ALRIGHT!!!!!!! i must have missed a very large conversation over the night. But i did not make this thread to just ramble on talking of nonsense. If you want that, please visit the OFF-TOPIC FORUM. I created this thread to get your perspective on gay marriages (thankyou syren). so if you wish to talk of something else, take it somewhere else.
Sorry, OhILuvHewlettPackard!!!! Okay, everyone back on topic:
Downtown we'll drown
We're in our never splender
Flowers, Showers
Who's got the new boy gender
I'll be your baby
I'll be your score
I'll run the gun for you
And so much more
I'll tumble 4 ya
I'll tumble 4 ya
I'll tumble 4 ya
I'll tumble 4 you
Uptown their sound
Is like the native
You send her
Junction, Function
The boy with pop is slender
Did he say maybe
Or I'm not sure
He'll be a boy for you
But you need more
I'll be your baby
I'll be your score
I'll run the gun for you
And so much more
Downtown we'll drown
We're in our never splender
Flowers, Showers
Who's got the new boy gender
I'll be your baby
I'll be your score
I'll run the gun for you
And so much more
I'll tumble 4 ya
I'll tumble 4 ya
I'll tumble 4 ya
Originally posted by OhILuvHP
ALRIGHT!!!!!!! i must have missed a very large conversation over the night. But i did not make this thread to just ramble on talking of nonsense. If you want that, please visit the OFF-TOPIC FORUM. I created this thread to get your perspective on gay marriages (thankyou syren). so if you wish to talk of something else, take it somewhere else.
But there are at least two more threads on the Topic already, so once the thread search will work again this will get closed anyways....
Originally posted by OhILuvHP
yes but sex was never a sin. as long as you were married. it is even stated in the bible that sex is not a sin unless you have it before a proper marriage. and some even believed that when (sorry if you think this is a bit....erm....innapropriate) that when you had an orgasm...that was the closest man came to connection with god. as a mortal being. so how would it have ever been a sin?
That's not the point.
The Victorian ERA made it wrong. Forget the word "sin", it's meaningless when it comes to social standards. It is only as meaningful as people make it.
Heterosexuality- the sexual attraction and intimacy between man and woman was considered WRONG, PERVERTED, and ABNORMAL in this era. THAT is the POINT.
"True Love" was the standard, and they had found numerous Bible quotations to justify this ideal. True love meant love without the pleasures of sex, sex only for procreation. Prolonged Abstinence was the ideal.
Sex is a SIN if its not intended for procreation, according to the Bible AND Victorian Era. In the Bible is not given as purely for pleasure, or connection between man and woman. According to the Bible, sex is for procreation...everything else just comes with it, but sex without the intent of PRO CREATION is sinful.
These days the standards have evolved, so now the "new" pervert is the Homosexual, since they need someone to make the outcast. Point is the sexual standards change ALL THE TIME !
There is NO right or wrong sex. There is no superior sex or inferior sex. Nature did not create or intend for one type of sexual behavior, otherwise WE WOULD ALL BE ONE SEX ORIENTATION AND THATS IT ! But no....we have numerous sexual idenitities.
Even the fkn Animals engage in homosexual or bisexual activity. Even they have sex without the constant intention of pro creation. They mostly do it because of instinct and the fact that sex feels good.
Take an extensive Sociology class and LEARN something...you will see that the sexual standards, definitions, justifications, and studies are EVER CHANGING.....
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's not the point.The Victorian ERA made it wrong. Forget the word "sin", it's meaningless when it comes to social standards. It is only as meaningful as people make it.
[b]Heterosexuality
- the sexual attraction and intimacy between man and woman was considered WRONG, PERVERTED, and ABNORMAL in this era. THAT is the POINT."True Love" was the standard, and they had found numerous Bible quotations to justify this ideal. True love meant love without the pleasures of sex, sex only for procreation. Prolonged Abstinence was the ideal.
Sex is a SIN if its not intended for procreation, according to the Bible AND Victorian Era. In the Bible is not given as purely for pleasure, or connection between man and woman. According to the Bible, sex is for procreation...everything else just comes with it, but sex without the intent of PRO CREATION is sinful.
These days the standards have evolved, so now the "new" pervert is the Homosexual, since they need someone to make the outcast. Point is the sexual standards change ALL THE TIME !
There is NO right or wrong sex. There is no superior sex or inferior sex. Nature did not create or intend for one type of sexual behavior, otherwise WE WOULD ALL BE ONE SEX ORIENTATION AND THATS IT ! But no....we have numerous sexual idenitities.
Even the fkn Animals engage in homosexual or bisexual activity. Even they have sex without the constant intention of pro creation. They mostly do it because of instinct and the fact that sex feels good.
Take an extensive Sociology class and LEARN something...you will see that the sexual standards, definitions, justifications, and studies are EVER CHANGING..... [/B]
ok...even so...two people who love each other (man-woman, man-man, or woman-woman) should be able to SHOW that they love eachother. And you better not say it is a sin, because sin is meaningless when it comes to social standards. It is only as meaningful as people make it.
Nope I don't support gay marriage.
Quite frankly, as hard and as often as they try, Gays have yet to provide definitive proof that their sexual orientation is a natural occurence.
They have provided studies with partial evidence mixed with a lot of speculation, but no conclusive proof. Many people say well if they love someone why can't they get married? It's a slippery slope if you hold that view. There are people out there that "love" animals and are into beastiality. What if NAMBLA members want to marry an underaged child because they "love" them?
They can already do anything a married couple can do by power of attorney. EVERYTHING. We don't care what they do in their private lives, but attaching a legal binding marriage to it would do a few things that to me would be negative.
1. They could legally adopt children. A child is best raised by a man and a woman. It teaches them how to deal with the opposite sexes. No matter how good you think you are at it, a man and a man cannot teach a child to be a well rounded individual. They will suffer because of it, much the same as single parent homes that are filling our jails. Don't we have enough problems without creating more?
2. It would open the door for other adults to choose what their definition of marriage is. Is it right for a man to marry 4 women? How about a man to marry his sister? His niece? 1st cousin? CHILDREN? Blurring the lines of "normal behavior" is what these folks are after for the most part in my view.
I don't care what an individual does in their own bedroom but KEEP IT OUT OF MY FACE. You don't have the right to demand recognition for your CHOICE in life. You CHOOSE to live a deviant lifestyle, so stop demanding we all see it as "normal". It's NOT. I'm sick to death of every moron with a cause demanding that we recognize a choice and accept it. Anything short makes you a "homophobe", "racist", etc. You know what? If I see a gay couple holding hands it makes me sick. I leave them alone because it's their choice, but I will not accept their choice as "normal". Do what you want but don't keep insisting that it's your right for us to recognize it as normal.
It would open the door for other adults to choose what their definition of marriage is. Is it right for a man to marry 4 women? How about a man to marry his sister? His niece? 1st cousin? CHILDREN? Blurring the lines of "normal behavior" is what these folks are after for the most part in my view.
Originally posted by Redwolf
I don't care what an individual does in their own bedroom but KEEP IT OUT OF MY FACE. You don't have the right to demand recognition for your CHOICE in life. You CHOOSE to live a deviant lifestyle, so stop demanding we all see it as "normal". It's NOT. I'm sick to death of every moron with a cause demanding that we recognize a choice and accept it. Anything short makes you a "homophobe", "racist", etc. You know what? If I see a gay couple holding hands it makes me sick. I leave them alone because it's their choice, but I will not accept their choice as "normal". Do what you want but don't keep insisting that it's your right for us to recognize it as normal.
so now they have no right to exist, they CHOOSE to be gay, just because you said so, and you are special because you "leave them alone". thank you for proving my point:
Originally posted by PVS
i think people should stay silent on this issue and privately regard gay people as
evil and the scourge of humanity. they should be two-faced and deny their right
to marriage under the false pretense of 'sanctity of marraige', while lying and
claiming that they "respect their rights blah blah blah, free country, god loves
you, we're all sinners, blah blah blah" knowing well that they wish for gays to
either be forbidden from love of any kind by law and force. and failing that,
systematic execution.
if everyone of your state of intolerant mind were to suddenly die of a massive coronary, we would have instant utopia. and then charlie chaplan would look down from heaven and smile 🙂
Originally posted by Redwolf
Nope I don't support gay marriage.Quite frankly, as hard and as often as they try, Gays have yet to provide definitive proof that their sexual orientation is a natural occurence.
They have provided studies with partial evidence mixed with a lot of speculation, but no conclusive proof. Many people say well if they love someone why can't they get married? It's a slippery slope if you hold that view. There are people out there that "love" animals and are into beastiality. What if NAMBLA members want to marry an underaged child because they "love" them?
They can already do anything a married couple can do by power of attorney. EVERYTHING. We don't care what they do in their private lives, but attaching a legal binding marriage to it would do a few things that to me would be negative.
1. They could legally adopt children. A child is best raised by a man and a woman. It teaches them how to deal with the opposite sexes. No matter how good you think you are at it, a man and a man cannot teach a child to be a well rounded individual. They will suffer because of it, much the same as single parent homes that are filling our jails. Don't we have enough problems without creating more?
2. It would open the door for other adults to choose what their definition of marriage is. Is it right for a man to marry 4 women? How about a man to marry his sister? His niece? 1st cousin? CHILDREN? Blurring the lines of "normal behavior" is what these folks are after for the most part in my view.
I don't care what an individual does in their own bedroom but KEEP IT OUT OF MY FACE. You don't have the right to demand recognition for your CHOICE in life. You CHOOSE to live a deviant lifestyle, so stop demanding we all see it as "normal". It's NOT. I'm sick to death of every moron with a cause demanding that we recognize a choice and accept it. Anything short makes you a "homophobe", "racist", etc. You know what? If I see a gay couple holding hands it makes me sick. I leave them alone because it's their choice, but I will not accept their choice as "normal". Do what you want but don't keep insisting that it's your right for us to recognize it as normal.
Wow alright. I must say, very persuading argument. But I do NOT see gay/lesbian relationships as something someone would want to put on themselves. Why would people choose to live that way and go through everything that gay people have had to go through? Personally, i would think it is a burden to be gay, though i see nothing wrong with it. With all the crap the government and the rest of the world has agains homosexuals, why would they choose that life. I think they are born liking the same sex (but it is not a disease or anything) just like you and i are born to find the opposite sex attractive.