PDA

View Full Version : May as well discuss this topic also..........



DeDolfan
07-27-2003, 12:20 PM
Well, we've had pro life/pro choice, what is a human, marijuana, and so forth and so on. So, what do you all think about the gay movement around the country? Should they be allowed to marry or engage upon civil unions? Should they have spousal benefits, etc? may as well hash this out before camp gets into real full swing!!

Miamian
07-27-2003, 08:24 PM
As far as I'm concerned what happens between two consenting adults is their own business. The Constitution guarantees equal protection to all citizens.

MOULDSROCKS
07-27-2003, 09:21 PM
more women for me.....



but I wish that only fat chicks were lesbos.

DeDolfan
07-28-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
As far as I'm concerned what happens between two consenting adults is their own business. The Constitution guarantees equal protection to all citizens.

I totally agree. I've often thought for a long time that if a person is not married that they should be allowed to name any other person to receive the "spousal benefit" package. It could even be one's own brother if he had no benefits. What's the difference, the cost is the same. it's not like the single person gets a "kick back" because he doesn't have any other family expenses in the benefit dept. oh well, just a thought.

mf52dolphin
07-28-2003, 08:08 PM
I am not in favor of spousal-type benefits for anyone not in a formal male-female marriage. There should be just rewards and benefits for those who do the traditional(and in my opinion moral) formal commitmemt.
As for those of the same sex, unions should not be recognized legally.

XoPhinsoX
07-28-2003, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by MOULDSROCKS
more women for me.....



but I wish that only fat chicks were lesbos.

Yeah, because then we could get to see only fat chicks make out, right? Wtf are you thinking? :(

iceblizzard69
07-28-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


I totally agree. I've often thought for a long time that if a person is not married that they should be allowed to name any other person to receive the "spousal benefit" package. It could even be one's own brother if he had no benefits. What's the difference, the cost is the same. it's not like the single person gets a "kick back" because he doesn't have any other family expenses in the benefit dept. oh well, just a thought.

I agree. You should be allowed to give "spousal benefits" to someone else if you aren't married. If a gay man wants to give it to his boyfriend, he should definitely be allowed to. Not giving homosexuals these rights is discriminatory and unconstitutional because they aren't being given equality.

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by mf52dolphin
I am not in favor of spousal-type benefits for anyone not in a formal male-female marriage. There should be just rewards and benefits for those who do the traditional(and in my opinion moral) formal commitmemt.
As for those of the same sex, unions should not be recognized legally.

Yes, but that regulates morality in case where nobody elses rights are being infringed upon.

Gay marriges (or couplings) are no less valid than straight ones, now a person religeous views might run counter to that, but thats part of the reason we hve that little thing called "seperation of church and state"

Personally I think all of theese laws against "Victemless crimes" or anything that regulates religious morality should be stricken down.

Other than religious convictions (which legally and rightfully should not even be considered by the government), is there any other reason to not recognize a gay or lesbian marriage?

I didn't think so.

MOULDSROCKS
07-29-2003, 01:30 AM
hot chicks can be bi Xo! :D

ohall
07-29-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
Well, we've had pro life/pro choice, what is a human, marijuana, and so forth and so on. So, what do you all think about the gay movement around the country? Should they be allowed to marry or engage upon civil unions? Should they have spousal benefits, etc? may as well hash this out before camp gets into real full swing!!

IMO no they should not be recognized as a legal couple and be allowed to marry, legally. When that happens we as a society will be taking on their health problems when we pay for our medical health insurance.

I for one have no problem with ppl doing what they want, but I have a huge problem paying more money for my health care premiums.

I may not agree with how these ppl live, but I am no place to judge ppl. I am only basing this on my wallet.

Oliver...

Barbarian
07-29-2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Oliver


IMO no they should not be recognized as a legal couple and be allowed to marry, legally. When that happens we as a society will be taking on their health problems when we pay for our medical health insurance.

I for one have no problem with ppl doing what they want, but I have a huge problem paying more money for my health care premiums.

I may not agree with how these ppl live, but I am no place to judge ppl. I am only basing this on my wallet.

Oliver...

ummmm, what the hell are you talking about?

Their health problems?

Paying money for their health premiums?

please elaborate... this I have GOT to hear. :confused:

ohall
07-29-2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


ummmm, what the hell are you talking about?

Their health problems?

Paying money for their health premiums?

please elaborate... this I have GOT to hear. :confused:

Unless Gays are some how immune to sickness and health problems, any addition to the current pool which obviously have them excluded currently will logically increase rates if they are included.

Oliver...

Barbarian
07-29-2003, 08:09 AM
So they should be required to pay for straight peoples rates, but you shouldn't have to pay theirs?

Why?

Because they are differant than you?

Well, are you black?

perhaps they shoudlent have the right to get married either, after all if they can't then you rates would go down...

Sounds kinda cold when it gets phrased that way doesn't it, but thats exactly what you are proposing taken to it's next logical step.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Oliver


IMO no they should not be recognized as a legal couple and be allowed to marry, legally. When that happens we as a society will be taking on their health problems when we pay for our medical health insurance.

I for one have no problem with ppl doing what they want, but I have a huge problem paying more money for my health care premiums.

I may not agree with how these ppl live, but I am no place to judge ppl. I am only basing this on my wallet.

Oliver...

I pay a lot more money to support peoples smoking and eating habits than I'll ever pay due t their sexual habits. Further, if you encourage monogomus relationships, you'll reduce STD's like Aids.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 09:47 AM
Bottom line is that most people condemn homosexuals for being promiscuous and engaging in behavior which promotes disease, but then they forbid them from marrrying!! It's assinine. The Constitution says nothing about marriage being solely between men and women.

M-REAL
07-29-2003, 02:11 PM
WTF! What is happening to America? Gey couples getting married and and everything about it is fu****. It disgusts me the whole shebang, and anyone who condones this is fu**** too, IMO. I don't like it and this pro-gey stuff that passed through the supreme court is incredible. I think that the S. Court should get their hearing and vision checked and then retire those that voted on it afterwards. No I don't approve of lesbians either. Wacked a** chicks!

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by marcusreal
WTF! What is happening to America? Gey couples getting married and and everything about it is fu****. It disgusts me the whole shebang, and anyone who condones this is fu**** too, IMO. I don't like it and this pro-gey stuff that passed through the supreme court is incredible. I think that the S. Court should get their hearing and vision checked and then retire those that voted on it afterwards. No I don't approve of lesbians either. Wacked a** chicks!

Sheesh man...unresolved issues here? The bottom line is this...homosexuality is something which develops from birth in the vast majority of individuals. The crap about it being a choice is just that...crap. I personally didn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual, I've just always been attracted to girls and have NEVER been attracted to boys. Now, since this is something which people are born with, how does it make it any different from any other birth defect/handicap? Are you going to punish people for being born blind as well? If you don't like the behavior of homosexuals, why wouldn't you want to help make that behavior more "normal" by promoting more conservative institutions like marriage?

ohall
07-29-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
So they should be required to pay for straight peoples rates, but you shouldn't have to pay theirs?

Why?

Because they are differant than you?

Well, are you black?

perhaps they shoudlent have the right to get married either, after all if they can't then you rates would go down...

Sounds kinda cold when it gets phrased that way doesn't it, but thats exactly what you are proposing taken to it's next logical step.

Oh boy, and this is my last post on this subject, obviously some of you have very thin skin, or at least that's how I see it.

At this moment Gay couples are not covered under insurances for spousal coverage. If the government was to recognize these marriages obviously the current market in this area would be flooded with new applicants for married couples. The rest seems to be common sense to me.

I am against this for moral and monetary reasons. I happen to believe in religion and what is in the bible, and I like paying less money for my health insurance. If it goes for a vote I vote "NO" for the TWO listed reasons.

Have a great day.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Oliver


Oh boy, and this is my last post on this subject, obviously some of you have very thin skin, or at least that's how I see it.

At this moment Gay couples are not covered under insurances for spousal coverage. If the government was to recognize these marriages obviously the current market in this area would be flooded with new applicants for married couples. The rest seems to be common sense to me.

I am against this for moral and monetary reasons. I happen to believe in religion and what is in the bible, and I like paying less money for my health insurance. If it goes for a vote I vote "NO" for the TWO listed reasons.

Have a great day.

Oliver...

So I take it you never work on Sundays?

ohall
07-29-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


So I take it you never work on Sundays?

My Sabath is not Sunday it's Saturday for me and my religion. That is also a very lengthy and complicated discussion. :D

My holy day has nothing to do with my pocket book, it's funny how you totally jumped over that part of my post.

Again, have a great day.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Oliver


My Sabath is not Sunday it's Saturday for me and my religion. That is also a very lengthy and complicated discussion. :D

My holy day has nothing to do with my pocket book, it's funny how you totally jumped over that part of my post.

Again, have a great day.

Oliver...

Just making a point about following a religion to the letter on some things, and not others. As for the money issue, it's up to the individual company to chose whether to offer insurance to spouses(see Disney). Most companies don't offer fully paid coverage to spouces anyway, so the individual couple would still bear most of the burden. In and of itself, you wouldn't see any recognizable increase in rates from recognizing gay couples. Further, as has been pointed out, religious issues have no bearing on the legality of ANYTHING in the US. So, the monetary aspect isn't legitimate since the impact would be negligible if felt at all...and the religious aspect has no place in an argument about the law. Anything else?:cool:

Miamian
07-29-2003, 09:56 PM
Being another who's Sabbath falls from Friday evening to Saturday evening, I second that notion. The First Amendment states quite clearly:

"Congress shall create no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Therefore any argument on the legality of homosexual behavior which draws on Biblical reference is irrelevant and contrary to one of the most important cornerstones of our democratic system.

dolfan06
07-29-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
Being another who's Sabbath falls from Friday evening to Saturday evening, I second that notion. The First Amendment states quite clearly:

"Congress shall create no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Therefore any argument on the legality of homosexual behavior which draws on Biblical reference is irrelevant and contrary to one of the most important cornerstones of our democratic system. my sabbath is any day i don't have to work!:D

PhinstiGator
07-29-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
"Congress shall create no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Therefore any argument on the legality of homosexual behavior which draws on Biblical reference is irrelevant and contrary to one of the most important cornerstones of our democratic system.

Don't forget the rest of the first amendment regarding Religion... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Why do people always chop that part off the first amendment?)

The constitution of the United States guarantees the right for it's citizens to view homosexual behavior as immoral or inconsistant with religious values according to Biblical authority as an exercise of this constitutional provision of freedom of religion.

MOULDSROCKS
07-29-2003, 11:23 PM
Wrong. But nice try.

ohall
07-30-2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Just making a point about following a religion to the letter on some things, and not others. As for the money issue, it's up to the individual company to chose whether to offer insurance to spouses(see Disney). Most companies don't offer fully paid coverage to spouces anyway, so the individual couple would still bear most of the burden. In and of itself, you wouldn't see any recognizable increase in rates from recognizing gay couples. Further, as has been pointed out, religious issues have no bearing on the legality of ANYTHING in the US. So, the monetary aspect isn't legitimate since the impact would be negligible if felt at all...and the religious aspect has no place in an argument about the law. Anything else?:cool:

If that's true that's news to me. All the articles and stories I have watched on TV over the years have all implied and some have come right out and said such an action on the governments part would automatically increase the AVG citizens rate for health care.

If there is no hit to my wallet I could care less if the government recognizes anyone or anything as a legally married couple, more power to them.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Don't forget the rest of the first amendment regarding Religion... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Why do people always chop that part off the first amendment?)

The constitution of the United States guarantees the right for it's citizens to view homosexual behavior as immoral or inconsistant with religious values according to Biblical authority as an exercise of this constitutional provision of freedom of religion.

You have the right to view anything you like as immoral. But you do NOT have the right to impose that morality on those around you. Religion has no bearing what-so-ever on marriage in the legal sense. Heck, if you or your parents have ever been divorced, you've committed a cardinal sin in the eyes of Catholics. Do they have the right to outlaw divorce? It's easy to see the value of Freedom of Religion when you're the one who'se trying to impose YOUR beliefs on others. How will it feel when those beliefs are imposed on you? Ask yourself this...what was your reaction to hearing about the laws imposed by the Taliban on the people of Afghanistan? Are you aware that there's no substantive difference between those laws and the ones you propose.

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Oliver


If that's true that's news to me. All the articles and stories I have watched on TV over the years have all implied and some have come right out and said such an action on the governments part would automatically increase the AVG citizens rate for health care.

If there is no hit to my wallet I could care less if the government recognizes anyone or anything as a legally married couple, more power to them.

Oliver...

Think about the numbers involved. Most Conservatives say that the gay population in America is 10% or less. Of that 10%, half or less would probably marry. Of the 5% that's left, the vast majority are themselves employed. So MAYBE 1-2% of your company would be applying for spousal benefits. I'm not sure how much your company contributes to spousal insurance, but that's the only impact

Den54
07-30-2003, 10:21 AM
Nice breakdown Stewie.:)

iceblizzard69
07-30-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Think about the numbers involved. Most Conservatives say that the gay population in America is 10% or less. Of that 10%, half or less would probably marry. Of the 5% that's left, the vast majority are themselves employed. So MAYBE 1-2% of your company would be applying for spousal benefits. I'm not sure how much your company contributes to spousal insurance, but that's the only impact

The ones who would marry are also the ones who are the ones who go to the Gay Pride parades, etc. My mom's best friend is gay, and he doesn't throw it at you, and I doubt he would get a gay marriage.

Homosexuals deserve the same rights that heterosexuals get because if they don't it is unconstitutional. And Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual. I know I didn't choose to be heterosexual, it is just the way I am, and the same works the other way around as well.

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69


The ones who would marry are also the ones who are the ones who go to the Gay Pride parades, etc. My mom's best friend is gay, and he doesn't throw it at you, and I doubt he would get a gay marriage.

Homosexuals deserve the same rights that heterosexuals get because if they don't it is unconstitutional. And Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual. I know I didn't choose to be heterosexual, it is just the way I am, and the same works the other way around as well.


Exactly. Except I'd dispute the assertion that it's the flamboyant homosexuals who would marry. I think the culture itself would change GREATLY if monogomy and traditional institutions were promoted among the gay population.

Den54
07-30-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Exactly. Except I'd dispute the assertion that it's the flamboyant homosexuals who would marry. I think the culture itself would change GREATLY if monogomy and traditional institutions were promoted among the gay population.

Exactly. The culture itself would change greatly BUT imo in a negative way. Of coarse this is pure spectulation on my part but I think that they [the ****'s] would be looking for a little payback for all the years they were forced into the closet. By payback I mean being even more flamboyant and in your face because they would have more power on their side.

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by mf52dolphin
I am not in favor of spousal-type benefits for anyone not in a formal male-female marriage. There should be just rewards and benefits for those who do the traditional(and in my opinion moral) formal commitmemt.
As for those of the same sex, unions should not be recognized legally.

I understand where you're coming from but unfortunately, the world is constantly changing eveyday.

M-REAL
07-30-2003, 11:59 AM
Phin, unresolved issues, not quite. I just think it's disgusting and what I've inflicted(pain wise) on others as a teenager, I regret it now as a man. However, I still stand firm on how I feel about it. These people want to kiss and screw in their houses, fine. But in public where my kids see two men or two women making out, it confuses them and besides that it's plain wrong. And as far as saying that crap about bashing people b/c they're blind, that's BS. These people were not born gay. This is a decision made on their own. Well according to you, they popped out their mommies and were instantly gay. Give me a break man.

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Bottom line is that most people condemn homosexuals for being promiscuous and engaging in behavior which promotes disease, but then they forbid them from marrrying!! It's assinine. The Constitution says nothing about marriage being solely between men and women.

Wow, we are pretty much in agreement here. I hope you don't take the other thread personally. Nothing personal is meant. ;)

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Miamian
Being another who's Sabbath falls from Friday evening to Saturday evening, I second that notion. The First Amendment states quite clearly:

"Congress shall create no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Therefore any argument on the legality of homosexual behavior which draws on Biblical reference is irrelevant and contrary to one of the most important cornerstones of our democratic system.

Good point. But another q is how to handle all of the "in God we trust" things all over the place. That can get rather sticky! :rolleyes:

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69


The ones who would marry are also the ones who are the ones who go to the Gay Pride parades, etc. My mom's best friend is gay, and he doesn't throw it at you, and I doubt he would get a gay marriage.

Homosexuals deserve the same rights that heterosexuals get because if they don't it is unconstitutional. And Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual. I know I didn't choose to be heterosexual, it is just the way I am, and the same works the other way around as well.

I used to believe that becoming gay was pretty much a learned behavior, in that alot of gay men may perhaps be the last child in amongst all male siblings and mama just wanted a little girl soooo bad that she dressed him as such and so on. Howver, I live around a large population of gay folks and knowing them, i've had to rethink my thoughts on such. Matter of fact, a lot of them are some of the finest folks i know!!

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Den54


Exactly. The culture itself would change greatly BUT imo in a negative way. Of coarse this is pure spectulation on my part but I think that they [the ****'s] would be looking for a little payback for all the years they were forced into the closet. By payback I mean being even more flamboyant and in your face because they would have more power on their side.

Oh Lord !! Can you say reparations??!!

:lol: :D

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by M-REAL
Phin, unresolved issues, not quite. I just think it's disgusting and what I've inflicted(pain wise) on others as a teenager, I regret it now as a man. However, I still stand firm on how I feel about it. These people want to kiss and screw in their houses, fine. But in public where my kids see two men or two women making out, it confuses them and besides that it's plain wrong. And as far as saying that crap about bashing people b/c they're blind, that's BS. These people were not born gay. This is a decision made on their own. Well according to you, they popped out their mommies and were instantly gay. Give me a break man.

So what you're saying is that you CHOSE to be heterosexual. You feel that you could find another man attractive, but you CHOSE to find women attractive. That's a choice YOU made. If that's the case man, then there really ARE unresolved issues here. Myself, I never made that choice, I was just born straight. I wouldn't know how to get a woody at the sight of another man, but apparently you're saying that wouldn't be a problem for you. As for not wanting to see it in public, I don't want to watch ugly people make out either, should they be denied the right to marry? Further, how does allowing people TO marry encourage PDA's? In point of fact, those most likely to marry are NOT the promiscuous, flamboyant homosexuals. Those individuals are still going to do what they do, whether same sex marriage is recognized or not. Lastly, as for confusing your kids...two men kissing each other is the least of your worries. On the scale of "tough things to explain to my kid", the fact that some people are born different is easy. Trying to explain to him why some people hate other people for being born different however is going to be a b!tch.

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Den54


Exactly. The culture itself would change greatly BUT imo in a negative way. Of coarse this is pure spectulation on my part but I think that they [the ****'s] would be looking for a little payback for all the years they were forced into the closet. By payback I mean being even more flamboyant and in your face because they would have more power on their side.


I don't think so man. As I see it, a lot of the negative behavior in the gay community IS a result of being shunned and hated. The behavior you're seeing now IS the backlash. It's a natural human reaction that when faced with opposition, some people hide, and some people attack, and the flamboyant gays are on the attack. Show them a little understanding and acceptance of the fact that they were born different, and there's less reason to be so "in your face". Of course this is entirely my opinion as well, but I think it's consistant with human nature.

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Wow, we are pretty much in agreement here. I hope you don't take the other thread personally. Nothing personal is meant. ;)

Lol...one thing I NEVER take personally is the issue of abortion. I've yet to see a single person cross the line and embrace the views of the other side. Pro-Choice, or Pro-Life might as well be tattood on most people because they're going to hold the same opinion until they die. I've gone round and round with some of my best friends on the issue. That's also why I stop arguing once someone plays the religion card. Peace man.

Den54
07-30-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


So what you're saying is that you CHOSE to be heterosexual. You feel that you could find another man attractive, but you CHOSE to find women attractive. That's a choice YOU made. If that's the case man, then there really ARE unresolved issues here. Myself, I never made that choice, I was just born straight. I wouldn't know how to get a woody at the sight of another man, but apparently you're saying that wouldn't be a problem for you. As for not wanting to see it in public, I don't want to watch ugly people make out either, should they be denied the right to marry? Further, how does allowing people TO marry encourage PDA's? In point of fact, those most likely to marry are NOT the promiscuous, flamboyant homosexuals. Those individuals are still going to do what they do, whether same sex marriage is recognized or not. Lastly, as for confusing your kids...two men kissing each other is the least of your worries. On the scale of "tough things to explain to my kid", the fact that some people are born different is easy. Trying to explain to him why some people hate other people for being born different however is going to be a b!tch.


I see your point with this its not a choice but gay from birth thingy, but consider this angle if you will. Now I'm speaking from personal experiance here but I'm sure it applies to most here.
When I was young I never thought too much of women in a sexual nature until I hit puberty and then all hell broke loose lol.
Up until that point I was raised in a religious enviroment that instilled in me that fagatism was wrong and the work of the devil and was seen as an adbomination in the eyes of the lord and yada yada yada. Anyways when I hit that magical age and the hormones really flowing it only seemed natural to be fixated on the opposite sex. Now I really did'nt ever see it as being a choice as the descision had kind of been made for me by my parents. Once I turned my full attention to women the wheels, were set in motion and there was no turning back. I'm not putting this together too well but suffice to say I don't think you're born that way and you whether your straight or gay may be a product of your upbringing.

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Den54



I see your point with this its not a choice but gay from birth thingy, but consider this angle if you will. Now I'm speaking from personal experiance here but I'm sure it applies to most here.
When I was young I never thought too much of women in a sexual nature until I hit puberty and then all hell broke loose lol.
Up until that point I was raised in a religious enviroment that instilled in me that fagatism was wrong and the work of the devil and was seen as an adbomination in the eyes of the lord and yada yada yada. Anyways when I hit that magical age and the hormones really flowing it only seemed natural to be fixated on the opposite sex. Now I really did'nt ever see it as being a choice as the descision had kind of been made for me by my parents. Once I turned my full attention to women the wheels, were set in motion and there was no turning back. I'm not putting this together too well but suffice to say I don't think you're born that way and you whether your straight or gay may be a product of your upbringing.


Contrast that with a friend of mine who came to my wedding. Big black guy who's the nicest individual you'll ever meet. Also VERY religious. Grew up in a devoutly Baptist household. Mom and dad, brothers and sisters, about as typical an upbringing you could ever imagine. Knew he was gay since the first time he can remember having any kind of sexual thought. Didn't chose to find other boys attractive, he just did. Another friend of mine came out of the closet when he was in his early 20's. During his teen years, he actually beat up a couple of other kids his age because they were "queers". He refused to accept that he was gay until he got out of his teens and realized that his feelings for other men weren't "normal", or something he could compensate for by acting hyper-straight. Again, perfectly normal upbringing, religious background. No abuse of any kind in either individual. The bottom line is that the vast majority of gay individuals I've known spent much of their childhoods asking God just to make them "normal". They didn't "choose" to be gay, and far from it would have done almost anything to be straight. Lastly, if you STILL want proof of the fact that people are born gay, take a look at the stats among twins. When one twin is gay, and the twins are identical, there's a much higher chance that the other twin will also be gay. When one twin is gay, and the twins are fraternal however, there's no higher chance of the other twin being gay. Obviously both twins are raised in the same environment, but somehow one twin is gay and the other isn't. ALL of that aside however, in order for someone to think that homosexuality is a CHOICE, you MUST also accept that YOU could make that same choice. I've NEVER been intrigued by other boys/men. Girls however were FASCINATING even before things became sexual. That's the bottom line...if it's a choice for some, it's a choice for all.

Den54
07-30-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Contrast that with a friend of mine who came to my wedding. Big black guy who's the nicest individual you'll ever meet. Also VERY religious. Grew up in a devoutly Baptist household. Mom and dad, brothers and sisters, about as typical an upbringing you could ever imagine. Knew he was gay since the first time he can remember having any kind of sexual thought. Didn't chose to find other boys attractive, he just did. Another friend of mine came out of the closet when he was in his early 20's. During his teen years, he actually beat up a couple of other kids his age because they were "queers". He refused to accept that he was gay until he got out of his teens and realized that his feelings for other men weren't "normal", or something he could compensate for by acting hyper-straight. Again, perfectly normal upbringing, religious background. No abuse of any kind in either individual. The bottom line is that the vast majority of gay individuals I've known spent much of their childhoods asking God just to make them "normal". They didn't "choose" to be gay, and far from it would have done almost anything to be straight. Lastly, if you STILL want proof of the fact that people are born gay, take a look at the stats among twins. When one twin is gay, and the twins are identical, there's a much higher chance that the other twin will also be gay. When one twin is gay, and the twins are fraternal however, there's no higher chance of the other twin being gay. Obviously both twins are raised in the same environment, but somehow one twin is gay and the other isn't. ALL of that aside however, in order for someone to think that homosexuality is a CHOICE, you MUST also accept that YOU could make that same choice. I've NEVER been intrigued by other boys/men. Girls however were FASCINATING even before things became sexual. That's the bottom line...if it's a choice for some, it's a choice for all.

Well I never did profess to have all the answers but this I know, I have no desire to be that way and I'll do what ever it takes to guide my son away from that way of life as he grows into a young man. But having said that, I would not turn him away if he chose that lifestyle. I would still love my gay son.:cry:

PhinstiGator
07-30-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
You have the right to view anything you like as immoral. But you do NOT have the right to impose that morality on those around you.

I haven't imposed morality on anyone. Where is that coming from?

But as part of the exercise of my religious beliefs, immorality should not be imposed on me. I don't have to accept homosexual behavior as normal. I will not be forced to approve of Gay marriages.


Religion has no bearing what-so-ever on marriage in the legal sense. Heck, if you or your parents have ever been divorced, you've committed a cardinal sin in the eyes of Catholics. Do they have the right to outlaw divorce? It's easy to see the value of Freedom of Religion when you're the one who'se trying to impose YOUR beliefs on others.

Most marriages are held in a religious context or ceremony that includes vows to each other and to God. I am NOT trying to impose anything on anyone. To many folks, marriage is something sacred. My personal view is that it would be nice to keep it that way.

Many singles do NOT believe in marriage and try to live committed to one partner outside of the institution of the Marriage committment. Homosexuals have the same exact rights as singles who are not married...plus lower taxes.


How will it feel when those beliefs are imposed on you? Ask yourself this...what was your reaction to hearing about the laws imposed by the Taliban on the people of Afghanistan? Are you aware that there's no substantive difference between those laws and the ones you propose.

Hello....I'm proposing no laws here. I'm imposing nothing on no one. I don't approve of homosexual behavior...but they don't need my approval.

I do have friends that once lived in the gay lifestyle and now do not. That might throw a wrench in your gay from pre-birth theory...but it is true.

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...one thing I NEVER take personally is the issue of abortion. I've yet to see a single person cross the line and embrace the views of the other side. Pro-Choice, or Pro-Life might as well be tattood on most people because they're going to hold the same opinion until they die. I've gone round and round with some of my best friends on the issue. That's also why I stop arguing once someone plays the religion card. Peace man.

Same here! Consider the hatchet as buried !! :)

inFINSible
07-30-2003, 06:41 PM
Some are gay from birth and know it...some are straight form birth and know it.......as for the ones that try it and go back, it's a matter of choice. They probably tried and failed at hetero relationships and decided that maybe they could be happy in a **** relationship, when they run into the same problems in those relationships, they realize that it may be more of a problem relating to OTHER PEOPLE than to man or woman. So they go back to the path that society has made the easier more accepted route.

. Look at it like a scale....Extreme hetero on one side and extreme **** on the other.....Most people fall in the middle of this scale whether they want to admit it or not... If you REALLY, pay attention to people and their personalities, the male or female form doesn't have as much to do with sexual preference as you may think. Societal pressures have more to do with that than anyone would like to admit. If it were conisdered "normal" for a girl to love another girl in a sexual way, How many girls do you think would take that, over a man?


I think that the more gays and lesbians are accepted as "normal", the more gays and lesbians we will see.

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Contrast that with a friend of mine who came to my wedding. Big black guy who's the nicest individual you'll ever meet. Also VERY religious. Grew up in a devoutly Baptist household. Mom and dad, brothers and sisters, about as typical an upbringing you could ever imagine. Knew he was gay since the first time he can remember having any kind of sexual thought. Didn't chose to find other boys attractive, he just did. Another friend of mine came out of the closet when he was in his early 20's. During his teen years, he actually beat up a couple of other kids his age because they were "queers". He refused to accept that he was gay until he got out of his teens and realized that his feelings for other men weren't "normal", or something he could compensate for by acting hyper-straight. Again, perfectly normal upbringing, religious background. No abuse of any kind in either individual. The bottom line is that the vast majority of gay individuals I've known spent much of their childhoods asking God just to make them "normal". They didn't "choose" to be gay, and far from it would have done almost anything to be straight. Lastly, if you STILL want proof of the fact that people are born gay, take a look at the stats among twins. When one twin is gay, and the twins are identical, there's a much higher chance that the other twin will also be gay. When one twin is gay, and the twins are fraternal however, there's no higher chance of the other twin being gay. Obviously both twins are raised in the same environment, but somehow one twin is gay and the other isn't. ALL of that aside however, in order for someone to think that homosexuality is a CHOICE, you MUST also accept that YOU could make that same choice. I've NEVER been intrigued by other boys/men. Girls however were FASCINATING even before things became sexual. That's the bottom line...if it's a choice for some, it's a choice for all.

i see what you're saying about the identical twins, genetically speaking. And that does make sense. But speaking of genetics, why do you suppose it is that some in a family are gay while most are not? Do you think it's possible that some may be actually steered in that direction? Unintentionally of course. The hardest thing to try to figure out in all of this is that alot of families that have been "straight thru the ages" ALL of a sudden have a gay member and the problem here is that more than likely thru thoise ages there probably was more than one but it was taboo and such just stayed in the closest. Somewhere in their genetic code, there muct be a glich that just happens to pop up (no pun intended :D ) every once in awhile. Maybe so??

Barbarian
07-30-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


i see what you're saying about the identical twins, genetically speaking. And that does make sense. But speaking of genetics, why do you suppose it is that some in a family are gay while most are not? Do you think it's possible that some may be actually steered in that direction? Unintentionally of course. The hardest thing to try to figure out in all of this is that alot of families that have been "straight thru the ages" ALL of a sudden have a gay member and the problem here is that more than likely thru thoise ages there probably was more than one but it was taboo and such just stayed in the closest. Somewhere in their genetic code, there muct be a glich that just happens to pop up (no pun intended :D ) every once in awhile. Maybe so??


hmmmmmmm.....

good question, I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

And reading this thread has made me feel 100% better about folks on this board, this debate has been a good one that has for the most part kept out of the mud.

That said, another point for the "Gay from birth" side, studies have been done on animals to see if homosexual tendancies occour in creatures driven by instinct rather than social and moral thought.

A significant number of animals of several different species have been found to have tendancies to try and mate with members of the same sex.

Personally, my take on the genetic reason is this (mind you, this is just a theory, so take it with a grain of salt) Genetically we are created as either Male or Female, and it is my theory that semi indipendant of that some genetic code determines what sex we will be attracted to. This code has to be available to be written for either sex since the baby could be born either sex. Perhapse sometimes that code is written differently so that instead of it reading "We have a boy so lets make it attracted to girls" it mistakenly reads it in reverse so it creates an attraction to other males instead. (I just thought that theory up on the fly halfway through writing this post, so excuse the roughness of the theory)

dolfan06
07-30-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian



hmmmmmmm.....

good question, I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

And reading this thread has made me feel 100% better about folks on this board, this debate has been a good one that has for the most part kept out of the mud.

That said, another point for the "Gay from birth" side, studies have been done on animals to see if homosexual tendancies occour in creatures driven by instinct rather than social and moral thought.

A significant number of animals of several different species have been found to have tendancies to try and mate with members of the same sex.

Personally, my take on the genetic reason is this (mind you, this is just a theory, so take it with a grain of salt) Genetically we are created as either Male or Female, and it is my theory that semi indipendant of that some genetic code determines what sex we will be attracted to. This code has to be available to be written for either sex since the baby could be born either sex. Perhapse sometimes that code is written differently so that instead of it reading "We have a boy so lets make it attracted to girls" it mistakenly reads it in reverse so it creates an attraction to other males instead. (I just thought that theory up on the fly halfway through writing this post, so excuse the roughness of the theory) i can't remember what year or where it was done, but an experiment with white mice was done. they were allowed to multiply at will and when the cage became too crowded the mice turned homosexual! that explains your big cities today!:rolleyes:

Miamian
07-30-2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


I haven't imposed morality on anyone. Where is that coming from?

But as part of the exercise of my religious beliefs, immorality should not be imposed on me. I don't have to accept homosexual behavior as normal. I will not be forced to approve of Gay marriages.

Most marriages are held in a religious context or ceremony that includes vows to each other and to God. I am NOT trying to impose anything on anyone. To many folks, marriage is something sacred. My personal view is that it would be nice to keep it that way.

Many singles do NOT believe in marriage and try to live committed to one partner outside of the institution of the Marriage committment. Homosexuals have the same exact rights as singles who are not married...plus lower taxes.


Hello....I'm proposing no laws here. I'm imposing nothing on no one. I don't approve of homosexual behavior...but they don't need my approval.

I do have friends that once lived in the gay lifestyle and now do not. That might throw a wrench in your gay from pre-birth theory...but it is true. What PhinPhan and I are saying is that you jumped on the second half of separation of church and state clause in the First Amendment without due cause. Prohibiting an establishment of religion guarantees that one person's religion will not be imposed on others. In no way does that prohibit the free exercise of religion, so the argument behind the second half of the clause is irrelevant. It would be relevant, for example, if Congress started mandating contraception, eschewed by Catholics.

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


I haven't imposed morality on anyone. Where is that coming from?

But as part of the exercise of my religious beliefs, immorality should not be imposed on me. I don't have to accept homosexual behavior as normal. I will not be forced to approve of Gay marriages.



Most marriages are held in a religious context or ceremony that includes vows to each other and to God. I am NOT trying to impose anything on anyone. To many folks, marriage is something sacred. My personal view is that it would be nice to keep it that way.

Many singles do NOT believe in marriage and try to live committed to one partner outside of the institution of the Marriage committment. Homosexuals have the same exact rights as singles who are not married...plus lower taxes.



Hello....I'm proposing no laws here. I'm imposing nothing on no one. I don't approve of homosexual behavior...but they don't need my approval.

I do have friends that once lived in the gay lifestyle and now do not. That might throw a wrench in your gay from pre-birth theory...but it is true.

1)If you oppose giving one group of people the same rights as other groups of people, than yu ARE imposing your beliefs on them.

2)Your approval has nothing to do with making gay marriages legal. I don't approve of women marrying men 3 times their age, but I don't think it should be illegal.

3)Actually, if you go check court records, you'll see that a huge number of marriages are handled by a justice of the peace, and have no religious context what-so-ever.

4)There are individuals who BECOME homosexual through abuse as a child. They're a tiny percentage of the whole, but with therapy could certainly return to "normal". There are also individuals who are genuinly homosexual, but due to public pressure, either convince themselves to adopt a different lifestyle, or bury their sexuality all together...can you say Catholic Priest? I knew you could...won't you be my neighbor?

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


i see what you're saying about the identical twins, genetically speaking. And that does make sense. But speaking of genetics, why do you suppose it is that some in a family are gay while most are not? Do you think it's possible that some may be actually steered in that direction? Unintentionally of course. The hardest thing to try to figure out in all of this is that alot of families that have been "straight thru the ages" ALL of a sudden have a gay member and the problem here is that more than likely thru thoise ages there probably was more than one but it was taboo and such just stayed in the closest. Somewhere in their genetic code, there muct be a glich that just happens to pop up (no pun intended :D ) every once in awhile. Maybe so??


Quite honestly, I think that homosexuality arises from a "glitch". It may arise in families that have no other gay members just from an error during development, or it may be passed on in the actual genes. I have a 4 year old nephew that is VERY likely to be gay. You can just see it in the kid. Now, he's being raised by a mom and dad(step dad), in a small town in East Texas. I challenge you to find a more ****-phobic spot in the country. Now, I wasn't aware of this until last year, but the kids biological father is known to have had homosexual relationships. Honestly, I think the whole "raised by mom, who wanted a little girl" thing might produce a little boy who'se a sissy and warped...but it won't make him attracted to other little boys. I just don't understand how anyone who is straight(especially men) could envision someone CHOSING to find their same sex attractive, unless THEY could chose to find somoen of their own sex attractive. Even woman, who I think could experiment without actually being gay, will eventually return to what's "natural" for them.

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Den54


Well I never did profess to have all the answers but this I know, I have no desire to be that way and I'll do what ever it takes to guide my son away from that way of life as he grows into a young man. But having said that, I would not turn him away if he chose that lifestyle. I would still love my gay son.:cry:


Lol...I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. I will say this, if your kid(or mine for that matter) was gay, you'd be doing him a HUGE favor by letting him know that your love in unconditional. Gay teens make up the largest percentage of teen suicides. Which is pretty understandable when you consider how much pressure THEY'RE under.

PhinstiGator
07-31-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

1)If you oppose giving one group of people the same rights as other groups of people, than yu ARE imposing your beliefs on them.


What I oppose is the re-defining of marriage to be anything other than what it is.

Everyone has the same constitutional rights. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex just like I can. Or they can reject marriage all together and live a happy, fulfilled life complete with the constitutional rights of any non-married person.

If one accepts that marriage between two men or two women is a right, one also must agree the right extends to polygamy with any number of men and women, as well as unions of two or more close relatives.

It is disengenuous to say that homosexuals are being denied rights when those rights can be secured through legal processes available to everyone.

Now who is really imposing beliefs here?

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Everyone has the same constitutional rights. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex just like I can. Or they can reject marriage all together and live a happy, fulfilled life complete with the constitutional rights of any non-married person.




There isn't a single word in the Constitution about marriage being between a man and a woman. In point of fact, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. For you to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is a restriction of someone elses rights. Imagine if I came out and said that nobody could marry anyone if there's more than 5 years difference in their ages. What's the difference? Heck, for you to limit marriage to man/woman is no different than me saying "you have the Constitutional right to pray in a Jewish Temple...or you can reject religion all-together and live a happy fulfilled life complete with the constitutional rights of any non-Jewish person"

PhinstiGator
07-31-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

There isn't a single word in the Constitution about marriage being between a man and a woman. In point of fact, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all.


Your right. Marriage is not an expressed constitutional right.


For you to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is a restriction of someone elses rights. Imagine if I came out and said that nobody could marry anyone if there's more than 5 years difference in their ages. What's the difference?


I did not define it as such. It is defined as such. I don't seek to add or take away from the definition..."The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Why are you suggesting that I want to change this definition?


Heck, for you to limit marriage to man/woman is no different than me saying "you have the Constitutional right to pray in a Jewish Temple...or you can reject religion all-together and live a happy fulfilled life complete with the constitutional rights of any non-Jewish person"

The definition of marriage is rather self-limiting. You seek to broaden it's definition. I contend that there is something completely unique about the union of a man & woman as husband and wife and this definition is worthy of being preserved.

Of course you have the right to reject or practice the Jewish religion. But don't try to re-define what it means to practice the Jewish religion by broadening it's limits or suggesting that religion can only be practiced inside a temple. Moving the limits changes the definition. A river without boundaries becomes a flood.

Again I ask, what set of rights am I accused of taking away and how am I imposing my beliefs on another by holding to the current definition of marriage?

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Your right. Marriage is not an expressed constitutional right.



I did not define it as such. It is defined as such. I don't seek to add or take away from the definition..."The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Why are you suggesting that I want to change this definition?



The definition of marriage is rather self-limiting. You seek to broaden it's definition. I contend that there is something completely unique about the union of a man & woman as husband and wife and this definition is worthy of being preserved.

Of course you have the right to reject or practice the Jewish religion. But don't try to re-define what it means to practice the Jewish religion by broadening it's limits or suggesting that religion can only be practiced inside a temple. Moving the limits changes the definition. A river without boundaries becomes a flood.

Again I ask, what set of rights am I accused of taking away and how am I imposing my beliefs on another by holding to the current definition of marriage?

The Constitution doesn't define marriage as being between a man and woman, so who'se definition are you going by? The statement "It is defined as such" is nifty, but could you back it up? If you have the right to get married, why doesn't someone else have that same right? If the Constitution doesn't limit that right to man/woman, what right do YOU have to place that limitation? And you missed my point. What you're suggesting is no different from a Jewish person telling you a NON-Jewish person that you must EITHER worship as a Jew, or not at all. YOU are defining marriage as a union between man and woman, to the exclusion of all others. That is no different to YOU defining God as being a Christian god, to the legal exclusion of all others. You are placing limitations based on your religious beliefs, and that's unconstitutional. As for current state legal definitions(which are the only ones that define marriage as being man/woman), blacks were once legally defined as being 1/32 of a white person, and women were once legally defined as incapapable of voting. That's the job of the Supreme Court...to fix "legal definitions" that are Unconstitutional.

PhinstiGator
07-31-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


The Constitution doesn't define marriage as being between a man and woman, so who'se definition are you going by? The statement "It is defined as such" is nifty, but could you back it up?


Webster.



If you have the right to get married, why doesn't someone else have that same right? If the Constitution doesn't limit that right to man/woman, what right do YOU have to place that limitation?


So, you are now suggesting no limits on marriage. You can now marry a pig. What do you base your definition of marriage on? And be careful...don't use ANY limitations.


And you missed my point. What you're suggesting is no different from a Jewish person telling you a NON-Jewish person that you must EITHER worship as a Jew, or not at all.


Your logic does not connect. Marriage is not in the constitution. The free exercise of Religion is fully protected.



YOU are defining marriage as a union between man and woman, to the exclusion of all others.


That's is correct sir. That is how I believe it to be defined. It's sounds rather restrictive... huh?



That is no different to YOU defining God as being a Christian god, to the legal exclusion of all others. You are placing limitations based on your religious beliefs, and that's unconstitutional.


Why do you have such a difficult time understanding that the constitution guarantees and protects the freedom of Religion...legally.



As for current state legal definitions(which are the only ones that define marriage as being man/woman), blacks were once legally defined as being 1/32 of a white person, and women were once legally defined as incapapable of voting. That's the job of the Supreme Court...to fix "legal definitions" that are Unconstitutional.

I don't see a connection...you could make the same arguement if you demanded the right to marry your sister. But the slavery analogy is horribly similar to the unborn child reference to a human being.

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Webster.



So, you are now suggesting no limits on marriage. You can now marry a pig. What do you base your definition of marriage on? And be careful...don't use ANY limitations.



Your logic does not connect. Marriage is not in the constitution. The free exercise of Religion is fully protected.




That's is correct sir. That is how I believe it to be defined. It's sounds rather restrictive... huh?



Why do you have such a difficult time understanding that the constitution guarantees and protects the freedom of Religion...legally.



I don't see a connection...you could make the same arguement if you demanded the right to marry your sister. But the slavery analogy is horribly similar to the unborn child reference to a human being.


Honestly, if someone wants to marry their sister, who am I to tell them not to? How does that harm me in any way shape or form? So long as they are consenting adults, and nobody is hurt, they should be able to do what they want. As for marrying a pig, so long as you don't have sex with it(animal abuse) again, who cares? Anna Nichole Smith can marry a 150 year old man for his money, and that's ok to you, but two people who genuinly love each other can't? Do you know how screwed up that is?

DeDolfan
07-31-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian



hmmmmmmm.....

good question, I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

And reading this thread has made me feel 100% better about folks on this board, this debate has been a good one that has for the most part kept out of the mud.

That said, another point for the "Gay from birth" side, studies have been done on animals to see if homosexual tendancies occour in creatures driven by instinct rather than social and moral thought.

A significant number of animals of several different species have been found to have tendancies to try and mate with members of the same sex.

Personally, my take on the genetic reason is this (mind you, this is just a theory, so take it with a grain of salt) Genetically we are created as either Male or Female, and it is my theory that semi indipendant of that some genetic code determines what sex we will be attracted to. This code has to be available to be written for either sex since the baby could be born either sex. Perhapse sometimes that code is written differently so that instead of it reading "We have a boy so lets make it attracted to girls" it mistakenly reads it in reverse so it creates an attraction to other males instead. (I just thought that theory up on the fly halfway through writing this post, so excuse the roughness of the theory)


You may be onto something there. it's something I'll think thru a bit more. Thanks!

Barbarian
07-31-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Webster.


Ahhh, but now you only tell a small part of the story...

That is one of the definitions by webster, shall we look at the other official ones in the dictionary?


marriage mar·riage n.

1.)
__a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
__b) The state of being married; wedlock.
__c) A common-law marriage.
__d) A union between two persons having the customary force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2.) A wedding.
3.) A close union.
4.) The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

So a same sex Marriage perfectly qualifies for definitions 1b, 1c, & 1d.

DeDolfan
07-31-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Quite honestly, I think that homosexuality arises from a "glitch". It may arise in families that have no other gay members just from an error during development, or it may be passed on in the actual genes. I have a 4 year old nephew that is VERY likely to be gay. You can just see it in the kid. Now, he's being raised by a mom and dad(step dad), in a small town in East Texas. I challenge you to find a more ****-phobic spot in the country. Now, I wasn't aware of this until last year, but the kids biological father is known to have had homosexual relationships. Honestly, I think the whole "raised by mom, who wanted a little girl" thing might produce a little boy who'se a sissy and warped...but it won't make him attracted to other little boys. I just don't understand how anyone who is straight(especially men) could envision someone CHOSING to find their same sex attractive, unless THEY could chose to find somoen of their own sex attractive. Even woman, who I think could experiment without actually being gay, will eventually return to what's "natural" for them.

Good point/s !! One thing that i think that keeps the water muddy, if you will, is the fact that until that last few years, the whole homosexual thing has been a rather unknown. Well, maybe I should say that it was kept on the back burner and folks simply refused to even talk about it let alone acknowledge it. You had mentioned before about a possible 10% ratio or something like that and that could be true for all i know. But let's say that is an accurate figure and it's probably been the same for centuries and it's just that ppl kept it hidden perhaps. But as folks come out we are just beginning to understand just what it may be and I'm talking of the entire thing not just the sex part. Anyway, even tho I personally do not agree with the particular lifestyle myself, I'll be damned if i will bash them JUST because they're gay and I am in the majority. Hopefully, we'll all be able to better understand it as time goes on. It's alot like the race issue. I was raised during all the civil rights movements when all the colored folk weren't allowed to eat in restauarnts, couldn't drink from the white water fountains and the like and we were actually raised at the time to didassociater yourself from them and all that. The hardest time of my life was when our high school integrated for the first time. It was like throwing cats and 'possums in the same cage! but as time went on, we learned and understood the times and to this day, some of my best friends that I graduated with are black. Anyway, hopefully this same kind of trend of better understanding will manifest itself later on with the gay issue. We're all "human" right ?? (had to throw that it there :lol: ;)

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Good point/s !! One thing that i think that keeps the water muddy, if you will, is the fact that until that last few years, the whole homosexual thing has been a rather unknown. Well, maybe I should say that it was kept on the back burner and folks simply refused to even talk about it let alone acknowledge it. You had mentioned before about a possible 10% ratio or something like that and that could be true for all i know. But let's say that is an accurate figure and it's probably been the same for centuries and it's just that ppl kept it hidden perhaps. But as folks come out we are just beginning to understand just what it may be and I'm talking of the entire thing not just the sex part. Anyway, even tho I personally do not agree with the particular lifestyle myself, I'll be damned if i will bash them JUST because they're gay and I am in the majority. Hopefully, we'll all be able to better understand it as time goes on. It's alot like the race issue. I was raised during all the civil rights movements when all the colored folk weren't allowed to eat in restauarnts, couldn't drink from the white water fountains and the like and we were actually raised at the time to didassociater yourself from them and all that. The hardest time of my life was when our high school integrated for the first time. It was like throwing cats and 'possums in the same cage! but as time went on, we learned and understood the times and to this day, some of my best friends that I graduated with are black. Anyway, hopefully this same kind of trend of better understanding will manifest itself later on with the gay issue. We're all "human" right ?? (had to throw that it there :lol: ;)

Lol...let me throw one last thing in. Homosexuality has nothing to do with a "lifestyle". There are gay adults who have never had sex with an individual of the same sex. The ACT has nothing to do with it, it's all about the attraction. A gay man who gets married and has kids is STILL gay, even though he isn't living a gay lifestyle. That's why it pains me when people suggest that gay individuals should "act straight". All that does is screw up that persons life, and the life of the wife and kids he lies to. Oh, and I'm going to go with the assumption that you used the word "coloreds" for effect?

PhinstiGator
07-31-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


Ahhh, but now you only tell a small part of the story...

That is one of the definitions by webster, shall we look at the other official ones in the dictionary?


marriage mar·riage n.

1.)
__a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
__b) The state of being married; wedlock.
__c) A common-law marriage.
__d) A union between two persons having the customary force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2.) A wedding.
3.) A close union.
4.) The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

So a same sex Marriage perfectly qualifies for definitions 1b, 1c, & 1d.

That's not WEBSTER and it's looks like you did some editing with the AMERICAN HERITAGE Addition definition (hopefully it was an honest mistake).

___d) should read....A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Barbarian
07-31-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


That's not WEBSTER and it's looks like you did some editing with the AMERICAN HERITAGE Addition definition (hopefully it was an honest mistake).

___d) should read....A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

That was the definition I found online, but then again, I never saw websters name anywhere in the constitution or in any law book I have ever read.

And the change that you have found doesn't make any difference to my argument as it only says usually not the legal force of marriage, which at the time it was written is the truth, but it doesn't disclude the legallity of same sex marriges.

But then, using websters dictionary or American heritage or any other dictionary as a model for legislating the law is just rediculousness in the extreeme.

PhinstiGator
07-31-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


...But then, using websters dictionary or American heritage or any other dictionary as a model for legislating the law is just rediculousness in the extreme.

Really? I don't think so. There is a law already on the books passed by President Clinton.

It gives a definition of Marriage...

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

This definition inacted into Law by president Clinton was derived from (in part) Black's Law dictionary.

The DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

Miamian
07-31-2003, 08:28 PM
This is the definition of marriage from Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged. I happen to be holding it in my lap as I'm typing

marriage

1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony.
2. the act of marrying, wedding.
3. the rite or form used in marrying.
4. in pinochle, etc. the king and queen of a suit.

Notice that there is not a single definition which even includes the words man or woman. Before conceding the previous Supreme Court ruling, we should probably get some details on that case to ensure that it's related to this topic.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that law. It wouldn't be the first law struck as unconstitutional. This one seems politically charged.

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Really? I don't think so. There is a law already on the books passed by President Clinton.

It gives a definition of Marriage...

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

This definition inacted into Law by president Clinton was derived from (in part) Black's Law dictionary.

The DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).


Lol...a legal definition which includes the term "holy estate"!! A first year law student could get that one knocked off the books. Oh, and lets also remember that laws passed "over a century ago", also included things like the death penalty for stealing a cow, and laws which required blacks and whites to use different bathrooms.

dolfan06
08-01-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Lol...a legal definition which includes the term "holy estate"!! A first year law student could get that one knocked off the books. Oh, and lets also remember that laws passed "over a century ago", also included things like the death penalty for stealing a cow, and laws which required blacks and whites to use different bathrooms. there is a law in texas that REQUIRES everyhousehold to HAVE a gun in the house!:rolleyes:

PhinstiGator
08-01-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

Lol...a legal definition which includes the term "holy estate"!! A first year law student could get that one knocked off the books. Oh, and lets also remember that laws passed "over a century ago", also included things like the death penalty for stealing a cow, and laws which required blacks and whites to use different bathrooms.

There you go again! Spinning, twisting, and not even paying attention.

That "holy estate" commentary that you jumped on was NOT apart of the law signed by President Clinton. You seem to be implying that Clinton is worse than a first year lawyer by signing this definition into law.

Here is the complete definition as stated in the Defense of Marriage Act...one more time...and note that it mentions nothing of "Holy Matrimony":

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

PS. Take care guys. It's been an honest debate... and both sides have clearly expressed their stand on this issue. I have to head out of town for a few days so I'll let others who are smarter than I continue the debate. I respect the opposing views on the subject, but have seen nothing to convince me that the current definition of Marriage is inherently unfair or unconstitutional.

PhinPhan1227
08-01-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


There you go again! Spinning, twisting, and not even paying attention.

That "holy estate" commentary that you jumped on was NOT apart of the law signed by President Clinton. You seem to be implying that Clinton is worse than a first year lawyer by signing this definition into law.

Here is the complete definition as stated in the Defense of Marriage Act...one more time...and note that it mentions nothing of "Holy Matrimony":

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

PS. Take care guys. It's been an honest debate... and both sides have clearly expressed their stand on this issue. I have to head out of town for a few days so I'll let others who are smarter than I continue the debate. I respect the opposing views on the subject, but have seen nothing to convince me that the current definition of Marriage is inherently unfair or unconstitutional.


No spin involved. What I'm trying to tell you is that the fact that a law was passed doesn't mean that law is constitutional. Plenty of laws that have been passed have been shot down by Congress and I believe this one will be as well. There's nothing in the Constitution which allows the states or Fed to limit marriage to man/woman. And when you couple(pardon the pun) that with the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against persons for sexual orientation, I wouldn't count on that law standing up to the Supremes.

DeDolfan
08-01-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...let me throw one last thing in. Homosexuality has nothing to do with a "lifestyle". There are gay adults who have never had sex with an individual of the same sex. The ACT has nothing to do with it, it's all about the attraction. A gay man who gets married and has kids is STILL gay, even though he isn't living a gay lifestyle. That's why it pains me when people suggest that gay individuals should "act straight". All that does is screw up that persons life, and the life of the wife and kids he lies to. Oh, and I'm going to go with the assumption that you used the word "coloreds" for effect?

Yes, for effect. Back then they were actually called colored people. The term Afro-American was not used then or wasn't a popular term. But of course, the N word was used as well but there's no need even going there.

Barbarian
08-01-2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
But of course, the N word was used as well but there's no need even going there.

You show great wisdom young padawan. :jedi:

DeDolfan
08-03-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


You show great wisdom young padawan. :jedi:


Young?????? Go on with it, flattery will get you evrywhere !!


:D :D :D

Den54
08-06-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Webster.



So, you are now suggesting no limits on marriage. You can now marry a pig. What do you base your definition of marriage on? And be careful...don't use ANY limitations.



Your logic does not connect. Marriage is not in the constitution. The free exercise of Religion is fully protected.




That's is correct sir. That is how I believe it to be defined. It's sounds rather restrictive... huh?



Why do you have such a difficult time understanding that the constitution guarantees and protects the freedom of Religion...legally.



I don't see a connection...you could make the same arguement if you demanded the right to marry your sister. But the slavery analogy is horribly similar to the unborn child reference to a human being.


If you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman,then make your voice heard at
http://www.onemanonewoman.com/

PhinPhan1227
08-07-2003, 09:20 AM
Yep...the joys of Democracy. I'm reminded of those wonderful laws we had not too long ago that said that marriage could ONLY be between a man and woman of the same color.

Den54
08-07-2003, 01:40 PM
Yes the joy of Democracy is thankfully still alive and well.
Just like recently when the voters here in Fl had to decide on whether you could smoke inside at restaurants and the workplace.
Smokers cried that they had a right to smoke and they did'nt care if it offended or endangered anyone around them. Well they got their *** kicked at the polls and now I can out to eat with my wife and son and enjoy my meal without someone lighting up near us.:D

PhinPhan1227
08-07-2003, 04:37 PM
Lol...well, I'd say there's just a BIT of difference between people voting to NOT allow other people to slowly kill them with 2nd hand smoke, and people voting to outlaw something which cause no harm of any kind to anyone.

Den54
08-07-2003, 06:36 PM
It harms my eyes and the eyes of my son so I'll vote against it.
I've got a belly full of tolerence. I'm done.

Barbarian
08-08-2003, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by Den54
It harms my eyes and the eyes of my son so I'll vote against it.
I've got a belly full of tolerence. I'm done.

So it gives you stigmatism? Or is it some other kind of harm to your eyes? Does it just blind you or are we talking physical pain?

Wow, those homosexuals must have some strange powers if they can harm somebodies eyes just by getting married... next thing you know they'll be turning invisable and be able to fly around and shoot bolts of fire from their hands. :lol:

Den54
08-08-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


So it gives you stigmatism? Or is it some other kind of harm to your eyes? Does it just blind you or are we talking physical pain?

Wow, those homosexuals must have some strange powers if they can harm somebodies eyes just by getting married... next thing you know they'll be turning invisable and be able to fly around and shoot bolts of fire from their hands. :lol:


Well what can I say? I'm OLD school and make no qualms about it. My friends and family are too. They like me that way and quite frankly so do I.

PhinPhan1227
08-08-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Den54
It harms my eyes and the eyes of my son so I'll vote against it.
I've got a belly full of tolerence. I'm done.

Seeing a kid with 27 piercings harms my eyes...as does the sight of a 65 year old 200lb French Canadian in a thong on Hollywood beach. Heck, so does seeing a KKK parade, or a speech by Louis Farrakhan. But as a truly great American once said, "though I despise what you say I'll defend to the death your right to say it". The bottom line is that nothing in the Constitution protects your rights to not be offended. If anything, the Constitution goes out of it's way to protect the rights of those who DO offend you, since it assumes that you're probably in the majority.

Den54
08-08-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Seeing a kid with 27 piercings harms my eyes...as does the sight of a 65 year old 200lb French Canadian in a thong on Hollywood beach. Heck, so does seeing a KKK parade, or a speech by Louis Farrakhan. But as a truly great American once said, "though I despise what you say I'll defend to the death your right to say it". The bottom line is that nothing in the Constitution protects your rights to not be offended. If anything, the Constitution goes out of it's way to protect the rights of those who DO offend you, since it assumes that you're probably in the majority.

Imo the sprirt of the Constitution was not to establish a anything goes society. I have my own code, ethics,ideals and convictions that I live by and I'm sticking to them. There are alot of things that I don't care for that may be protected by the Constitution, but guess what? I don't have to agree with it and if it ever comes to a vote I'll let my voice be heard. Like I said earlier, Democracy is still alive and well.

PhinPhan1227
08-08-2003, 12:42 PM
I never said "anything goes", I merely said that the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the whim of the majority. The vast majority of the country was in favor of segregation, including quite a few of those who were being segregated against. And even though those individuals voted for Segregation, the courts struck it down, just as they will hoepfully strike down any laws which continue segregation because of sexual orientation.

Den54
08-08-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I never said "anything goes", I merely said that the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the whim of the majority. The vast majority of the country was in favor of segregation, including quite a few of those who were being segregated against. And even though those individuals voted for Segregation, the courts struck it down, just as they will hoepfully strike down any laws which continue segregation because of sexual orientation.

The whim of the majority? Whatever.:rolleyes: It does'nt sway me one way or the other. My time here is finite. One day I'll be released from this human body and will move on to a higher plane.

PhinPhan1227
08-08-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Den54


The whim of the majority? Whatever.:rolleyes: It does'nt sway me one way or the other. My time here is finite. One day I'll be released from this human body and will move on to a higher plane.

well, when the only injuries you can claim are "an offense to your eyes", that sounds pretty "whim-like" to me. Either way, we'll all be released one day and move on to a higher plane...so what's your point?....:D

Den54
08-08-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


well, when the only injuries you can claim are "an offense to your eyes", that sounds pretty "whim-like" to me. Either way, we'll all be released one day and move on to a higher plane...so what's your point?....:D


I don't care to repeat myself.

PhinPhan1227
08-08-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Den54



I don't care to repeat myself.

Lol...okey dokey. Actually, I think you're making much ado about nothing. I REALLY don't see Winter Haven Florida being a hotbed for homosexual activity...:lol:

Den54
08-08-2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...okey dokey. Actually, I think you're making much ado about nothing. I REALLY don't see Winter Haven Florida being a hotbed for homosexual activity...:lol:


There are Homersexuals everywhere here.:couch: :jk: lol.
I did'nt think I was making a big deal about it, just stating I don't care for it, nothing more.

Miamian
08-09-2003, 01:48 PM
In case you're interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/weekinreview/10BUMI.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5004&en=b661c2d5c0e67a5b&ex=1061697600&partner=UNTD

FinHeavenAJ
08-09-2003, 02:41 PM
I just found this thread... as I really don't come to this forum that much, but I will try and do it more often.

Anyways, I know a few people who are gays... and I must say, that a lot of you are WAY off on a lot of things.

First, think about it. If there were gay marriages, I think STDs would drop. Why you ask? Gays that decide to stay together "to death do them part" will most likely practice safe sex more often.

Secondly, most people don't have any idea of why there is so much hate. Think about it, in this thread I read so many derogatory terms towards gays... like fagots, etc. If anyone walked up to you, and randomly said a racial deogratory term towards you... would you be pissed off? I think so. Some people just aren't thinking clearly.

So what, two guys are kissing on the street. Better get used to it, because they are going to do it whether or not they are married or not. You say that you're worried what your kid is thinking? Well, I got news for you... there is much more going around the world today. For one, there is the hate. There is the violence. I don't know about you, but I would much rather my child to be gay than to be given a life sentence for some idiotic violent act. So, you don't want to accept "gays"? What happens if your child turns into one? Will you disown them? Will you look down on them? I hope to God that you don't, because as someone has already mentioned, the gay teen suicide rate is climbing RAPIDLY because of some people that can't "stand" them.

There is nothing in the Constitution or Bible for that matter that states that two gay men or women can not be happily married. Why can't they have the same right to be happy like so many other straight couples?

Anyways, I'm off my soapbox for now, but I'll be back. Just remember, it takes all types of people to make the world go round.

dolfan06
08-09-2003, 05:43 PM
[i]
There is nothing in the Constitution or Bible for that matter that states that two gay men or women can not be happily married. Why can't they have the same right to be happy like so many other straight couples?

[/B] AJ, have you read the bible.................

read Leviticus 18:22. a man shall not lie with a man, it is an abomination!


__________________

Den54
08-09-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
AJ, have you read the bible.................

read Leviticus 18:22. a man shall not lie with a man, it is an abomination!


__________________


You beat me to it.:lol: I was'nt going to drag the bible inti this though. Common sense enough for me.

dolfan06
08-09-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Den54



You beat me to it.:lol: I was'nt going to drag the bible inti this though. Common sense enough for me. i can't remember what year and i don't remember the doctor, but he did do an experiment with white mice. he put them in a cage and fed em but let em multiply at will. when the cage became overcrowded, the mice turned homosexual. that explains what goes on in big cities! thats close enough for me bro. i'll stick with women!;)

dolfan06
08-09-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Den54



You beat me to it.:lol: I was'nt going to drag the bible inti this though. Common sense enough for me. i have been reading this thread and have not said squat. the bible was mentioned and that was my cue!

my favorite is COL 3:23!;)

iceblizzard69
08-09-2003, 08:19 PM
If there were less religious Christians in this country, gay marriages would be legal. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state, but religion gets involved in laws way too much.

And 06, I live in a big city, and there are lots of homosexuals here. When cities start to get bigger and bigger, there will be more homosexuals, that study definitely works. I don't know how San Francisco, which isn't that big, has so many homosexuals, but it does. And as for me, I'll be sticking to women as well. :)

dolfan06
08-09-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
I don't know how San Francisco, which isn't that big, has so many homosexuals, but it does. And as for me, I'll be sticking to women as well. :) because most of em moved there during the 60's and 70's, since it was such an established area for gays there has been a population explosion ever since!:rolleyes:

dolfan06
08-09-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
If there were less religious Christians in this country, gay marriages would be legal. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state, but religion gets involved in laws way too much.

i may be a minority in my opinion here, but i don't think its involved enough. every empire that was financiall sound has fallen because of the depraved thinking of its inhabitants.

this country was founded by religious people trying to escape from religious persecution, why does ANYBODY have the right to change it.

anybody that does not like our religious freedom, can initiate another one of our rights and leave!:rolleyes:

iceblizzard69
08-09-2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i may be a minority in my opinion here, but i don't think its involved enough. every empire that was financiall sound has fallen because of the depraved thinking of its inhabitants.

this country was founded by religious people trying to escape from religious persecution, why does ANYBODY have the right to change it.

anybody that does not like our religious freedom, can initiate another one of our rights and leave!:rolleyes:

I think any religious involvement in our government is too much. I definitely believe in religious freedom, but I don't believe in religion having an effect in our laws. Actually, religion having an effect in our laws is unconstitutional.

FinHeavenAJ
08-10-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
AJ, have you read the bible.................

read Leviticus 18:22. a man shall not lie with a man, it is an abomination!



I went to a Christian school for three years, and that was the most crupt school I ever been with. They had illegal immigrants just to go on their basketball team just so they could win the nationals or whatever. In addition, their basketball coach had sex with many players (of both sexes). Thought I should through that in...

Anyways, need I remind you that the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Things that are going on now were never thought about back then. Thus, the situation has changed. One must not read the Bible word for word, if you do, you are simply stuck in the times. You have to translate it into today's meaning and understanding.

Since I don't read the Bible that much (although I do believe in Jesus and God), I will let you do that work and thinking...

Final word... seperation of Church and state is also needed more. Although, one should always consider morals, etc.

dolfan06
08-10-2003, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69


I think any religious involvement in our government is too much. I definitely believe in religious freedom, but I don't believe in religion having an effect in our laws. Actually, religion having an effect in our laws is unconstitutional. .................................one nation, UNDER GOD..................

dolfan06
08-10-2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by FinHeavenAJ




Anyways, need I remind you that the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Things that are going on now were never thought about back then. Thus, the situation has changed. One must not read the Bible word for word, if you do, you are simply stuck in the times. You have to translate it into today's meaning and understanding.

the bible was written after the ten commandments and one of them was thou shalt not kill, and thats still against the law too!;)

WharfRat
08-10-2003, 02:30 AM
Well, I would stay out of this normally ... I think religious discussions are futile, as nobody can possibly change anyone else's faith but debating on a message board...
That said, I do think that church and state are, and should be separated...for a reason. While I do think that faith should be an everyday part of everyone's life (no matter what that faith may be), there are inherent problems with integrating "church" and "state". Take for example the former Sunni Muslim government of Iraq, or the Islamic regime in Iran... two religion based governments that not many of us would want to be a part of.
The argument that our founding fathers came here to avoid religious persecution, and obtain religious freedom .... does not support the integration of church and state at all. Those that came here from England were fleeing a corrupt Monarchy, that was fully integrated with the Church of England... which is the main reason why, they insisted that there be a separation.
As far as the whole gay rights argument... I really don't care who anyone sleeps with (as long as it's a human of the proper age), if a man wants to sleep with another man... whatever... as long as he doesn't try to do it with me....

dolfan06
08-10-2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by FinHeavenAJ



One must not read the Bible word for word, if you do, you are simply stuck in the times. You have to translate it into today's meaning and understanding.

you don't need ANY translation when it says a man shall not lie with a man. it seems as though that is pretty plain.;)

FinHeavenAJ
08-10-2003, 02:39 AM
I know that doesn't need any translation, but do you think they honestly thought, while writing that, about what is going no right now? Do you think they said "Hey, in the 20th and 21st century, there will be a 'gay' population, and we should make this law now." I highly doubt that...

Either way, I truly do not believe that gay people will be rejected from Heaven simply because they sleep with the same sex. If the couple are living happily "together" and do not commit adultry, then that should be alright by any means.

dolfan06
08-10-2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by FinHeavenAJ
Either way, I truly do not believe that gay people will be rejected from Heaven simply because they sleep with the same sex. If the couple are living happily "together" and do not commit adultry, then that should be alright by any means. no one that his a true believer in HIM will be cast out, but its not a life style that anyone should live, just as swearing isn't something that is condoned either, although i do it!

as long as gays don't try to enforce their lifestyle on me, i could care less. i just brought up ther Leviticus part because you said it wasn't in the bible!

PhinstiGator
08-10-2003, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by WharfRat
...
The argument that our founding fathers came here to avoid religious persecution, and obtain religious freedom .... does not support the integration of church and state at all. Those that came here from England were fleeing a corrupt Monarchy, that was fully integrated with the Church of England... which is the main reason why, they insisted that there be a separation.
....

Very true. The first amendment guarantees that congress can not create a national religion and that the free excercise of religion can not be squelched.

However, the term "separation of church and state" is used in a false way. Firstly, one should note that this phrase is NOT found in the US constitution. It can be found in the constitution of the Soviet Union (article 52).

True religious freedom could not be experienced if those persons of faith could not freely express there religious views inside of a government framework (Read speaches made by President Abraham Lincoln).

If persons of faith can not voice an influence on social and moral issues, just as any other citizen...then religious freedom does not truly exist.

WharfRat
08-10-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Very true. The first amendment guarantees that congress can not create a national religion and that the free excercise of religion can not be squelched.

However, the term "separation of church and state" is used in a false way. Firstly, one should note that this phrase is NOT found in the US constitution. It can be found in the constitution of the Soviet Union (article 52).

I agree, and while the term "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, the basic principle of that is in the 1st amendmant guarantee ... no national church.. which is what many of our founders were avoiding. So we are in agreement here.

Originally posted by PhinstiGator


True religious freedom could not be experienced if those persons of faith could not freely express there religious views inside of a government framework (Read speaches made by President Abraham Lincoln).

Again .... very true, when I speak of separation, I do not mean that religion should be left out of government all together. In order to have a government which (in theory) represents the entire population, you should have the opinions of many different religions, not just one.

Originally posted by PhinstiGator


If persons of faith can not voice an influence on social and moral issues, just as any other citizen...then religious freedom does not truly exist.

Agreed again, all people, of all faiths should have a voice in social and moral issues, among others, doesn't have to be limited to those two. Similarly, so should people of all ethnic backgrounds, and lifestyles.
The concept of church/state separation, as I see it applies to this country, is not to imply that religious groups don't have a voice, but rather that a religious group does not become the government (Iran), or that the government not impose a mandated religion (18th Century England).

Marino1983
08-10-2003, 01:07 PM
I believe in what I was taught as a child as far as religion is concerned .... But I do not believe that I should invoke MY beliefs on another person and theirs onto me !!

I do not attend mass every Sunday because of the hypocrisy that surrounds churches this day and age... A very fine line should be made and not crossed when laws are made concerning a reflection on church and state ..

And the religious zelots that will invoke their religious beliefs when elected as judges, councilmen, mayors, senators, etc. should be exposed as such before they can be elected or removed from their elected positions when proved to be such !!

I do not condone the gays or their life style... I do not believe that they should receive special attention or programs that uses my tax dollars to fund.. But what they do with their personal lifes (and not around me) is up to them :rolleyes: !!!


Marino1983

Barbarian
08-10-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
AJ, have you read the bible.................

read Leviticus 18:22. a man shall not lie with a man, it is an abomination!


__________________


Is this why Catholic priests lie with little boys?

Getting them before they become men eh?

iceblizzard69
08-10-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian



Is this why Catholic priests lie with little boys?

Getting them before they become men eh?

I think we finally have it figured out. :up:

Of course, none of those priests will ever send a second in jail because the church will cover up for them and the government won't do anything about it. :down:

DeDolfan
08-10-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983


I do not condone the gays or their life style... I do not believe that they should receive special attention or programs that uses my tax dollars to fund.. But what they do with their personal lifes (and not around me) is up to them :rolleyes: !!!


Marino1983

I agree that nothing "special" or extra attention either, but just the same. I personally do not like thier lifestyle but I cannot condemn them for it either. I am a man and prefer women as do the majority around here. However, I personally do not think it to be right to deny them the very same benefits that hetoroes enjoy thru marriage or whatever. IMO, they should be allowed to "marry" or whatever it is decided to be called by "whomever" to receive the same "spousal" benefits that we have. why shouldn't they be? The same benies won't cost any of us anything extra, the criteria for receiving benefits thru work or SS would be the same. There is nothing "extra" given to them. Sooner or later it's going to happen, one way or another. Matter of fact, it's already happened in a sense. I know of some lesbian women who have legally "married" gay men for the sole purpose of spousal benefits. Nothing has changed for them, they live apart, don't see the guys that much and there is no problem for them. So in a sense, it has already begun. Is it right? Who knows, we could live apart from our spouses and everthing else remaining the same......in a sense anyway! oooh, but it is confusing tho! :confused:

dolfan06
08-10-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69


I think we finally have it figured out. :up:

Of course, none of those priests will ever send a second in jail because the church will cover up for them and the government won't do anything about it. :down: these priests will suffer punishment much greater than anything man can come up with. one of the ten commandments also states that leading a child astray, and this also goes for abusing one, also is also tabboo!:tongue:

WharfRat
08-10-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983

And the religious zelots that will invoke their religious beliefs when elected as judges, councilmen, mayors, senators, etc. should be exposed as such before they can be elected or removed from their elected positions when proved to be such !!


I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "religious zealots"... if you mean that men/women of faith should not hold office, then I beg to differ.... simply because, in one way or another, we all have a faith, even if that faith is not to believe in any entity at all...
If we were to create a dividing line as to "how faithful" or to which faith our elected officials subscribe... then we are no better than the 18th century Church of England, or Spain during the inquisitions.
If you were an elected official, do you not think that your faith would influence your decision making? Especially on social and moral issues. How can it not?
So I guess my question about this part of your post, is... what defines a "zealot"?
If you mean that church officials should not become governmet officials.. then I tend to agree with you. ;)

Barbarian
08-10-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
these priests will suffer punishment much greater than anything man can come up with. one of the ten commandments also states that leading a child astray, and this also goes for abusing one, also is also tabboo!:tongue:

Whats also taboo is covering up for theese sicko's and putting them back into position to keep doing theese sick acts.

Yet the "Church" kept doing exactly that.

Unfortunately the Catholic church seems to take on the role of shepards with it's following gladly taking the role of sheep, only to find the shearing pen when they need them most.

It's sad really, but thats another debate and another subject.

What we are refering to here is weather or not somebody should be able to impose their religeous beliefs on another group of people that do not share them and the first amendment strictly prohibits this, otherwise you are infringing on another persons rights.

Religious zealots and hatemongers that want homosexuals to be shunted from the view of society have the perfect right to spew their hate and be the ignorant hatefull rednecks that they truely are, but they, nor the government have the right to impose those hatefull religious beliefs on another group of people.

I find it hilarious that the people that scream that seperation of church and state isn't written in the constitution will soon have to find themselves looking to it for protection. Lets not forget that at the current rate of change Christians will become a minority in this country during this century, and when the Muslims (who would become the majority as the most rapidly increasing in size demographically in the US) decide to get a little payback, the Christian Right will try and use the exact same laws that they trampled on for so many years to defend themselves from the exact same types of injustices that they are subjecting others to today.

In the Pagan religeon, "Karma" and "reaping what you sew" are the primary tenants of belief, and as many hatemongers in the past have learned, Karma can be a b!tch.

Barbarian
08-10-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat


I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "religious zealots"... if you mean that men/women of faith should not hold office, then I beg to differ.... simply because, in one way or another, we all have a faith, even if that faith is not to believe in any entity at all...
If we were to create a dividing line as to "how faithful" or to which faith our elected officials subscribe... then we are no better than the 18th century Church of England, or Spain during the inquisitions.
If you were an elected official, do you not think that your faith would influence your decision making? Especially on social and moral issues. How can it not?
So I guess my question about this part of your post, is... what defines a "zealot"?
If you mean that church officials should not become governmet officials.. then I tend to agree with you. ;)

I'll agree with this.

As far as decisions go for government officials and that thin line of religious zealotism, I would draw the line at an official that put his/her religious beliefs before the law in determining policy.

I wouldent even want somebody of my own religion to go in and do that, regardless of what my personal feelings were on the subject, church and state must remain seperate and regulation of morality (with regards to Gambling, Prostitution, Marijuana, etc...) crosses the line IMHO.

Den54
08-10-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


Whats also taboo is covering up for theese sicko's and putting them back into position to keep doing theese sick acts.

Yet the "Church" kept doing exactly that.

Unfortunately the Catholic church seems to take on the role of shepards with it's following gladly taking the role of sheep, only to find the shearing pen when they need them most.

It's sad really, but thats another debate and another subject.

What we are refering to here is weather or not somebody should be able to impose their religeous beliefs on another group of people that do not share them and the first amendment strictly prohibits this, otherwise you are infringing on another persons rights.

Religious zealots and hatemongers that want homosexuals to be shunted from the view of society have the perfect right to spew their hate and be the ignorant hatefull rednecks that they truely are, but they, nor the government have the right to impose those hatefull religious beliefs on another group of people.

I find it hilarious that the people that scream that seperation of church and state isn't written in the constitution will soon have to find themselves looking to it for protection. Lets not forget that at the current rate of change Christians will become a minority in this country during this century, and when the Muslims (who would become the majority as the most rapidly increasing in size demographically in the US) decide to get a little payback, the Christian Right will try and use the exact same laws that they trampled on for so many years to defend themselves from the exact same types of injustices that they are subjecting others to today.

In the Pagan religeon, "Karma" and "reaping what you sew" are the primary tenants of belief, and as many hatemongers in the past have learned, Karma can be a b!tch.

You know what I find hilarious? Is that YOU yourself do a pretty good job of spewing your own venom and passing judgement against people with a different view then yours. I have no hate in my heart for gay men but then again I have no love either. It would'nt break my heart if I never saw a gay couple in public again. I don't care for their perverse lifestyle because quite frankly the idea of two men engaging in oral and anal sex with each other, whether its for pure sexual pleasure, or for expressing their love is quite disgusting imo. I'm entitiled to this view and it has nothing to do with hate or ignorance.

ohall
08-10-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Den54


You know what I find hilarious? Is that YOU yourself do a pretty good job of spewing your own venom and passing judgement against people with a different view then yours. I have no hate in my heart for gay men but then again I have no love either. It would'nt break my heart if I never saw a gay couple in public again. I don't care for their perverse lifestyle because quite frankly the idea of two men engaging in oral and anal sex with each other, whether its for pure sexual pleasure, or for expressing their love is quite disgusting imo. I'm entitiled to this view and it has nothing to do with hate or ignorance.

Well said Den54. There is a dif between hate and not agreeing with or liking something IMO.

Oliver...

dolfan06
08-10-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


Whats also taboo is covering up for theese sicko's and putting them back into position to keep doing theese sick acts.

Yet the "Church" kept doing exactly that.

Unfortunately the Catholic church seems to take on the role of shepards with it's following gladly taking the role of sheep, only to find the shearing pen when they need them most.

It's sad really, but thats another debate and another subject.

What we are refering to here is weather or not somebody should be able to impose their religeous beliefs on another group of people that do not share them and the first amendment strictly prohibits this, otherwise you are infringing on another persons rights.

Religious zealots and hatemongers that want homosexuals to be shunted from the view of society have the perfect right to spew their hate and be the ignorant hatefull rednecks that they truely are, but they, nor the government have the right to impose those hatefull religious beliefs on another group of people.

I find it hilarious that the people that scream that seperation of church and state isn't written in the constitution will soon have to find themselves looking to it for protection. Lets not forget that at the current rate of change Christians will become a minority in this country during this century, and when the Muslims (who would become the majority as the most rapidly increasing in size demographically in the US) decide to get a little payback, the Christian Right will try and use the exact same laws that they trampled on for so many years to defend themselves from the exact same types of injustices that they are subjecting others to today.

In the Pagan religeon, "Karma" and "reaping what you sew" are the primary tenants of belief, and as many hatemongers in the past have learned, Karma can be a b!tch. look fool, we have been on opposite sides of the fence before.
this time i said nothing about imposing ones religion on another and i said nothing about hate, i did say imho that religion should recognized a little more in our laws.
i don't have anything against gays, also, i don't care if i never see another in public either!:tongue:

Miamian
08-11-2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i can't remember what year and i don't remember the doctor, but he did do an experiment with white mice. he put them in a cage and fed em but let em multiply at will. when the cage became overcrowded, the mice turned homosexual. that explains what goes on in big cities! thats close enough for me bro. i'll stick with women!;) I think that more research would be needed here before applying the results to cities. Similar studies show that rats and monkeys will start killing each other when the cage gets too crowded. Some people have incorrectly applied this result to an urban situation concluding that housing density causes stress and crime. The reason that the conclusion is incorrect is that comparing one single cage to a city is like saying that everyone in the city lives in the same household; whereas, if each rat/monkey or family thereof had it's own space to which they can retire would most likely produce a different result.

Barbarian
08-11-2003, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
look fool, we have been on opposite sides of the fence before.
this time i said nothing about imposing ones religion on another and i said nothing about hate, i did say imho that religion should recognized a little more in our laws.
i don't have anything against gays, also, i don't care if i never see another in public either!:tongue:

ummm... look fool, did I ever call you out by name?

Did I quote you?

Did I accuse you by name at all?

Did I say that you were talking about imposing ones religeon on another?

Or did I state my opinion about how I feel that imposing ones religeon upon another is wrong?

I think if you actually read my posts and try to understand what is beeing written before jumping to assumptions then you might not post just rediculous offensive drivel such as this. :tongue:

Barbarian
08-11-2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Den54


You know what I find hilarious? Is that YOU yourself do a pretty good job of spewing your own venom and passing judgement against people with a different view then yours. I have no hate in my heart for gay men but then again I have no love either. It would'nt break my heart if I never saw a gay couple in public again. I don't care for their perverse lifestyle because quite frankly the idea of two men engaging in oral and anal sex with each other, whether its for pure sexual pleasure, or for expressing their love is quite disgusting imo. I'm entitiled to this view and it has nothing to do with hate or ignorance.

I'll leave the spewing of hate and venom to the religeous right.

You say you have no hate in your heart for gays, and yet you say things like


It harms my eyes and the eyes of my son

and yet you still havent mentioned the specific harm that is beeing done.

And quite frankly I have seen Gay men and women brutalized, and beaten to death, so don't try and tell me that there isn't hate for them around, you probably havent done anything like that (I hope) but people that do all to often claim to be doing gods will, so claiming gods will doesn't hold much faith with me, especially since I don't follow your relegion.

And I agree, you are entitled to your view, regardless of however outdated and archaic it was.

Remember folks, the Bible didn't say "love thy neighbor, unless he's a Peter Allen fan" If Jesus was to come back today and see the atrocities being commited and the words used in his name he'd never stop throwing up.



So when I post that...


Religious zealots and hatemongers that want homosexuals to be shunted from the view of society have the perfect right to spew their hate and be the ignorant hatefull rednecks that they truely are, but they, nor the government have the right to impose those hatefull religious beliefs on another group of people.

You immediately assumed I was refering to you?

Sounds like a guilty concience to me, especially considering that I was making a general referance to the real hatemongers out there, the guys that pretend to be gay to lure gay men into being alone and then beat the hell out of them, I was refering to the hatefull preachers on TV that pray for the deaths of people that support gay rights, those are the people that I'm refering to, if you want to lump yourself in there with them, then be my guest, but I wasn't pinning you in specifically with this group.

But then, you have the right to do say whatever you want, and I never disputed that like you seemed to claim I did.

Oh, and in retrospect, I would say that your view probably has nothing to do with hate. It has more to do with irrational fear... but thats just a guess.

Barbarian
08-11-2003, 03:14 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

Den54
08-11-2003, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


I'll leave the spewing of hate and venom to the religeous right.

You say you have no hate in your heart for gays, and yet you say things like



and yet you still havent mentioned the specific harm that is beeing done.

And quite frankly I have seen Gay men and women brutalized, and beaten to death, so don't try and tell me that there isn't hate for them around, you probably havent done anything like that (I hope) but people that do all to often claim to be doing gods will, so claiming gods will doesn't hold much faith with me, especially since I don't follow your relegion.

And I agree, you are entitled to your view, regardless of however outdated and archaic it was.

Remember folks, the Bible didn't say "love thy neighbor, unless he's a Peter Allen fan" If Jesus was to come back today and see the atrocities being commited and the words used in his name he'd never stop throwing up.



So when I post that...



You immediately assumed I was refering to you?

Sounds like a guilty concience to me, especially considering that I was making a general referance to the real hatemongers out there, the guys that pretend to be gay to lure gay men into being alone and then beat the hell out of them, I was refering to the hatefull preachers on TV that pray for the deaths of people that support gay rights, those are the people that I'm refering to, if you want to lump yourself in there with them, then be my guest, but I wasn't pinning you in specifically with this group.

But then, you have the right to do say whatever you want, and I never disputed that like you seemed to claim I did.

Oh, and in retrospect, I would say that your view probably has nothing to do with hate. It has more to do with irrational fear... but thats just a guess.


Looks like Dolfan06 had you pegged right.:rolleyes: You know its this kind of incoherent bable and backhanded statements why you can't be taken seriously. You post a reply to mine, then it has nothing to do with what I said. You turn it into your chance to get on your soapbox and spew your views as if they're the only ones that matter. You know instead of making this up as you go along try boning up on your comprehensive skills before replying to other peoples post. Just a suggestion, but then again what do I know?
My opinion is from a GUILTY CONCIENCE thats OUTDATED and ARCHAIC and ate up with IRRATIONAL FEAR.:lol: :rolleyes:

iceblizzard69
08-11-2003, 09:05 AM
The funny part is that even if there isn't gay marriage, there are still gays, and I guess that "harms the eyes of his son" or whatever bull**** this guy thinks. I wonder what Den wants, since there are still homosexuals everywhere. Does he want them all in jail, because if they are there they won't harm his son's eyes anymore.

Seriously, saying they "harm your sons eyes" is bull****. What is the big deal if two men of the same sex are attracted to each other. If they want to do it, it is fine. It isn't like they are hurting other people, it isn't like they are committing a crime.

Face it guys, there will always be homosexuals here, and people were born that way. Instead of punishing them and not giving them the rights they deserve, they should be allowed to marry and gain the same spousal benefits that married people get. It isn't like people want to give them "special" treatment, but they deserve the same treatment that heterosexuals get, and right now that isn't true. They aren't getting the equality they deserve.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
i may be a minority in my opinion here, but i don't think its involved enough. every empire that was financiall sound has fallen because of the depraved thinking of its inhabitants.

this country was founded by religious people trying to escape from religious persecution, why does ANYBODY have the right to change it.

anybody that does not like our religious freedom, can initiate another one of our rights and leave!:rolleyes:


I weep for our education system. This country was not founded by religious people fleeing religious persecution. The first permanent colony in America was founded in Virginia by tobacco growers. They were here to make money, not a religious statement, and if anyone's curious, the vast majority of the framers of our Constitution came from the Middle Atlantic states, NOT New England. Those guys up in New England who WERE here for religious reasons weren't FLEEING religious persecution. England was being ruled at the time by members of the same church as the Puritans. The problem the Puritans had was that their form of religion was an extremist sect which was hardcore right wing to the more liberal practices of the majority. Basically, the Puritans were our version of the Taliban. What they were fleeing was a group of people who were tired of THEM trying to impose THEIR beliefs on those around them. Bet you never learned in school about a villiage of Virginians that was wiped out men, women, and children by Puritans who felt that they were living in sin? Anyway, what makes this country different from other countries is our Constitution. And IN that Constitution there are clear protections spelled out which prevent the majority from passing laws based solely on religious beliefs. If you don't like that, you'll need to get 3/4's of the states to ratify the Constitution and end freedom of religion. As for the Bible, I'll once again ask why it's ok for a person to work on the Sabbath, while condemning someone else for violating another rule which is less frequently highlighted by the Bible. This issue HAS GOT to be the biggest case of seeking out the mote in anothers eye and ignoring the plank in ones own that I've ever seen.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by dolfan06
AJ, have you read the bible.................

read Leviticus 18:22. a man shall not lie with a man, it is an abomination!


__________________


So if they do it standing up they're ok?:lol:

Den54
08-11-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
The funny part is that even if there isn't gay marriage, there are still gays, and I guess that "harms the eyes of his son" or whatever bull**** this guy thinks. I wonder what Den wants, since there are still homosexuals everywhere. Does he want them all in jail, because if they are there they won't harm his son's eyes anymore.

Seriously, saying they "harm your sons eyes" is bull****. What is the big deal if two men of the same sex are attracted to each other. If they want to do it, it is fine. It isn't like they are hurting other people, it isn't like they are committing a crime.

Face it guys, there will always be homosexuals here, and people were born that way. Instead of punishing them and not giving them the rights they deserve, they should be allowed to marry and gain the same spousal benefits that married people get. It isn't like people want to give them "special" treatment, but they deserve the same treatment that heterosexuals get, and right now that isn't true. They aren't getting the equality they deserve.


If you wish to address me then do it straight up like a man, I'm right here. As far as the comment ''that it hurts my son's eyes or mine'' once again you like Barbrian take peoples comments out of context and spin them to fit your fancy. Harming my eyes= I'm in disagreement with it to the point that I don't want it around me.
Who made you an expert on whether ****'s are born that way, the Gay propaganda machine? If they are born that way then its not out of the realm of posibility that its a birth defect or some type of mental illness that develops later on. Even I am openminded enough to admit I don't have an exact answer. Maybe some of you should do the same. Now once again for the hardheaded ones I DON'T HATE THEM I JUST DON'T CARE FOR THEM OR WILL GO OUT OF MY WAY TO HELP THIER CAUSE!!!
Now if you wish to fight for them tooth and nail have at it.
In the meantime Will&Grace needs to be pulled off the air because imo it sucks. No pud err pun intended.:lol:

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Den54



If you wish to address me then do it straight up like a man, I'm right here. As far as the comment ''that it hurts my son's eyes or mine'' once again you like Barbrian take peoples comments out of context and spin them to fit your fancy. Harming my eyes= I'm in disagreement with it to the point that I don't want it around me.
Who made you an expert on whether ****'s are born that way, the Gay propaganda machine? If they are born that way then its not out of the realm of posibility that its a birth defect or some type of mental illness that develops later on. Even I am openminded enough to admit I don't have an exact answer. Maybe some of you should do the same. Now once again for the hardheaded ones I DON'T HATE THEM I JUST DON'T CARE FOR THEM OR WILL GO OUT OF MY WAY TO HELP THIER CAUSE!!!
Now if you wish to fight for them tooth and nail have at it.
In the meantime Will&Grace needs to be pulled off the air because imo it sucks. No pud err pun intended.:lol:


Two questions...1)Do you think that legaly recognizing gay marriages will somehow cause there to be more homosexual activity around you?

2)Doesn't it strike you as a bit hypocritical that we've got laws which allow adultry(no fault laws in several states which prevent adultry from being considered in divorse proceedings), which is EXPRESSLY forbidden in the 10 Commandments of all things, and also allow people to worok on the Sabbath, which is ALSO expressly forbidden in the Commandments, but for some reason homosexuality needs to be singled out?

Den54
08-11-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Two questions...1)Do you think that legaly recognizing gay marriages will somehow cause there to be more homosexual activity around you?



2)Doesn't it strike you as a bit hypocritical that we've got laws which allow adultry(no fault laws in several states which prevent adultry from being considered in divorse proceedings), which is EXPRESSLY forbidden in the 10 Commandments of all things, and also allow people to worok on the Sabbath, which is ALSO expressly forbidden in the Commandments, but for some reason homosexuality needs to be singled out?


1. I don't know and its really out of my hands. I mean I could vote against it but like you said the Supreme Court most likley would'nt uphold it.

2) Of coarse hypocracy is alive and well everywhere. In our laws in the bible and I've always said that you can find whatever you want in the bible to support your case. Even for gays. Thats why I rarely ever drag the bible into debates because imo its pointless.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Den54



1. I don't know and its really out of my hands. I mean I could vote against it but like you said the Supreme Court most likley would'nt uphold it.

2) Of coarse hypocracy is alive and well everywhere. In our laws in the bible and I've always said that you can find whatever you want in the bible to support your case. Even for gays. Thats why I rarely ever drag the bible into debates because imo its pointless.

Fair enough, and perhaps I missed something earlier....

...if the Bible isn't a factor in your voting, then what possible legal justification do you have for outlawing those marriages?

WharfRat
08-11-2003, 03:16 PM
Ok ... everyone... the personal attacks will stop now. I already PMd one of you to stop, and you did... everyone else will stop right now, or the thread will be closed. Up until the last page or two, this was a good debate presented by all sides with respect towards each other, it would be a shame if this deteriorated into a stone throwing contest.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
Ok ... everyone... the personal attacks will stop now. I already PMd one of you to stop, and you did... everyone else will stop right now, or the thread will be closed. Up until the last page or two, this was a good debate presented by all sides with respect towards each other, it would be a shame if this deteriorated into a stone throwing contest.


A STONING, A STONING!!! Oh...sorry...Life of Brian was on last week and it's still fresh in my memeory...:tongue:

Den54
08-11-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



A STONING, A STONING!!! Oh...sorry...Life of Brian was on last week and it's still fresh in my memeory...:tongue:

Life of Brian is cool. Bring out ye dead!! Bring out ye dead!! Was that from that movie?

WharfRat
08-11-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Den54


Life of Brian is cool. Bring out ye dead!! Bring out ye dead!! Was that from that movie?

I'm pretty sure that was Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :D

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!!"

Den54
08-11-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat


I'm pretty sure that was Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :D

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!!"

Gotcha. Dudley Moore was in Life Of Brian.
You what other movie was good? I think it was called Gorf. The guy from a Fish called Wanda and Monte Python was in it.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Den54


Gotcha. Dudley Moore was in Life Of Brian.
You what other movie was good? I think it was called Gorf. The guy from a Fish called Wanda and Monte Python was in it.

Dudley Moore wasn't in Brian...it was just the standard Monty Python crew. I particularly liked the cult of the sandle versus the cult of the gourd...:lol:

Den54
08-11-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Dudley Moore wasn't in Brian...it was just the standard Monty Python crew. I particularly liked the cult of the sandle versus the cult of the gourd...:lol:

Maybe I'm thinking of Mel Brooks History Of The World?

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Den54


Maybe I'm thinking of Mel Brooks History Of The World?


I believe so...another classic to be sure!! And especially appropriate given the recent passing of Gregory Hines.

CirclingWagons
08-13-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat


I'm pretty sure that was Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :D

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!!"

:lol: ..great movie

What is your favorite color?!

Blue...no no green!...aaghhhh!



we are the knights of nee!

PhinPhan1227
08-13-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by CirclingWagons


:lol: ..great movie

What is your favorite color?!

Blue...no no green!...aaghhhh!



we are the knights of nee!

We are no longer the Knights Who Say Kneek!! We are now the Knights Who Say Icky Icky Icky Kabang Kabang WOOOOO...:lol:

CirclingWagons
08-13-2003, 01:58 PM
:lol:

you must cut down the tallest tree in the forset.....with a herring!



btw phin, how's the baby doing?

PhinPhan1227
08-13-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by CirclingWagons
:lol:

you must cut down the tallest tree in the forset.....with a herring!



btw phin, how's the baby doing?

Changing every day...a little cholicy(sp), but overall an even tempered kid. Thanks for asking!

dolfan06
08-13-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Changing every day after having 2 of my own and having to take care of the grand daughter, when babies are around, there is a lot of "changing!";)

Den54
08-27-2003, 07:23 AM
Well it looks like all the **** talk has died out.
Now if we could just get it off the TV. Oh what joy that would be.

PhinPhan1227
08-27-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Den54
Well it looks like all the **** talk has died out.
Now if we could just get it off the TV. Oh what joy that would be.

Yeah...because then homosexuality would "disapear"....looks like someone has been using fairy dust....:lol:

Den54
08-27-2003, 09:26 AM
They've got this new Fashion Flamer on Entertainment Tonight that could'nt be any more in you face. They think they can just shove it down our throats. Not. Is the use of Not outdated?:lol:

PhinPhan1227
08-27-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Den54
They've got this new Fashion Flamer on Entertainment Tonight that could'nt be any more in you face. They think they can just shove it down our throats. Not. Is the use of Not outdated?:lol:

Dude...you're watching Entertainment Tonight...80% of the AUDIENCE of that show is gay!!! As for shoving it down "our" throats, I'll leave that one alone!!

Den54
08-27-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Dude...you're watching Entertainment Tonight...80% of the AUDIENCE of that show is gay!!! As for shoving it down "our" throats, I'll leave that one alone!!

I knew I should've explained myself first. You see I'm married so I sometimes have to split viewing times with my wife. She likes the show and I see it on sometimes as I pass thru the room. :

PhinPhan1227
08-27-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Den54


I knew I should've explained myself first. You see I'm married so I sometimes have to split viewing times with my wife. She likes the show and I see it on sometimes as I pass thru the room. :

Oh....so it was a "flyby viewing" of a flaming homosexual trying to shove something down your throat. That's not really a visual I needed, but thanks anyway....:lol:

Barbarian
08-28-2003, 02:57 AM
You know.. the other day I saw a show with a man and a woman kissing on TV, it sucks that we straight people shove our lifestyle down gay peoples throats. :rolleyes:

Den54
08-28-2003, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
You know.. the other day I saw a show with a man and a woman kissing on TV, it sucks that we straight people shove our lifestyle down gay peoples throats. :rolleyes:

Its a beautiful thing ain't it?:)

dolfan06
08-28-2003, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian
You know.. the other day I saw a show with a man and a woman kissing on TV, it sucks that we straight people shove our lifestyle down gay peoples throats. :rolleyes: what are you saying here, barb!:D

PhinPhan1227
08-28-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Den54


Its a beautiful thing ain't it?:)

That depends...If I happen to be on Hollywood Beach in January(that's NOT going to happen), and chance to see an old French Canadian couple, him in his bannana hammock and her in a thong, the last thing that I want to see those two 260lb people do is get affectionate!!!!

Den54
08-28-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
You know.. the other day I saw a show with a man and a woman kissing on TV, it sucks that we straight people shove our lifestyle down gay peoples throats. :rolleyes:

Me thinkith ye protest too much.:lol:

Barbarian
08-28-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Den54


Me thinkith ye protest too much.:lol:

Not at all, just trying to shed light on hypocrasy wherever I find it. :)

DeDolfan
08-29-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


That depends...If I happen to be on Hollywood Beach in January(that's NOT going to happen), and chance to see an old French Canadian couple, him in his bannana hammock and her in a thong, the last thing that I want to see those two 260lb people do is get affectionate!!!!

:D :D :D Ain't it the truth??!! The motion of them 2 oceans is bound to cause a tidal wave for sure !!

:D

dolfan06
08-29-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


:D :D :D Ain't it the truth??!! The motion of them 2 oceans is bound to cause a tidal wave for sure !!

:D why not, i had to watch two hairy mammoths wearing rubberbands at south beach!

Barbarian
08-29-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by dolfan06
why not, i had to watch two hairy mammoths wearing rubberbands at south beach!


:barf:

Man, why is it people seem determined to put theese mental images in my head today.

ZOD
08-30-2003, 06:59 AM
Whoa!

The shoutbox got me here....

I'll just say I'm a non-believer..

I don't like homosexuality and find it hard to believe you're born with it.

I don't think there is a political party for a conservative union member.

And I'm out. :escape: