Gay Marriage
 

I don't feel like my marriage is all that threatened by the idea of Gay marriage. I don't feel like I need my marriage legall defended from gay marriage. I think anyone who does feel their marriage is threatened needs to take a look at the strengths and weaknesses of their marriage.

I don't feel marriage is directly tied to procreation. That would let out a lot of infertile marrieds I know.

I don't think God cares about who puts what in whom. I think God cares that we love each other and treat each other well.

As for the traditions of human history, all I really care about is that same sex couples have the same legal rights and advantages as my wife and I do. I think they should be able to make key medical decision for each other, visit each other in the hospital, etc. etc. etc.

As for the idea it's unnatural, who says? Maybe it's a perfectly natural, built in population control device.

Rick Santorum says it opens the door for incestous marriages. I think Rick is 'thinking' about incest a little too much. Last I checked, marriages have to be consensual. Is he saying there's a lot of consensual incest going on out there we don't know about?

I just don't think any of the arguments wash. I think the people who are up in arms about this are way too shrill. I think it all boils down to being revolted by and afraid off Homosexuality, and simple, garden variety hatred.

And to those of us who have SEEN your wife, we know that you ARE in a gay marriage.

Why the fuck would it bother YOU?

:dunce

Stoppa... Stoppa... where do I know that name from? OH! Wait, aren't you from Brawlhall? I thought your site got closed down when the government cut all that special ed funding.

Seriously, is your site still there? If I went back would it seem as if any time had gone by or is it still just "Oh, nice meltdown" "I own you" "No, I own you!" "Oh, sure, that's what a guy having a meltdown would say if someone who owned them got called owned."

Nice to see you getting out for a little air though, and it's nice to know you missed me so badly you had to drag yourself over here.

Speaking of Gay Marriage, how are Doomsday and Evil Blood doing?

I am all for gay marriage. My mother, however, is not. She feels that homosexual marriages threaten, not her marriage, but the very fabric of our moral standards in society. This is a bunch of bull-shit. Homosexuals are not "immoral" or "evil", they are simply living the way they feel they should live.

As to those people who think that they CHOOSE to live a homosexual life, let me ask you this. Are you CHOOSING to be straight? Who would choose to live the life of a homosexual if it is ridden with ridicule and hardships?

My philosophy is simple: Live and Let Live.

I totally support MA decision, too. However, I do kind of wonder if this is indicative to any sort of strange marriage definition changings in the future. Such as multiple parties, marrying yorself (Rodman) or bestiality.

Admit it.

You missed me.

I did. That beeping sound you hear is me backing up my truck to try again.

Agreed, the people who think that homosexuals choose their lifestyle should be hit with a stick and explained that certain processes in a homosexual's brain work diffirently than with heterosexual people. With homosexual men, certain parts in their brain are active that are usually more active in women, and with lesbian women it's reversed.

Re: Gay Marriage
 

When I see arguments of this type, I usually tend to be pragmatic and look to follow the money trail as it is they who usually form the strongest lobbies as far influencing legislation. In other words, who benefits financially from disallowing gay marriage? In this case, I just don't see it. Could it be a purely moralistic resistance and, if so, from who and for what? Why are people so quick to involve themselves (or more accurately, inflict themselves) into the lives of others? Simply nothing better to do? Fear of a decaying morals in our society? Decaying to what ... acceptance of others and an altruistic culture. What a horrible thing THAT would be. Sounds too much like ... like ... Christianity.

P.S. Try as they might, there has been no genetic links to homosexuality to this date. Looks like nurture is in the lead so far.

Agree with you here.

Well, we can argue over that. I believe he built us this way for a reason.

I also think that hate mongering and bigotry are far worse sins than homosexuality.

And that part of the brain would be? And isn't that just as bigitous?

[/quote]

Really?

You gonna' squeal the fuck outta' here like a bitch, like ya' did over at BH, already???

Damn.

I'm gooooooood.

you're stupid

And your comebacks suck donkey-dick.

See?

We're even.

that was the intellectual equivalent of calling someone a dookie head.

congratulations.

I was surprised gay marriage wasn't even allowed in the first place. :/ stupid christians wouldn't allow us to live what goes naturally for us. >:

If announcing the date of ones departure several weeks in advance and then sticking to the date seem like squeeling out of a parking lot to you, I'm certain you impress the girls at the seven-eleven when, slurpy precariosuly gripped between hand and handlebar, your huffy lists dangerously on it's training wheels and dumps you onto the pavement.

Can you start another thread to be stupid in? This one is about gay marriage. Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the genral blabber forum. It's designed for mindless triffling.

Well, quite frankly, I just don't care.

It's not worth my tax dollars to enforce such a law, nor to pay senators to debate over this trivial crap. Government needs to quit giving benefits to married couples anyway - it shouldn't be the government's job to preserve social institutions.

I completely fail to see how or WHY people could have a problem with the idea of gay marriage. Burbank summed it all up rather nicely in his first post.

Definitely not the 450 species found in nature that engage in it.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com.sg...gi?UniId=AD191

The population control theory is something I've wondered about myself... it would be interesting to see unbiased and accurate rates of homosexuality in extremely populous areas to compare. Although rates in themselves are pretty subjective I guess... not to mention the fact that in many countries it is so taboo that even if someone was gay, they'd probably rather die than admit it.

No, because it's a fact. And like Soundtest said, animals do it, and they don't listen to their own common sense but to their instincts, so they couldn't have made the choice to become homosexuals.

If I was gay, I would like to get married, and I would like people to want me to get married because that is what people who are in love do.

But I am not gay, so what do I care?

oh i'm glad i saw this thread :o i can only get online for a lil a couple times a week nowadays.

though there's nothing i can add really. it's tiresome watching people fighting this every little step of the way while not presenting an argument that could stand to even casual scrutiny. especially stupid crap about it 'opening the floodgates :O' to moronic bullplop about people marrying their dog or something.

also. i think neal boortz supports homosexual rights, so i dunno if bizarro vince's's post is accurate. characterwise :o

in conclusion. i've talked with my boy about marriage, and even if it was legally possible it's not somethin we'd think much upon for years an years prolly.

Gay
 

I am more physically attracted to women but more emotionally attracted to men. Seriously.....which do you think is more of a choice?

Gay
 

Or maybe I should say learned behavior......

Mew, you scamp, I didn't know you had yourself a man. :eek

So the fact that you announced and went ON RECORD that you were a bitch and were hauling ass outta' BH makes it more dignified? Hmm...I'll have to remember that the next time I run a non-sensical, no-talent hack and his pet sea-donkey...my apologies..*ahem*..and his wife off of BH.

I'll politely explain that if they just ADMIT and EXPOUND upon the fact that they're leaving like a 12 year old who's tired of her late-night sneaky uncle, that'll it'll look WAY more manly.

Or, in your case, you could have just had Brunhilda post it. That alone would've been more manly than anything I've ever seen you conjure.

And I realize this is a gay marriage thread.

And I would hereby like to state that I do not agree with the concept of a gay marriage. The reason being is that often times the "bitch" in the relationship feels less important, and takes..her(?)..agressions out on others on internet message boards. And on a side note, tell Bruny to ease up off ya', 'fore I show up with whip and chair again.

See?

I'm there for ya', buddy.

________________
Bennett 34:10
16 times as stoned
around 4 times as cold

Bravo to a really funny post there, Stoppa. Especially the part where you got all relevant, that was the best.

"So the fact that you announced and went ON RECORD that you were a bitch and were hauling ass outta' BH makes it more dignified? "

I'm sorry, I just don't recall that 'bitch' part. But as far as the rest of it? Uh.. Yeah. Way more dignified. I said in the begining I was there for a speciffic amount of time and when it was done I left. And here you are. Trolled, and I wasn't even fishing. Sadder still, I hardly paid attention to you at Butthole. You only got attention when Evil and Doomsy pie were off abusing themsleves.

What's the matter, little girl, is Ballcrawl so boring and sterile without me you had no choice but to pay a visit? I think it's nice you brought the same jokes with you. It probably makes you feel at home, like bringing your own pillow to the new cardboard box under the overpass.

I'll tell you what, though. Since my regular punching back is having a manic depressive time out, I'll consider making fun of you.

But this isn't Brawlhall. You need to say something here, make a point, take a stand. I won't argue your inane 'you ran away' screed anymore, it's covered and played out. Similarly trotting out the idea that my bride ugly was made so many times at Brawlhall it registers as white noise. Work a little. If you want to post in this forum, mock people through politics, religion or philosiphy. If you just want to fight, we have a forum for that as well. If you ahve no idea what you're doing and just slap the keys like a malnourished rat bar pressing for food long after the behaviorist has died, General Blabber is for you. But for God's sake, make an effort.

"Oy yeah?! Well yawr wife is ugly! GOTCHA!"
-Stoppa Makinfunofme, Brawlhall Ball Boy.

Stoppa is certainly a pale imitation of VinceZeb, but I guess right now he's the only punching bag Max has got. So, if Max continues to make me spit soda all over my monitor, as he most assuredly will, I'll take it.

1) You never did tell me what part of the brain you were refering to. It doesn't seem like a fact so much as something you just pulled out of your ass.

2) There are also animals that eat their young. Would you condone that?

There is a difference between: condoning same-sex relationships
and: saying that same-sex relationships are not an abomination of nature.

Here's how the argument went:
point: homosexuality is unnatural
counterpoint: there are many instances of homosexuality which occur in the animal kingdom, therefore it is natural.
counterpoint: animals eat their babies is that okay, too?

Blanco, I saw it on Discovery channel once where they were talking about it. I can't remember what part of the brain it was, and I don't think they said it either, but I do remember that they said that it worked like that.

Also, in the case of animals eating their babies, that's because some instincts overpower other instincts. It doesn't have anything to do with which parts of its brain are more active.

In saying that homosexuality is an abomination of "Nature", are you incorporating God and/or christian values into this "Nature"? If so, then I would have to argue that if a perfect being MADE these homosexual creature, then He, being a perfect being must have intended there to be homosexual beings. Let's leave the "free will" argument out of this as, although human beings are certainly equipped with this, the addition of animals to the mix makes that point moot.

To assume that all homosexuality is caused by nature is asinine. Perhaps some, but some of it is definitely learned.

Why do you think that in Athens, which put such a huge emphasis on the beauty of the male figure, homosexuality thrived?

Isn't it just as probable that the reason the love of the male human body thrived was because of a natural homosexual tendency?

The whole nature thing is a stupid argument no matter what way you look at it. Shit, my car is pretty un-goddamned natural but I'm not about to stop driving it.

Who really cares if it is "natural" or not... even if it is learned, it is still doubtful that the person made a conscious choice about the way he/she feels.

It's really no different than people saying that interracial dating is unnatural or beastiality or something.

It really doesn't harm me or affect me whatsoever, so why should I give a fuck or more importantly deny someone else's happiness?

No, considering that natural homosexuality is most likely a recessive gene and that homosexuality's occurence in Athens is not nearly as high today.

Huh. Barring the fact that the genetic nature of Homosexuality is unproven, and even if for the sake of argument I give yoiu that, it's surely more complicated than a simple Lamarkian eye color chart, and that any studies ever done on the incidence of Homosexuality in Athens would be shere supposition, I guess you're right.

Does it really matter if homosexuality is genetic or a choice? If it were genetic and natural that wouldn't make it right, and if it were a choice that wouldn't make it wrong. The only thing at issue is if there is anything actually wrong with homosexuality, which there really isn't, certainly according to the Harm Principal. If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality then, there is no reason for the government to fail to recognize it as being equal to heterosexual realationships.
I guess the child producing aspect of heterosexual unions is a fairly significant distinguishing characteristic. :/

EDIT: I guess I should have read Bennets post, since he pretty much summed this up :/