AlexanderFollow

So, you're how old? 15, 16? Stop objectifying women, their marital relations aren't meant for your tugging pleasure. Grow up a little. Until you do, please GFY!

Have a nice day.

I barely voiced my opinion. I am really indifferent to homosexuals. They don't interest me. I don't interest them. That's it.

But the way they have to whine and ***** about not being able to have the same equal rights as other people is idiotic. They don't understand that they are in the United States of America, where moral values are retarded by at least 200 years and that people will not side with them for their disgusting goal.

And please, I could care less about two men being happy together and living their life. I live really close to San Francisco. ******* ****** fest over there.

Homosexuals are just obnoxious.

Wow Dynasty. That was a piece of work.

I don't care about them. Im indifferent to them.

Gays are obnoxious.

.......

Im gonna use it for the first time!

GFY!

- Weatherwax
)O(

Just a statement offact here...

There is no scientific evidence of homosexual animals in captivity or the wild... any instance of said behavior is probably mistaken wit hthe opposite sex. it was said that it is hard to tell the difference between certain species genders.

Now, as for the bible bit from weather...

I donot believe in bashing people with the bible, however i do believe in it. nature and religion coincide with Gay being not natural. However, it is your choice whether to accept it or not. I dont personally agree with being gay, but im tolerant enough to let others live how they choose. I see your point on feelings, and agree to a certain extent.

I dont agree with you on the point of having to prove religion to you. v I can honestly say to your face that i know this is true simply because I prayed and recieved an answer from christ about it. And you can do the same if you carry an honest and open heart.

I dont understand the mechanics of your life simply because I have not lived in your circumstances. I donnot know what put you in the circumstance of being attracted to another man. However I do know that nature did not intend for a man to have sex with another man. Your plumbing gives obvious evidence to that fact.

I do not believe you have a NATURAL sexual type love for another man, it is either a product of some circumstance you experienced, or an unconcious desire to rebel
, or maybe some other reason I have yet to discover or ponder.

this is personal belief once again, I know I'll be flamed for it, but there it is, raw and out there.
I will not apologize for what I think is right. There you have it... my belief.

Wow.

Heh, I've got a handy little document which discredits you.






Because equal rights for people who are different is a disgusting goal?



You say you don't care, and yet you go out of your way to sound insulting, prepubescent, and idiotic. You, sir, are the obnoxious one.

So why do you choose to ignore the part about pre-marital sex?




By the way Dynastey, you've moved from the ranks of "annoying poster who's posts I skim over" to "Varus-like bastion of illogic and hypocrisy."

I do. I believe its wrong and sinful in my belief. Therefore i am not attracted to it. Weather, thank you for not flaming... threads like this are all but pointless because they result in hurt feelings and flame wars with ratedown parties on both sides...(but not always). We are at odds with our belieifs, and I understand where you come from, you understand where I come from, Only god will be able to say who is the right and wrong.... and who knows... maybe the underlying response is we all are wrong... Time will tell... wit hthat I leave you my blessings and prayers, god bless you all...

Hey leave the rug munchers outta this they didn't hurt no one!

Most of this thread has devolved into mindless namecalling, but I want to address this (since you kinda asked a question):



There are more reasons for opposing gay marriage then the ultra-religous ridiculousness that Varrus is spouting. If you don't like his reasons, then try listening to mine.


Way back in time, when man first started forming larger communities, they discovered (ok, they already knew this but bear with me) that if a man and a woman had sex there was a chance that the woman would become pregnant. Pregnancy in the ancient world was a pretty serious hardship (and is still a pretty big deal today - ask any womens rights activist about something as basic as materity leave rights). Additionally, human young are notoriously weak and defenseless for a significant amount of time. Not days or weeks like most animals in the wild, but *years* of being unable to care for themselves. Early settled societies had to come up with a mechanism to ensure that there weren't a ton of starving women because they were unable to find food and support themselves due to the time requirements of caring for a child. Additionally, they needed to make sure that the children weren't dying for the same reasons. Thus, the concept of marriage was born. The idea being that a man who had sex with a woman must care for any children that result.

Over time, this concept became more refined. After all, if men and women were having sex with anyone they wanted at any time, then how is one to know which man must care for the children that result? This led to concepts of monogamy and rules forbidding pre-martital sex. As with all things though, in order to force people to do something that is for the greater good of the entire civilization, you must have laws, and those laws must carry with them rewards for following them (social acceptance and support) and punishments for failure to accept them (social outcasting, refusal of support, ******* children being lower classes, etc).

When we think of civil marriage, we're looking at the result of that process. If you break down what a civil marriage is about here in the US, 100% of it is applicable to the idea of ensuring that the children that result from a man and a woman being sexually active together are cared for. We have laws about guardianship, and joint power of attorney, and inheritance, shared resources, and everything else that is intended to ensure that children are cared for as much as *both* parents can together. While the concept has gotten a bit displaced from the original idea, it's still not that far removed. We certainly don't require that married couples produce children (or ostracize them if they don't), but that's because we don't live in ancient times with hideout mortality rates, a highly labor intensive society, and the need to outpopulate other neighboring civilizations in order to survive long term. We also don't hold as strict rules against pre-marital sex as we once did.

Despite all this, the institution of marriage is still based on the assumption that a man and a woman who are sexually active together may produce children, and those children should have to legally bound parents in order to ensure proper support. We've added more rules for what to do when a man and a woman *don't* get married before/when they have children, but there is *nothing* to support the idea that a gay/lesbian couple should be able to get married. It's kind of like a blind person insisting on the right to get a drivers license. You can't drive a car anyway, so what's the point? We give you an ID card instead, right?


The point that Varrus touches upon (the idea of gays pushing the issue) is that gays are not happy with the equivalent of an ID card instead of a drivers license. They (as a lobbying group, not individually of course) refuse to accept some sort of alternate status (like "life partner" or something similar) which could allow for the legal needs of two people who choose to share their life. Nope. They insist that they must be able to be legally "married". There is a reason for resistance to this. Most states explicitly define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. I've explained why that is the case. Now explain to me why a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be able to gain the same legal state?


As a note, while many ancient societies did not have any prohibition towards homosexuality, it was *never* to my knowledge considered a "replacement" for marriage. To the Greeks homosexuality was essentially an acceptable sexual outlet for men before they got married (still playing on the "no pre-marital sex concept). It was specifically someth8ing you did before or *instead* of getting married, but was still tied to the same concept. You had sex with another man so as to avoid ******* children if you had sex with a woman in the same context (ie: not married). I am not aware of any ancient society that actually had homosexual marriage as an institution.

I try to read most of Gbaji's literature (not postings..literature!), but I usually stick to topics that would keep my interest past page 12. This topic does. Thanks for the input Gbaji.

This is incorrect. It is not difficult to tell rams from ewes, roosters from hens, or stallions from mares - unless you're just stupid.

Virsu: I'm an atheist, and I'm still a better Christian than you, you hypocritical cu[i][/i]nt.

Here's a Bible verse, just for you: