Frist endorses ban on gay marriages.

[Zero Signal]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/932915.asp?0cv=CB10

The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supports a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States.

A constitutional amendment? WHAT. THE. FUCK.

SEN. BILL FRIST, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court’s decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.

...

“I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually — or I’m concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned,” Frist told ABC’s “This Week.”
“And I’m thinking of — whether it’s prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home — ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern.”

So, essentially, he is saying that gays are criminals in a blanket statement.


Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled.
As drafted, the proposal says:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

I sincerely hope that this does not pass. Talk about some SERIOUS homophobia going on here.

THE GAYS ARE GOING TO DESTROY AMERICA! OMG!!! :rolleyes

[Anonymous]

he is a fucknut

[mburbank]

I think it's great that we should have a constitutional ammendment for this. Because it's THAT important, it's right up there with blacks and women having the right to vote that we make sure Gay folks never have marriage.

[Zosimus]

What you see here, are some seriously demented people that are "de-constitutionalizing" the constitution. If this really is the "land of the free" then why the hell are there so many "unfree" individuals crying out there?! I never thought I'd see the day where I would be saying these words: "what (the fuck) is this country going to?"

Personally, I am so fed up with politicians telling me how to lead my life that I am saving for the next shuttle out of here.... Mars anyone?

[Zero Signal]

Politicians tell us how to run our lives and how to raise our children.

I think Frist has lost his mind. By attempting to do this, he is blurring the line between church and state; forcing his own brand of morals on everyone else.

[Immortal Goat]

I myself do not want to say that being gay is "normal", but I do say that gays are human beings, with human urges. Granted, their urges SHOULD be felt toward members of the opposite sex, but that is only the way I feel about it. They have the right to live how they want to. So long as it is not im public, the government has no right to interfere with it. It is not like they are doing anything to hurt others. If there is someone out there that thinks I am wrong about this, speak up now, or forever shut up.

[Vibecrewangel]

IG - So by "So long as it is not im public" are you saying they should not be able to hold hands, kiss, simply enjoy each others company?

[FartinMowler]

Here in Toronto they have made it legal for gays to marry and now we have a small tourism boom from it and I say "great!" They live there lives and I live mine and when they have there big gay parade I know not to go down town and I never have to deal with it.

[punkgrrrlie10]

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/jun2003/Constitution_6-26-2003.pdf

>:

[The_voice_of_reason]

About 5 nights ago i had bad insomnia and was watching tv at like 3 in the morning. I heard Pat Robertson saying, and i am paraphrasing because i don't remeber the exact quote. "I was recently on a prayer retreat and i believe the lord communed with me he said that over the next six years it will apear that evil has won, that is when he will come back" (sic) He said this when the issue of the supreme courts decision not to uphold the sodomy laws came up.


That is what inspired me to make my avatar.

[Rongi]

Now non of dem fags can get to me kids. Now there needs to be a law to make is legal to marry my cousin and for darkies to not be allowed to marry or breed :|

[Jeanette X]

You can marry your cousin in 26 states.

[Protoclown]

Well, it makes sense to me. If we don't stop those gay people from getting married, next thing you know they'll start breeding. >:

:rolleyes

[Rongi]

You can marry your cousin in 26 states.

I hate america so much :(

[punkgrrrlie10]

Well, it makes sense to me. If we don't stop those gay people from getting married, next thing you know they'll start breeding. >:

:rolleyes

I actually read the transcript of the oral arguments and Kennedy asked the prosecuting attorney if gays should be allowed to teach elementary school. Justice Scalia responded: no b/c then they would teach children how to be homosexuals. :rolleyes

[The_voice_of_reason]

I actually read the transcript of the oral arguments and Kennedy asked the prosecuting attorney if gays should be allowed to teach elementary school. Justice Scalia responded: no b/c then they would teach children how to be homosexuals. :rolleyes

where can i find that transcript?

[pjalne]

Oh my god, this was exactly the kind of material I logged on to look for. Thanks, Zero.

[VinceZeb]

I swear to God, I don't think any of you know any homosexual people.

I have a few friends on the net and in "real life" that work in places with a large gay workforce. Ask them if they want to be able to marry. They will tell you no, because a lot of the "homosexual" lifestyle is the promiscuity. Now, should you be able to put people under your health coverage or wills if you want to? Sure, if the companies will allow it. But this gay marriage shit isnt so gays can be seen as equal as the traditional man-wife human relationship (btw, it ISNT. Man and woman can produce offspring, homosexuals without scientific help cannot, big diff there), its to be able to CHANGE the dynamic of what we call a "family".

[Bennett]

Yes Vince, all homosexuals are flaming promiscous faggots. Way to stereotype there!!

You should be happy, you're one step closer to being able to propose to Kevin.

[VinceZeb]

I didn't say most are, did I. But ask a lot of gay people, especially the older groups, if the want to be able to marry. They will say no. I mean, if gay marriage was such a big deal, why don't you see it on the news every day. It is being compared to the civil rights movement of the 60s. The civil rights movement was on the forefront of society. Gay marriage is not. Sorry.

[Gatorman]

I didn't say most are, did I. But ask a lot of gay people, especially the older groups, if the want to be able to marry. They will say no. I mean, if gay marriage was such a big deal, why don't you see it on the news every day. It is being compared to the civil rights movement of the 60s. The civil rights movement was on the forefront of society. Gay marriage is not. Sorry.


I will back Vince on this one. I work in an all gay office, and everyone over 30 laughs at the situation. The younger guys have been told in school that marriage is a right so much that they tend to USUALLY believe that it is, but the older guys mock the couple of straight ones and young ones for pushing for gay marriage.

The overwhelming opinion (and this is my office, not all gay people everywhere, so back off) is that one of the benefits among all the crap that gay people get in life is that they have a license to be promiscuous. No tie downs, no alimony, no mess. The sub culture around Boston/Providence/Cape Cod has developed extensively to facilitate a support group of gay guys to screw around.

This same subculture is very supportive of itself in court, business, etc, so there is a lot of good to come out of it along with the bad.

I do feel bad for many of the young guys in that they are preyed upon by the older guys who simply expect for them to put out. The young guys look to these guys for emotion support on all kinds of levels, so they end up putting out. Sad, really.

So I suppose, an arguement could be made that a lack of legit-marriage is the cause of the promiscuity by forcing the development of this culture.....But that is only one theory. I dunno.

In the end, marriage is a religious institution that has been recognized by the legal system as being a useful building block of society that deserves to be promoted and recognized. Asking the govt to alter the institution over the opinion of the religions where the practice is based seems like putting the cart before the horse.

[Mockery]

It's quite simple really...

While many homosexuals may not want to marry, there are plenty that do. And to ignore them and go "well, the ones in my office sure don't seem to care about marriage!" is just ignorant and a hasty generalization at best.

Any law that says homosexuals can't marry is bullshit. Just because of their sexual preference they don't get to enjoy certain tax breaks and other benefits that come along with marriage. There are plenty of homosexual couples that want to raise a family of their own, but because of stupid laws like this, it makes it nearly impossible for them to do so.

[Zero Signal]

Vinth and Gator sound like those people that say "I have friends that are black..." :rolleyes

[VinceZeb]

Life is full of choices. If you chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, there are pros and cons to that lifestyle. One of those cons is the inability not to get married. This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship. This whole debate started when a bunch of feel-good people decided that we would say that deviant behavior that goes against most religious pratices and the advancement (i.e. nature) of our species is a genetic trait, and not a choice.

And do you honestly believe Adam and Steve can raise a child on a median basis better than Adam and Eve?

[Vibecrewangel]

I know a hell of a lot of straight people who don't want to get married because it would cut into their ability to be promiscuous.

So what is your point?

I'm with Mock on this one. Just like with straight folk, if they want to get married they should be able too. If not then they don't have too.

[Gatorman]

Vinth and Gator sound like those people that say "I have friends that are black..." :rolleyes


*chuckles

if you only knew, but whatever floats your boat.

[VinceZeb]

If you can honestly sit there and tell me that gay marriage and straight marriage should be 100% equal under the eyes of the law, then you have internal mental problems.

Man and woman can have sex and have a kid.

Man and man, woman and woman can not have sex and produce a child.

I think that is pretty much self-explanatory.

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, one of my roomates happens to be black. I have lived with a different black guy in the past. Have you ever had any interaction with anyone who wasn't white?

[Mockery]

One of those cons is the inability not to get married.

Another classic Vinth statement. I see why you like Bush, you speak the same bizarre language.

This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship.

You're so ignorant it hurts my eyes to read anything you say.

And do you honestly believe Adam and Steve can raise a child on a median basis better than Adam and Eve?

No, I believe a good homosexual couple can raise a child just as well as a good straight couple. No better, no worse for either side.

Now get back under your rock.

[Mockery]

then you have internal mental problems.

As opposed to external mental problems? Your reputation for being the biggest fool on these boards just doesn't do you justice. One has to really look at the meat of your posts to see just how far your stupidity truly reaches.

[Gatorman]

I love how quickly my points were dismissed as if I said them. I'm sitting here in an office of 30 gay guys (two of which are paid lobbyiests working on this issue). The black thing is especially priceless, but I won't even go down that laughable path.

Yo, people, I'm telling you what the people involved in the debate are ACTUALLY SAYING, not what I even believe.

"Hey, Chris, JC, Rich, Steve, Bob, JG, Wes, Gary, this guy on the internet who is straight says that you gay guys don't know what you are talking about in regards to gay rights! What's that Bob? No, he doesn't know that you founded and were editor of the nation's largest homosexual newspaper. No, JG, he doesn't know that you helped author the legal brief for the State House on the gay-marriage ban issue."

*they are laughing at you

[Immortal Goat]

Life is full of choices. If you chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, there are pros and cons to that lifestyle. One of those cons is the inability not to get married. This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship. This whole debate started when a bunch of feel-good people decided that we would say that deviant behavior that goes against most religious pratices and the advancement (i.e. nature) of our species is a genetic trait, and not a choice.

And do you honestly believe Adam and Steve can raise a child on a median basis better than Adam and Eve?

It ISN'T a fucking CHOICE to be gay!! People are born weird. Simple as that. Same as somepne can be born with an extra toe or finger, or anything else, for that matter, they can be BORN GAY!!! Why the FUCK would anyone CHOOSE that kind of lifestyle? THEY CAN'T!! Vinth, your ignorance is suffocating me.

And anyway, why is it that religions condemn gays to "hell" (which, by the way, I do NOT believe in) even if they are just as nice and good as Gandhi himself? THAT pisses me off! >: (there were no emoticons that expressed my true anger. I think we need more...)

[Mockery]

Hey, Chris, JC, Rich, Steve, Bob, JG, Wes, Gary, this guy on the internet who is straight says that you gay guys don't know what you are talking about in regards to gay rights!

Incorrect (again). This straight guy on the internet says that you gay guys in the office don't speak for all gay people in the country.

I repeat:

While many homosexuals may not want to marry, there are plenty that do. And to ignore them and go "well, the ones in my office sure don't seem to care about marriage!" is just ignorant and a hasty generalization at best.

[Immortal Goat]

By the way, I know a gay guy at work that is going to be happily married in the next few months. He has to go to another state to do it, but they are in love, and they are going to live a married life. How is that wrong. Just because the person you love is of the same sex as you, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to spend your lives with them and have certain benefits if one of them were to die.

[Zero Signal]

Yeah, one of my roomates happens to be black. I have lived with a different black guy in the past. Have you ever had any interaction with anyone who wasn't white?

Per usual, you completely missed the point. I was referring to people, like you and Gator, that use their tacit affiliation with a particular group as a means to justify saying whatever they want while appearing to sound like they know what is going on.

You can Gator seem to think you know more about gay people simply because you happen to know some (wow! Like other people do not) and use that as a license to blanket them all with your statements. Good job. :rolleyes

[VinceZeb]

Mockery, now I know since you are from VA you believe your "enlightened" thinking makes you better than the rubes like Falwell, but I'm here to tell you that you are just another internet dumbass who has had too many people telling you that you have something meaningful to say.

Now, I supposedly said that the civil rights of minorities is different than of homosexuals. Well, dumbass, it is plain to anyone with an IQ above... well, 8, that it is different. I cant stand up right now and say I am black and all of a sudden by the power of Greyskull I will have a darker skin tone. Now, right now I could go in and make out with my roomate and say I have feelings for him, and society would see me as a gay man in a gay relationship. Now, that is called a CHOICE. You can choose not to be gay. I could choose to be a racist. I can choose to be a Democrat. I chould chose to be a Buddhist. But it is a CHOICE that I have to make and I have to live with the conquences.

You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to have choices and no conquences. You want to eat the tub of ice cream but not get the calories or the fat from it. People like you want protecting from thoughts and ideas that are seen to liberals as "progressive" and "liberal" but if someone attacks another man but he was thinking "opressive" thoughts while he does it, you want him to be punished for his thoughts as well as his actions! If it is something you agree with, it is ok. If it is something you hate, then it should be shunned.

But I am getting off track. Are you saying that I am ignorant because I said that I could enter a homosexual relationship in a second? Well, because I could make that choice, that means I could enter that relationship. I know choices and responsability is hard for you and your special ed class you have assembled to understand, but the choice to be gay is a choice. If they want to have sex, let them. But marriage is a big no no.

And if you think a good homosexual couple can raise a child just as well as a good straight couple... well... you are very, very misguided.

When Thom and George are raising their little girl, which one is going to explain to the girl about menstruation and getting a training bra?

When Louis and Janice are raising their little boy, who is going to take him to his father/son picnic?

Please answer those questions, and leave death/divorce out of it.

[Vibecrewangel]

Yes. Being gay is a choice. Clearly that's why my first crush was on another girl. Clearly, the fact that I have always been more attracted to women was a choice. Yes. At 7 or 8 years old, I was SOOOOOO sexually aware that I made a choice to like girls instead of boys.
I didn't even start to notice boys until high school. Up until that point it was always other girls I liked.
Now, I'm a greedy bitch. I like them both. Though I am happily monogomous (sp) with a wonderful guy, he appreciates the fact that we can go out and check out chicks together.

Gator - perhaps you missed my point. Just because some don't want to get married does not mean that all of them don't. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as straight people?

Vince - So, a couple that has fertility problems should not be allowed to marry because they can't produce a child without medical/scientific help right?

Love is love.
Attraction is attraction.
Who are "you" to tell me how I can and can't feel about another consenting adult?

[Immortal Goat]

If they want to have sex, let them. But marriage is a big no no.

And if you think a good homosexual couple can raise a child just as well as a good straight couple... well... you are very, very misguided.

When Thom and George are raising their little girl, which one is going to explain to the girl about menstruation and getting a training bra?

When Louis and Janice are raising their little boy, who is going to take him to his father/son picnic?

Please answer those questions, and leave death/divorce out of it.

WHY is marriage a "big no no"? What makes you so much better than gay people that you are able to marry, but they cannot? And if you bring that "It is against God's law" shit into this, then you have even less of a mind than I thought.

Oh, by the way, Louis would take their son to the picnic, since Louis is a man's name. I think you might have meant LOUISE, but since you are a dumbfuck, I will forgive you this time.

[Gatorman]

hold on, hold on. I'm not trying to blanket anyone as I CLEARLY stated that "and this is my office, not all gay people everywhere, so back off" in my post. See it, right there? Mmkay then. End of discussion.

I DO think that the large number of gay people involved in my life, and being a very real observer of the sub-culture gives me a great perspective on the situation. I also think that working with people actively involved in the legal aspect of the debate gives me a unique insight that I wanted to share.

This is their opinion, not mine. No one even responded to my opinion.

Furthermore, my secretary is 'married' to his boyfriend, so I have that perspective as well. As I said, I find the age diffentiation to be quite interesting.

I do not share all of Vince's opinions. I just noted that he made a valid point that was quickly derided, so I jumped in on that point. Don't be a Gator-playa hata, ya hatas.

[Vibecrewangel]

Vince - you could go out and make a choice to enter a homosexual relationship, but unless the FEELINGS and ATTRACTION were real then YOU are not a homosexual.
Those people that have the feelings and the attractions have ALWAYS felt that way. They are homosexual. It was not a choice.



And you're right, a loving gay couple could not possibly raise a child better than an abusive straight couple. I mean, really there are no other factors involved besides gay and straight. You can't possibly judge each case separately because straight = good parents and gay = bad parents.

[Immortal Goat]

Don't be a Gator-playa hata, ya hatas.

God, I hate people that talk like this.

[Gatorman]

Don't be a Gator-playa hata, ya hatas.

God, I hate people that talk like this.

me, too. that's why I have a sense of humor about it. Hata.

[Mockery]

Mockery, now I know since you are from VA you believe your "enlightened"

I'm from New York you ass. And what does where a person lives have anything to do with the validity of their statements? Tool...

Now, right now I could go in and make out with my roomate and say I have feelings for him, and society would see me as a gay man in a gay relationship.

You mean right now you could go to your roomate and lie, yes you could. You can't force those kind of feelings for somebody, either you love them or you don't.

You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to have choices and no conquences.

And you want to make sure there are as many consequences for "that thar dirty faggot" who threatens what you believe should be a legal marriage.

But marriage is a big no no.

I rest my case.

When Thom and George are raising their little girl, which one is going to explain to the girl about menstruation and getting a training bra?

Yeah, just because they're male means they can't explain these things. That's why there's absolutely no male gynecologists out there. Men can't learn about the female body.

When Louis and Janice are raising their little boy, who is going to take him to his father/son picnic?

Yeah! Keep them women out of our sports! They should be in the kitchen damnit!

:rolleyes

Your arguments are as hollow as your skull.

[Dole]

'You can choose not to be gay. ' -thats absolute fucking bullshit. No-one chooses to be gay.

[Immortal Goat]

For Shizzle, Dizzle.

[Immortal Goat]

'You can choose not to be gay. ' -thats absolute fucking bullshit. No-one chooses to be gay.

Wow, someone who defies Vinth and is RIGHT!! This has never happened before!

[Gatorman]

For Shizzle, Dizzle.

*chuckles


In other news, I happened to read this related op/ed this morning. I haven't decided what I think yet:

The fact of the matter is that gays and lesbians themselves do not threaten the institution of marriage. They should not be blamed or made scapegoats for the weakening of thefundamental institution of marriage.

Men and women, husbands and wives by the millions, who care more for Mercedes-Benzes and four-car garages than for teaching their children values and helping with their homework, have done a fine job of that, thank you. Live-in heterosexual lovers who want the benefits of marriage without the responsibility or the costs, and who have no more regard for the well-being of children of a former marriage than they do for their boyfriend or girlfriend's Weimaraner, have done more to destroy this vital institution than all the gays and lesbians could ever hope to do even if they tried.

However, the institution of marriage is in danger, and if it goes under, one of the fundamental underpinnings of Western civilization crumbles. How our society responds to demands by gay and lesbian groups that individual homosexual couples be recognized as lawfully married will in fact largely determine whether Western civilization continues to employ the family as one of its fundamental building blocks. Insofar as laws define -- or should define -- all institutions in our society, it ought to be, then, a question of lawful definition we consider.

I believe the issue must be looked at in this light, and from this narrow perspective because we are a nation of laws. Laws are based -- should be based, must be based -- on reason and common sense. Posing the debate in this manner also detaches -- or should detach -- us from the emotion necessarily appended to any discussion of homosexuality or heterosexuality.

If in fact, as it has been so defined since time immemorial, "marriage" as a legal term and concept (which it is) means the "legal union of one man and one woman." If we then were to suddenly decide, because of political pressure, let's say, to "redefine" it to mean the "legal union of any one person with any other person," which is necessarily the manner in which advocates of same-sex marriage would have to do, then we have "redefined" marriage out of existence. It would mean nothing.

It is this slippery slope of open-ended, and therefore necessarily pointless redefining of terms that is the real danger to the legal institution of marriage, if we allow it to mean something other than what it always has meant -- the lawful union of one man and one woman. It would be like all of a sudden deciding to redefine an "automobile" to mean something other than a self-propelled vehicle on four wheels, for example. You could do it -- after all, it's just words -- but obviously the newly defined "thing" wouldn't be an automobile as everyone has always understood it.

If, in fact, it is the goal of homosexual rights advocates to obtain rights and privileges similar to those afforded by our society to men and women seeking a lawfully recognized union, then let's have a debate over that, and let society make its decisions at the state or local government level. But let's not, in the process of addressing one issue, create a monumentally larger one that would necessarily befall us if, in trying to fit a homosexual relationship into a long recognized and historically sound heterosexual relationship. Let's not define "marriage" out of existence in an effort to define whatever parameters society may or may not decide it wants or needs for same-sex relationships. Remember, this is not a zero-sum game.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Smyrna, was chief sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage Act," which allows states not to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.


06.26.03

[Zero Signal]

Mockery, now I know since you are from VA you believe your "enlightened" thinking makes you better than the rubes like Falwell, but I'm here to tell you that you are just another internet dumbass who has had too many people telling you that you have something meaningful to say.So people in St. Louis are smarter? Amazing! :rolleyes

The bolded quote is priceless, Vinth. How long do you spend looking in the mirror every day trying to convince yourself that YOU have anything meaningful to say?

[Immortal Goat]

Mockery, now I know since you are from VA you believe your "enlightened" thinking makes you better than the rubes like Falwell, but I'm here to tell you that you are just another internet dumbass who has had too many people telling you that you have something meaningful to say.So people in St. Louis are smarter? Amazing! :rolleyes

The bolded quote is priceless, Vinth. How long do you spend looking in the mirror every day trying to convince yourself that YOU have anything meaningful to say?

:lol Vinth is such a :wank He loves :blowme

[Vibecrewangel]

Gator - Do you beleive that society changes over time? That things that were once a standard change as people change? Shouldn't we as a nation change to accomodate this new age? Or do you really think we should try desparately to cling to past ideals that don't fit with modern times?

Marriage is not what it used to be. I look at my generation (I'm gonna be 30 at the end of this month) and I see a sad state of affairs. Starter marriages. Open marriages. Divorce. Kids getting married. Kids having kids. Parents that have "days off" from their kids.
Family just doesn't mean as much any more.

I find it interesting that as a kid I remember having family dinner. We sat at the table and had dinner as a family. Now, most apartments don't have room for a table and chairs, and the ones that do generally have a computer set up in that area instead. It seems like such a small thing, but I find it to be a wonderful example of how far the family unit has fallen.

[Jeanette X]

Ask them if they want to be able to marry. They will tell you no, because a lot of the "homosexual" lifestyle is the promiscuity.
And your gay acquantences all speak for all the gay people in the world. :blah
But this gay marriage shit isnt so gays can be seen as equal as the traditional man-wife human relationship (btw, it ISNT. Man and woman can produce offspring, homosexuals without scientific help cannot, big diff there), its to be able to CHANGE the dynamic of what we call a "family".
So if a heterosexual couple can't have children except by artifical means, they shouldn't be allowed to get married? They aren't a "family"?

[Gatorman]

Gator - Do you beleive that society changes over time? That things that were once a standard change as people change? Shouldn't we as a nation change to accomodate this new age? Or do you really think we should try desparately to cling to past ideals that don't fit with modern times?

Marriage is not what it used to be. I look at my generation (I'm gonna be 30 at the end of this month) and I see a sad state of affairs. Starter marriages. Open marriages. Divorce. Kids getting married. Kids having kids. Parents that have "days off" from their kids.
Family just doesn't mean as much any more.

I find it interesting that as a kid I remember having family dinner. We sat at the table and had dinner as a family. Now, most apartments don't have room for a table and chairs, and the ones that do generally have a computer set up in that area instead. It seems like such a small thing, but I find it to be a wonderful example of how far the family unit has fallen.


Like the article posted above mentions, marriage is under attack right now and needs to be preserved. Changing the definition will not help this at all. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Bob Barr.

You are saying that marriage/family is breaking down. I'm not that alarmist, but I do think that people treating marriage casually (though few will admit they do so) is abhorent and needs to be addressed.


I also think that certain concepts are essentially timeless, and marriage is one of them. Perhaps the civil union idea has merit, but marriage has always been a religious function first, and a state function second. I don't think loosening up the definition of marriage will help it at all, and it insults the religious side of the definition...you don't have to agree w/the religious view here, but it is the basis of the law.

I believe that STATES should decide through public VOTE what they want to do, and that these efforts should be based upon setting up some kind of new institution that recognizes/defines gay unions and places attached responsibilities on said unions.

[Jeanette X]

Life is full of choices. If you chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, there are pros and cons to that lifestyle. One of those cons is the inability not to get married. This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship.
So if black people could somehow choose not to be black, would you want them to change too?

[Gatorman]

Life is full of choices. If you chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, there are pros and cons to that lifestyle. One of those cons is the inability not to get married. This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship.
So if black people could somehow choose not to be black, would you want them to change too?

*coughMichaelJacksoncough*

:)

[Immortal Goat]

Exactly, Gatorman. Jack-O was able to change from black to white, but he is NOT able to change his being a homo-pedophile. There are some things in life that you CONNOT change.

[Gatorman]

Exactly, Gatorman. Jack-O was able to change from black to white, but he is NOT able to change his being a homo-pedophile. There are some things in life that you CONNOT change.

Touche'

but kind of a bad example, since him being that way doesn't mean we should accept the behavior. Pedophiles are forced to undergo counseling to change their behavior and help them resist their sexual urges.

[Mockery]

Yes, now let's compare pedophiles with homosexuals. They're all equally evil after all, right? :maul

[Gatorman]

Yes, now let's compare pedophiles with homosexuals. They're all equally evil after all, right? :maul

do you honestly think that either of us was making that comparison? please.

[Mockery]

since him being that way doesn't mean we should accept the behavior.

Words like these all tie back into the original topic of discussion. You can be as subtle as you want about it, but the jabs are still evident.

[Vibecrewangel]

Gator -

So if marriage is religious first, then are you saying the people who aren't religious should not be able to marry? There are a lot of religions out there......which ones should be allowed to marry and which shouldn't? What about religious gays? Should they be given special permission?

Marriage is about love and commitment. About wanting to be with somone for the rest of your life. All people regardles fo race, religion, social standing or sexual orientation should be allowed to marry if they so choose too.
If marriage is about values, then why should those who have those values be punished simply because they are gay?
A loving couple is a loving couple regardless of any factors.

[Gatorman]

Gator -

So if marriage is religious first, then are you saying the people who aren't religious should not be able to marry? There are a lot of religions out there......which ones should be allowed to marry and which shouldn't? What about religious gays? Should they be given special permission?

Marriage is about love and commitment. About wanting to be with somone for the rest of your life. All people regardles fo race, religion, social standing or sexual orientation should be allowed to marry if they so choose too.
If marriage is about values, then why should those who have those values be punished simply because they are gay?
A loving couple is a loving couple regardless of any factors.

Perhaps you didn't understand me. I refer you back again to the Barr article. There is a need for some kind of civil arrangement to legitamize gay love, no matter what my or anyone feels about it, there is a need. My point is that if marriage is at its core a religious institution that has then been adopted by the govt, then you should be looking to not change the definition of the first, but to add a whole new arrangement for gays.

I can call my truck a Corvette all day long. I can make a family rule forcing everyone to do the same, but at the end of the day it is still a truck because that is what the factory made it as. I'm saying its time for society to look at giving gays Corvettes. :)


What YOU are saying is that you want people outside of the religious structure to have a say in what a core religious principle says. That is a silly as the religious people who tell the gays what to do.

[Preechr]

Is now an appropriate time to ask what business the government has in favoring married people in general over single people at all?

[Jeanette X]

Exactly, Gatorman. Jack-O was able to change from black to white, but he is NOT able to change his being a homo-pedophile. There are some things in life that you CONNOT change.
Michael Jackson lost his pigmentation because he has a genetic skin disorder called vitiligo. Comparing homosexuality and pedophilia is ridiculous, because pedophilia is known to be directly detrimental to society, whereas homosexuality between consenting adults has not been proven to be detrimental to society. To paraphrase Ror:
"Calling a male pedophile who attacks boys a 'homosexual' is like calling a nuclear weapon a 'chair' because you can sit on it."

[Vibecrewangel]

Preecher - Yes it is. I've always wondered about that myself.

Gator - Then what about religious gays and non religious straight people? I'm just saying that if religion is the qualifier then that qualifier needs to be across the board.

[Preechr]

Michael Jackson lost his pigmentation because he has a genetic skin disorder called vitiligo.

HAHAHA!!! Good One!

[Preechr]

Preecher - Yes it is. I've always wondered about that myself.


Ok, then... I'll ask it: What the Hell does it matter who is married and who is not? I'm all for the social celebration of a permanent union between ANY two adults, providing we're not talking about those that would produce offspring that would further cloud the gene pool... How does that become a matter of governmental preference?

It's argued that insurance companies favor married folks. That has a statistical basis. Marriage is generally a safer and healthier lifestyle than promiscuity. Private companies like Disney are changing policies to extend benefits to same sex partners... but that's THEIR decision to make, not Uncle Sam's.

Any preference the government might make toward a particular citizen's lifestyle should be stricken from law, unless another person's lifestyle or life is threatened by it. If you can't agree with that, then I hope the feds come after your own life next.

[Jeanette X]

HAHAHA!!! Good One!
http://www.makeupdni.com/images/vitiligoba.jpg
Corrective make-up on vitiligo patient.
http://itsb.ucsf.edu/~vcr/MJVit.jpeg
What Michael Jackson might have really looked like when this picture was taken under his corrective make up.

[Gatorman]

Preecher - Yes it is. I've always wondered about that myself.


Ok, then... I'll ask it: What the Hell does it matter who is married and who is not? I'm all for the social celebration of a permanent union between ANY two adults, providing we're not talking about those that would produce offspring that would further cloud the gene pool... How does that become a matter of governmental preference?

It's argued that insurance companies favor married folks. That has a statistical basis. Marriage is generally a safer and healthier lifestyle than promiscuity. Private companies like Disney are changing policies to extend benefits to same sex partners... but that's THEIR decision to make, not Uncle Sam's.

Any preference the government might make toward a particular citizen's lifestyle should be stricken from law, unless another person's lifestyle or life is threatened by it. If you can't agree with that, then I hope the feds come after your own life next.

Well, Preechr, good to see you. Now, I have to say that I believe that Marriage is a wonderful institution in our society. If it didn't make a difference, then there would be no reason for gays to want to get in on the action.

I believe that the preservation of the family unit, gay or straight, is so vital and essential to our society that it preempts all other govt responsibilities. I think that if that means the govt allows filing taxes, etc for convenience purposes that it is completely fine.

I think that if the govt gives bonuses in special cases to married couples it can be ok as well.

And that is about it. Given that I think we should go to a national sales tax, etc etc etc, I feel my other positions do not conflict with my desires to promote family units. Simply, two loving parents will always raise a child better than one. Bring it on.

[Gatorman]

Preecher - Yes it is. I've always wondered about that myself.

Gator - Then what about religious gays and non religious straight people? I'm just saying that if religion is the qualifier then that qualifier needs to be across the board.

As I said, religion was the basis of this and it was adopted by the govt for various reasons. The other situations do not try to change the definition of marriage. And I am open to examining other options. My truck is still not a sports car! But I can go buy a sports car as well. I won't stop you from buying a sports car.

[Vibecrewangel]

Gator - you may have posted it before, but could you post the definition of marriage for me.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your point.

[Gatorman]

Gator - you may have posted it before, but could you post the definition of marriage for me.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your point.

The permanent bond of a single man and single woman, free of all other personal obligations, where the couple becomes as one in all things before society for the purpose of creating a family.

This is of course, my definition. I really hate when people c/p definitions.

[Vibecrewangel]

The permanent bond of a single man and single woman, free of all other personal obligations, where the couple becomes as one in all things before society for the purpose of creating a family.

Okay, now where does religion fit in?
And what about people who either don't want kids or can't have them? (Unless of course having kids is not necessary for a family. I personally do not think they are.)

[Gatorman]

The permanent bond of a single man and single woman, free of all other personal obligations, where the couple becomes as one in all things before society for the purpose of creating a family.

Okay, now where does religion fit in?
And what about people who either don't want kids or can't have them? (Unless of course having kids is not necessary for a family. I personally do not think they are.)

I'm not sure what your fixation on the religion aspect of this is....Religion is the root of our American vision of marriage, as are many, many, many of our laws. That is undeniable.

Society is changing to be sure, and we need to adapt our govt and civil structure. I just personally believe that divorcing the word 'marriage' from the REAL issue of getting gays the civil rights afforded those in a marriage is the way to go. This takes away the platform of those in the large religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond defined by God.

And I have read compelling cases for children being a goal and/or irrelevant to the formation of a family. I am undecided on the issue.


Now that I think about it, I think there is a stronger case for removing PRO-marriage benefits than there is a case for adding more marriage/civil union/gay-bond benefits. I'm all for shrinking govt programs and reducing taxes at every turn.

[Preechr]

DICTIONARY DOT COM DEFINES MARRIAGE AS...

haha...

Maybe the definition should be expanded to include the concept that married people, with or without chiddren, are more stable than single folk, thus better for society on the whole.

oOps... can't do that... that would leave the door open for those filthy gay boys and their shiny pants!

[Gatorman]

DICTIONARY DOT COM DEFINES MARRIAGE AS...

haha...

Maybe the definition should be expanded to include the concept that married people, with or without chiddren, are more stable than single folk, thus better for society on the whole.

oOps... can't do that... that would leave the door open for those filthy gay boys and their shiny pants!

Shiny pants AND fishnet muscle shirts


*people in office read over shoulder and commence belly laughing

[Immortal Goat]

Michael Jackson lost his pigmentation because he has a genetic skin disorder called vitiligo.

If you believe that, then you are extremely gullible. If he had this "genetic" disorder, than why doesn't ANYONE else in his family have it? But that is off the topic.

I was not saying that homosexuals and pedophiles were equally evil. I was saying that this was something about him that he could not change. Homosexuality is not a choice, no matter what those religious-extremists say. God does not hate gays, nor do I believe that being gay is immoral. Pedophiles are immoral, but that was only in reference to the mentioning of Jackson. I am sorry if I confused some people with my lack of explanation.

[Vibecrewangel]

I'm not sure what your fixation on the religion aspect of this is....Religion is the root of our American vision of marriage, as are many, many, many of our laws. That is undeniable.


My fixation is that you seem to be saying that marriage has a religious base. And that you shoudn't be able to change the definition. However, your definition does not include religion. So what it appears you are saying is that you can't change it past what YOU personally believe.

Society is changing to be sure, and we need to adapt our govt and civil structure. I just personally believe that divorcing the word 'marriage' from the REAL issue of getting gays the civil rights afforded those in a marriage is the way to go. This takes away the platform of those in the large religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond defined by God.

Again....does this mean that non-religions straight people should not be able to get married? I mean, wouldn't that that take away from the platform of those in the large religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond defined by God?

The word marriage means. UNION
I can have a marriage of peanut butter an jelly on my sandwich
Science uses the word all the time.
We have civil marriage ceremonies and religious marriage ceremonies. They don't take away from each other in any way. Marriage is the ultimate symbol of the union between two loving people who want to be together. The religious aspect should be a personal one not a qualifier for the union itself.
Maybe the religious people should change the name to bound-by-god instead. That way they can be sure not to take away from the platform of those in the large non-religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond with the one they love.[/quote]

[Immortal Goat]

The permanent bond of a single man and single woman, free of all other personal obligations, where the couple becomes as one in all things before society for the purpose of creating a family.

Okay, now where does religion fit in?
And what about people who either don't want kids or can't have them? (Unless of course having kids is not necessary for a family. I personally do not think they are.)

I'm not sure what your fixation on the religion aspect of this is....Religion is the root of our American vision of marriage, as are many, many, many of our laws. That is undeniable.

I personally think that religion has no place deciding anything in our society. Religious folks need to SHUT UP about the issues they find to be "against God's will" and just not participate in the so-called "questionable" actions. We have the Separation of Church and State for a reason, and that is so those of us who are NOT religious don't have to hear all the time about how we are "going to hell".

[AChimp]

I don't see what the big deal is. If gay people want to get married, let them. If they want to adopt children, well, good for them. It just opens the door for a helluva lot of more kids to get a decent home. Or do anyone here wish to support the notion that a child would be worse off with loving gay parents than in an orphanage?

There is nothing "natural" about marraige. There is nothing that makes us monogamous other than our own societal views, and a lot of people end up with multiple sexual partners during their lives, so monogamy is a load of horseshit nowadays.

The fact that there is separation of the Church and the State makes the State's definition of marraige a legal one and therefore all the other laws apply to it. It can be changed as society changes, and typically those changes happen a lot faster than changes in religious beliefs. Want proof? Divorce. Why arent' the anti-gay marriage lobbyists arguing against divorce, since it's up to around a 50% rate for marraige failure now.

If you think that allowing gays to marry will cheapen the relationship that YOU have with YOUR wife/husband, then show some examples of how it will occur. Will knowing that the two gay guys next door might be bumfucking each other at the same time you're making love to your wife un-man you so? Are they forcing you to watch? Do they phone you in the middle and invite you over? :blah

[Gatorman]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.

I'm telling you right now that if you want to win this debate nationally you have to drop the word 'marriage.' That is all.


And I gave you MY definition of marriage. I tried to leave all religion, historical, etc references out of it. It sounds to me as if you are denying the religious foundations of the American version of the institution of marriage. I'm not really up for history lessons today, but maybe later.

[Immortal Goat]

Marriage is nothing more than an institution created by religion to force even more control over their followers. I DO believe that marriage is a good way to live, but it is not THE way to live. And even though marriage was created by religion, that does NOT mean that the term marriage can not be used in a gay union. They stay together, they love each other, how is that NOT a marriage???

[Gatorman]

Marriage is nothing more than an institution created by religion to force even more control over their followers. I DO believe that marriage is a good way to live, but it is not THE way to live. And even though marriage was created by religion, that does NOT mean that the term marriage can not be used in a gay union. They stay together, they love each other, how is that NOT a marriage???

so the true agenda is revealed. This has nothing to do with bringing equal rights (by which I mean special priveledges) to the gay community so that they share the same privledges as married couples. This is about demanding total acceptance of behavior.

And I DO believe that marriage is a wonderful way to live, and a benefit to society. Just because some people behave badly is no reason to condemn the foundation of our societal structure.

As I said, I believe that there is a very strong case to open up the BENEFITS of marriage to gay couples. Only its not marriage, which is the union of a man and woman. This is where most of the country will get hung up and vote NO in the booths.

If you really want gay couples to get the benefits of marriage, than you must leave go of the word marriage. If you have a personal agenda where you want others to support the community/lifestyle, than you MUST try to keep that word 'Marriage' in there as it will symbolically legitamize being gay.

[AChimp]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.
You can get a civil union for straight people, already, by just signing a piece of paper in front of a magistrate/judge/whatever. No one says you have to go to a church.

But everyone still calls that a marriage, just like everyone calls apples and oranges (two very different things) fruit.

[Gatorman]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.
You can get a civil union for straight people, already, by just signing a piece of paper in front of a magistrate/judge/whatever. No one says you have to go to a church.

But everyone still calls that a marriage, just like everyone calls apples and oranges (two very different things) fruit.



Exactly! Why? Because it is the union of a man and a woman. Thank you.

[AChimp]

Uh huh... so why can't it be called marraige when two gay people sign the same paper?

Oh wait. You're freaked out because that would mean that gay people (bad) can suddenly have something that you consider special.

[Immortal Goat]

WHY THE FUCK IS BEING GAY CONSIDERED IMMORAL??!!

[Preechr]

I would just like to say that this is very funny.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

[Gatorman]

Uh huh... so why can't it be called marraige when two gay people sign the same paper?

Oh wait. You're freaked out because that would mean that gay people (bad) can suddenly have something that you consider special.

*snicker

yes, I am freaked out. you hit right on the head. :) you see, every post reveals more of the true agenda with some people. Not all. But some. I stand by my posts.

Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.

Notice, that I have not taken a PERSONAL stance on this yet.

*snicker

[Gatorman]

WHY THE FUCK IS BEING GAY CONSIDERED IMMORAL??!!


I'm not saying it is. To you it is not. To other people it is. It is no more your right for you to tell them they are wrong than it is their right to tell you that you are wrong.

Why do you care what they think? Are you a Captain in the Thought Police now?

*shrugs

My office has been laughing their asses off all day at this exchange. Thanks!

[Immortal Goat]

I do not think that I am "Captain of the Thought Police, I am just wondering how some people can say that homosexuality is wrong, and I want to know where they get it into their heads that they have tht right to stick their already upturned noses into other people's business.

[Gatorman]

I do not think that I am "Captain of the Thought Police, I am just wondering how some people can say that homosexuality is wrong, and I want to know where they get it into their heads that they have tht right to stick their already upturned noses into other people's business.

so, you want them to change their opinion and they want you to change yours, yet neither party is really doing anything to prevent any kinds of behavior in anyone.

That is why I don't really care about any of this all that much. Two different opinions, two different moral sets, and it is nearly impossible to reconcile the two.

In the end, when guys like me wade into the fray and point out the validity of either arguement, both sides accuse of all kinds of things.

Immorality, homophobia, lefty, etc


Vince doesn't think homosexual behavior is good. You think it is fine.

Everything else just breaks down in rhetoric. That is where I have my fun!!!!

[Bennett]

Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.


*snicker

The last I heard, where Achimp is from (canada)... the prime minister is proposing a bill to legalize MARRIAGE for gay couples. You better let him know he should drop that word.

[Gatorman]

good for Canada. They are not the US and I do not know their law, history, or culture well enough to examine this issue with any kind of criticle perspective.

I did notice that in the news, by the way. I would have mentioned it had I noticed our chimp friend was from the great white north.

[AChimp]

Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.[quote]
Aren't we presumptious? :lol

Canada is already getting ready to allow gay people to be MARRIED. No one gets any say in the matter because the Supreme Court already decided it's unconstitutional to prevent it.

[quote]Notice, that I have not taken a PERSONAL stance on this yet.
That's right, you haven't. You've only been arguing dictionary definitions and why they shouldn't be changed.

So, please, just state it clearly in one post, because all the air is thin this far north: Why shouldn't it be called "marriage" for two gay people?

[Gatorman]

Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.[quote]
Aren't we presumptious? :lol

Canada is already getting ready to allow gay people to be MARRIED. No one gets any say in the matter because the Supreme Court already decided it's unconstitutional to prevent it.

[quote]Notice, that I have not taken a PERSONAL stance on this yet.
That's right, you haven't. You've only been arguing dictionary definitions and why they shouldn't be changed.

So, please, just state it clearly in one post, because all the air is thin this far north: Why shouldn't it be called "marriage" for two gay people?


A) I don't believe courts should decide what people should vote on

B) I believe that in most cases, large, society changing decisions should be voted on by the public

C) I already posted a wonderful op/ed by Barr at the beginning of the debate. At that time, I wasn't sure where I stood because frankly, I didn't care. I don't think it is my business to tell anyone what to if it doesn't hurt me, and doesn't f' with society too much. Heck, even the people I know who are passionate about this subject are split evenly,...and they are all gay! Upon further contemplation, I think I will side with the Op/Ed. After all, there hasn't been anything said here on either side all that impressive here. I only take a solid position out of respect to your request.

[Vibecrewangel]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.

I'm telling you right now that if you want to win this debate nationally you have to drop the word 'marriage.' That is all.


And I gave you MY definition of marriage. I tried to leave all religion, historical, etc references out of it. It sounds to me as if you are denying the religious foundations of the American version of the institution of marriage. I'm not really up for history lessons today, but maybe later.

Actually, and maybe I missed it, the reason I kept asking the question about straight non-religious people is precisly because I didn't see you say "what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes."

Civil unions are marriages.
Common law marriages are marriages.
Religious marriages are marriages.
Peanut butter and jelly on my sandwich is a marriage.

I think the religious nuts need to get over themselves and the belief that they have special rights. Especially rights over a word.

And to be sure, I was not denying the religious foundation. I was pointing out that you were using it on one hand but denying it on the other. I know it is there. I also know it has changed. It should continue to change and adapt as out society continues to grow and change.

[Vibecrewangel]

A) I don't believe courts should decide what people should vote on

B) I believe that in most cases, large, society changing decisions should be voted on by the public


On this we agree.

[Gatorman]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.

I'm telling you right now that if you want to win this debate nationally you have to drop the word 'marriage.' That is all.


And I gave you MY definition of marriage. I tried to leave all religion, historical, etc references out of it. It sounds to me as if you are denying the religious foundations of the American version of the institution of marriage. I'm not really up for history lessons today, but maybe later.

Actually, and maybe I missed it, the reason I kept asking the question about straight non-religious people is precisly because I didn't see you say "what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes."

Civil unions are marriages.
Common law marriages are marriages.
Religious marriages are marriages.
Peanut butter and jelly on my sandwich is a marrige.

I think the religious nuts need to get over themselves and the belief that they have special rights. Especially rights over a word.

And to be sure, I was not denying the religious foundation. I was pointing out that you were using it on one hand but denying it on the other. I know it is there. I also know it has changed. It should continue to change and adapt as out society continues to grow and change.


So then you assert that the breakdown of the marriage/traditional family is a problem, yet you believe there is no problem with breaking down the marriage/traditional marriage because times have changed? Shouldn't we look more at the problems first? Or more importantly, resolve these problems?

And are you saying that anyone who is religious is a nut? If some alien religon makes up a word that is important to them, and attaches a ceremony to it, isn't it their right to be annoyed when they land on Earth and humans want to change the ceremony? How about the very definition of the word?

Sure, maybe they'll put up with a little bit of change, but they will only be pushed too far.

That is what I predict here. You are going to push the Aliens too far, and they will shut the door. If you want to obtain your ultimate goal of universal acceptance of gays, than you need to continue moving forward gradually.

[Gatorman]

I gotta run y'all. Its been fun.

[Vibecrewangel]

So then you assert that the breakdown of the marriage/traditional family is a problem, yet you believe there is no problem with breaking down the marriage/traditional marriage because times have changed? Shouldn't we look more at the problems first? Or more importantly, resolve these problems?

Where did I assert that? When I mentioned that "marriage is not what it used to be?" It isn't. And that is just a prevelant in religious couples as it is in non-religious couples. The reasons behind it may be different in some cases. But just because a couple is married before God does not make them a better couple or a better family.

Since my nana raised me and my sisters and that isn't a traditional family, should we give up the word family? How about single parents?

And are you saying that anyone who is religious is a nut? If some alien religon makes up a word that is important to them, and attaches a ceremony to it, isn't it their right to be annoyed when they land on Earth and humans want to change the ceremony? How about the very definition of the word?


No, I said religious nuts. That is quite different.

So which religious ceremony should be considered a marriage? Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Wiccan, Voodoo, Muslim, Morman, Hindu, Christian, Satanist......I think you get the point.
And how has it been changed? And to what? A Catholic ceremony is still a Catholic ceremony. A Jewish one is still a Jewish one. They don't take anything away from each other. And neither does a civil ceremony.

And what definition of the word? The dictionary? The legal? Mine? Yours? The scientific? A religious one? Which religious one?

[Vibecrewangel]

Bye Gator.

Look forward to your response tomorrow. I may not agree with the whole marriage = religious ceremony, but it is an interesting point. One in CA we rarely see.

[Protoclown]

For fuck's sake, why does Gator have his panties in a bunch over the definition of the word "marriage"? Get over it, dude. I think Vibecrew summed things up nicely, and I agree with her statements.

There was some girl in India recently who was married to a fucking dog. What label would you put on that?

*chuckles

My whole apartment has been laughing at Gator's stupid compulsive need to try to impress/intimidate everyone by constantly letting us know that he's showing this to his big gay coworkers and they are all laughing at everything.

*snickers

Now the neighbors are in here laughing at it too OMG


And what was up with that stupid shit where Gator was trying to be all cryptic about hinting that he's black with all this "if only you knew" bullshit? Like, oh my god, you sure had one over on us! Nevermind the fact that Zero Signal's statement still stands, even if "we didn't only know" the mystery of your possible blackness, because you still sound like one of those fucking obnoxious people. Whether you are black or all your friends are or whatever is irrelevant.

*laughs

OMG now my friends from out of town are over here and we are all pointing and just absolutely guffawing as we are slapping our knees LOL

[FS]

Vince, the stretches of your asinine logic just won't cease amazing me.

A couple that can't produce offspring isn't equal to one that can? So how about men or women that are born sterile? Should they be forbidden to get married? How about people who get a vasectomy/sterilisation? Should they be legally forced to divorce?

A gay couple can't raise a child as well as a straight couple can? How about a single parent? They must be even worse. Should single parents get their children taken away from them? Why can't we discuss this? Because it's not the parent's "fault" that they're "unfit"? Should a parent that beats his kids be allowed to continue because he's got a mental disorder or he was beaten himself as a kid?

Stop beating around the bush and get down to your real feelings about gay marriage. What? You find it disrespectful to straight marriage? So's divorce. Maybe that should be outlawed too. Why is marriage so important to certain gay people? Why is so important to many straight people? Homosexuality is a choice? You fucking mental dwarf. Can you choose which girl you're attracted to and which one you're not? Then why do you think other people can actually pick and choose which gender they'll get hard over today?

See if you can answer any of that without backing into a corner and admitting that you find gay people to be icky and inferior. I don't mind that you think that. What it boils down to is that I don't think you can prove to me that homosexuality is so dangerous that certain laws are necessary to leash it or keep it out of certain institutes.

[Protoclown]

Now Fatsatan, you realize that Vince has already asked that we leave single parents resulting from death or divorce out of the discussion, because that would totally destroy his pathetic argument.

[Vibecrewangel]

I like the fact that most men (I use the word loosely) who think being gay is wrong also get off on hot girl on girl action.

[FS]

I think far too few women are admitting that they get off on guy on guy action. It's like a big secret they're keeping so they can keep trashing men for their preoccupation with lesbians >:

[Vibecrewangel]

Actually, I prefer girl on girl action any day of the week.

[FS]

Yeah, but you already said you're usually more attracted to girls than guys. I believe research has shown that most straight women are more into gay porn than they are into straight porn. Yet I don't see many of them admitting to it - other than the occasional swooning over a picture of guys kissing.

[GAsux]

All this talk about man on man sex and lesbianism is really getting me hot.

What was this thread about again? I need some lotion.

[VinceZeb]

Proto, please. Now, I know you think its cool that your nerd boy D&D roomies think that what Gator, who is by more more successful that myself or you for that matter, but please drop it. It only makes you look like the child you tend to want to act like.

Now, I am against homosexuality more so on a scientific basis than a religious basis. But lets talk about that for an instance. What if being attracted to kids is "genetic"? What if being attracted to animals is "genetic"? What if being attracted to a peg in the wall is "genetic"? Shouldn't that be on the same basis of homosexuality, and thus "ok, because they are born that way"?

Let's just face some more facts, thought. The Gay Marriage situation is about making behavior that the vast majority of Americans in private would tell you they loathe and hate "acceptable". Marriage is something that is being destroyed today by Hollywood idiots, stupid teenage kids, and everyone else that doesnt understand what the fucking word 'commitment' means.

And to people that say that homosexuality isnt a choice... I know this example is more elastic than a fat kid's underwear, but look at porno stars. Do you think Jenna Jameson would be fucking women and generally acting like a whore with chicks in public if it wasnt putting money in her cum-coated hands? I think not.

[Immortal Goat]

And to people that say that homosexuality isnt a choice... I know this example is more elastic than a fat kid's underwear, but look at porno stars. Do you think Jenna Jameson would be fucking women and generally acting like a whore with chicks in public if it wasnt putting money in her cum-coated hands? I think not.

Yeah, and ALL gay people are rich porn-stars. That's why the gays I know work in a restaurant.

Vinth, shut the fuck up. NOW!

[Preechr]

Well, I'm not actually a scientist, and I'm not aware of any scientists that actually study gay people (as it is actually illegal now to cut them open and stuff... ) but from my own personal experiences, it seems silly to lump all gay people into the same pile, no matter how much they beg.

I would accept two piles, in a very general sense. There are those gay folk that are obviously fucked up in the head due to some great tragedy or injury and "act out" with every action they take. These people choose gay. I have gay friends that deny this, and I call them stupid and short-sighted. I have known people exactly like this, and I'm sure there are more out there. Feel free to raise your hands...

The second pile consists of perfectly normal people who are just not attracted to members of the opposite sex. These folks are capable of love and commitment to the same degree any of you are, in, as I said, the most general of senses. Healthy, wonderful people.

The former I don't consider to be gay. They are freaks and screw-jobs and we should feel sorry for them. We should structure our society to help nurse them, as impossible as the job may seem, back into reality. To do this, we'll have to separate them from the "real" fairies. There is safety in numbers, and gay people need to feel safe because nobody will let them get married and stuff...

My definition of a gay person is someone that will only ever be happy in a relationship with a person of the same sex. See? That's why the freaks don't qualify. They will never be happy in any kind of relationship. They will most likely never be happy at all, if left to their own devices. I don't think it's fair to give them things like "gay" to play with, as it only hurts the real issue and insulates them from the effects of their own weirdo lives.

In short, gay people suck. That is all.

[Jeanette X]

Let's just face some more facts, thought. The Gay Marriage situation is about making behavior that the vast majority of Americans in private would tell you they loathe and hate "acceptable".
At one point in our history the vast majority of Americans would tell you that they loathed and hated the idea of interracial marriage. But that doesn't mean that interracial marriage is wrong.

And to people that say that homosexuality isnt a choice... I know this example is more elastic than a fat kid's underwear, but look at porno stars. Do you think Jenna Jameson would be fucking women and generally acting like a whore with chicks in public if it wasnt putting money in her cum-coated hands? I think not.
So what are you saying? That gay people are gay because they get some kind of reward out of it?

[AChimp]

Oh my, Preechr! How provocative! Your views are entirely new! You have opened my eyes by saying that you have your own definition of gay people and that they suck. :blah

I think Gator should ask all his office buddies why they are gay.

[Jeanette X]

The second pile consists of perfectly normal people who are just not attracted to members of the opposite sex. These folks are capable of love and commitment to the same degree any of you are, in, as I said, the most general of senses. Healthy, wonderful people..


In short, gay people suck. That is all.
:confused What the fuck?...

[Preechr]

Oh my, Preechr! How provocative! Your views are entirely new! You have opened my eyes by saying that you have your own definition of gay people and that they suck. :blah

...and you had something to add, then? As I said, I am no scientist, and for a Chimp you don't catch on to bad humor well, do you? Or maybe it's the bitter cold that's made you such a bitter little monkey... I wasn't trying to provoke you, but rather just add to the conversation. Now you've hurt my feelings.

I think Gator should ask all his office buddies why they are gay.

I think most of them belong in the freak catagory. That's just an observation based on his stories. One of them in particular was on some kind of liquid cabbage only diet for like months, and insisted on discharging his toxic waste quite enthusiastically in the "Ladies Room" adjoining Gator's office... haha... Oh those funny stories! you will only find on Newsfilter...



Oh... and for the record: Gay people SUCK! (Get it?)

It's MOCKERY! ( I thought )

...just trying to fit in



....trying to appear edgy and coy and all that....

[AChimp]

As I said, I am no scientist, and for a Chimp you don't catch on to bad humor well, do you?
Sorry, but saying "gay people suck" after a rant about how they are weirdos and freaks with fucked up lives is crass when it comes to humour, especially since your post had nothing to do with gay sex. At least try to make your jokes fit in with the rest, hmm?

It's okay, though. You're better than most, and at least you can spell and string a sentence together properly.

[Big Papa Goat]

Gay people can't raise a kid as well as straight people? How about rednecks, couples where both parents work 14 hours a day, single parents, and just plain dumbass fucknuts? There are a lot of people that can't raise children worth shit, and frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to have children but until you start coming up with an actual system for determining a couples child raising capabilities, then you can't say that a couple of guys, or a couple of chicks are ALWAYS going to be less able to raise children.
And Vinth, homosexuality is not genetic, but do you think 14 year olds are going around and thinking to themselves: "Chicks are pretty hot, but I'm going to go for fucking guys instead, just to be different" Ya, very likely. You can't just decide that your going to be gay, or if your gay you can't decide to be straight. Don't believe me? Try to get a woody off a picture of a guy. Can't do it? didn't fuckin think so.

[Protoclown]

Proto, please. Now, I know you think its cool that your nerd boy D&D roomies think that what Gator, who is by more more successful that myself or you for that matter, but please drop it. It only makes you look like the child you tend to want to act like.

Vince, you dense and stupid fuck. It shouldn't surprise me that my joke went completely over your head, but I still find it vaguely depressing. Not disappointing, mind you, that would suggest that I expected anything at all resembling a glimmer of intelligence from you...but flat out depressing.

Now, I am against homosexuality more so on a scientific basis than a religious basis. But lets talk about that for an instance. What if being attracted to kids is "genetic"? What if being attracted to animals is "genetic"? What if being attracted to a peg in the wall is "genetic"? Shouldn't that be on the same basis of homosexuality, and thus "ok, because they are born that way"?

Congratulations. In all this blathering, you have either

A) actually intended to say absolutely nothing

or

B) completely lost whatever message you intended in this pile of nonsensical bullshit

I'm still not entirely sure, because I can't honestly tell if you actually had a point when you wrote that twisted mockery of a paragraph.

Let's just face some more facts, thought. The Gay Marriage situation is about making behavior that the vast majority of Americans in private would tell you they loathe and hate "acceptable". Marriage is something that is being destroyed today by Hollywood idiots, stupid teenage kids, and everyone else that doesnt understand what the fucking word 'commitment' means.

Vince, you barely seem to be able to comprehend a fifth-grade level vocabulary, I should think you'd be the last person to be criticizing others for not understanding the meaning of words.

Also, you failed to present a single fact in that entire paragraph. But you will never realize that, because you do not understand what a fact is, what an opinion is, and how the two differ.

And to people that say that homosexuality isnt a choice... I know this example is more elastic than a fat kid's underwear, but look at porno stars. Do you think Jenna Jameson would be fucking women and generally acting like a whore with chicks in public if it wasnt putting money in her cum-coated hands? I think not.

Here's something for you to chew on, Vince. I'll bet you Jenna Jameson isn't gay! Holy shit! It's mind-boggling! Try not to burst your brain cell thinking about that one for too long! And to take that idea even further...just because you have sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay! Or do you honestly think inmates in prison who slam each other in the cornhole are gay? People who have no interest in the same sex, and upon getting out of prison never pursue any sort of physical relationship with the same sex ever again, and yet, while in prison they fuck other inmates in the ass to satisfy their physical needs...that's not gay.

[mew barios]

i think too many people confuse gay: the sexuality with gay: the subculture.

anyhow. i can't speak for anyone else, but i would like to get married someday. as much for the symbolic show of commitment as the legal right for my boi to come sign forms for me if i'm crippled up in the hospital.

[mburbank]

I imagine a lot of Gay people don't want to marry. A lot of straight people don't want to marry either.

I think both groups support the RIGHT to marry.

Gator, if the people in your largely gay office don't support other gay folks RIGHT to be married, I wonder why?


Viince... Let me disabuse you. First look up 'disabuse'. It's not dirty. Ready? You do not know what a vast majority of American's loathe. You are not privy to America's secrets. You have no way of knowing if the 'silent majority' exists, or what they would say if they do. But of course you don't know what the 'silent majority' is, you don't know who came up with the phrase, you don't know how it was used.

You don't understand the difference between fucking and orientation.

Is your heterosexuallity a choice? You could simply refrain from 'underwater hand job action'.

Now go ask your gay, black, promiscuis, ant gay-marriage, Tibetan, anal retentive submarine letter throwing away, convenient friend/rooomate/aquaintance to go in the kitchen and make you steak.

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, Max, and your upper west side kike ass knows anything about real Americans. It is to laugh.

[Zero Signal]

What the hell do you know about what being a "real American" encompasses?

[pjalne]

Yeah, Max, and your upper west side kike ass knows anything about real Americans. It is to laugh.

Oh my god! He finally turned Engrish!

[mburbank]

WOAH! Blindsided by a JEW JOKE! No way ANYONE could have seen that coming.

Now, Vinth, as I've told you before now, I never now lived on the upper west side, now. Now if you insist on thinking that now, now who is the dumbass? Now I know I've now mentioned this now before now, but I was born in St. Louis. Now.

Now Vinth, now.

Oh, and way to make insults on the giver and not now on the argumentation now. But that's the way Morons always is. And cheap Jew Jokes is the surest firing way to avoid explaining to how you''ve been wrong now.

[VinceZeb]

I'm not wrong. Amd you still differ from a pizza because the pizza wont scream when you put it in an oven.

[Zero Signal]

I'm not wrong. Amd you still differ from a pizza because the pizza wont scream when you put it in an oven.
ANd you would not scream either, right?

Not to blow your already ingenious Mensa cover, but Jews were put into the ovens to cremate BODIES that were ALREADY DEAD, moron.

[VinceZeb]

No, really, ya think?!? But that would have ruined the standard anti-jew joke.

[Mockery]

No, really, ya think?!?

translation: "Shit! He got me! Better turn on the 'I already knew that' defense mechanism before anybody notices my blunder!"

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, thats it, Mockery. Ya got me. Man, I didn't know that they gassed the jews while playing classical music in a shower stall area and then they burned them to get rid of the bodies and evidence. Or, in fact, they would have other prisoners bury the dead bodies.

Man, I didn't know any of this.

[Zero Signal]

Man, I didn't know any of this.
If you did not, I would call into question your high school education.

[Mockery]

If you did not, I would call into question your high school education.

That's already being called into question. "Helga's School for Sheep Rapists" has yet to send us his transcripts unfortunately...

[Preechr]

As I said, I am no scientist, and for a Chimp you don't catch on to bad humor well, do you?
Sorry, but saying "gay people suck" after a rant about how they are weirdos and freaks with fucked up lives is crass when it comes to humour, especially since your post had nothing to do with gay sex. At least try to make your jokes fit in with the rest, hmm?

It's okay, though. You're better than most, and at least you can spell and string a sentence together properly.

Not to split hairs with you, and not that I'm not doing that... but did you ever try to re-read my post. I'm thinking you missed a few important words, one of them being opposite.

I'll try to re-explain this, leaving out some of the circular structure:

Within the gay community, I see two types of people: Real Gay People and Freaks. Real Gay People will only ever be happy in a relationship with a member of the same sex, and freaks, though they may actually have same-sex partners, are so mentally mal-adjusted that they will never actually be happy at all, no matter the relationships they attempt.

Real Gay People are perfectly normal, natural folk, and deserve the same rights and treatment as you or I or anyone else. Freaks are disturbed individuals whose "gayness" is just a symptom of an overall lack of ability to cope with life. The freaks actually want to be outcasts. They constantly seek new ways to be morally reprehensible to society. Generally speaking, you will find a pattern of victimization in their history.

[Protoclown]

I like how Vince completely ignored the fact that I dressed him up in a Sailor Moon outfit and paraded him up and down Times Square. Of course, had something that embarassing happened to me, I would have ignored it too. Especially since Burbank, Mockery, Zero Signal, Achimp, and too many others to list did the same thing to him. And he's ignored us all to talk about how insanely Jewish Max Burbank is. I swear, it's like he's getting more Jewish by the minute. I think he's going to explode!!

[mburbank]

Now show where you is proved that Vinth was have had on a sailors moon costume during a time with parading of now... Oh, I forgot, we can't!

[Zhukov]

Freaks are disturbed individuals whose "gayness" is just a symptom of an overall lack of ability to cope with life. The freaks actually want to be outcasts. They constantly seek new ways to be morally reprehensible to society. Generally speaking, you will find a pattern of victimization in their history.


Oh, like goths. I get what you say, and I as soon as I read "gay people suck", an image of oral sex jumped into my mind. So thanks for that. >:

Now show where you is proved that Vinth was have had on a sailors moon costume during a time with parading of now... Oh, I forgot, we can't!

I was laughing hard enough to make tears come out of my eyes, but the " .... Oh, I forgot" part pushed me over the edge. :)

[AChimp]

Not to split hairs with you, and not that I'm not doing that... but did you ever try to re-read my post. I'm thinking you missed a few important words, one of them being opposite.
Still lame. :P

[Preechr]

...damn canadian monkeys...

*grumbles*

[Jeanette X]

Yeah, Max, and your upper west side kike ass knows anything about real Americans. It is to laugh.
I can't help but wonde if Vince is geniunely anti-Semetic or if he is only saying this kind of crap to insult Max.

[mburbank]

It's complicated. He thinks (I know, but for the sake of argument lets say he does) that this in some way shows what a tough, edgy guy he is, that he can insult me and isn't afraid to use horrid jew jokes though he doesn't mean them. He also thinks it's some sort of ironic commentary on what he sees as my lack of a faith equal to his. It's also laziness, as these canned slurs come easily to anyone and absolve him of the need to think.

In reality, the very fact that he can casually throw this shit around and think it doesn't mean he's anti-semitic IS anti-semitic, in the most basic, ignorant, brow ridged way.

That's my take anyway. You'd have to ask some of I-mocks other jews how they feel when Vince talks about screaming in ovens and hebes and drinking arab blood and then says "Oh, I just mean Max."