? well fine if they do, but if and when they get caught they will be punished, as it was, is and always will be. your leap in logic is without any base other than your own prejudice.
by your very logic, the green light is already given for people to marry animals, so long as they are of opposite sex. makes no sense? well neither does your statement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok let e ask you that again..is an ape a human? If the answer is no.....then NO

There is no distincition between man and any other animal. Man is just an evolved primate..correct? Some primates are just more "evolved" than others..but we're all still "animals" none the less. Why is it when certain terminology is used...man somehow begins to indentify himself in a different category..than that category which classifies him as an animal?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Their is no distincition between man and any other animal. Man is just an evolved primate..correct? Some primates are just more "evolved" than others..but we're all still "animals" none the less. Why is it when certain terminology is used...man somehow begins to indentify himself in a different category..than that category which classifies him as an animal?

Of course we are all animals. But there are different species. And the marrying would only be in between members of the same species...Human in this case.

So dogs mary dogs, cats arry cats, and apes (although being primates) marry apes....

Originally posted by PVS
there are laws set firmly in place that not only is bestiality NOT a "life choice" but in fact a crime which is easily punishable by imprisonment for cruelty and rape of an animal.

you seem to argue that gays should not be permitted benefits because some people would see that as a green light to screw a dog? well fine if they do, but if and when they get caught they will be punished, as it was, is and always will be. your leap in logic is without any base other than your own prejudice.
by your very logic, the green light is already given for people to marry animals, so long as they are of opposite sex. makes no sense? well neither does your statement.


uh huh so if you would have read my posts you would know that I don't care if there are same sex unions only that they be defined by the law and not favoribly treated over hetero relationships. My point was that there are SO MANY laws in effect that affect the benefits of hetero marriages there will be loopholes there will be abusers of the system. Not to have sex with your dog and call them your life partner.

Originally posted by soleran30
uh huh so if you would have read my posts you would know that I don't care if there are same sex unions only that they be defined by the law and not favoribly treated over hetero relationships.

makes sense. but who is asking for special privileges? nobody

Originally posted by soleran30
My point was that there are SO MANY laws in effect that affect the benefits of hetero marriages there will be loopholes there will be abusers of the system. Not to have sex with your dog and call them your life partner.

the only loophole is in your mind.
you have nothing to back it up, and dispite your
disclaimer on not being against gay marrage, i cant
help but smell a rat when you equate such an allowance with
corruption of morality which would lead to marrying your pet.




however, off topic point...wouldnt it be awesome if you could include your pets on your insurance plan?

yeah anyway we have an antiqueted system of laws that regardless of our intent has so many loopholes and backlogs that adding new laws kinda stinks because it would seem lawyers are that much better at putting in double talk to allow for loopholes.

and there are TONS of tax laws that discriminate against same sex couples.

I am not even thinking of morality on same sex unions just posing questions that may come up much much farther down the line. You may think its assinine but hell there was a black man lynched and hung in the town square in/around 1915! Crazy so there is nothing wrong with the question when you look back at how people grow and change viewpoints.

Originally posted by soleran30
yeah anyway we have an antiqueted system of laws that regardless of our intent has so many loopholes and backlogs that adding new laws kinda stinks because it would seem lawyers are that much better at putting in double talk to allow for loopholes.

and there are TONS of tax laws that discriminate against same sex couples.

I am not even thinking of morality on same sex unions just posing questions that may come up much much farther down the line. You may think its assinine but hell there was a black man lynched and hung in the town square in/around 1915! Crazy so there is nothing wrong with the question when you look back at how people grow and change viewpoints.

again i see no connection.

you make a point that laws are corruptable. well yes they are. but again, how is this concept exclusively applicable to homosexual civil unions?

are you saying caution should be taken in defining such a law? well of coarse, as with any law.

Originally posted by PVS
again i see no connection.

you make a point that laws are corruptable. well yes they are. but again, how is this concept exclusively applicable to homosexual civil unions?

are you saying caution should be taken in defining such a law? well of coarse, as with any law.


thats what I said awhile back I just didn't rehash............

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well..according to Darwinian theory..those who have a greater chance of producing healthy fertile offspring, are the more evolved species.

Not more evolved, more likely to survive. Besides, your argument is ridiculous. If gay people couldn't breed, then you might have something, since they can, "superior" is a flawed POV.

This post alone perfectly illustrates why you have no right to argue 'for' or 'against' anything that invloves evolution, you don't understand the theory. Which is most likely why you don't subscribe to it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well if you think about it..that's kind of the direction we're headed in..many people would choose to abort children found to have genetic defects..if they were able to detect the defect before birth. Homosexuality could easily be categorized as but another defect....

As could stupidity.

Besides, baby Jesus wouldn't let people kill their babies! How Roman would that be of the parents? And we all know baby Jesus created humans to be totally different from animals and would never allow people to come up with the idea of abortion, becuase they didn't want a gay baby.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what do we categorize it as..a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic defect"..which one do you all believe would be the more appropriate terminology in defining it?

And If the law recognizes it as a "lifestyle choice", should the legislatures then attempt to "legalize" other lifestyle choices.

What about polygamy or beastality..or necrophelia? Don't individuals who have multiple wives, or have sexual intercourse with beasts /corpses deserve just as much legal right to carry on their lifestyle..as any hetero or homo couple?

Not "we" ...YOU!

And it has been pointed out to you in the other thread that it is genetic, but not a defect. There is no broken gene in the human chromosome that causes homosexuality. Broken genes cause down syndrome, but I seriously doubt you would have the balls to say that having down syndrome is like a dog eating it's own shit.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not more evolved, more likely to survive.


A sexual act which enabled one species a greater chance of reproduction, would be the more evolved one. In this case, natural heterosexual intercourse..is the only sexual act that can produce offspring.


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Besides, your argument is ridiculous. If gay people couldn't breed, then you might have something, since they can, "superior" is a flawed POV.


Call me crazy..but I don't believe two people of the same sex possess the ability to produce offspring together while engaging in sexual intercourse. Unless you know something the rest of us don't Cap. Please give us some examples of how anal sex, oral sex, mutual masterbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, and other such sexual behaviors, have evolved over the years..and have given two individuals of the same sex..the ability to reproduce.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
A sexual act which enabled one species a greater chance of reproduction, would be the more evolved one. In this case, natural heterosexual intercourse..is the only sexual act that can produce offspring.

funny, since in nature many animals engage in homosexual intercoarse and then go on to be the alpha male once they establish dominace in a pack/herd/pride etc.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Call me crazy.

doubt you would listen to reason

Originally posted by whobdamandog
but I don't believe two people of the same sex possess the ability to produce offspring together while engaging in sexual intercourse.

they are not capable together, but (most) their genetalia are ideally equipped to take part in the conception of a child. they just dont want to because that would mean intercoarse with the opposite sex..........wow i cant believe im explaining this. are you really THAT frikin stupid?

Deano told me we will all soon be made in labs.

Originally posted by PVS
funny, since in nature many animals engage in homosexual intercoarse and then go on to be the alpha male once they establish dominace in a pack/herd/pride etc.





doubt you would listen to reason



they are not capable together, but (most) their genetalia are ideally equipped to take part in the conception of a child. they just dont want to because that would mean intercoarse with the opposite sex..........wow i cant believe im explaining this. are you really THAT frikin stupid?

1. The comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is broken, the analogy is logically flawed. There is nothing in common between the two. Also, just to cut it off before it's said, the argument of "well, if you allow gay people to marry then next we would allow bestial marriage, then may pedophilia marriage, blah blah blah" is also broken and holds no water. It's a slippery slope argument, their eis no evidence that homosexuality would actually lead to bestial marriage, or the legality of child/adult marriage. Just wanted to get that out of the way because stupid people always bring up the same broken arguments in these threads. Just thought I'd shoot it down beforehand to save everyone some time.

2. Since when is marriage about anything other then love? Procreation has nothing to do with it. Two straight people who don't have the ability to procreate can get married, so why can't homosexuals? What's the difference?

3. Gay marriage doesn't effect straight people, who it's stupid to oppose it if you are straight, just more evidence that simple bigotry is the real reason people oppose it, rather than the other "reasons" people often list.

4. In short there is no logically sound or argumentatively valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, and almost all pseudo arguments people make are in truth simply masks to try and hide their prejudice.

Anything that brings love into the world is OK by me. Paraphrasing Lennon to Epstein when he found out Brian was gay.

Originally posted by BackFire
1. The comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is broken, the analogy is logically flawed. There is nothing in common between the two. Also, just to cut it off before it's said, the argument of "well, if you allow gay people to marry then next we would allow bestial marriage, then may pedophilia marriage, blah blah blah" is also broken and holds no water. It's a slippery slope argument, their eis no evidence that homosexuality would actually lead to bestial marriage, or the legality of child/adult marriage. Just wanted to get that out of the way because stupid people always bring up the same broken arguments in these threads. Just thought I'd shoot it down beforehand to save everyone some time.


you're too late. that idiot bomb was already dropped in this thread. and guess who dropped it?

in fact the bar was lowered with the addition of necrophelia

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Choosing to have sexual intercourse with whomever one wants is a "human right".. correct? Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to a horse or cow? One could make the argument that having sexual relations with these animals..is a much kinder then using them for food or travel. At least the animal is getting some sort of gratification from a sexual act..and it still gets to stay alive as well right?

And why shouldn't the law allow a man to have intercourse and get remarried to his dead wife? After all..he was married to the wife at one time.

If the law is about human equality when determining which lifestyle choices should be deemed as legal marriages..then it's only fair that it applies to all types of lifestyles..not just hetero or homo..

Originally posted by PVS
you're too late. that idiot bomb was already dropped in this thread. and guess who dropped it?

in fact the bar was lowered with the addition of necrophelia

Well, necrophelia is just silly. It would be impossible for a dead woman to consent to marriage. Not to mention it's dangerous.

well, i guess he just has a more evolved sense of logic than anyone here, thus our inability to comprehend the connection between homosexuality and screwing a corpse.

Originally posted by BackFire
4. In short there is no logically sound or argumentatively valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, and almost all pseudo arguments people make are in truth simply masks to try and hide their prejudice.

This is the definition of Whob's brand of "debate", "religion", "logic" and the very nature of his existance.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
This is the definition of Whob's brand of "debate", "religion", "logic" and the very nature of his existance.

Whob is not alone check it.... (did I sound gangsta)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070004

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Whob is not alone check it.... (did I sound gangsta)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510070004

Oh, I know he's not alone. But, my post was meant to illustrate that Backfire's comment is the very definition of Whob's personality. Not only in regards to homosexuality, but to issues in general.

As for James Dobson, the man is a nut!

No, you didn't sound gangsta. You sounded like a white guy trying to sound gangsta. I do the same thing. But it was more "gangsta" than I would have been, because I would have used a comma. Since you did not, it was very inner-city, public school thug of you.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

As for James Dobson, the man is a nut!

No, you didn't sound gangsta. You sounded like a white guy trying to sound gangsta. I do the same thing. But it was more "gangsta" than I would have been, because I would have used a comma. Since you did not, it was very inner-city, public school thug of you.

Word

Originally posted by PVS
funny, since in nature many animals engage in homosexual intercoarse and then go on to be the alpha male once they establish dominace in a pack/herd/pride etc.


Depends on how you categorize "homosexual" behavior in animals. Moot point none the less. Animal behavior can't be equated with human behavior.



Originally posted by PVS
doubt you would listen to reason


Only when someone presents a reasonable argument..

Originally posted by PVS
they are not capable together, but (most) their genetalia are ideally equipped to take part in the conception of a child. they just dont want to because that would mean intercoarse with the opposite sex..........wow i cant believe im explaining this. are you really THAT frikin stupid?

2 individuals of the same gender can not reproduce. I can't put it in any simpler terms for you all. This is elementary level biology fellas. Regardless of their ability to "reproduce" with the opposite gender, their sexual preference and behavior is not conducive to producing offspring.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
2 individuals of the same gender can not reproduce. I can't put it in any simpler terms for you all. This is elementary level biology fellas. Regardless of their ability to "reproduce" with the opposite gender, their sexual preference and behavior is not conducive to producing offspring.

So, you're telling PVS that you ARE that fricking stupid?

As I pointed out to you, being gay does not make a man sterile. If that gay man were to have sex with a woman during her fertile period, she could become pregnant. This is also the case with a heterosexual man. I then pointed out to you that heterosexual males are not "more evolved" than a homosexual male, because of ability to reproduce. Again, you show that you don't understand the theory of evolution.

More evolved = superior in your mindset. However, that is not really what the theory of evolution is all about! You seem to think that evolution implies that one day humanity will evolve into beings of pure energy, existing as a thought! That isn't the case.

Originally posted by BackFire
The comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is broken, the analogy is logically flawed.


Nonsense. There are many comparisons that can be made between the two. Below is a list of the main ones.

1) The main purpose of both sexual acts is recreation as opposed to reproduction.
2) Neither sexual union can produce fertile offspring.
3) Both acts generally involve penetration of the anus for the purpose of sexual stimulation.


Originally posted by BackFire
Since when is marriage about anything other then love? Procreation has nothing to do with it.


What foolishness. Of course marriage has to do with procreation, and the ability to procreate has everything to do with love. It's the most intimate and tangible way two individuals can express their love for one another.

Originally posted by BackFire
Two straight people who don't have the ability to procreate can get married, so why can't homosexuals? What's the difference?


You're attempting to equate two types of situations that are vastly different. The bottom line is that heterosexual unions have the ability to produce fertile offspring. Same sex unions do not. One can't make simple comparisons between the two behaviors, because the end results for each of the behavoirs..are vastly different.

The only clear results observed from same sex unions are the following:

a) hemmoroids
b) Creating big messes of fecal matter/saliva/and sexually reproductive fluids..over body parts meant for excretion of waste and ingestion of food.
c) Spreading STD's


Originally posted by BackFire
3. Gay marriage doesn't effect straight people, who it's stupid to oppose it if you are straight, just more evidence that simple bigotry is the real reason people oppose it, rather than the other "reasons" people often list.

4. In short there is no logically sound or argumentatively valid reasons to oppose gay marriage, and almost all pseudo arguments people make are in truth simply masks to try and hide their prejudice.


Not bigotry. People oppose degenaritive behavior, and those who attempt to pass off degenerative behavior as logical and rewarding. History has shown that such behavior has led to the ultimate destruction of many once great societies.(ie Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc)

There is nothing rewarding or honorable about two men engaging in sexual acts involving the anus, mouth, and touching of each others genitalia. Me stating this is not bigotry. It is truth and simply put..common sense.

I have no problem with an individual doing what they want to do with their bodies in private. I just don't like it when they try to force this "acceptance" of such degenerative and unnatural behaviors on others.

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Nonsense. There are many comparisons that can be made between the two. Below is a list of the main ones.

1) The main purpose of both sexual acts is recreation as opposed to reproduction.
2) Neither sexual union can produce fertile offspring.
3) Both acts generally involve penetration of the anus for the purpose of sexual stimulation.




What foolishness. Of course marriage has to do with procreation, and the ability to procreate has everything to do with love. It's the most intimate and tangible way two individuals can express their love for one another.



You're attempting to equate two types of situations that are vastly different. The bottom line is that heterosexual unions have the ability to produce fertile offspring. Same sex unions do not. One can't make simple comparisons between the two behaviors, because the end results for each of the behavoirs..are vastly different.

The only clear results observed from same sex unions are the following:

a) hemmoroids
b) Creating big messes of fecal matter/saliva/and sexually reproductive fluids..over body parts meant for excretion of waste and ingestion of food.
c) Spreading STD's




Not bigotry. People oppose degenaritive behavior, and those who attempt to pass off degenerative behavior as logical and rewarding. History has shown that such behavior has led to the ultimate destruction of many once great societies.(ie Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc)

There is nothing rewarding or honorable about two men engaging in sexual acts involving the anus, mouth, and touching of each others genitalia. Me stating this is not bigotry. It is truth and simply put..common sense.

I have no problem with an individual doing what they want to do with their bodies in private. I just don't like it when they try to force this "acceptance" of such degenerative and unnatural behaviors on others.

Fin

You're totally full of shit.

Once again, you're lying. You're making things up. And you're being a bigot.

Provide me with ANY EVIDENCE that the cultures you mentioned fell due to sexual behavior, or acceptance of homosexuality? Any evidence. One website that isn't based on your precious bible?

Come on, just answer this one challange. Back up your shit beliefs, just once, with anything credible!


F*CKING CIVILIZATIONS COLLAPSING FROM SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, YOU CAN'T REALLY BE THAT DENSE!

And, you still haven't answered the question: HAVE YOU EVER HAD SEX?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're telling PVS that you ARE that fricking stupid?

As I pointed out to you, being gay does not make a man sterile. If that gay man were to have sex with a woman during her fertile period, she could become pregnant. This is also the case with a heterosexual man.

More evolved = superior in your mindset. However, that is not really what the theory of evolution is all about! You seem to think that evolution implies that one day humanity will evolve into beings of pure energy, existing as a thought! That isn't the case.


Cap..Cap..what part of this statement don't you understand...let me repeat it again...read it slowly this time..



If they were more "evolved" they would be attracted to sexual behavior that produced fertile offspring..right? Thus that would enable homosexuals a greater chance of surviving and passing on the homo genes right? Again Cap, PVS, BF..this is real common sense stuff fellas..you all just have to read a bit slower and apply a bit more "common sense" to what you have read next time...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Cap..Cap..what part of this statement don't you understand...let me repeat it again...read it slowly this time..



If they were more "evolved" they would be attracted to sexual behavior that produced fertile offspring..right? Thus that would enable homosexuals a greater chance of surviving and passing on the homo genes right? Again Cap, PVS, BF..this is real common sense stuff fellas..you all just have to read a bit more carefully and a bit slower next time...

Wrong! Every time you open your mouth, you prove to everyone, save yourself, that you posses no knowledge of the things you talk about. Your grasp of these concepts is totally ridiculous! You've wasted page after page of posts arguing against things you don't even ****ing understand!

And "common sense" is not very common. You are living proof of that fact. You can not pass on the "homo gene"! There is no sinlge "homo gene" as you so insultingly put it. If you paid any attention to what you've been arguing against, rather than spinning your wheels by babbling about things you don't understand, you'd know there is no single homo gene.

Do you understand how human genes work? Have you tried to find out? Do you even believe in human genetics, or is that against your religion too?

Again:


Have You Ever Had Sex?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

There is no sinlge "homo gene" as you so insultingly put it.



That's all I was waiting for Cap..straight out of the "horse's mouth" so to speak.

Don't try to force your lifestyle CHOICES on others.

Fin

whobdamandog, I challenge you to name a single rational reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry that is related to a legitimate state interest.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's all I was waiting for Cap..straight out of the "horse's mouth" so to speak.

Don't try to force your lifestyle CHOICES on others.

Fin

Straight from the horses mouth, you are ignorant!

And you'll notice, in the very quote you decided to use, it says single gene. There is no single gene that makes you gay. That is a fact. There are many genes that act in unison, controlling sexuality. The fact that you claim another false victory over that statment only proves me right, that you know nothing of which you argue against.

Everyone on these forums wouldn't be calling you stupid if you could come up with an argument that made you seem at all informed.

God, are you stupid!

Again:

Have you ever had sex?

You've also not provided us with any evidence that the civilizations you mentioned were destroyed by the sexual activity of it's citizens.

I wonder why?

How disappointing, Europe seems to be heading in such a promising direction in this area, doing away with foolish outdated notions, and doing the right thing by letting gays marry (I was hoping all the English media with Elton John and so forth might have some effect on Australia's prime minister, that is rethinking his opposition to gay marriages.)

All I can hope is that this wont suddenly become the first actual example of the domino effect, and that other EU nations wont follow suit.



I will say I don't believe any of that's true. Civilisations collapse for a number of reasons, but sexuality has never been one of them. In fact some of the greatest, longest lasting cultures, had quite interesting sexuality. Both Rome and Greece had thriving homosexual communities (Greece didn't really fall, it became the Eastern Roman Empire, of the Byzantines), Egypt had a strong history of incest etc. In fact Edward Gibbon blamed the fall of Rome on the rising barbarian powers, but they were secondary, he pointed his finger firmly as Christianity, and what it had done to Roman virtues and society.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How disappointing, Europe seems to be heading in such a promising direction in this area, doing away with foolish outdated notions, and doing the right thing by letting gays marry (I was hoping all the English media with Elton John and so forth might have some effect on Australia's prime minister, that is rethinking his opposition to gay marriages.)

All I can hope is that this wont suddenly become the first actual example of the domino effect, and that other EU nations wont follow suit.

I don't think the domino effect will take place. The EU said they were considering taking actions against Poland for it's opposition to "gay rights".

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Depends on how you categorize "homosexual" behavior in animals. Moot point none the less. Animal behavior can't be equated with human behavior.

then i guess you cant apply the laws of evolution to your weak little argument, right?

oh i love this:
"Don't try to force your lifestyle CHOICES on others."
ok, so you know better, although you have no idea why gay people are actually gay. but you SAID SO!!!!! SO THATS IT!!!! FIN!!!!
great way to cap off your argument. did you stand up on your computer desk and beat your chest when you posted that?

what amazes me is your completely irrational hatred and prejudice for gay people. makes me think....hmmm....what is it psychologists say about people with an intense and irrational fear of gay people...........cant place my finger on it...........somebody help me out.....



well anyway, when you run out of bullshit to spew, i look forward to your flooding of smilies and unfunny owned pics. dont let me down.

You mean, when they're gay too?

I ahte Gay People, but that's because I have no soul

You're telling me that straight people ONLY have sex for reproduction? Many many straight people have sex for recreation as well. Also, sex is only done for more reasons then the two you've given, this is known as the logical fallacy of "false dilemma". It's also an expression of love between two people, which can be done in both heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.

Also, where's this strange "general" occurrence of anal sex in bestiality? How would you know that it usually involves anal sex? This is nothing but an assumption on your part, probably because you wanted to have 3 examples rather then 2. All of these "comparisons" are incredibly questionable, at best, and absolute bullshit, at worst.

Homosexuality is between two consenting human adults, both of which can understand and comprehend the meaning of sex and marriage. Bestiality is between a man and an animal that can't give valid consent and doesn't comprehend the action that is happening. Big difference between the two.



The two aren't inherently connected. People get married without ever subscribing to that idea, some marry and never have children. Marriage is simply a recognition of the love between two people, that's recognized by the government, procreation has nothing to do with it. Please provide proof that marriage has something constantly to do with procreation. You simply saying this doesn't make it so.



Avoiding my question. Two heterosexual people get married who aren't able to have children, how is this different then homosexual's getting married? Would you oppose this on the same basis, since, according to you, marriage is primarily about procreation? The end result would be the same. Two people are married for the sake of love who can't produce offspring themselves. Also, it's quite ironic that you are saying I'm making improper comparisons between two pairs of human beings who can't procreate, while you are under the incorrect belief that comparing homosexual and bestial sex is in some way sound.

You're "clear results" is just pathetic trolling, sadly, probably not intended, and it's quite disgusting hearing your honest, and moronic views on homosexuality. Also, on another note, I weep for your child, who would honestly probably be better of with a homosexual parent then you. I certainly hope he adopts more common sense when he grows up then you have.

Hemorrhoids have nothing to do with homosexuality. This is again based on the broken idea that anal sex = homosexual sex, which, as has been said in the past, is often not the case. Just another sloppy and factually incorrect assumption you are making.

Again, oral/anal sex happens in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, it's not mutually exclusive to one type.

STD's are running rampant in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. As long as the person is smart and uses protection, it won't matter what sexual preference they are. Again, STD's, like every other "clear observation" (which, might I add, are baseless and only observed by you) you've listed is not exclusive to homosexuality.



Yes, bigotry, as has been shown in the previous segments of this post.

Homosexuality is no more or less rewarding then heterosexuality. Both involve two willing adults, and both involve the same emotions, feelings, and level of love and involvement between the two parties.

No one's trying to force anything on you. YOU and people like you are trying to force YOUR beliefs on others by outlawing something that has no effect on you. If homosexual marriage was allowed, it's not like they'd be doing it in your living room, or even in your church. Everything would be happening in private, no one would force you to watch it or experience it. You'd not even notice the difference, other then maybe some happier people in the world. But yeah, no real Christian would want that.

Also, if you oppose unnatural behaviors then you should oppose marriage itself. The idea of one person spending their entire life with another person is unnatural in and of itself. We have a biological drive creates an innate desire to have multiple sexual partners during our life. As humans we've grown to the point where we can deny this, but the desire is still there, and marriage goes against this. How often do you see two animals in nature spending an entire life staying sexually mutual to one another?

Originally posted by BackFire
Also, on another note, I weep for your child, who would honestly probably be better of with a homosexual parent then you.

You kinda have to have sex before you can have children. Or, at least find a woman willing to carry his child to term without throwing herself down the stairs.

Well, I dunno. Maybe if you pray hard enough baby Jesus will intervene.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay..obviously the "evolutionary" gap between man quadrapedal animals is to large, how about between a man and an ape. Many apes are intelligent enough..to communicate using limited sign language...corrrect? So would a union between a man and say a female gorilla be acceptable..if of course..the female gorilla agreed to such a union? After all..men and apes are of the same family..correct?

Children can communicate- that doesn't mean they can consent, either legally or morally. No animal is sophisticated enough to do that.

Again, ridiculous examples that you know full well cannot stand up to analysis are just a waste of time. You aren't even being serious; you are just trying to catch out people who subscribe to evolutionary theory (i.e. nearly everyone). It won't work- you will be using false logic every time.

The significant issue on this piece isn't if gays are right or wrong but what civil rights can be qualified if action is taken on same sex civil unions. This was said a few pages back its not whether its right or wrong in and of itself but where are people allowed to take this civil matter when its finished.

However I do like the idea of polygomy as long as I get my tax pieces on all the wives

Originally posted by soleran30
The significant issue on this piece isn't if gays are right or wrong but what civil rights can be qualified if action is taken on same sex civil unions. This was said a few pages back its not whether its right or wrong in and of itself but where are people allowed to take this civil matter when its finished.

However I do like the idea of polygomy as long as I get my tax pieces on all the wives

you are still trying to say there is a slippery slope when there clearly is none.
regardless of the intention of your posts, the connections you make are indicative of the same old "allowing gays to marry will lead to a breakdown in morals" prejudice, dispite your consistant PC disclaimers to the contrary.

Any person should be allowed to enter into a civil and legal union with any other consenting person. 'Civil' is used simply as a point that the union is not necessarily religious or spiritual (but it can be) but is still officiated over in some official capacity, and 'legal' simply represents the relationship of that union with the state, in the form of taxation, accounting, and the fact that for practical reasons you can only enter into a union with one person.

Nothing else matters- no factor of the children you have or do not have, or the acts you perform. The purpose of the union is as an act of civil and legal commitment and that is it. It's a basic human right to be able to form such a union if desired; what you intend to DO in that union is neither here nor there.

So there is no need for all this paranoid worry about where such an ideal leads.

I think the essential point is not even one of solidifying a union, but more of conferring the rights a spouse has under the law- E.G. the intestacy rules.

Originally posted by PVS
you are still trying to say there is a slippery slope when there clearly is none.
regardless of the intention of your posts, the connections you make are indicative of the same old "allowing gays to marry will lead to a breakdown in morals" prejudice, dispite your consistant PC disclaimers to the contrary.


ok you do know that MOST laws today that include applicable laws to "marriage" and other pieces are clearly defined and one new law will not create the solution. Stop TRYING to say and use some basic moral piece on my understanding. I DON"T care about same sex unions from a moral standpoint. What I am spelling out to you using various examples on several different posts is that there are OTHER legal ramifications to allowing this union none of which have a moral basis just an underlying understanding that WHOLE tax structures will be changed, TONS of health laws, inheritance pieces........whatever thats my point. So its not just a simple sign a new law piece and its ok.......

Originally posted by soleran30
whatever thats my point

based on absolutley nothing.

your entire aregument is based on nothing. "TONS" of nothing

I did mention the legal bit, VVD.

And I simply don't agree, soleran. It's being done easily enough in other places and I do not think the US would have anywhere near as big a problem with it as you say.

Besides which, it caused a lot of legal uproar when slavery was abolished and when women got the vote. Sometimes, the cause of moral progress is clearly worth the hassle.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I did mention the legal bit, VVD.



Yeah. I wasn't replying to you as such; you were just the previous poster.

I have not made an argument against it AT ALL! I have made a point that it is not as simple as signing a new bill...............wow reading into things because you like to get huffy..........save it.

Let me make it SUPER clear once again........I am not opposed to same sex unions however to make it FAIR then the laws need to be changed and there are alot of them to change.

Ush in all fairness we have 10 times the laws we did back in the times of those civil uproars. So we need to make double sure to keep the laws square in how this is handled. Its a legal piece not a moral piece.

But the imperative behind the moral argument still holds.

And I still do not believe the US would find it much more difficult, legally speaking, than other countries that have done it.

Originally posted by PVS
your entire argument is based on nothing.

notice the lack of the words 'for' or 'against'

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Straight from the horses mouth, you are ignorant!
And you'll notice, in the very quote you decided to use, it says single gene.


Semantics Captain. I like how you phrased it..taken from the horse's mouth once again...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
There is no single gene that makes you gay. That is a fact.


My point all along...


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
There are many genes that act in unison, controlling sexuality.


There have been no studies conducted..that have conclusively linked "homosexuality" to one's genetic makeup. Simple as that Cap.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The fact that you claim another false victory over that statment only proves me right, that you know nothing of which you argue against.


Cap I'm just using your own statements against you. You've stated that the non existence of a "single" homo gene. You've stated that homosexuality isn't a "genetic condition." You've stated in many threads that you are responsible for making your own "lifestyle choices." So where does the ultimate responsibility of your actions lie Cap? This is a rhetorical question bud..you need not answer..

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You've also not provided us with any evidence that the civilizations you mentioned were destroyed by the sexual activity of it's citizens.


Sorokin actually alluded to the fall of a society's "social mobility" being linked to the breakdown/perversion of the institution of marriage. Not a huge discovery however..seeing as how linking such behavior to societal breakdowns is a no brainer.

"breakdown/perversion of the institution of marriage" relates to the disfunction of, not the premise of. and funny how in not a single known fallen empire in history was gay marriage allowed...yet they fell anyway didnt they?

you base your entire argument by presenting your simpleminded and irrationally scared opinions as fact, sprinkled with baseless junk science pulled freshly out of your ass ala nietzsche.

you view the entirety of your posts concerning homosexuals as a solid fortress of impenetrable fact, when in reality its just an big house of cards which has been blown over a long while back. you chose to cry "group think" in the face of sound logic and then spam with smilies and 'owned' pics.

what is your purpose other than to spend endless hours trying to rationalise the discrimination and hate of other people because they are different than you?

i mean, its one thing to feel that gays should not be "married". i disagree but thats just an opinion. you seem to want to discredit them as frikin human beings with any sense of morality.

No he seems to want to wind some people up.....

Which he has done.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
There have been no studies conducted..that have conclusively linked "homosexuality" to one's genetic makeup. Simple as that Cap.

You are selectively ignoring the University of Illinois at Chicago study that combed the entire human genome for genetic determinates of homosexuality and found them on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 just as you did in the "Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic" thread.



Originally posted by Adam_PoE
whobdamandog, I challenge you to name a single rational reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry that is related to a legitimate state interest.



Moreover, why do you continue to participate in these threads; should you not be preparing for the Rapture?

Originally posted by PVS


what is your purpose other than to spend endless hours trying to rationalise the discrimination and hate of other people because they are different than you?

i mean, its one thing to feel that gays should not be "married". i disagree but thats just an opinion. you seem to want to discredit them as frikin human beings with any sense of morality.

Yes, and that is where this conversation should be left.

Whob, I hope you're not as stupid as you seem to be. You twist the words of other posters to suit your argumentative/descriminatory needs. The several posts above this one address your last post, directed at me. Therefore, I'll let their words speak for themselves in the face of your overwhelming ignorance.

As PVS pointed out, you are just a hate filled person. I'm sorry for your lot in life, which you use to justify your beliefs. Maybe once you loose a little weight, grown a set of balls, and put down your bible, you'll discover the joys that the rest of the collective world have come to know. And who knows? Maybe a real live girl will touch your peepee. (Not with her mouth of course. That's a SIN!) It's called being a human being. Your parents have failed you, miserably. As has baby Jesus.

Why don't you print out all your posts here on KMC and submit them to the white house. I'm sure there's a job on the Supreme Court for you, given your overwhelming under-qualification.

i sense a massive brainfart coming.

brace yourselves

HERE IT COMES!!!!!!!fear

It's not me......

no not you. your only problem is you stick to a topic like an eel sticks to a scoop of warm butter

but anyway...get ready....wait for it...

Oh, you mean "Ms expand the topic" to encompass the whole realm of the meanings in all dimensional view. Though I'll just slip out....Don't want to disturb the ethical flow...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Whob, I hope you're not as stupid as you seem to be. You twist the words of other posters to suit your argumentative/descriminatory needs. The several posts above this one address your last post, directed at me. Therefore, I'll let their words speak for themselves in the face of your overwhelming ignorance.


I'm not ignorant at all Captain..I just have a different opinion than yourself. My words do indeed "speak for themselves", and I'm certain that they will influence others who read them in different ways. Your opinion of them..doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of others.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As PVS pointed out, you are just a hate filled person.


Not at all. I don't hate anyone. Nor do I wish any ill will upon anyone. What I do "hate" however..is the ideology that you/others have choosen to represent, which is based on nothing but lies, selfishness, and perversions. I also "hate" the fact that you attempt to force such a foolish ideology on others.

my psychic powers never fail me

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not at all. I don't hate anyone. Nor do I wish any ill will upon anyone. What I do "hate" however..is the ideology that you/others have choosen to represent, which is based on nothing but lies, selfishness, and perversions. I also "hate" the fact that you attempt to force such a foolish ideology on others.


you totally contradicted yourself.
you probably know that.


yes whob, you are absolutely right. its all an ideology.
gay people are just out to prove something. they only
have sex to piss off idiot backwoods retards, and boy
do they do a great job. once you all submit and admit your
stupidity, they will no longer have a purpose for being gay
and will suddenly decide to date the opposite sex.

you frikin genius you!!!! you saw right through their master plan.
BRAVO!!!!

Originally posted by PVS
you totally contradicted yourself.
you probably know that.


No contradiction PVS. I never alluded to "hating" an individual..just the "ideology" in which they choose to follow. Does that mean that I'm wishing for malice or ill will to come upon that person...no..not in the slightest, in fact..I really pity you, Captain, and others who profess their faith in such belief systems.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
No contradiction PVS. I never alluded to "hating" an individual..just the "ideology" in which they choose to follow. Does that mean that I'm wishing for malice or ill will to come upon that person...no..not in the slightest, in fact..I really pity you, Captain, and others who profess their faith in such belief systems.

you are presenting your opinion (a completely false one) as fact, as per your usual asinine posts. they dont CHOOSE to be gay. and although your lord and savior (bush, not christ) teaches you that a lie repeated becomes the truth, its just an illusion.

well thats it, im done with you.
i only wish that spamming stupidity was a banable offense
or this forum would clean up pretty damn quick, but unfortunately
kmc and all its decent political/social discussions will continue to
rot because of asshats like you.


yeah i said it. ban me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Any person should be allowed to enter into a civil and legal union with any other consenting person. 'Civil' is used simply as a point that the union is not necessarily religious or spiritual


Just wanted to adress this point..seeing as how I believe it to be the most important issue being raised.

Where should the limit be regarding such a union? You all have stated that you are against necrophelia and beastiality. But what stances do you have on polygamy and incest?

Do you all believe that the law should recognize a consentual union between a Father and his adult son/daughter as a marriage? What about between Mother and adult son/daughter?

What should be the limit to the amount of consenting adults who engage in such a union. "2"..."3"..."4"...etc?

I'd like to know everyone's stance on these issues.

^ years old?

Sorry, I havent read all the post.......

years, or years old.

Originally posted by debbiejo
^ years old?

Sorry, I havent read all the post.......

years, or years old.

"Amount" meaning the number of "people" who could participate in such a union. Notice how I put the word "adult" before son/daughter...

I mean..if they're all consenting adults..should the law recognize a consentual sexual union between father/son as a marriage?

How about a sexual union between a father/son/and daughter?

Or two brothers and one sister?

How many people should be able to engage in a "consentual" union? Should those individuals that are "immediate" family members..be excluded from marrying one another?

There are places where polygamy is allowed, legally. And lets not get started on cults and communes where free love reigns supreme (though I guess they in that case they aren't legal unions, just a social thing.)

Incest though is a different kettle of fish. Leaving aside morality, practically such unions pose a threat to children born from them in a genetic sense (ie. father with daughter.) Likewise psychologically speaking it is not viewed as healthy when it comes to children when parents do such things.. Of course there are likely to be people living like that out there, but they aren't coming out and asking for marriage rights.

That said homosexuality does not cause such problems, risks to the well being of the children and the like.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
"Amount" meaning the number of "people" who could participate in such a union. Notice how I put the word "adult" before son/daughter...

I mean..if they're all consenting adults..should the law recognize a consentual sexual union between father/son as a marriage?

How about a sexual union between a father/son/and daughter?

Or two brothers and one sister?

How many people should be able to engage in a "consentual" union? Oh....Hmmmm

Consenting would be the word I suppose. Even if I find it morally wrong, who am I to say what Consenting adults do.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm not ignorant at all Captain..I just have a different opinion than yourself. My words do indeed "speak for themselves", and I'm certain that they will influence others who read them in different ways. Your opinion of them..doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of others.



Not at all. I don't hate anyone. Nor do I wish any ill will upon anyone. What I do "hate" however..is the ideology that you/others have choosen to represent, which is based on nothing but lies, selfishness, and perversions. I also "hate" the fact that you attempt to force such a foolish ideology on others.

You are ignorant. It is ignorant to place your head in the sand and ignore any and all evidence that disputes your biblical views. And you are welcome to your opinion. But, I assure you, that the day will come where people like yourself will be little more than an air buiscuit in the winds of history. Despite the personal existance of people, humanity will continue. If homosexuality is a plague, then christians like yourself are too.

I try to enforce my life on no one else. I simply ask that you don't enforce yours on me. Live in your little world with baby Jesus all you want, but keep it there. As it is, it's clear to everyone that you exist to make the whole world like you. You're so pissed off that life took a big shit on you, that you want to shit on everyone else. I'm sorry you're a virgin, but don't hate me because I'm not. And therein lies the real problem! You can't seperate gay from gay sex. Unlike yourself, and people like you; the rest of the world can't be so easily categorized and referrenced. And that fact scares you. You can't handle difference, so you scream about it. You condemn it.

And I'm confused by your use of the term "selfishness"? Why use such a term? Do you want me to share the gay sex with you? Do you want me to pass out your number to the tired old queens at the club?

As for not wishing ill upon anyone, not only is that another lie, but it is a sentiment that we do not share. I wish nothing but the worst upon people like you. And if you pity me, the feeling is mutual. Change with the times, or die yesterday.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
"Amount" meaning the number of "people" who could participate in such a union. Notice how I put the word "adult" before son/daughter...

I mean..if they're all consenting adults..should the law recognize a consentual sexual union between father/son as a marriage?

How about a sexual union between a father/son/and daughter?

Or two brothers and one sister?

How many people should be able to engage in a "consentual" union? Should those individuals that are "immediate" family members..be excluded from marrying one another?

This dribble was addressed many posts ago. If you can't come up with something new, then don't speak after your arguments have been "owned".

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Incest though is a different kettle of fish. Leaving aside morality, practically such unions pose a threat to children born from them in a genetic sense (ie. father with daughter.) Likewise psychologically speaking it is not viewed as healthy when it comes to children when parents do such things.. Of course there are likely to be people living like that out there, but they aren't coming out and asking for marriage rights.

That said homosexuality does not cause such problems, risks to the well being of the children and the like.



Well of course, you are assuming that the two participants in said incetuous relationship would be of the opposite sex. What if they were of the same sex? There would be no need for concerns regarding offspring correct? Or what if a father/daughter or mother/son in such a union choose not to have children? Should they still be denied the right to marriage..even though they have choosen not to have children?

There are indeed people out there who believe in such foolish concepts..much like homosexuality, these practices have been deemed by many in society to be degenerative behaviors..which cause the inevitable break down the social family structure, and as a result cause something similar to an anarchaic society.

Here's a pretty accurate dipiction of what people like you are really spreading in this world:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3552314994740921390&q=farting+preacher

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8478388526913847225&q=farting+preacher

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2453217212869715744&q=farting+preacher

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=423412654049302774&q=farting+preacher

old news to most informed people, but news to people who've been in their basement praying to a coke can for most of their life.

captain, i agree with your views on this subject. eastern europe is a bit behind the times. but please, explain to me what the hell an airbiscuit is?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
captain, i agree with your views on this subject. eastern europe is a bit behind the times. but please, explain to me what the hell an airbiscuit is?

A type of flatulence.

ah, i see...so buiscuit is a metaphor for a log and/or loaf.
clever.