Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I forgot to put this in.

I support same sex marriage, what is everyone else's opinion on it.

... I don't see any point to trying to discuss something like this here. And though I had hopes that the odd venue might change how it was debated, seeing the heated responses to both sides, my desire to participate in this discussion has just died a swift death. Stating my opinion is pointless, what it is or why it is what it is will quickly become irrelevant in the face of the other side's agenda.

Actually, if you scroll all the way down and read through everything, you'll see that there was no real negativity to those who didn't support gay marriage, only people who were acting or writing down complete and absolute unproven BS. (Idiots will be treated harshly regardless of the topic people are discussing)

Also, the more recent conversations (from when I revived this thread) are much more tolerant than the previous ones. Please, give your opinion, don't feel threatened lol.

This is a friendly community, for the most part, no need to hide your opinion from fear of prosecution from someone who disagrees with you.

I'm awed by the nature of the conversation. They say that there are two things that should not be discussed in good company: religion and politics. This conversation includes both. The absence of any prosecution, racism, or any other abomination of man's social interactions is spectacular and It really makes me proud to join this community. 

Bravo mon amis!

As for the actual purpose of the thread, I support Gay Marriage. I judge people's rights based on merit, not ideology, Communist, homosexual, Jewish, Catholic. Couldn't care less. Arrogance, intolerance, murder, rape, couldn't care more!     

So, what you are saying then, is that you are intolerant of anyone that does not tolerate what you think they should tolerate, right?  ;)

hmm, point BZ. =P I am only intolerant of people who are violent and/or abusive while being intolerant, does that make sense ?? I'm not sure it does but, hey =P 

Yeah, that makes sense - (I was being rather facetious there)  :)

- Ninja Edit 

Horray! I actually did something logical!?! =D

A lot.

You don't have to protest violently to get a point across.

How do you not see it as a big deal. It's discrimination, there is no other way to put it.

"Those who make peaceful resolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

Why would you judge yourself based on one isolated incident? That's like saying you shouldn't trust police because one sold drugs.

Communism would only work if everyone did it, just like Pacifism

I do not support Same Sex Marriage.

Why not?

I’m just sharing my base position, for the purpose of weighing the overall sentiment of the forums on the matter.

I'm going to make this brief because I don't like the forums that much.

I agree with BerkaZerka.

I am a Christian and a disciple of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and it is clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. But, it being a sin doesn't mean it is  any worse than any other sin that is out there. Lust, greed, envy, murder, thievery, etc. It is all the same in God's eyes. That is why people can repent of that sin if they accept the Lord into their hearts and the Lord is faithful and just to forgive them of that sin.

That is what I believe.

Not to really insult you or your church but the Bible has mass murder and incest inside it.

The difference between the two is that the Bible does actually support it.

I totally agree with gay marriage. I also think it's fine for people to say they don't agree with it because of their religion. If that's what you believe, then fine. I don't like it, however, when people say that it shouldn't be allowed to happen because they believe it is wrong. 
Just because gay people are able to marry doesn't change anyone else's life. Live and let live. 
 

Separation of Church and State.

God created men to love women and women to love men.

And the Constitution created the Seperation of Church and State.

(please note that I am being sarcastic) Oh wait I forgot, when I went into this conversation I forgot that homosexuals don`t have the same rights as straight people! So the right to marry anyone they like doesn't affect them!

Screw that, imma marry my waifu.

On topic, I don't really mind gay marriage. I'd prefer they have something the exact same, just not called marriage, but don't really care.

No it's not. It's like saying "here you can have an apple, you just can't call it an apple". Either way you still get the apple, and it's still every bit as much an apple as any other apple, aside from the name.

As of now the closest they can get is something you automatically get when you live 5 years with someone (forget what it's called), but it's doesn't have the same benefits as marriage.

All men are created equal.

If we're all so equal, why do we have to call it by another name? Personally, I think marriage is a joke and I don't intend to ever get married but if some wants it, let them.

I think we should scrap the phrase all together because it isn't true at all. Life is extremely unfair and no two people are equal.

But it's not the same thing? Marriage between a gay couple and straight couple is different, because one is gay and one is straight. Two different names for two different types of marriage makes sense. In the end they're still getting the same rights.

That's an odd comparison....The watch is a watch no matter who wears it. Marriage is between two people of different sexes and gay marriage is between two people of the same sex. We already specify that it's "gay marriage" and not just "marriage" anyways. Only difference now would be that gay marriage would be given an actual name rather than being known as the gay version of marriage.

Why are you even arguing, you BOTH SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, no matter what it's called! The way I see it, you're both right! Yes, it is discrimination, but if gay marriage is allowed, who cares what it's called?

I do. By refusing to call it marriage, you're only saying that they are different.

Umm, they are different.

I honestly don't care one wit about all of this, i'm neither a homosexual, nor do I have any friends that are. I have no religious bias, and i feel no hatred for gay people, but I do have to say that you saying that there's no difference between gay people and straight people doesn't exactly make sense...

I mean, which gender you decide to have sex with is a pretty big thing...

Why the hell do you care so much when people say that gay people are different though? That's just you being ridiculously defensive, it's as if you're saying that all people are the same, and should be classified as such, despite the fact that people are different.

It's like you saying that there shouldn't be anything such as a nationality, despite the fact that people come from different countries. 

It's like you saying that despite the fact that there are different types of fruits, you should automatically refer to every single fruit in the world as "fruit", discarding their actual names.

They're different, simple as that, saying they're different isn't exactly discrimination...

Legally stopping them from getting married because of the church is, and the law and religion should never, never be mixed together, but that's a completely different discussion, and if you'd like to have one you should make a thread specifically dealing with that issue, and not with gay marriage.

why necroing this thread dude. lol

Was just reading through it, after endmaster posted it.

Wow, marmotlord is a dick...

Steve_greg is his name now.

I'm actually suprised this is a site that could debate topics without calling people cunts and faggots and YOURE  GOING TO HELL threats 

:D

Well I could still call people a bunch of faggots and cunts if you like, but it wouldn't really have any genuine hatred or passion behind it.

It just doesn't work when you say it 

That's what alcohol is for.

I never said homosexuals and heterosexuals weren't different? I was talking about the issue of marriage, not sexuality. Marriage is a right that should belong to all people, regardless of sexuality. To deny them that right is stripping them of a civil liberty in my opinion, and that's why I get defensive about it.

I got defensive because that was a year ago and that's how I debated haha. I've improved greatly since then, and don't make the same mistakes.

No, a marriage is a marriage, either way you look at it. To call it something else is taking away from the ideology behind it, that all men are equal. To call it something different is extinguishing a difference, and acknowledging an inferiority or a superiority between sexualities. The point behind gay marriage is that they don't want to be treated differently, because sexuality aside, we're all humans and should be able to "marry" whoever we please. 

That's like saying that a pro-segregationist and a pro-civil rights person should have stopped arguing because they both supported the abolition of Slavery. Even though the process itself was stopped (or started, in the case of gay marriage) there are still rights that homosexuals have access to as an American citizen. To refuse them the rights that every other citizen has effectively makes homosexuals second class citizens.

And also, since this argument is being resurrected, if someone sold you an apple and told you you couldn't call it an apple, would you just go "oh, alright" and eat the thing formerly known as apple, or would you ask "why the heck can't I call it an apple like you can?"

Really depends on how hungry you are at the moment  ;)

While you have a point, what I meant was, if gay couples do get to be married and do whatever married people do, does it matter what it's called if they get the same rights in practice? After all, if you have a ute and a buggy in front of you, they're still cars you can drive, no matter what they're called! Instead of squabbling over names, shouldn't we be trying to make this happen?

I do see your point, and I agree in full, but maybe we should take it one step at a time. Just get it so that they can get married, then try and make it called just 'marrage'.

The difference is that a Chevrolet and a Toyota are two completely different brands. Yeah, they're both cars, but they have completely different models, additions, parts, etc.

Gay marriage and Straight marriage, however, are both the same thing. Two people who love each other are united under the law, share their insurance, and merge their property. So, because it's the same thing, not calling it marriage implies that the process is somehow different just because they're gay rather than straight. Saying that people can't perform the same marriage because they're gay is the same as saying that people can't drink from the same fountains because they're black.

I forgot to put this in my last message, but with the pro-segregationist and the pro-civil rights people, they had very different views on other things too, so they couldn't stop arguing, but here we're talking about one topic, and one topic only! For example, me and my friend have different views on lots of things, but when we're on the same side in an argument, we don't disagree with each other.

I realize that, but we're not on the same side of this debate (otherwise, the debate itself wouldn't exist).

I suppose, but wasn't the original debate about if it should be allowed at all (and it should), not what it's called?

I have a similar position. If they're all adults and consenting I don't see what the big deal is.

EndMaster is right.

I fully support it. I like End's position that it's all about informed consent. I suspect that in a few years people will look on this issue with horror; much like protesting civil rights in the 50s.

Marriage was originally a church concept

No....no it was not.

The concept was in the bible because marriage pre-dates the bible. The bible adopted marriage.

Well, the modern concept of western marriage comes from the bible (or at the very least is influenced by it), but the bible did not create marriage.

Given that your original arguement was: "Marriage was originally a church concept so I think that marriage should remain a religious concept", the reasoning behind your opinion on gay marriage is wrong, since marriage was not originally a church concept.

Your explaination posts just proves that the concept of marriage was present and defined in the bible. It doesn't support your original claim that the church created marriage. I never said marriage wasn't in the bible.

Only thing I could see you arguing is something along the lines of "western marriage is based on the church's version of marriage and I don't think that should change because I am a catholic and I like it the way it is/would feel offended if it was different".

Though in the end it seems you want to let gay couples marry, just not call it marriage, which is the same thing I want anyways. So I agree with your opinion, just not your reasoning behind it lol.

I guess you could say the church coined the word "marriage" though.

I also support gay marriage, just because they like the same sex does not mean they are any different from anyone who likes the opposite sex

I support the gay marriage. I don't see why same sex relationships should be any different than 'normal' relationships, so why shouldn't they be able to marry as well?

Why should that make it illegal though?

Just like white people and black people are different because of the color of their skin, but they're not morally different so they shouldn't be discriminated against.

I support gay marriage because I am American and I have no right to control other peoples lives. 

I don't support gay people somewhat, because 1-they usually don't have children of there own, 2- I fear children they do have will be gay, but that is probably unlikely. ( I don't mean born gay, I mean raised gay)

I am probably writing something wrong I am just kind of tired.

1. They usually don't? I'd be extremely surprised if one gay couple had a child.

2/ I extremely disagree with that. Why would a gay couple raise their child to be gay after all of the shit they've undoubtedly gone through?

Plenty of gay couples adopt children....

Also don't see how one would raise a child to be gay to begin with.

I know that, I meant if one couple had a child biologically.

I thought it was a given that that was not possible lol.

That's what I meant when I said I'd be extremely surprised. haha

Posts at the bottom so pic will get noticed. Poker face. Also, having problems posting a pic.

http://www.damnlol.com/joke-of-the-week-21845.html <the pic

Cant gay couples have there children carried by someone else? 

Also these websites below say that there is a greater chance of children becoming gay if raised by homosexual parents.  There are probably counter studies or these websites might just be spewing out fake crap but im to lazy to check, so ill stick with it until one of you guys refutes it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2260839/posts

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/10/gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay.html

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/study-finds-that-children-reared-by-gay-parentspartners-have-a-higher-incident-of-homosexuality/

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L45.pdf

1.) Yeah, it's called surrogacy. Homesexual couples or Heterosexuals who can't have children pay women to carry an artificially inserted sperm and egg untill it's time to give birth. That way, their DNA is still carried on through the child, even though men/women can't impregnate each other naturally

2.) A common assumption is that you can be gay by being in proximity to others who are gay, despite the fact that homo/heterosexuality occurs in genetic code.

So being unable to produce children makes it a non normal relationship? What about infertile couples? Are they not normal?

First, being gay means having a deep mental illness.

No normal person is gay.  It's usual, yes, but it doesn't mean it's normal. There's a genetic issue that causes "gayness". Some DNA sequences must be female for a male to be gay.

Also, it might be the result of sexual abuse while the "gay" was a child, or a female-less environment for a long duration ( while in the army, for example). 

Second, marriage between gays might not be that creepy as everyone thinks. If they are both males and both gay, then link it to what i said earlier: to be gay, you must be female somewhere in the DNA, meaning that basically, there aren't two men marrying, there is one half-man half-woman marrying another half-man half-woman, meaning a total of a man and a woman, just like a normal couple.

While being gay in the first place is not normal, gay marriage is just as normal as any usual marriage.

I don't have anything against gays ( except 3-4 individuals who tried to make me join the group).

Those are just facts. 'Ts all I gotta say about it.

You are wrong. Actually just plain wrong.

You have a deep mental illness. In fact, I think that to your core, you're one of three things:

1. An incredible moron incapable of questioning even basic premises put toward you by other people; one who simply cannot think critically and therefore a person only useful for menial tasks that don't require thought

2. An evil, evil fucktard incapable of love or tolerance or,

3. Someone so young that you truly don't even understand what you're saying.

I'll start by completely ripping apart your logic.

STATEMENT A: "There's a genetic issue that causes "gayness""

STATEMENT B: "Also, it might be the result of sexual abuse while the "gay" was a child, or a female-less environment for a long duration ( while in the army, for example). "

Are you saying that sexual abuse modifies ones genome? Either it's a genetic thing or it's not a genetic thing. As someone who has studied advanced genetics, I'll tell you that people are not turned gay during their life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jun/16/highereducation.uk3

There's an article about it. In particular:

"The evidence, they conclude, is that people are born with their sexuality defined, and it is not the result of their relationships with other people in their early life, as had been previously thought."

But, lets go further than that:

"Some DNA sequences must be female for a male to be gay."

You're an amazing geneticist. What an incredible breakthrough. I had no idea that sequences of bases could have gender. Does guanine have a penis? Does cytosine have a vagina? It's pretty amazing that you've discovered this. Or maybe I misunderstand, is it certain lengths of sequences? How do base pairs have hormones? Usually gender is related to sexuality. How do base pairs fuck? Can base pairs be gay? If so, how do you explain THAT?

You end your post with "Those are just facts."

They aren't. You have no facts. You have only pathetic, hurtful musings. Here's how things actually are:

1. Gay people are born gay. It's from a combination of genes and hormones while in the womb. Not afterwards. Even if they weren't, it wouldn't matter because there's no "wrong" sexual orientation. No inferior sexual orientation. No superior sexual orientation.

2. Gay people are 100% normal. And common. My sister is gay, she's not abnormal. She's no more mentally ill than I am and she's a whole hell of a lot less mentally ill than you are.

3. There's no "genetic issue" because being gay isn't wrong and so there's no issue. Just a genetic difference.

4. Sexual abuse creates fucked up people but it doesn't change sexual orientation. It might lead to a person desiring to experiment with other people (maybe same or opposite gendered people) but it won't change sexual orientation. If it did, it would account for an absurdly minute percentage of the gay population.

5. If you still believe gender is binary (which I don't) then a gay man is still 100% man. Not 50%. Men have two different chromosomes, women have two of the same. A gay man still has two different chromosomes and is still, therefore 100% man.

Do some research.

I assumed he was trolling to preserve my faith in humanity.

You know what? Fuck you.

Ty for explaining 3J and Bo. 

Also just to clear up any feelings, I am not homophobic or anything like that, I just believe people should have children to pass on themselves. 

1.) Through surrogacy, the DNA line of homosexuals will be passed on.

2.) So if a man is impotent, he shouldn't be given the right to marry as he can't have children.

1) I know you said that....

2) No, I have no control over that nor would I outlaw it if I did because again I have no right to do so. Also the wife could get children still through Artificial insemination, which I would hope they would do.

2.) However, if they cna't produce children, why wouldn't you judge them as badly as homosexuals? Both of them can't reproduce directly, the indirect reproduction is exactly the same, and it's a choice for neither party.

I a bit tired so this might be a derp answer but homosexuals can still have children indirectly, infertile people cant have children at all, so I don't understand how the indirect reproduction is a choice for neither party. 

1.) You just said that you look down on gays because they can't pass on their bloodline, so I pointed out how they can. Since you agree that they can pass it on, I really don't see why you look down on them. Your soul reason for doing so has been shown to be wrong.

2.) Actually, with surrogacy they take a sperm or an egg from the parents (depending on which is infertile) and mix it in order to impregnate a willing surrogate (it can't be her egg because that could make her feel the baby should be hers and cancel the deal.) It's very improbable to have two infertile people get married, but not impossible. This makes the surrogacy between heterosexual and homosexual couples practically the same because it takes the DNA from one parent and puts with another. 

3.) I didn't say that indirect reproduction was a choice for neither party, I stated that being unable to have children was a choice for neither party. Therefor, looking down on homosexuals for not being able to have children would be exactly the same as looking down on infertile heterosexuals, and to look down on one and not the other would be hypocritical and is more likely to based on pure bias rather than your actual reason.

So your answer to bo's point is that they should use artificial insemination to have children, and yet you disregard bo's comment about how a gay couple could use artificial insemination to have children???

I am confused.

Okay. You said you oppose same-sex marriages because you think that people should have children. Then Bo brings up two points.

First, to counter-argue against your point, he says that gay couples can have children through surrogacy (or lesbian couples through artifical insemination). But basically, having children by non-traditional means.

Then, he proposes a similar arguement saying that by your logic, impotent men shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children either.

Then you dismiss the idea that gay couples could have children, and then suggest that its okay for impotent men, because they can have children the EXACT same way as same-sex couples can.

Its the same. Exactly the same.

So you think that heterosexual couples that willingly choose not to have kids are bad? I think that those people are exceptionally good for our planet but most of all, I think those people are completely justified. If they don't want kids, they shouldn't be judged for not wanting kids. End of story. Same goes for gay couples.

I understand were your coming from on the overpopulation thing but I still think the duty to your family is more important.

To your family as in your parents/relatives or to your family as in to your unborn children? In either case it makes no sense.

Case 1: Relatives

First off, you're making the assumption that by not having children, you're letting down your relatives. That's a crazy assumption. I'm a relative and I could never be upset with a family member not wanting kids. Second of all, even if they all want you to have kids, that doesn't make it your responsibility. It doesn't mean that you have to do it. Furthermore, if you do it, it should be of your own accord because having kids is something you should be one hundred thousand percent sure about doing.

Case 2: Your unborn child

Bullshit. You can't let something down if it doesn't exist. Haha.

The final, most crucial point:

Being gay is not a choice. Lets say, for a moment, that homosexuality was the only way to reproduce. Lets say that 90% of the population is homosexual and you're born heterosexual. Now, some kid is telling you that it's your responsibility to go have sex with another man (perhaps take a man's penis into your body, as a gay woman would be asked to do) and if you refuse, imagine if someone told you that you're letting down your family? Do you understand how incredibly fucked up you're acting?

1. Plus, even if you are a heterosexual who has kids due to societal pressures or because you feel you're expected to do it, chances are you won't care about the child as much as two homosexuals who want a child due to their own choices.

You are my favorite person in the world right now. 

Cov this is why it's best not to argue points on this site.  Also what is your opinion on what I said JJJ?

I am getting to it.

Its why its best not to argue uninformed, bigoted points on this site.

Even if your points are well formed they get torn to bits.

It doesn't matter how your points are formed, if they're based on faulty logic they will be brought down.

I think I'll help Cov out by explaining his side a bit (or what I understand his side to be).

To start, in this case relatives refers to your parents, and your parents parents (your grandparents), and so forth. In short, your direct bloodline going backwards (so siblings, cousins, uncles and such not included). Letting down your family refers to you not continuing your bloodline and ending it with you. Essentially, he's saying that your parents want grandchildren, and grandparents want great-grandchildren, etc. That's not to say they would ever shun you, or pressure you into doing it, but deep down most of them would prefer you having a child over not having one. My sister recently had a child, and beforehand there was never one remark about how either of us should have children (in fact at the time my dad was kind of pissed off). However, once she gave birth my dad and mom were quite vocal about being happy that they were grandparents. No one should be forced to have a child, or pressured into it, but most parents like the thought of knowing their family will continue on when they're gone.

Your second point is a joke I would assume. Otherwise it's just a crazy assumption.

Not much to say to your third point in regards to what he meant. You can still let down people without being at fault. If your parents were geniuses and you weren't, or if they were star track runners and you weren't, or if they wanted you to take over the family restaurant business but you sucked at cooking and managing a business. In all of these cases you're letting them down, but that doesn't make it your fault. It's quite possible parents would feel let down if their child was homosexual and could not reproduce, or if they were heterosexual and simply choose not to. To actually tell someone they were letting down their family would be a dick move, but depending on the family could still be true.

Anyways, not agreeing to his line of thinking. Forcing people to have children is just stupid, and shunning them for "letting down their family" is immature. Cov can correct me if I misunderstood him though.

Ya thats pretty much it, and I would never shun my family for not having children, like your all just assuming.

when did we all assume it?

On another note, why is the dog holding that sign? It's not like he even knows what SSM is, and I have no idea why it would affect him :P

I knew that it was just done to invoke a cuteness effect, but I was curious about how it would affect a dog.

That's the point exactly. Allowing two gay people to marry would affect me just as much as it affects my dog. Obviously if I had a gay relative it would affect me somewhat, but the point is it really won't make much of an impact in our lives.

Ooooh, clever.

Cute picture!

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. The DSM-II? or III? said it was, and that was taken out in the 80's I believe. The DSM-IV TR still lists "Gender Identity Disorder" (Transexual/Transgender) as a mental illness but basically proscribes no treatment for it. I suspect that will soon also be removed.

I agree with nearly all of what JJJ is saying, and I suspect he has studied more about genetics than I have, so I will gladly defer to most of his assertions. I have, however, taken many advanced neurobiology/chemistry/physiology courses, and read plenty of research, which is where these thoughts come from.

My best friend is gay, and I have at least 8 gay friends and 3 transgender friends, none of whom I believe to have any sort of "mental illness" or deficiency. They're happy, so cool, and I am not biased against anyone.

However, regarding genetics/environment: there has been no luck in isolating a particular gene that "makes" someone a homosexual, but it is definintely an interesting topic. Psychologists pretty much failed for years to prove that environment makes anyone gay, and I have not seen any credible research which shows this to be true. Two gay parents are no more likely to have a gay child than two straight parents. However, there have been a lot of studies which show a >50% concordance rate in monozygotic twins who are homosexual, which is pretty interesting. JJJ, not sure of the p value, but I believe it was statistically significant and sufficiently powered.

This does lead one to wonder if there is some genetic factor involved. Obviously DNA base pairs have no sexuality, but I think that just as neural pathways can be physically altered by the environment, chemicals, and even social interaction, it is also true that DNA can be naturally or artificially manipulated. Besides extreme cases such as radiation mutation, is there a possibility that could happen, maybe even over thousands of generations, for some type of evolutionary purpose we have not yet discovered? I have no idea. This makes me want to break out genetics books.

I've read some of the studies. I think that most of them have come under criticism for one thing or another. The one that sticks out in my head is Kallman (1952) and I just remember reading about it and thinking that it was often unclear/methodologically weak. That being said, the concordance numbers do really suggest that homosexuality is definitely not entirely genetic. If it were 100% genetic, we'd expect to see a 100% concordance rate. The thing that casts doubts though, is that it's hard to "measure homosexuality". For instance, you ask 15 twin brothers if they're homosexual and 12 reply yes and 3 reply no. Now you know what 15 people think about their own homosexuality but there have been plenty of cases of repressed sexual orientations and the like. I don't know, it's a hard thing to measure.

Interestingly, monozygotic twins show higher concordance rates than dizygotic twins so there does appear to be some genetic factor. It's really, really fascinating.

Interesting, the perception thing. That definitely skews things, even in results. I didn't think of that. Good point. Definitely not totally genetic. Schizophrenia has a >50% concordance but cannot be totally attributed to genetics, either. Looking forward to total neurological mapping. Of course, I'll then be nearly out of a job.

A) Cute dog!

B) I'm gay, so... you can probably infer my stance on same-sex marriage. ;)

C) If you'd prefer to infer my damnation, be prepared to cite your sources. :D

While I am in slight support of it, I don't like how some of the people dress during the rallies.  Wearing skimpy clothes just makes me feel like the protestors are some sort of male prostitutes, even though I know it isn't true.

Can I at least get a picture of a gay man not wearing wedding attire or anything past a short short?

Does this fit your criteria?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRh648JwSIrq0pgvy0-RHtOFuwiyUtMjNzrM0eOzR0AGzAJTyS6

Or would you prefer something more like this?

http://www.tcf.ua.edu/jbutler/MadMen/MadMen20070726qq00_39_12qq00038.jpg

I would prefer if stryker wouldn't necro another thread.

Yay swift has old pic back. Me gusta was kinda creepy

Actually Marmotlord swift didn't necro this thread.

I did.

?!?!?!?

I don't see why we should dictate what a person can or not do, unless that causes harm to another person, subvert the gov., or something like suicide, drugs or something. And even if homosexuality is a sin in the bible, not EVERYONE is christian or should be dictated by it wordings.

I can say this that people should be allowed to do what they choose. Gay marriage is the same way.

girl

First of all not only christian think homosexuality is a sin. The bible is also made up of the some Jewish holy text which it appears in. So please don't just point out Christianity cause it's other religions as well. Sorry if you think I'm giving defensive cause i'm not. I thought you should just expand your view on which group doesn't support same sex marriage. Simply you've could've said conservative and not single out a group of people.

Ok, conservative..I was just pointing it out since the bible was raised up

I don't see why everybody is so hyped up about gay marriage and gay couples.

Two wo/men marry = no genetic kids unless they are hypocrites = dead couple of gay people.

Sure you can get around that by adoption and I understand that genetics have nothing to do with being gay but still... Don't you feel at all bad for killing off your family bloodline since you won't reproduce?

Also married gay couples affect you in no way possible. If anything it means they have to start paying taxes like a normal couple. :P

     -Part's of the above are my opinion, you figure out which. :P

Actually gay is good, because OVERPOPULATION.

"100 years after the Gay-Empire took over the world... The earth is now less populated and everything is back to normal." ^.^

Also adoption to kids..i guess that is the opinion of some anti-gays

Now can we start taking back Russia with gay couples and their adopted children?  I swear, that place needs more people.

[Or we could fill it up with Chinese]

Lol im chinese (Shocker!) and yes It's kinda funny that russia is fucking big but no body lives there, But China is kinda small in terms of livable area but has a shit ton of people. Lol

Meh. If you were to take the population density of new york and put everyone in the world into a single city, it would be about the size of texas. You're good.

But all that unused land...especially Chernobyl [which could be buried with trash, since nobody's gonna live there for the next millions of years].

However Christianity is the majority religion in America, so it's pretty clear it's that religion's followers keeping it blocked XD. Not calling out Christians, I know several Christians who don't mind legalization (#Ugi). However I've never seen a Jewish Conservative politician arguing against it ;).

Also, did anyone else laugh when he frank basically said "You should single out a single group of people instead of a single group of people?"

Yes, since all conservatives are against gay marriage. *sarcasm. 

If there is something I hate more then people talking nonsense about the bible (not criticizing it, that's perfectly acceptable, but making statements about it without any actual knowledge about what you are talking about is worse), is people making judgments on a whole group. Worse then that is attacking someone for doing it, and then doing it yourself. 

http://gayconservative.org/

(Don't actually read that blog, but it exists, and isn't a comedy site, from what I can tell)

I'm a conservative who supports gay marriage, if that helps. Plus there's a group of gay republicans that's kind of a sub-party since they're ostracized from time to time.

I support* (look below to see my exact opinions) gay marriage as well. 

I know liberals and socialists who don't support gay marriage. 

Since this is revived for the moment...

I don't really support it but I don't mind people who are. As long as they keep it to themselves. Guys and girls were made to be together. I'm not really entertained if I see two guys or girls making out or something. But other than that I don't really care. 

Lol at Fireplay's "Gay Empire"

That reminds me of the scifi book "Forever War" where the protagonist is involved in an interstellar war and due to time dilation he keeps jumping ahead so much that he gets to a period of time back home where race is pretty much non-existent (Everyone has more or less same color now) and homosexuality is the norm (As is cloning) and he isn't liked by his fellow soldiers due to the fact that he's straight.

Eventually though the war gets settled and he retires to one of the colony planets with his girlfriend (Who was a soldier in the war as well) where they still have "old school" straight people.

There was talk of a movie a few years back, but haven't heard any more about it.

So nothing to do with the Tvtropes ForeverWar then?

Because if gay people are allowed to marry, it will result in slightly less discrimination/heckling against homosexuals, they will be less inclined to pretend to be straight, thus less likely to be having sex with the opposite gender, Not only being more honest with themselves and others, but reducing birth rate ever so slightly. less human overpopulation= more jobs, more food and stuff, less overall pollution, less expendable soldiers to waste themselves in wars started on a whim. This is also why I would have said in un-hidden text that I supported abortion, but then one would be more inclined to call me a total baby-killing, world-hating anti-human  whore-fucking prick.

 "less expendable soldiers to waste themselves in wars started on a whim." You realize that when wars are started on a whim you are more likely to die from said war because there are less people to act as a distant meatshield?

You total baby-killing, world-hating anti-human  whore-fucking prick.

I'd rather die in the place of someone whose life is already miserable having been born out of a lie. Besides, if the world gets that unstable, I'd likely be able to pay someone/extort someone/ trick someone into going for me.

Besides, I really thought Christians would be more supportive of gay people, Being that the whole of the bible is to love and accept everyone, while only a few more obscure texts would say that gays and lesbians are in the wrong, and even then not calling them evil, per se. I guess there's a difference between believing the bible word for word (which would lead to many long-term oxymorons) and then believing the bible as in the whole thing at once.

I don't see why they would be supportive of gay people seeing as how the bible point's out that is wrong for them. But I can agree with you on the fact that they just need to accept the person for who they are. 

It actually only points that out in a few smaller and lesser known texts, there are hardly any where one would just go forth and be like

"HEY! I'm Fucking JESUS! And I'm here to tell you that all you retarded gay-ass homofags are COMPLETE ASSHOLES AND THAT MY POWER COMPELS YOU TO GO HANG YOURSELVES, YOU GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING SHIT-EATING BUCKETS OF MOLDY PIG MENSTRUATION!"

And yet, so many act as if Jesus actually said that...

I agree that I honestly thought more (not all) Christians would be fine with it. It seemed anything I read in the bible talks about accepting people for who they are.

The reason most of us dont support it is because its considered "lust" which is a sin. 

I don't see how it's lust, why, if homosexuality is lust, and we weren't supposed to liken to those we're attracted to, gay men and women would be out making babies with one another while straight people would force themselves to marry the same gender.

Though in the scheme of things does it really matter if gay folks marry?

I mean if the religious folks are completely correct, it isn't like God is going to let the gays into heaven anyway. Gays get to enjoy marriage on earth. Religious types get to watch them burn in hell. Sounds like a win-win.

I like what you not because its right but because I can explain the reasons from it. 

We- well at least I do and I'm sure some others as well- don't want to see anyone go to hell. That's why the church is against it. We want to bring everyone to heaven. I don't someone to be tortured for eternity if I can help them. It's like not telling one person that they needed there book in school. And when they show up without it, they get punished. They wouldn't have if I had told them. Just an example. 

If they feel so strongly about it that they are ready to protest and lobby for gay marriage, do you really believe gay marriage being illegal is going to stop them from being gay?

I'm not the one trying to force it on them. 

I'm just making a point.

I'm not being aggressive if that's what think. I know. 

I still don't get how it's lust, if they're attracted to the same gender, who gives a shit? It's simply their emotions telling them what they're attracted to, and if we aren't supposed to follow those simple attractions, then why isn't "normal" marriage an unforgivable sin? It simply makes no sense. If anything, then bis, who can find it in themselves to love everyone, are saints, or bisexual bestialist masochistic fetishists who can love literally ANYTHING are fucking ANGELS.

Seriously, lust by that definition, is guiding your mating choices by physical appearance, and we all do that. Straight AND gay people do that, as they like the way that gender looks, as well as the fact that they are told most easily which gender is which by appearance. Seriously, I doubt anyone is capable of THAT. If anyone is capable of this "lustless" attraction to someone, I highly encourage them to show pics and a backstory of you having dated and fallen in love with the most physically unnappealing person you could know of, and have loved them sheerly for the person inside of their human husks. Do it, and you'll officially be able to call homosexuality an act of lust.

"Love thy neighbor." That's one of the most well known quotes from Christianity. The quote was not; "Love thy neighbor, unless he is gay." 
If it's wrong to be gay because the bible says its wrong, and it's wrong to not believe in God, then is that to say that I can't get married because I'm an atheist?

"while only a few more obscure texts would say that gays and lesbians are in the wrong, and even then not calling them evil"

Okay, while I'm someone who doesn't give two shits about the debate (and as such, would much rather the republicans stop caring about this and let gays be gay), that statement is utter bullshit. XD I'm sorry, but nearly every law in the bible is from a single line (and far more obscure then the ' 22 “‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination' XD). 

Please, when criticising a religion, make sure you actually know what you are talking about. XD 

However, to make sure you guys don't misunderstand, I'm one of those religious people who don't actually care what anyone else does. Gay, Straight, Bi, I don't care as long as you don't force it down my throat. 

Nor do I actually feel too strongly about banning abortion. Mostly because if a person wishes to have an abortion, they don't deserve the child. :P

Again, if someone makes a choice (or leads a lifestyle, since i know that being gay can be genetic) I, personally/religiously, disagree with, I have no right to condemn them/illegality their action. Their is such a thing as free will, as much as we religious tend to forget about it and try and force everyone to live by our rules.. They do what they believe is right, and I do what I believe is right. If I'm right, sucks to be them, if their right, it could suck to be me or it won't matter at all since ill be gone completely.

Hope I'm not offending anyone. ^_^

How dare you have a reasonable opinion!

I, for one, am incredibly offended.

Wow, that's kind of racist. :p

Very racist. :P (I have the bigger P playa! THE TONGUE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!

Still, though, the bible was written at a time when humanity was relatively small, and entire families and bloodlines could have easily died off because one son never hooked up, and when humans had not yet dominated the world. It was made when people had to reproduce, or there simply wouldn't be enough of them to cover the earth and "dominate" and "conrtol" nature like the biblical god said was man's purpose. So of course, if one man got into another man's pants, and found that they liked it better than a woman, it would indeed be an "abomination" due to the fact that they are much less likely to appeal to a suitable mate, or like the pre-arranged marriage set up for them, and the very carrier of the family's bloodline would be, as far as anyone but the man's partner knew, abstinent and/or impotent for his whole life.

If one wants to get deeply political, I am conservative enough to still have a cold war bunker under my house. Well, it was a Cold War bunker until we had it rennovated into a basement worth living in for 1 billion years until the nuclear waste clears up.

And also, unless you can find one against lesbianism, I can get all of my cousin's porn blessed to kill whatever invisible thing has been making noises in his basement... (epic multitasking) Unless that's the television playing his tapes...

"Still, though, the bible was written at a time when humanity was relatively small, and entire families and bloodlines could have easily died off because one son never hooked up, and when humans had not yet dominated the world. It was made when people had to reproduce, or there simply wouldn't be enough of them to cover the earth and "dominate" and "conrtol" nature like the biblical god said was man's purpose. So of course, if one man got into another man's pants, and found that they liked it better than a woman, it would indeed be an "abomination" due to the fact that they are much less likely to appeal to a suitable mate, or like the pre-arranged marriage set up for them, and the very carrier of the family's bloodline would be, as far as anyone but the man's partner knew, abstinent and/or impotent for his whole life."

This doesn't matter. Your statement was about how it's an obscure reference, when it is not. 

Obscure as in:

Never has it been outrightly and publically quoted as an advert or such for Christianity,

I have never heard of it in a sermon, and I have been to churches though I'm not necessarily one of faith (there is something out there that put the rules in place for our existence to start, but no real word on what exactly that entity could be. Not imposing, that's just my bundle of thoughts.)

No one has ever asked it be read in church, or had someone read it in whatever confirmation Christianity may have.

The above line that  I was referencing that Bo argued with JMG with was a part of a longer story that all together, posed little to no stance on the subject, and simply stated one guy wanted to kill the other, because the middle east was unstable as it usually is.

I also said it didn't directly call them evil. You have provided little evidence to show it has. It only said what would happen was an abomination, though the people with urges to perform this would be looked upon as afflicted, not evil.

And I was saying that it wasn't an obscure reference. Changing what you meant by "Being that the whole of the bible is to love and accept everyone, while only a few more obscure texts would say that gays and lesbians are in the wrong, and even then not calling them evil, per se." to mean it isn't qouted changes everything, and obviously it is quoted when they are talking about how acting upon your gay feelings is wrong. Why would  they quote the text when they aren't talking about how acting upon your gay feelings is wrong?

The text clearly states that what they do is wrong, and as such, can not be an obscure reference to it being wrong.

As for this:

"I also said it didn't directly call them evil. You have provided little evidence to show it has. It only said what would happen was an abomination, though the people with urges to perform this would be looked upon as afflicted, not evil."

No shit. Everyone has temptations, doesn't make them evil. But we are talking about why Christianity wants to ban it. Which is because it is an abomination. 

Hrm, I guess so. Is this why Luther ragquitted?

For some reason I thought you were talking about Lex Luthor and not Martin Luthor, and was immensely confused. 

Then, once I realized you were talking about Martin Luthor, I became confused at the connection between gay marriage and him starting up a new branch of Christianity.

Since we were talking about religion, and you were contradicting all my posts, I felt it more neccesary to use that nonsensical answer to render your argument invalid and change the subject rather than referencing the living state of Nicholas Cage's hair. But if I must...

Or even better, given the context,

......... Yeah, this makes everything much clearer. 

Pretty much what happens if we still don't have it by 3013.

Well that was sad. And weird. Mostly sad.

Sweird, or Weiad, 

Eiswadd

I don't get it XD

Some guys will only have the company of themselves to love.  :I

did anyone see the news today even the pope is divided about gay marriage. really shocked me when he said what he did.

Finally, a stereotype-breaking Catholic! I'm glad he's not as homophobic as the previous bugger-looking creeps...

There are several stereotype-breaking catholics, just not Popes XD. He's already known as a progressive Pope though, they see he's also working on allowing priests to marry. I'm fairly sure that's gonna cut down on the molestation.

are you insulting all catholic with your creeps comment? I was raised catholic and in my church most of the members were gay neutral or in favor of allowing gays to marry despite whatever verdict any priest or pope had passed down.

Nope, I wasn't, I was poking fun at the creepy way that shadows fell over the previous pope's eyes. If he wasn't trained in priesthood, and therefore knows how to get rid of "malevolent forces" I could have easily thought he was possessed or something.

And that, my friend(s), is what I meant by my creeps comment.

 I understand what you mean. In the past the popes have been very disappointing in their narrow minded ness and that is a pretty freaky picture. 

Benedict totally looks like the original Phantom of the Opera with his eyes sunken in like that. He just does....

Yeah, if this was on a different site, a lot of people would've been very offended.

But I do kinda agree.  Benedict wasn't as charismatic by physical appearances.

Bah, he's an intellectual though.

I am against it. I believe that marriage is not just a paper but something deep into the culture of many nations and that by allowing homosexuals get married you are degrading it.

Why get married anyway? Do you need a paper to prove your love?

According to the law, yes you need a paper to prove you love your wife. (despite the fact you can just get divorced at anytime.)

It's a culture and religious thing for a lot of people. 

You are contradicting yourself. First you are saying marriage is something deep into the culture, and then you are saying marriage is paper in the second paragraph.

Yeah, this is not what I meant.

Marriage is something in our culture that has roots since ancient years and is between a man and a woman. It also has high (and a couple of decades ago only) religious symbolism.

So, why do gay people want to get married? This is where the "paper proving your love" comes to play, since homosexual people don't get married on religious grounds, thus their marriage is just a piece of paper.

And who said they don't get married on religious grounds?

Cause the majority of religions do not approve of homosexual marriages. 
And I honestly can't see what the big deal is and why gay people are talking about "rights" and getting "oppressed" just because they are not allowed to marry? What do they gain from it? 

Now, there is this 1 argument that people use and it is that when someone is in the hospital only family members are allowed to visit and that they should get married to give their partners permission in such an occasion. And here is my question. Why not change that law instead?

What they gain is equality. Why should male-male or female-female be less than male-female?

Because the "right" being infringed upon is 

A.) The right to marry, obviously. You're telling someone they're not good enough to get a regular marriage, effectively making them a second-class citizen which goes against everything that America stands for.

B.) What you said, they don't get certain rights that married couples get. These include tax breaks for children, visitation rights, health insurance payments, etc. They would literally have to change every single law that affects marriage instead of changing the single law discriminating against marriage.

A) This is like saying that healthy people who don't get medicinal marijuana are treated as 2nd class citizens to the ones who do (bad example I know). And Gay Marriage does not only affect the U.S of America

B) Homosexual couples being allowed to adopt children is an other issue...

A.) How so? Mind giving an actual thought argument with logical bridges rather than saying "that's the same as X"? Try and make a connection between your statement and mine. (That wasn't meant to be condescending, genuinely trying to show some people how to argue)

B.) How so? I don't know if you're in support of it or against it or what because that's a rather vague statement.

Trust me Bo, everyone wants their weed...

The unfortunate misconception among traditional marriage advocates is that marriage is innately a religious experience. However, people have been pairing up since ancient times. Ancient greeks and romans even took homosexual life partners, as well as getting married to their wives. The only reason that people think it's different in today's day and age is because the major religions of the modern world disapprove of it and as such have left a heavy bias. In reality, the "deep" culture of "many nations" that came before the modern world has actually accepted homosexuality, and you're left with the simple argument of "You're infringing on my right to take away yours".

Now, I'm not advocating that people who don't approve of homosexual marriages should be forced into performing the ceremony, but simply that we should allow those that want to to advocate it, and if they can't find anyone simply allow the couple to go through the state and get a marriage license. 

Thing is that this has changed. And as far as European countries go, our cultures are more influenced by our medieval histories than the ancient ones, and thus a lot of our modern values come from the Christian ones. So as far as culture goes, marriage has become a religious event.

And yes there was homosexuality in ancient Greece but they were not taken as life partners as you said. In some city states it was actually frowned upon.

Thing is that this has changed. And as far as European countries go, our cultures are more influenced by our medieval histories than the ancient ones, and thus a lot of our modern values come from the Christian ones. So as far as culture goes, marriage has become a religious event.

You are arguing that things have changed. So why can't they change now? Why do you get to decide if things should change or not? 

As for what they have to gain, they get to be equal citizens. They are allowed to have what we have. And if they don't get what we have, it means that a) they are doing something wrong (which, according to America's core belief, they aren't) or b) we are treating them like second class citizens. Which is wrong. 

^ 

Said it about as well as I could, if not better.

Thank you. ^_^

Yep. 

check this out: I got banned from 2 websites for saying that I support Russia's "anti-faggotism policy" and nobody realized it was part of a political joke i was making with some dude, in which both of us pretended to be over-exagerrated leaders of opposing factions, and since he chose democracy, I chose the other way around.

When i accused the moderators of discrimiantion against heteros (continuing the joke while banned) , they openly pledged their allegiance to the gay faction and started banning everyone who was heterosexual. In this right moment, only 6 people are left on the website, all of them moderators, who changed their fonts to bright pink  and replaced their usual profile text with "GO GAYS! DIE HETEROS! WE'RE HUMANS TOO, YOU DISCRIMINATIVE A*HOLES!!!"

I'm starting to think they don't appreciate my humor in there.... and I should really report it to the .... oh wait, there is no organisation that supports heteros... I guess it's our fate to become a minority and die out....

BRB, digging my grave.... Normality isn't normal anymore these days.... first we get penguins with mustaches....then *mumble mumble*...

Until links are provided to said website, I call bullshit.

ditto

Everything Marmotlord says is bullshit. 

Especially when he says that everything he says is bullshit

But... my mind... but... exploding... but....

In all seriousness, nothing Marmot says should be taken at face value, or whatever the internet equivalent of that may be. 

NO IT ISN'T! IT'S #Marmotlogic !

I would gladly point you towards the chatrooms from which i got banned, but you'd have to search through about 60 pages of chatlog, because the chat is pretty active. Seriously, it's not fake.

Totally.

No harm In pointing to it..

Invalid. 

If the mods banned everyone then there wouldn't be 60 pages to go through, it wouldn't be that active, it would just be the mods (Yes people can make new accounts, but no one would give enough shits to actively make new accounts that will be banned within seconds)

(also, even if they did actively make new accounts to spam the chatroom with, it would never amount to 60 pages worth.)

Also, at the very least, if we went there we could PM the mods about this incident, or we could verify that they really did change their names to pink, and that there really are six of them.

http://iotchat.chatango.com

there are more than 60 pages, believe me.

those guys talk a lot.  The chat i tied with a CFC forum in which some kind of country-role-playing games occur, thus everyone is talking A LOT in there. About everything.

The funny thing is that if soemone gets banned in there, there's only one way to find out: have the same chatroom opened in two tabs/windows. if you cannot see in thes econd tab the message you wrote in the first, then you're banend. Took me 15 minutes to realise I was talking to myself .

Also, my name in that chat is Chester. 

The history didn't go back that far :p

the mods probably deleted the chatlogs to free up some space. The chat lags after ~ 50 pages, and considering 1 page = 35 lines, it fills up fast.

tell them Chester is spamming on other websites in hopes of having his ban lifted :)

If they unban me, i'll tell you the whole story.

"only 6 people are left on the website"

17 people currently in chat.

Yep.

theya re in chat, but they are not active.

That's all very convenient.

those banned appear as online only they can't chat. They just stay there in hopes that a mod will come and unban them...

Well, at least they get what they want, i have now officially been banned for 5 days, which is a record for that chatroom.

Because who doesn't waste their days on a chat site waiting to be unbanned?

have you ever heard of browser tabs?

And as i said before, those guys have similar interests (certain games) and it's good to have a chat about it from time to time.

Seriously, those guys play only three games every day: Team Fortress 2, XCOM and Europa Universalis 3 (and sometimes Crusader Kings 2)

The logic there makes so much sense.

also, i was just giving a rough estimate. I actually found out there are 5 moderators.

but i also see 2 players who were unbanned... gotta ask them in private how did they conviced the mods...