Brutuskend your incidents are surely isolated. I know and interact with a lot of gay people, and even went to a gay club once and I experienced nothing of the sort. You act like gay people are this different kind of race, but they are just like you and me and many are scared as sh!t because they are gay. They just want to live normal happy lives like you and me. They don't want to be treated as second-class citizens. Is it too much to ask to give them equality?
Platypus
Lifer
- Apr 26, 2001
- 31,046
- 321
- 136
who defines normal brutuskend? if you base it on previous civilizations homosexuality was extremely common (as well as sex with boys 12-14 years in age)in ancient greece, the saying goes 'women for children, men for pleasure'.
Somewhere along the way the view on the subject has obviously changed, I don't think it's a very intelligent thing to say that it wasn't normal before the days of religion. I don't think it should surprise you that sex with children is not 'normal' in our society like it was in previous ones.
Somewhere along the way the view on the subject has obviously changed, I don't think it's a very intelligent thing to say that it wasn't normal before the days of religion. I don't think it should surprise you that sex with children is not 'normal' in our society like it was in previous ones.
Well just like so many gays in this thread have pointed out "Walk a mile in MY shoes". Wouldn't they resent a straight person trying to coerce THEM into changing their sexual preference? Like it or not, we are ALL a product of your sum experiences. And though my experiences might be rare (I doubt it) it has still changed my outlook of the whole subject.
I'm defining "Normal" on a basic biological level. What is the PRIME reason FOR sex. Reproduction. If offspring can't be produced through that sex act, than that sex act is not normal. I'm sure this will bring up all kinds of "But how about contraception?" "What about sex acts between a man and woman were there is no chance of conception?" Without getting into all that, and the morality and legal issues involved, what I'm talking about is the normal sex act as nature intended it.
oogabooga
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 7,806
- 3
- 81
I always figured marriage was between a man and a woman, that is what marriage is to me.
One of the bigger issues that i think arrise among "domestic partners" is the need for the same legal rights as a married couple. Tax Breaks, medical decision making, etc. In that sense, though i may not condone their lifestyle, (not to sound arrogant) i will tolerate it, since others tolerate how i live my life. I would hope the government would establish some sort of right for homosexual individuals to enjoy the rights that married people share, a union under the state (if you will). It doesn't have to be called marriage imo, but *shrugs*.
Do not be confused by the 'christians' or other 'religious zealots' you see. What defines most religions is a theme of tolerance, and in christianity grace. What you see are weak minded people leading weak minded people.
I don't know if i want to see gay marriage, but i do want to see them at least entitled to the same rights married people enjoy.
One of the bigger issues that i think arrise among "domestic partners" is the need for the same legal rights as a married couple. Tax Breaks, medical decision making, etc. In that sense, though i may not condone their lifestyle, (not to sound arrogant) i will tolerate it, since others tolerate how i live my life. I would hope the government would establish some sort of right for homosexual individuals to enjoy the rights that married people share, a union under the state (if you will). It doesn't have to be called marriage imo, but *shrugs*.
Do not be confused by the 'christians' or other 'religious zealots' you see. What defines most religions is a theme of tolerance, and in christianity grace. What you see are weak minded people leading weak minded people.
I don't know if i want to see gay marriage, but i do want to see them at least entitled to the same rights married people enjoy.
Homosexuality was also very common amongst the Samurai.
"The Samarai had in place a way of education, honor, and homosexual love very similar to that practiced by the ancient Greeks. They revered the emotional and erotic bond between an older warrior and his younger apprentice, and even considered it an important part of keeping up morals and codes of honor. "
And the Greeks:
"Most ancient Greeks lived openly bisexual and polyamorous lifestyles. While the Greek man was expected to marry and raise children, he was also expected to enter into erotic and mentoring relationships with worthy younger men. Intimate relationships between older adult men and male youth were not only common, they were considered a social duty to the state"
"The Samarai had in place a way of education, honor, and homosexual love very similar to that practiced by the ancient Greeks. They revered the emotional and erotic bond between an older warrior and his younger apprentice, and even considered it an important part of keeping up morals and codes of honor. "
And the Greeks:
"Most ancient Greeks lived openly bisexual and polyamorous lifestyles. While the Greek man was expected to marry and raise children, he was also expected to enter into erotic and mentoring relationships with worthy younger men. Intimate relationships between older adult men and male youth were not only common, they were considered a social duty to the state"
Straw-Man!
The constitution does not say anything about granting sheep or any other animal the rights of a PERSON. Gay or not a person is a person!
oh im sorry, i guess i just avoided public school where they drill into your heads that there is a wall, and that the church and state should have absolutely nothing to do with each other. instead, i researched it myself and saw that there are only two sections of the constitution that mention religion, specifically those you have listed. this "wall" is mentioned solely in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a friend. the left have twisted this to mean we can't pray in schools, we can't bring a bible to class, judges can't hold their own religious beliefs, and all mention of God should be removed from historic documents. i'm surprised that revisionists have not removed the words God and Creator from the Declaration of Independence yet.
in any case, the separation simply maintains that the government can not require anyone to do anything with respect to religion. it does not mean that politicians can not make decisions based on biblical principles(what a travesty!), or bring a bible to a congressional prayer breakfast, or lead based on their beliefs. i don't need someone to google me a tripod member's page that interprets the constitution.
thanks anyway
How many of those Samurai and Greeks married their male lovers?
Though those actions may have been common that still doesn't make it correct IMO. Cannibalism used to be common as well and expected and condoned in many places, that didn't make it right. Times change and attitudes change. There aren't that many Cannibals out there these days.
Right...which kind of is the reverse of your position that's what's normal is right. You're just kind of B.S.ing as you go.
Sorry that you had some gays try to 'convert' you (I think you're lying) but even if you're not:
I've had many times MORE christians try to convert me! Therefore this is justfication for banning christian marriage!
Sorry that you had some gays try to 'convert' you (I think you're lying) but even if you're not:
I've had many times MORE christians try to convert me! Therefore this is justfication for banning christian marriage!
WOW! Another large set of strawmen!
AMAZING!
All of that has no relevance to this issue.
Way to knock that strongman down though.
Imposing christian principles on non-christians through inequity in law is clearly a violation of:
"...Congres shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
It's also a violation of the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
you know what jefferson had to say about the bible? that it was written by "ignorant unlettered men", franklin/washington etc were also diests. thomas payne etc would be disgusted at the fundamentalists of today. as for the prayer in school. you can pray any time you want. its still legal. you just can't lead the class in prayer in government funded school. its pretty simple, the government does not endorse religion. and the judges? the judges are hired and payed to carry out the law. not judge people through their religious views. its pretty straight forward, we dont have priests and mullahs handing down punishments in a nation the values freedom fairness and reason.
and yes it is a travesty when a politician uses government power to impose his religious views upon all. its sad that people like you wish we'd become more like iran.
I have too, and I'm against that sort of behavior as well.
AS far as lying about gays coming on to me. I was stationed in So Cal. when I was in the Marines back in the 70's. For quite awhile I didn't have a car and hitch hiked around quite a bit. I was 18 years old and looked like I was MUCH younger. Being in the Marines during that time I was nice and clean cut looking while many around me were "less attractive", this WAS the early 70's mind you. I am NOT exaggerating when I tell you that 9 out of 10 times when I got a ride I was propositioned. And even though 99% of those who DID proposition me where OK with "No thanks", not all of them were. Still I tried to keep a open mind believe it or not. When I got to Oregon in the late 70's and early 80's I still had my run ins with gays, and I STILL tried to keep an open mind. I really DON'T care what gays do to one another to this day. But I don't want it flaunted in my face either. And I don't think it's an inalienable RIGHT for them to get married. That's my opinion, but I'm OLD and I guess a lot of the younger people feel differently. As us old codgers pass on, attitudes with change. Bide your time.
Yeah I think that parents of kids in 1920 during the women's suffrage probably thought the same way. Too bad for the 'old codgers' women got the right to vote anyway, huh?
If you expect equality to wait until the old generation which likes the oppression dies off, you're going to be sadly dissapointed. Canada, the UK(inprogress), and half of Europe have all realized this discimination and corrected it in the last 5 years or so. If you think this is far off for the U.S, you'll probably be surprised.
Unfortunately, unlike those other nations, the U.S. will have to attain this freedom through the Supreme Court and the Constitution - not through actual social progress.
This is a distinction that, sadly, has always been present between Canada/Europe and the U.S. because Americans for some reason have this culture which allows them to talk of absolute freedom and liberty and justice for all while at the same time legislating bigotry.
You know what I think on the new justification for the war on Iraq (that Saddam was such a bad dictator and a regeim change was needed anyway)?
I think that regeime change begins at home.
- Jun 10, 2004
- 14,597
- 6,076
- 136
Agreed. Marriage is not a right, but rather a special condition under the law, that under the spirit of the Constitution would mean that it is only between a man and a woman. It's not infringing on anybody's "rights" if gay people can't marry. Any man or woman would be equal under the law because they wouldn't be able to marry a same sex partner. I'll elaborate on my views if anyone wants it, but this really belongs in P/N.
Saying a Homosexual can't get married is like saying a Preacher can't preach.
I myself think religion is somewhat "evil". Look what christians and preachers have done back 50-100-200-xxxxx years.
If a "god" really did exist, than humans have warped and misunderstood what has has said. People back two hundred years ago that had the balls to not go to church were thought of as "witches" or "evil", and the townsfolk would host a BBQ for the said person!
This is why I myself am an Atheist, considering religion has only caused problems. (the crusade comes to mind, WWII)
BTW. Religion is the opiate for the masses.
I myself think religion is somewhat "evil". Look what christians and preachers have done back 50-100-200-xxxxx years.
If a "god" really did exist, than humans have warped and misunderstood what has has said. People back two hundred years ago that had the balls to not go to church were thought of as "witches" or "evil", and the townsfolk would host a BBQ for the said person!
This is why I myself am an Atheist, considering religion has only caused problems. (the crusade comes to mind, WWII)
BTW. Religion is the opiate for the masses.
Whether it's biological or a lifestyle decision it's irellevant, homosexuals don't WANT to marry a member of the opposite sex. They have a life-partner of the same sex already.
According to the constitution, equal protection is guaranteed under the law. There are some serious, serious rights that only straight people can attain through marriage and which gays are denied through bigotry under law.
Your position is similar to banning all other religions but christianity and then saying that muslims still have the same rights as Christians, they just have to be a christian is all....
I can see you just posted without reading the thread so I'll have to point out
1049 rights denied to those who can't marry
Of course, the constitution also prohibits religious values being imposed on someone of a different belief system through denied rights or for that matter ANY values, religious or otherwise.
You have to understand that it's YOUR belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. It's not some absolute universal truth handed down by God (you god maybe - not mine and not Buddhists' etc)
Again, every free society is based on the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else. In this case, Gay marriage is gay couples (who don't hurt anyone) attaining the same protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment as straight couples.
Anything else is the 'moral majority' imposing THEIR belief system on someone else through biggoted legistlation (also a constitutional violation)
In order for America to be free, all people must have freedom and equality, not just the 97% moral majority.
Get it?:
Sorry, here's a more eloquent version I posted earlier. It's clear that you didn't read the thread so this one's for you:
Any free society is based on the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they wish as long
as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Pedophilia is illegal because it infringes on the rights of the child.
Homosexuality is NOT illegal because it's between two consenting adults and hurts no one.
Now, the U.S. constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Yet, Gay couples don't
get equal protection for property rights (ie. one partner dies, house is inherited by kids,
not partner) and they don't have the same protection for power of attourney as straight
couples who are married (ie. emergency medical procedures and decision power.)
The Mass supreme court ruled that banning Gay Marriage was unconstitutional and if you had
two brain cells to rub together you'd realize that such a banning would also trample over
everything your 'free' society stands for. I used quotes on 'Free' because in order for a society to
be free, all of its people must be free, not just the 97% 'moral majority.'
Note that the Term 'Moral Majority' doesn't mean that the Majority is moral and the minority is not. What it means is that each group has their own set of moral values and one group is larger than the other therefore has the ability to enforce their morals on the minority...kind of like slavery or the repression of other religions...
What you're talking about here is legislating morality. This is obviously wrong.
Now, Marriage may be a religious thing to you, but it's not to everyone and it's not in the
eyes of the law. If you wanted it to stay a religious thing, you needed to step up to the
plate when it became accepted for non-religious Justices of the Peace to perform
non-religious ceremonies for non-religious people. What about hindus and muslims (who, btw
outnumber Christians in this world)?
Sorry, but Marriage is "The Union of Two People" and is a legal institution seperate from
religion. You can certainly make it a religious ceremony but in the eyes of the law it is
not. You don't get your marriage licence from God, you get it from your state.
After the Mass ruling Bush didn't know what to do. Ammending the U.S. constitution is his
attempt to hold onto the last bastion of biggotry and discrimination in the U.S.
The constitution is NOT used to lay out specific limitations. That is what law is for.
The constitution is for broad and sweeping rights and freedoms.
The last time the constitution was abused in this way - the only time - was prohibition and I
seem to remember that not working out too well.
Of course, this ammendment will not pass as you can't ammend the constitution in a fashion
which is contradictory to the rest of the document. This proposed amendment will be used for
toilet paper by the Supreme Court.
Why are you against gay marriage? how does it hurt you? How does it hurt anyone? What's the
gay agenda? They want the same rights and to be left alone? I can see how that would bother
you. It sounds downright 'free' and 'American' to me!
Maybe you should realize that you're a biggot and what you're doing is discrimination of the highest order.
quote:
but apparently a majority of folks outside of california don't want to taint the union of a man and woman.
And if a majority of people voted to reinstate slavery or ban buddhism or burn crosses on the lawns of muslims? Doesn't matter. It's still wrong and against the constitution and what your nation stands for.
Any free society is based on the idea that everyone is free to do whatever they wish as long
as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Pedophilia is illegal because it infringes on the rights of the child.
Homosexuality is NOT illegal because it's between two consenting adults and hurts no one.
Now, the U.S. constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Yet, Gay couples don't
get equal protection for property rights (ie. one partner dies, house is inherited by kids,
not partner) and they don't have the same protection for power of attourney as straight
couples who are married (ie. emergency medical procedures and decision power.)
The Mass supreme court ruled that banning Gay Marriage was unconstitutional and if you had
two brain cells to rub together you'd realize that such a banning would also trample over
everything your 'free' society stands for. I used quotes on 'Free' because in order for a society to
be free, all of its people must be free, not just the 97% 'moral majority.'
Note that the Term 'Moral Majority' doesn't mean that the Majority is moral and the minority is not. What it means is that each group has their own set of moral values and one group is larger than the other therefore has the ability to enforce their morals on the minority...kind of like slavery or the repression of other religions...
What you're talking about here is legislating morality. This is obviously wrong.
Now, Marriage may be a religious thing to you, but it's not to everyone and it's not in the
eyes of the law. If you wanted it to stay a religious thing, you needed to step up to the
plate when it became accepted for non-religious Justices of the Peace to perform
non-religious ceremonies for non-religious people. What about hindus and muslims (who, btw
outnumber Christians in this world)?
Sorry, but Marriage is "The Union of Two People" and is a legal institution seperate from
religion. You can certainly make it a religious ceremony but in the eyes of the law it is
not. You don't get your marriage licence from God, you get it from your state.
After the Mass ruling Bush didn't know what to do. Ammending the U.S. constitution is his
attempt to hold onto the last bastion of biggotry and discrimination in the U.S.
The constitution is NOT used to lay out specific limitations. That is what law is for.
The constitution is for broad and sweeping rights and freedoms.
The last time the constitution was abused in this way - the only time - was prohibition and I
seem to remember that not working out too well.
Of course, this ammendment will not pass as you can't ammend the constitution in a fashion
which is contradictory to the rest of the document. This proposed amendment will be used for
toilet paper by the Supreme Court.
Why are you against gay marriage? how does it hurt you? How does it hurt anyone? What's the
gay agenda? They want the same rights and to be left alone? I can see how that would bother
you. It sounds downright 'free' and 'American' to me!
Maybe you should realize that you're a biggot and what you're doing is discrimination of the highest order.
quote:
but apparently a majority of folks outside of california don't want to taint the union of a man and woman.
And if a majority of people voted to reinstate slavery or ban buddhism or burn crosses on the lawns of muslims? Doesn't matter. It's still wrong and against the constitution and what your nation stands for.
Does anyone else see the irony in this? It's almost like your trying to attract MORE <b>men</b>!
Basically your asking among hetero's if you look good (which is kind of...well you know, GAY!)
Bah what do I care,
i'm not here to judge...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter