Mormons and homos, now in one handy thread!

[redsox39]

If humanity was solely concerned about reproduction, all we'd do is roam around like wild animals and fuck each other with as many different members of the opposite sex as possible. We wouldn't even need to buy a single diamond ring.


Dude, I am so there.

[Yelram]

Marriage is not just about reproduction.

Infertile couples can marry.

Incestuous couples can produce children but cannot marry.

Polygamy can produce a helluva lot of children.

If humanity was solely concerned about reproduction, all we'd do is roam around like wild animals and fuck each other with as many different members of the opposite sex as possible. We wouldn't even need to buy a single diamond ring.

Thats all fine and good, you are skirting the point here, and thats that there are certain benefits targeted SPECIFICALLY at getting young couples to produce offspring by giving them certain tax benefits. These benefits are not necessary in a homosexual marriage, and therefor should not be applied.

[Pax Britannia]

Yes we're all missing the point here. This isnt about human happiness, it's about taxes.

[Phil Theehor]

Thats all fine and good, you are skirting the point here, and thats that there are certain benefits targeted SPECIFICALLY at getting young couples to produce offspring by giving them certain tax benefits. These benefits are not necessary in a homosexual marriage, and therefor should not be applied.

So, then, you advocate a higher tax structure for homos?

Would heteros who like to buttsex have to pay your "Fudgepackers Tax"?

[redsox39]

So, then, you advocate higher taxes structure for homos?

Well, homos and single people...

I think the single people, Homo or hetero, are being discrimnated against. Why should they not get the same benefits as "ring fuckers" get?

[Whiffleball]

Thats all fine and good, you are skirting the point here, and thats that there are certain benefits targeted SPECIFICALLY at getting young couples to produce offspring by giving them certain tax benefits. These benefits are not necessary in a homosexual marriage, and therefor should not be applied.

Again, why are not infertile couples banned from getting tax benefits? Why isn't polygamy legal and subsidized since polygamous relationships produces more children than monogamous couples?

Marriage is not about reproduction and never has been. It has been about the establishment of a family/household for social and economic stability. Two people or more coming together and sharing their resources leads to a greater profit. There is also a emotional element in being part of a group, guidance, partnership, etc.

Reproduction is just part of it. You can fuck and produce children in a marriage or outside it. Consider how many unmarried women have kids today alone!

I also read the bill from your article... Nothing about banning "mom" or "dad". Just banning different forms of discrimination. Is banning gender discrimination going to make the words "man" or "woman" illegal? Is banning racial discrimination going to make the words "white" and "black" illegal? They haven't done nor will they.

If a "news" site isn't reporting the facts but assumptions, it's probably not a very good news site.

[Yelram]

Again, why are not infertile couples banned from getting tax benefits? Why isn't polygamy legal and subsidized since polygamous relationships produces more children than monogamous couples?

Marriage is not about reproduction and never has been. It has been about the establishment of a family/household for social and economic stability. Two people or more coming together and sharing their resources leads to a greater profit. There is also a emotional element in being part of a group, guidance, partnership, etc.



There is somehow a greater profit when two people live together, and some unseen benefit to the economic foundations of the country? Are you smoking crack? There is only one benefit that the country gets from the union of two people. LITTLE BABY TAX PAYERS. Thats it, the country doesnt benefit from two people living in the same house. Your arguments are getting more and more thin. Please show me on paper how two people who cant produce children, BENEFIT society by living together. Please, I want proof of this. You guys keep running your mouths about the benefits of marriage-reproduction, please, show me. Right now the women I have been with for the past 7 years is not my wife. We live together, but have not gotten married yet. How is the government benefiting by us living together? We only pay property tax on 1 house. If we were married, we'd pay LESS taxes. I suppose thats incentive for..... what was that incentive for again? And if 2 people coming together is more profitable than 1, why arent 5 people living together even better?

"Its about being part of a group"
"Social stability"
Yeah right. I really find your arguments so empty and devoid of reason, I dont know what else to say.

[The Batman]

There is somehow a greater profit when two people live together, and some unseen benefit to the economic foundations of the country? Are you smoking crack? There is only one benefit that the country gets from the union of two people. LITTLE BABY TAX PAYERS. Thats it, the country doesnt benefit from two people living in the same house. Your arguments are getting more and more thin. Please show me on paper how two people who cant produce children, BENEFIT society by living together. Please, I want proof of this. You guys keep running your mouths about the benefits of marriage-reproduction, please, show me. Right now the women I have been with for the past 7 years is not my wife. We live together, but have not gotten married yet. How is the government benefiting by us living together? We only pay property tax on 1 house. If we were married, we'd pay LESS taxes. I suppose thats incentive for..... what was that incentive for again? And if 2 people coming together is more profitable than 1, why arent 5 people living together even better?

"Its about being part of a group"
"Social stability"
Yeah right. I really find your arguments so empty and devoid of reason, I dont know what else to say.

This isn't for every situation, but I am thinking a man and woman who are married probably have a better shot at making more money, which means paying more taxes. How do they do that? Well sometimes one supports the other in finishing their education and once school is done, better paying job. Just as an example.

[kid_vidrio]

There is only one benefit that the country gets from the union of two people. LITTLE BABY TAX PAYERS. Thats it, the country doesnt benefit from two people living in the same house.
Wrong. Even in the historical works that begat our current customs, the ability to have children did not justify marriage. The value of the woman being haggled over justified the contract. Future children and what were done with them were unknown assets. Being able to cook, clean, sew, and ideally give birth to boys were points to be bartered. If you had a few daughters you traded off and they were barren, the value of the remaining daughter might, might, go down. It would depend on how good you were at trading.
It was not and is not about reproduction. It is, as Pax points out, probably related to taxes and tax breaks, but not tax earners.

[Whiffleball]

There is somehow a greater profit when two people live together, and some unseen benefit to the economic foundations of the country? Are you smoking crack? There is only one benefit that the country gets from the union of two people. LITTLE BABY TAX PAYERS. Thats it, the country doesnt benefit from two people living in the same house.

All societies benefit from people settling down in one place and looking after one another. Why aren't most modern civilized societies nomadic? Because there is more benefit in staying in one place, going through your routine, satisfying all your needs in one area instead of having to move on and find a new locale.

Pooling your resources with another person means you both enjoy the same benefits from the same stuff. Two or more people together can get a better residence than separately and have more purchasing power in general. You can better afford the necessities of life if you are part of a household. What was one of the reason people married in ancient cultures? To get the riches and titles that came from marrying into the other family.

If you don't understand why not just human beings but many animals have their own territory or move together in packs and how such stability benefits them, you need to take some elementary biology and sociology classes.

"Its about being part of a group"
"Social stability"
Yeah right. I really find your arguments so empty and devoid of reason, I dont know what else to say.Being part of a group is important, whether you're a buffalo in a herd or a person in a social group -- such as a family! That's basic shit.

If you don't know what else to say, it probably means you don't have much of a position to stand on.

Hint: The tax breaks are to help a married couple afford the larger number of things they need (larger house, etc.) and not a subsidy to encourage fucking. People fuck regardless.

[Archangel]

To be fair, the Catholic Church won't marry a couple if one or both happen to be infertile.

[Archangel]

Wrong. Even in the historical works that begat our current customs, the ability to have children did not justify marriage. The value of the woman being haggled over justified the contract. Future children and what were done with them were unknown assets. Being able to cook, clean, sew, and ideally give birth to boys were points to be bartered. If you had a few daughters you traded off and they were barren, the value of the remaining daughter might, might, go down. It would depend on how good you were at trading.
It was not and is not about reproduction. It is, as Pax points out, probably related to taxes and tax breaks, but not tax earners.

One word that should get Yeller to shut up if he has some sense:


Dowry.

[/thread]

[redsox39]

Again, why are not infertile couples banned from getting tax benefits? Why isn't polygamy legal and subsidized since polygamous relationships produces more children than monogamous couples?

Marriage is not about reproduction and never has been. It has been about the establishment of a family/household for social and economic stability. Two people or more coming together and sharing their resources leads to a greater profit. There is also a emotional element in being part of a group, guidance, partnership, etc.

Reproduction is just part of it. You can fuck and produce children in a marriage or outside it. Consider how many unmarried women have kids today alone!

I also read the bill from your article... Nothing about banning "mom" or "dad". Just banning different forms of discrimination. Is banning gender discrimination going to make the words "man" or "woman" illegal? Is banning racial discrimination going to make the words "white" and "black" illegal? They haven't done nor will they.

If a "news" site isn't reporting the facts but assumptions, it's probably not a very good news site.

However, this isn't the first time the banning of "Mom" and "dad" has come up do to the "stigma" of homosexual parenting...

And couldn't a semi-capable Lawyer use the terms in SB777 to make the case that Mom and Dad are terms that denote specific gender roles and are therefore banned under SB777?

I think so...

On that note, pretty sure most of the gay community had Mom's and Dad's and are not looking to ban the terms at this point, obviously.

However, once we get a generation or 2 of kids growing up with 2 "Dad" households, or vise versa, and coming under ridicule at school and in public, this could be an issue.

[Phil Theehor]

There is somehow a greater profit when two people live together, and some unseen benefit to the economic foundations of the country? Are you smoking crack? There is only one benefit that the country gets from the union of two people. LITTLE BABY TAX PAYERS. Thats it, the country doesnt benefit from two people living in the same house. Your arguments are getting more and more thin. Please show me on paper how two people who cant produce children, BENEFIT society by living together. Please, I want proof of this. You guys keep running your mouths about the benefits of marriage-reproduction, please, show me. Right now the women I have been with for the past 7 years is not my wife. We live together, but have not gotten married yet. How is the government benefiting by us living together? We only pay property tax on 1 house. If we were married, we'd pay LESS taxes. I suppose thats incentive for..... what was that incentive for again? And if 2 people coming together is more profitable than 1, why arent 5 people living together even better?

"Its about being part of a group"
"Social stability"
Yeah right. I really find your arguments so empty and devoid of reason, I dont know what else to say.

I apologize in advance, Yelram, because you may shit yourself when you read this, but here goes:

Who says that homos can't take care of these little baby taxpayers you mention? There are a great many unwanted babies out there. Given your conservative bent, I'm going to go ahead and bet that you don't like abortion. Why not let the gays watch over the unwanted babies?

Is a child not better off with two parents in a loving, committed relationship than with some crack ho' single mom who has eight babies with five different Dads?

[redsox39]

There is somehow a greater profit when two people live together, and some unseen benefit to the economic foundations of the country? Are you smoking crack? There is only one benefit that the country gets from the union of two people. LITTLE BABY TAX PAYERS. Thats it, the country doesnt benefit from two people living in the same house. Your arguments are getting more and more thin. Please show me on paper how two people who cant produce children, BENEFIT society by living together. Please, I want proof of this. You guys keep running your mouths about the benefits of marriage-reproduction, please, show me. Right now the women I have been with for the past 7 years is not my wife. We live together, but have not gotten married yet. How is the government benefiting by us living together? We only pay property tax on 1 house. If we were married, we'd pay LESS taxes. I suppose thats incentive for..... what was that incentive for again? And if 2 people coming together is more profitable than 1, why arent 5 people living together even better?

"Its about being part of a group"
"Social stability"
Yeah right. I really find your arguments so empty and devoid of reason, I dont know what else to say.

If it isn't a Big deal, why all the fuss about it?

[Archangel]

However, this isn't the first time the banning of "Mom" and "dad" has come up do to the "stigma" of homosexual parenting...

And couldn't a semi-capable Lawyer use the terms in SB777 to make the case that Mom and Dad are terms that denote specific gender roles and are therefore banned under SB777?

I think so...

On that note, pretty sure most of the gay community had Mom's and Dad's and are not looking to ban the terms at this point, obviously.

However, once we get a generation or 2 of kids growing up with 2 "Dad" households, or vise versa, and coming under ridicule at school and in public, this could be an issue.

Does anyone else see the irony of someone with an implicitly lesbian avatar talking about how kids with two dads might get picked on?

[Yelram]

Wrong. Even in the historical works that begat our current customs, the ability to have children did not justify marriage. The value of the woman being haggled over justified the contract. Future children and what were done with them were unknown assets. Being able to cook, clean, sew, and ideally give birth to boys were points to be bartered. If you had a few daughters you traded off and they were barren, the value of the remaining daughter might, might, go down. It would depend on how good you were at trading.
It was not and is not about reproduction. It is, as Pax points out, probably related to taxes and tax breaks, but not tax earners.

Umm, my whole point was taxes. I dont even know what you guys are arguing now, I wasnt talking about Marriage in the 1700s. I'm talking about current tax incentives given within the CURRENT framework of marriage. It is purely to try to get people to produce children. It may start out as helping them get a little bigger house, but that is only to facilitate CHILDREN, who are worth more to a countries economy than 100 couples who dont produce them.

God you guys have taken one too many sociology classes. Now we're talking about nomadic tribes vs people staying in one place? Do you realize how stupid you sound saying that? "Gay people deserve the right to marry, so they dont become nomadic, and start following the buffalo herds". The government gives benefits to married couples to encourage the GROWTH of a family. Hard to make two gay people grow into more than two gay people. Gay people already live together, they already combine resources, and for that reason, like redsox said, they are one of the richest demographic groups in the country. Why do they need a tax break for being gay, when there are families having trouble feeding their kids?

[The Batman]

I apologize in advance, Yelram, because you may shit yourself when you read this, but here goes:

Who says that homos can't take care of these little baby taxpayers you mention? There are a great many unwanted babies out there. Given your conservative bent, I'm going to go ahead and bet that you don't like abortion. Why not let the gays watch over the unwanted babies?

Is a child not better off with two parents in a loving, committed relationship than with some crack ho' single mom who has eight babies with five different Dads?

Because gay's molest children. The kid will be confused. My personal favorite, because the kid will catch gay. or that's what i hear. Let them adopt. As long as the kid is happy, loved, and taken care of, what the hell business is it mine? Much like, what it is of my business who they fuck?

[Morfin]

Because gay's molest children. The kid will be confused. My personal favorite, because the kid will catch gay. or that's what i hear. Let them adopt. As long as the kid is happy, loved, and taken care of, what the hell business is it mine? Much like, what it is of my business who they fuck?

It's all part of the "indoctrination" that Yelram mentioned earlier.

[Archangel]

Why am I even in this thread? I don't live in a place run by retarded cults, and I know a married gay couple...

[redsox39]

Does anyone else see the irony of someone with an implicitly lesbian avatar talking about how kids with two dads might get picked on?

They are not lesbians! How dare you imply such a thing! It is strictly a metaphor about how the RedSox are spanking the Yankees!

Where you come up with these ideas...lol


Besides, If their were 2 million of me in California, that bill would not have passed and the homo's could spend money on diamonds rings like the rest of us. This is should not a be a government decision.

Besides, when I talk about homo's, I mean male homos and Lesbians like "Ellen" and "Rosie", not the smoking hotties on "All Girl Slumber Party 9" by vivid!

So I have a double standard? Blow me. (uhh, not like in the gay way though...)

[redsox39]

Because gay's molest children. The kid will be confused. My personal favorite, because the kid will catch gay. or that's what i hear. Let them adopt. As long as the kid is happy, loved, and taken care of, what the hell business is it mine? Much like, what it is of my business who they fuck?


No haven't you heard? Same sex Child molesters are NOT gay, they are just men who like molesting boys. I repeat NOT gay!

Both sides, NAMBLA and the Gay crowd agree on this, lol.

[Archangel]

7sKWo3Q-UZ8

[The Batman]

No haven't you heard? Same sex Child molesters are NOT gay, they are just men who like molesting boys. I repeat NOT gay!

Both sides, NAMBLA and the Gay crowd agree on this, lol.

yeah, i should have wrote, all gays are child molesters. my bad.

http://susannorfleet.com/fairylady/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/gay_teacher.jpg

[redsox39]

You mean:

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd96/jyce50/gay.jpg

[Phil Theehor]

Umm, my whole point was taxes. I dont even know what you guys are arguing now, I wasnt talking about Marriage in the 1700s. I'm talking about current tax incentives given within the CURRENT framework of marriage. It is purely to try to get people to produce children. It may start out as helping them get a little bigger house, but that is only to facilitate CHILDREN, who are worth more to a countries economy than 100 couples who dont produce them.

God you guys have taken one too many sociology classes. Now we're talking about nomadic tribes vs people staying in one place? Do you realize how stupid you sound saying that? "Gay people deserve the right to marry, so they dont become nomadic, and start following the buffalo herds". The government gives benefits to married couples to encourage the GROWTH of a family. Hard to make two gay people grow into more than two gay people. Gay people already live together, they already combine resources, and for that reason, like redsox said, they are one of the richest demographic groups in the country. Why do they need a tax break for being gay, when there are families having trouble feeding their kids?

Yelram:

You still did not answered two questions:

How does gay marriage hurt you? Gay marriage is legal here in Connecticut and I need to know what sort of negative effects I need to look out for.

Why can't gays be parents? Either through adoption or surrogatge parenthood? Doesn't their raising of children confer the same tax-break-worthy benefit on society that you and I do by raising our children?

[Yelram]

Yelram:

You still did not answered two questions:

How does gay marriage hurt you? Gay marriage is legal here in Connecticut and I need to know what sort of negative effects I need to look out for.

Why can't gays be parents? Either through adoption or surrogatge parenthood? Doesn't their raising of children confer the same tax-break-worthy benefit on society that you and I do by raising our children?

It hurts me because I dont want to see children indoctrinated to think that being homosexual is like picking your favorite color, when they're at an age where they have very little understanding of what sexuality even is. I plan on having children eventually, and by that time, I will be surprised if alot of these changes havent already occurred. I also do not want to see churches muzzled, and prevented from speaking against homosexuality. I dont know exactly how I feel about the idea of gay couples raising children. I'm not against it, because being parented by a gay couple cannot be any worse than being shuffled through the system. I also imagine having two same sex parents cant be much worse than only having one. I would be more apt to support two lesbians adopting than gay males, but I dont really have any reasoning to support that beyond women being more nurturing.

[freegood]

If you want to put anal chastity belts on your kids, Yelram, that's your right... and pleasure.

[Titus_Pullo]

yeah, i should have wrote, all gays are child molesters. my bad.

http://susannorfleet.com/fairylady/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/gay_teacher.jpg

FIRED!

[Phil Theehor]

It hurts me because I dont want to see children indoctrinated to think that being homosexual is like picking your favorite color, when they're at an age where they have very little understanding of what sexuality even is. I plan on having children eventually, and by that time, I will be surprised if alot of these changes havent already occurred. I also do not want to see churches muzzled, and prevented from speaking against homosexuality. I dont know exactly how I feel about the idea of gay couples raising children. I'm not against it, because being parented by a gay couple cannot be any worse than being shuffled through the system. I also imagine having two same sex parents cant be much worse than only having one. I would be more apt to support two lesbians adopting than gay males, but I dont really have any reasoning to support that beyond women being more nurturing.

I agree with you on one main point (and this comes back to the OP): I don't want churches muzzled either. What goes on within the church walls is the church's business. Now, what goes on outside the church's walls (metaphorically) is not. They can tell their flock how to live, but shouldn't be fucking with the rules under which everyone lives. And I don't think they should really be trying to blur the lines like they have. It invites interference coming back. If you open the door between church and state, it will work both ways.

Now, here's where I think you are off-point. Being gay is not illegal. Children at an impressionable age are going to interact with gays (if their parents choose to let them) whether or not the gays enjoy the same marriage rights that you and I do.

Full disclosure: I am a practicing Catholic. I'm not the slightest bit anti-religious. I'm just want my church and state nicely separated.

[riseabove!]

Marriage needs to be handled by the church, LEGAL marriage needs to be handled by the government.

Obviously, the foundin' fathers had no idea that such a thing as "gay marriage" would become an issue, but there is such a thing as SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in this country as prescribed by them. The government has NO say in making legislation to forbid any religious institution from taking part in any practice without proper amendment to the constitution to this country. Practices that violate already inplace legislation are, obviously, illegal and should be/is treated as such.

[redsox39]

Yelram:

You still did not answered two questions:

How does gay marriage hurt you? Gay marriage is legal here in Connecticut and I need to know what sort of negative effects I need to look out for.

Why can't gays be parents? Either through adoption or surrogatge parenthood? Doesn't their raising of children confer the same tax-break-worthy benefit on society that you and I do by raising our children?


Phil, how does the Gang murder across town hurt you? How Does Mark Cuban and Martha Stewart trading inside information hurt you? How did the Unibomber hurt you? How does the Child Molester in New York hurt you?

Its not all about you sometimes Phil. Sometimes there are laws that won't effect you. I know it is hard to fathom, but it is true.

Gay marriage may not effect you in any way, the same as what happens down the street may not effect you in anyway. That has nothing to do with it.

[Morfin]

I answer this one. The insider trader hurts someone -- innocent stockholders and stock buyers. The gang murder hurts its victim. The Unibomber hurt people with his bombs. The child molester hurt the child. All of these have direct victims -- therefore, it hurts the victims and therefore, me, a member of society.

Gay marriage hurts absolutely no one. There is no victim. It is two consenting adults wanting to be a married couple. The only "victim" is this fuzzy, tenuous notion that Society will be harmed. There is no proof of that. There is no proof of homosexuals "indoctrinating" people against their will. There are no victims.

[redsox39]

I answer this one. The insider trader hurts someone -- innocent stockholders and stock buyers. The gang murder hurts its victim. The Unibomber hurt people with his bombs. The child molester hurt the child. All of these have direct victims -- therefore, it hurts the victims and therefore, me, a member of society.

Gay marriage hurts absolutely no one. There is no victim. It is two consenting adults wanting to be a married couple. The only "victim" is this fuzzy, tenuous notion that Society will be harmed. There is no proof of that. There is no proof of homosexuals "indoctrinating" people against their will. There are no victims.


All of these have direct victims -- therefore, it hurts the victims and therefore, me, a member of society.

You can't be serious. I mean, if this is true, how can you even go to work each day with so much pain, knowing that somewhere a victim is being molested, shot, or beaten. That is namby-pamby feel good bullshit. I mean, where does it stop? Maybe the Starving Children in Africa? the ones being oppressed by warlords?

[kid_vidrio]

All of these have direct victims -- therefore, it hurts the victims and therefore, me, a member of society.

You can't be serious. I mean, if this is true, how can you even go to work each day with so much pain, knowing that somewhere a victim is being molested, shot, or beaten. That is namby-pamby feel good bullshit. I mean, where does it stop? Maybe the Starving Children in Africa? the ones being oppressed by warlords?
I think you miss the point entirely, and suspect you have never heard of anything like a social contract.
He's not saying he has pain, he's saying those acts ultimately threaten society in a way that homosexual marriage does not nor ever will, except for those people whose minds are fixed shut to the extent that it pains them to see others living free.

[The Batman]

All of these have direct victims -- therefore, it hurts the victims and therefore, me, a member of society.

You can't be serious. I mean, if this is true, how can you even go to work each day with so much pain, knowing that somewhere a victim is being molested, shot, or beaten. That is namby-pamby feel good bullshit. I mean, where does it stop? Maybe the Starving Children in Africa? the ones being oppressed by warlords?


Are you implying that being gay hurts someone else? Besides the guy who is being fucked by another dude, obviously.

[redsox39]

yeah, the catcher is being hurt, lol.

In any case, I find it Ironic that a bunch of straight dudes (I am assuming since no one came out of the closet here) are arguing this point.

Elton John, everyone's favorite queer, seems to take Yelrams and kinda of my side:

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word "marriage," I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/11/16/wtf-elton-john-very-happy-with-civil-union-and-used-by-yes-on-8/

And he would have voted to ban gay marriage too!

Just saying...

[The Batman]

yeah, the catcher is being hurt, lol.

In any case, I find it Ironic that a bunch of straight dudes (I am assuming since no one came out of the closet here) are arguing this point.

Elton John, everyone's favorite queer, seems to take Yelrams and kinda of my side:

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word "marriage," I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/11/16/wtf-elton-john-very-happy-with-civil-union-and-used-by-yes-on-8/

And he would have voted to ban gay marriage too!

Just saying...

But, how does Elton being gay hurt you? I see how insider trading hurts someone, but I don't see how being Gay and married hurts anyone. Not a single soul.

[Yelram]

But, how does Elton being gay hurt you? I see how insider trading hurts someone, but I don't see how being Gay and married hurts anyone. Not a single soul.

Its not about hurting anyone, its about money. Its not about their "love" for each other, or how stable their relationship is, ITS MONEY, THEY WANT MONEY. Its not a question if homosexuality hurts anyone, its SHOULD THE STATE GIVE THEM MONEY FOR BEING A COUPLE. And the answer is NO.

[The Batman]

Its not about hurting anyone, its about money. Its not about their "love" for each other, or how stable their relationship is, ITS MONEY, THEY WANT MONEY. Its not a question if homosexuality hurts anyone, its SHOULD THE STATE GIVE THEM MONEY FOR BEING A COUPLE. And the answer is NO.

Yeah, i wasn't talking to you. We were talking about how someone being gay directly effects another person, so your answer is moot. And they want to be treated equally when it comes to finances, which isn't much to ask for.

[IdiotBrain]

I had a gay friend once.

They should be allowed to marry if they want. Why the fuck does it matter to you?

[redsox39]

There are lots of things that don't hurt me. GayMarriage doesn't hurt me. It doesn;t hurt anyone. And what is your point? If a Man marries a Turtle, does it hurt you?

In either case, I could give 2 shits about it. If I went on feelings, I would be against it. Politically, I don't think the government should be involved, so I am for it.

But Elton John, who, since he is gay, says that Civil Unions, which give all the rights and privledges of a HeteroSexual Marriage are fine, why should we argue about it?

I mean, when you really break it down, what are they fighting for?

Equal rights? Got 'em
Tax Breaks for dedicated couples? Got 'em


Really, they just want to attack hetero sexual marriage, I can not see it any other way. What is the point?

Hell, If Elton John can see this, why can't the Batman?

[redsox39]

I had a gay friend once.

They should be allowed to marry if they want. Why the fuck does it matter to you?


Yeah, your boyfriend...

[The Batman]

There are lots of things that don't hurt me. GayMarriage doesn't hurt me. It doesn;t hurt anyone. And what is your point? If a Man marries a Turtle, does it hurt you?

In either case, I could give 2 shits about it. If I went on feelings, I would be against it. Politically, I don't think the government should be involved, so I am for it.

But Elton John, who, since he is gay, says that Civil Unions, which give all the rights and privledges of a HeteroSexual Marriage are fine, why should we argue about it?

I mean, when you really break it down, what are they fighting for?

Equal rights? Got 'em
Tax Breaks for dedicated couples? Got 'em


Really, they just want to attack hetero sexual marriage, I can not see it any other way. What is the point?

Hell, If Elton John can see this, why can't the Batman?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make. Someone had mentioned that Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone and you were like, yeah it does, and all i wanted to know was the how. I am totally for civil unions and think marriage is just a word.

[IdiotBrain]

Yeah, your boyfriend...

Fail.

[redsox39]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make. Someone had mentioned that Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone and you were like, yeah it does, and all i wanted to know was the why. I am totally for civil unions and think marriage is just a word.

No, I said LOTS of things don't hurt you, not that Gay Marriage does.

A guy jacking off to Kiddie porn from 1930 doesn't me, but he will still go to jail for it.

Slippery slope arguement, right? He might get into kids and start molesting children in his neighborhood, or kidnapping them and taking pictures or supporting people who commit those crimes...

Blah blah blah...

Slipperly slope is either ok to talk about, or we throw it out.

In any case, I can think of hundreds of things that don't hurt me, like gay marriage. I am asking, what does it matter?

And maybe, with some people, it hurts their feelings, or their sense of normallcy or it hurts them inside to know their kids will be around homo's? Who knows? It doesn't hurt me, but that is a retarded point to make.

[redsox39]

Fail.


Your entire life is a failure. Go to the Off topic thread or add something worth talking about.

[Morfin]

Did the Mormons go too far?

Hell, yes. They shoulda stopped in Missouri.


Ahahahahahahaha!

Sorry. Carry on.

[Archangel]

Ban.

[redsox39]

Did the Mormons go too far?

Hell, yes. They shoulda stopped in Missouri.


Ahahahahahahaha!

Sorry. Carry on.


They Damn near stopped in Omaha...They had a bad winter...

[fuldstændigamok]

It's an issue that I can't even start to understand. Who on earth does it bother? Except the classic racists/Assholes.
Let the guys and gals be, don't mind their bizness. Isn't it America philosophy?

Edit: and YEAH, my vote is fucked up. I clicked the wrong answer...

[Archangel]

Please. Straight people in France had to lobby for centuries before they were allowed to marry.

[Morfin]

Ban.

[Yelram]

It's an issue that I can't even start to understand. Who on earth does it bother? Except the classic racists/Assholes.
Let the guys and gals be, don't mind their bizness. Isn't it America philosophy?

Edit: and YEAH, my vote is fucked up. I clicked the wrong answer...

The question shouldnt be, who does being gay hurt, but rather, how are these people hurt by a church espousing (pun intended) its doctrine? If people dont want gay marriage WHO IS IT HURTING. The gay people have the same rights under civil unions that married couples do, they just want to pretend that their activities are normal, and accepted, and by and large, they will never be. No matter how many marches, and signs they make up. How many churches they bully, the people wont acknowledge the union as the SAME AS HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. There is a right of churches, and those adhering to the churches teachings, to not be persecuted BASED ON THEIR BELIEFS. So there is more of a constitutional case for polygamy vs homosexual union.

[Archangel]

Yelram, here's a news flash for you.


The entire civilised world thinks that being gay is normal. It's looking like fucking Sasquatch that isn't.

[redsox39]

Yelram, here's a news flash for you.


The entire civilised world thinks that being gay is normal. It's looking like fucking Sasquatch that isn't.


Yeah, I bet there aren't any people in Europe who hate "Teh Gay". The Last Hate Crime in Europe was before the Wall Came down, right Arch?

A lot of people don't have a specific problem with gay, accept gays for what they are, but don't really want to be confronted with it day in and day out. But to say gay is normal, that is retarded. Gay "isn't normal", just like have 9 fingers isn't normal, or myself having a 13 inch cock isn't normal.

Its Different. Shhhh... don't tell.

My Gay friends will tell you its different, my straight friends will tell you its different, and Elton Fricking John will tell you its different.

So no, it isn't normal. Normally guys do not hump other guys' assholes. If that is what Qualifies for normal in Arch's half yellow world, you have alot of explaining to do.

I am not frowning upon it, but jesus christ, call a spade a spade and quit with the namby pamby PC bullshit.

[HAWK]

This is a complicated subject. While on one side I don't give a shit what people do as long as they're both consenting adults--on the other side we were all brought up hearing jokes and an all around opinion that gays are "light in the trousers," "weaklings," "child molesters," etc, etc. While I personally do not think these things as an adult--I do believe that this is the stereotype and it will be a LONG time before we as a society truly change. It's no different than race. We still have racists 144 years after slavery was made illegal and 40+ years after the civil rights movement. I know twentysomething year olds that have never been harmed by black people, never been affected by affirmative action, haven't even really had to talk to a lot of black people...yet they're full-blown racists. Gays are the same situation. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, it will be years before we see progress.

[Archangel]

Having red hair isn't "normal", when you look at the word in its strictest sense. Being a vegetarian isn't "normal". Being French definitely isn't "normal". In a global context, being a married white Christian American heterosexual male is probably one of the least "normal" things around.

And yet, I think that they all should be treated the same.


Well, maybe except the French.

[fuldstændigamok]

Please. Straight people in France had to lobby for centuries before they were allowed to marry.

Yeah, but man, seriously, you have no idea. It's so fucking hard to choose between all our mistresses.

[redsox39]

Because it's not the same!


edit: To Paxie.

If "unions" and "marriages" granted the exact same rights but were still defined as separate, it would be a needless slap in the face to those who were in unions, not to mention a needless "separate but equal" construct that creates a second class citizenry.

I think gays should be able to get married, I dont know if we should have to call it a "marriage" but they should be able to get the all the same benefits except for kids. I dont think they should raise kids. I think hetero couples should get priority.

I dont buy the seperate but equal arguement. There's a difference between the color of a dude's skin and whether or not he likes to suck cock. Back in the 60s (or whenever the fuck blacks were getting hit by fire hoses) the only thing they were asking for was equal access to the same shit. Gays are asking for a different institution all together. It's like going to a football game and trying to get better seats vs. going to a football game and trying to get them to play soccer.

This thread is for teh gays.


Genie - Elton John thinks it is the same thing...why can't you?

I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word "marriage," I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.

[Archangel]

Show of hands for merging this with the Mormons/Prop 8 thread.

[redsox39]

Yeah, but man, seriously, you have no idea. It's so fucking hard to choose between all our mistresses.

I know! You have to pick which one is willing to commit suicide in your bunker with you...

[Archangel]

He was talking about France...

[redsox39]

And I was talking about Europe in General, since at that Time, Wasn't France pretty much Germany anyways, or just "liberated" again?

Bend over France, Germany is pissed off again!

[Yelram]

Having red hair isn't "normal", when you look at the word in its strictest sense. Being a vegetarian isn't "normal". Being French definitely isn't "normal". In a global context, being a married white Christian American heterosexual male is probably one of the least "normal" things around.

And yet, I think that they all should be treated the same.


Well, maybe except the French.

This isnt about being treated the same. Do the red haired people protest to have the right to be called blonde or brunette? Does the vegetarian want to be called a meat eater? Or demand that steakhouses carry vegetarian courses? Do the French protest... wait, yeah they probably do. Thats not being treated the same, that is forcing your societal point of view on an unwilling public. You see, the thing about society is that it is a direct result of the PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN THE SOCIETY. So the populations POV is kind of important. We dont have laws preventing homosexuals from being homosexual. We have laws preventing discrimination everywhere from the workplace to the military. I dont cut my hair. Its a religious thing. You can make fun of my choice, I really dont give a fuck. I cant get a job alot of places for my choice. How is that fair? My hair grows on my head, it always has, I have to actively prevent it from growing, and yet, my decision to NOT cut it leads to unequal treatment that is far worse than what gays deal with. I cant even join the military without cutting my hair. A homo can go into a job interview, and unless he makes it blatantly obvious, theres really no way to discriminate that. You better get used to not cutting your hair, because once the muslims take over, they will kill you for cutting your hair, and shaving your face.

[redsox39]

Having red hair isn't "normal", when you look at the word in its strictest sense. Being a vegetarian isn't "normal". Being French definitely isn't "normal". In a global context, being a married white Christian American heterosexual male is probably one of the least "normal" things around.

And yet, I think that they all should be treated the same.


Well, maybe except the French.

Especially French Queers...Like Fuld...

[HAWK]

Show of hands for merging this with the Mormons/Prop 8 thread.

[Archangel]

Redsox, stop fucking up our jokes damnit.

[Morfin]

I don't think it's fair that homosexuals only get one thread. If this were about heteros, you would have left it at two threads.

[redsox39]

Redsox, stop fucking up our jokes damnit.


This is GMF, there is no place for joking here. Just thoughtful debate.
Take your jokes and run to South America while you still can!

[Stax]

Yes, but blacks only contributed 10% of the vote. Even if 100% of blacks supported it, thats only 10%. White republicans, and white christians overwhelmingly supported it. They are who won it.

The statement was not about CROSSTABS of race AND other factors, it was purely about race (that black and Latino voters are the ones who passed Prop 8).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wocG2evroyQ/SRSsBn9uM1I/AAAAAAAAGGc/acjcuHKEv9w/s400/cnnpropo8.jpg

No matter how small their % of the voting populace was the measure passed and the only races that supported it (50% + 1) were blacks and Latinos. Obviously if less white people supported it so the margin amongst whites was more clearly no it wouldn't have passed, but ultimately they still split 50-50.

This 'blame the black people' BS is just that, BS. Yea, its wrong that 7 out of 10 blacks voted for it, but thats not 100%, and the people pointing to blacks saying 'blame them' are the relgious and conservatives whites, the two groups who overwhelmingly voted for it, and who constituted 80% of the supporting vote for it.

It's not blame the black people, it's basic poll reading. If a measure passes and only 2 race supported it more than they opposed it then those races most clearly provided the margin of victory for the measure (a race that broke 50-50 definitionally cannot have provided a 6 point margin of success for the measure, they didn't break that way).

[redsox39]

Exactly. Here is my point.

If NO black people voted...what would the outcome be?

[Abnormal]

So why shouldn't some pro gay churches be able to marry their members and have it recognized? The state recognizes the Church of Scientology, so we are already stretching the lines of what a real church is pretty thin anyway.

Gays have the right to form churches and as such have every right to be concerned about what churches are allowed and not allowed to do. So if I form a gay church and decide to marry and prop 8 doesn't allow that, am I then entitled to pursue legal relief on the grounds of religious persecution? The mormons would like to think that in regards to polygamy I suppose.

Civil unions still don't grant all of the same rights as marriages do. From what I understand civil unions are still a state by state thing as well. I believe that a straight marriage is honored in all states. If there is federal legislation that relates to civil unions between members of the same sex, then that's news to me.

The only federal legislation I can think of in regards to gays is "the defense of marriage act" and "don't ask don't tell". Possibly the supreme court decision striking down sodomy laws would be amongst those as well but that pretty much applies to everybody.

In Europe civil unions or whatever they are technically called are recognized by national governments. So for example in Germany you can apply for immigration for your partner anywhere in Germany. Your union isn't valid only in Bavaria but void in Hesse. If the union was only valid in one state of Germany good look getting a partnership visa.

Some people will probably say "Well in Europe countries are like states in the USA." In geographical terms they would be right however the rights of civil unions are still granted at a national level over there. One of our European members can correct me if I am wrong about this.

I see gay couples of which one of the partners is an immigrant living together happily in Europe. How many gay couples do you know like that in the USA? If you do know of one, chances are that the partner in question was lucky enough to get a visa on other grounds.

If I can use a union for the purposes of bringing my partner to live with me in my home country I would be quite a bit happier. For those saying that the current civil unions available to gays provide all of the same benefits and protections as the marriages of straight people, you are way off.

The "separate but equal" argument comes up from time to time but unions and marriages are by no means equal. It's still Apples and oranges in that aspect. I look forward to unions being strengthened to the point that this is the next valid argument.

Gay people need to actually go to the federal level so they can skip arguing state by state. One federal law and all prop 8 type bullshit doesn't matter anymore. Gays have been fighting on the state level because the outlook under the Bush administration was bleak to say the least. If the gay movement can have their day in in the supreme court and get prop 8 struck down as unconstitutional then prop 8 could come back to bite the religious right in the ass.

If gays are lucky all the conservative supreme court justices will keel over and die while Obama is in office. He sort of tip toed around the issue but he wouldn't appoint worse justices just to keep gays from marrying.

As far as the Mormons go they have the legal right to organize for whatever they want to. They are only morally wrong in their efforts. Thankfully for them morality is not the governments duty to enforce, right?

I would agree to never visit Utah if they would agree to never leave Utah. Odd how polygamists can say anything about what constitutes a legitimate marriage.

I could not be bothered to sift through this thread since it changed from the "gays are icky" to the "Mormons are wacky" thread. I doubt any of my points would change anyway.

[Tar Heel]

That's alot of words just to defend some faggots.

[Abnormal]

Well I am one of the faggots those words are defending so... go figure.

[Tar Heel]

Ha! Silly faggot.

[Rover]

The Mormon church has officially rejected polygamy.

[Abnormal]

I am shocked and offended. :) Don't you have something better to do like watch NASCAR or go to a Hank Williams Jr. concert?

That was directed at Tar. Sorry. I will use that quote option in the future

[Abnormal]

The Mormon church has officially rejected polygamy.


Oh ok that's great news? When did that happen?

1998 Wow they are way ahead of their time.

[Abnormal]

Perhaps a church that is less than a decade removed from contraversial marriage practices should just STFU on the matter?

[Tar Heel]

I am shocked and offended. :) Don't you have something better to do like watch NASCAR or go to a Hank Williams Jr. concert?

That was directed at Tar. Sorry. I will use that quote option in the future

Nice comeback from someone that doesn't like to be stereotyped.

And as much as I dislike country... I'd rather listen to Hank at a NASCAR race in NC than taste cock at a Boy George concert in key west.

[Abnormal]

Nice comeback from someone that doesn't like to be stereotyped.

I personally don't give a shit about stereotypes. Most stereotypes actually start out of observations that are all too often true. Look at a Sarah Palin rally. Nuff said.

[Tar Heel]

You sound like a catcher.

Very true about palin supporters though. Mindless angry sheep.

[Rover]

Oh ok that's great news? When did that happen?

1998 Wow they are way ahead of their time.Great another person who talks out of their ass and has no interest in facts.

Try 1890. And they reaffirmed it 15 years later. The Mormon rejection of polygamy was essential to the statehood of Utah.

[Abnormal]

And as much as I dislike country... I'd rather listen to Hank at a NASCAR race in NC than taste cock at a Boy George concert in key west.

The food at any party thrown be a gay man will be better than eating stale Cheetohs in your trailer. Gay people knowing how to throw great parties is one of the stereotypes. :)

[Abnormal]

Great another person who talks out of their ass and has no interest in facts.

Try 1890. And they reaffirmed it 15 years later. The Mormon rejection of polygamy was essential to the statehood of Utah.


Right and homosexuality stopped in the military when they stopped talking about it.

[Tar Heel]

The food at any party thrown be a gay man will be better than eating stale Cheetohs in your trailer. Gay people knowing how to throw great parties is one of the stereotypes. :)

Definately a catcher...

[Abnormal]

Definately a catcher...


Please, don't get your hopes up.

[Tar Heel]

power bottom?

[Rover]

Right and homosexuality stopped in the military when they stopped talking about it.What the fuck are you talking about? The LDS church started excommunicating polygamists in the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century. There isn't much more they can do about it. Polygamy didn't stop overnight, but eventually it was removed from mainstream LDS church practices.

As a supporter of gay marriage, you should really support the ability of people to marry whoever they want. Anything else is highly hypocritical.

[Abnormal]

I could care less if Mormons marry more than one person. It isn't my concern. I was just pointing out given their history they should maybe stay out of the argument.

[rc113943]

haha your a fag

[Abnormal]

power bottom?


Is that the noise of FAP FAP FAP?

[redsox39]

Well I am one of the faggots those words are defending so... go figure.


Hence...your name

[Abnormal]

Hence...your name

Yes. Wow you people are really observant. I am a fag and chose this name accordingly.

[rc113943]

http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats7320_gay_thread.jpg

[redsox39]

The food at any party thrown be a gay man will be better than eating stale Cheetohs in your trailer. Gay people knowing how to throw great parties is one of the stereotypes. :)

they also give some of the best reach arounds ever!

[redsox39]

Yes. Wow you people are really observant. I am a fag and chose this name accordingly.

How did this guy get past the Intro Hazing again?

[Abnormal]

they also give some of the best reach arounds ever!

Yeah that's true rednecks are some of the best gay sex you will find. The only probably is getting the orange slime from the Cheetohs off of your cock afterwards.

[Abnormal]

I think I got by the intro hazing by making an introduction so lame it went under the radar.

[redsox39]

If homosexuality is a choice then so is heterosexuality. Why does it matter?


Uh, no, that makes about as much sense as the one Cup bra.

Biologically, people are heterosexual. That is how we reproduce, look it up.

Being straight isn't a choice, and I am not sure gay is either, but to say Heterosexuality is a choice pretty much makes you a fucking retard. Which you are.

[Abnormal]

Well that can not be proven one way or another. As far as giving or taking away human rights what does it matter? That was the point I was making when I wrote that.

Exactly! if I say you weren't born who you are than I am a retard. So by that reasoning if you say I am not who I am aren't you a retard too?

[redsox39]

Tarheel! I never knew you were a conservitive redneck! Pass the Cheetos.

[Abnormal]

Tarheel! I never knew you were a conservitive redneck! Pass the Cheetos.


FWIW I actually like Cheetohs.

[Phil Theehor]

I could not be bothered to sift through this thread since it changed from the "gays are icky" to the "Mormons are wacky" thread. I doubt any of my points would change anyway.

Nice, Abby, nice.

Let me translate this for everyone:

"I will now share my thoughts on the matter. However, I have no interest in yours."

What is the point of visiting a forum if you are only care about your opinion? Why even interact?

[redsox39]

Well that can not be proven one way or another. As far as giving or taking away human rights what does it matter? That was the point I was making when I wrote that.


Yeah, I can prove it. When I fuck my wife, we have babies. When you fuck Smuckers you get a smelly wetspot.

One of these is biologically driven, one of them leaves poop stains on the bedspread.

What right are being taken away from you? what makes you more special than anyone else? Why should we set laws specifically for your lifestyles?
Not all gays have your opinion on this, so I don't feel like I am being anti-gay on the matter by agreeing with the only 2 gay people I know AND Elton John.

The whole thing is about spite, not about rights. Period.

[redsox39]

Nice, Abby, nice.

Let me translate this for everyone:

"I will now share my thoughts on the matter. However, I have no interest in yours."

What is the point of visiting a forum if you are only care about your opinion? Why even interact?


lol, and this is from Phil, who was Championing your cause! lol

See? just like in California, you turn off your supporters everywhere you go.

[rc113943]

Yeah, I can prove it. When I fuck my wife, we have babies. When you fuck Smuckers you get a smelly wetspot.

One of these is biologically driven, one of them leaves poop stains on the bedspread.

What right are being taken away from you? what makes you more special than anyone else? Why should we set laws specifically for your lifestyles?
Not all gays have your opinion on this, so I don't feel like I am being anti-gay on the matter by agreeing with the only 2 gay people I know AND Elton John.

The whole thing is about spite, not about rights. Period.

that a bit graphic, but effective

[Abnormal]

Nice, Abby, nice.

Let me translate this for everyone:

"I will now share my thoughts on the matter. However, I have no interest in yours."

What is the point of visiting a forum if you are only care about your opinion? Why even interact?

Well I am open to sharing points of views. The thread became somewhat of a mess after it merged. I wasn't trying to say that I will not listen to opposing views so much as I was implying I am not willing to reread page upon page of posts. If you felt I meant otherwise than my apology.

So far the views I have gotten are that I am a Fag. I have listened to those. I was wrong about some of what I said about the mormons was another post. Okay, perhaps I was fair enough.

There has been little other interaction to actually respond to or discuss so far.

[redsox39]

...and for the record, I would have voted for against Prop 8. I don't think government has a place in people's love lives or bedrooms. However, all this sactimounious bullshit about equal rights and comparing your "stuggles" to that of the black man is so disgusting, it probably set back the inevitable at least 10 more years.

[Phil Theehor]

lol, and this is from Phil, who was Championing your cause! lol

See? just like in California, you turn off your supporters everywhere you go.

Not turned off by Abby, champ. Just believe in the free flow of ideas. Think that both sides of any issue should listen to the other. That the opposition is close minded is no excuse to be so yourself.

[redsox39]

Not turned off by Abby, champ. Just believe in the free flow of ideas. Think that both sides of any issue should listen to the other. That the opposition is close minded is no excuse to be so yourself.

Oh, I know. If that was the case, I would have acted like a close minded Militant gay a long time ago. People don't change their minds based on what another person says anyways.

[Abnormal]

Yeah, I can prove it. When I fuck my wife, we have babies. When you fuck Smuckers you get a smelly wetspot.

One of these is biologically driven, one of them leaves poop stains on the bedspread.

What right are being taken away from you? what makes you more special than anyone else? Why should we set laws specifically for your lifestyles?
Not all gays have your opinion on this, so I don't feel like I am being anti-gay on the matter by agreeing with the only 2 gay people I know AND Elton John.

The whole thing is about spite, not about rights. Period.

If you believe that gay people don't deserve rights at all then there isn't much to discuss. If being gay is a lifestyle you getting married is only a lifestyle. Why should I have to support your right to marry by that standard?

Spite? I am specifically saying that I want the right to be able to get my partner a visa to immigrate to my country and live with me based upon our relationship. What's special about that? Straights that marry can do this.

[Tar Heel]

FWIW I actually like Cheetohs.

Phew... that actually pissed me off more than the nascar redneck comment. I was like, damn what kind of un-fun filthy faggot doesn't like cheetos?

[Jericho]

Stop adding an H to Cheetos

[Tar Heel]

Yeah, I can prove it. When I fuck my wife, we have babies. When you fuck Smuckers you get a smelly wetspot.

One of these is biologically driven, one of them leaves poop stains on the bedspread.

What right are being taken away from you? what makes you more special than anyone else? Why should we set laws specifically for your lifestyles?
Not all gays have your opinion on this, so I don't feel like I am being anti-gay on the matter by agreeing with the only 2 gay people I know AND Elton John.

The whole thing is about spite, not about rights. Period.

I like fucking butts. Female butts, but I love fucking them none the less.

[Abnormal]

Stop adding an H to Cheetos

Okay. They don't have them over here and I haven't seen a bag of them in so long I forgot the spelling. I understand your feelings on this.

[Abnormal]

I like fucking butts. Female butts, but I love fucking them none the less.


That's nasty.

[Phil Theehor]

Well I am open to sharing points of views. The thread became somewhat of a mess after it merged. I wasn't trying to say that I will not listen to opposing views so much as I was implying I am not willing to reread page upon page of posts. If you felt I meant otherwise than my apology.

So far the views I have gotten are that I am a Fag. I have listened to those. I was wrong about some of what I said about the mormons was another post. Okay, perhaps I was fair enough.

There has been little other interaction to actually respond to or discuss so far.

You haven't been on the thread for a couple of days. There was some spirited interaction.

[Tar Heel]

That's nasty.

Irony.

[Abnormal]

You haven't been on the thread for a couple of days. There was some spirited interaction.

Ugh, So that means I may have to go back and read it all. I agree with Morf that we could have kept the threads separate.

[Abnormal]

Irony.

Indeed. You do realize there are many fags out there that don't engage in anal sex, right?

[Tar Heel]

Ugh, So that means I may have to go back and read it all. I agree with Morf that we could have kept the threads separate.

It's ok. I'm sure the mormons don't like being lumped into a thread with you faggots either.

[Phil Theehor]

Ugh, So that means I may have to go back and read it all. I agree with Morf that we could have kept the threads separate.

That's why I started a separate thread about Mormon interference in the lives of non-Mormons. I thought they were separate (albeit related) issues. However, it devolved into the same argument on a different thread. That's why they were merged. That, and perhaps a bored moderator.

[redsox39]

...and for the record, I would have voted for against Prop 8. I don't think government has a place in people's love lives or bedrooms. However, all this sactimounious bullshit about equal rights and comparing your "stuggles" to that of the black man is so disgusting, it probably set back the inevitable at least 10 more years.

If you believe that gay people don't deserve rights at all then there isn't much to discuss. If being gay is a lifestyle you getting married is only a lifestyle. Why should I have to support your right to marry by that standard?

Spite? I am specifically saying that I want the right to be able to get my partner a visa to immigrate to my country and live with me based upon our relationship. What's special about that? Straights that marry can do this.

Yeah, Gay people don't derserve rights, exactly what I said. Thanks for reading the thread.

You actually might turn me into a Prop 8 supporter yet.

[Abnormal]

It's ok. I'm sure the mormons don't like being lumped into a thread with you faggots either.


Wow I can truly look at it from their point of view and agree. I am a much better person now to due to your post.

[Jericho]

What about homormons. They're the fucking worst

[redsox39]

Indeed. You do realize there are many fags out there that don't engage in anal sex, right?


Yeah I like to fuck mouths too...Female mouths.

[redsox39]

Wow I can truly look at it from their point of view and agree. I am a much better person now to due to your post.

the best part is, neither the Mormons NOR "Teh Gays" can see they are both closed minded, bigoted fucks on this!

I love it!

[Tar Heel]

Wow I can truly look at it from their point of view and agree. I am a much better person now to due to your post.

Sweet. Glad I could help. I can go home and tell my wife that I turned a gay man straight today over the internetz, then fuck her pink little asshole.

[Tar Heel]

Indeed. You do realize there are many fags out there that don't engage in anal sex, right?

pfft... why the fuck not?

Oh yeah... hairy nasty man butts are disgusting. Tight bald pink female butts that look like they've never pooped are awesome to pound.

[Abnormal]

the best part is, neither the Mormons NOR "Teh Gays" can see they are both closed minded, bigoted fucks on this!

I love it!

Gays are actually some of the more hateful people around. You go anywhere near a few gays and talk about religion and the response is bad. I know this and don't think that is right. Many of the supposed "free" thinkers on the left are very much guilty of this as well. I agree with you on this one.

I think that you feel I am coming off as too militant when that is not what I was out to do. It is the net and I am new to this site so it is maybe hard to figure out my tone. I am not angry when I post any of this or anything.

I don't even live in the USA so most of it doesn't impact me. If I did live in the USA it wouldn't be somewhere as faggy as California anyway. People in Cali are too weird even for me.

I chose this forum to post on this because too many other forums will kick you out if you say anything that isn't politically correct. I figured people around here have thick skins.

To me it seems that you have quite strong feelings yourself but other than joking about NASCAR I don't say you are a foaming at the mouth neo con.

Tar called me a fag so I just gave him some of his own back. I don't even really think he is a red neck.

The thing is I don't think gays are supporting any prop in any state that imposes upon the liberty of Mormons to live their lives as they choose. I don't think what the USA really needs are more laws telling people what to do anyway. Where does it stop?

[The Batman]

http://googlegirls.files.wordpress.com/2006/02/mormon.jpg

[Abnormal]

pfft... why the fuck not?

Oh yeah... hairy nasty man butts are disgusting. Tight bald pink female butts that look like they've never pooped are awesome to pound.


Hairy girl ass is nasty too. I have seen some porn with girls that have a bush there and it isn't nice. We both prefer smooth asses. So we are making progress here.

[The Batman]

Gays are actually some of the more hateful people around. You go anywhere near a few gays and talk about religion and the response is bad. I know this and don't think that is right. Many of the supposed "free" thinkers on the left are very much guilty of this as well. I agree with you on this one.

How could you expect gay's not to have disdain for religion when religious people call them abominations, want them dead, and only talk negatively about them?

[The Batman]

What about homormons. They're the fucking worst

They are.
http://thehostess.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/400x600_mg2006_kissing_mormons.jpg

[Abnormal]

How could you expect gay's not to have disdain for religion when religious people call them abominations, want them dead, and only talk negatively about them?


They should have disdain for people that hold those views. However not everybody that is religious hold such views or make those type of statements.

[Abnormal]

They are.
http://thehostess.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/400x600_mg2006_kissing_mormons.jpg

That is pretty creepy. LOL Although the Mormons boys that came around to my house more often than not were hot twinks.

[Tar Heel]

Hairy girl ass is nasty too. I have seen some porn with girls that have a bush there and it isn't nice. We both prefer smooth asses. So we are making progress here.

I have never buttfucked nor have I seen a girl with a hairy ass/asshole.

[The Batman]

They should have disdain for people that hold those views. However not everybody that is religious hold such views or make those type of statements.

No, of course not, because nothing is absolute, but i am pretty sure more than half of religious people hold that kind of sentiment.

[Abnormal]

I have never buttfucked nor have I seen a girl with a hairy ass.


Look closer at some of the vids out there. Around the hole many of them have stubble from shaving. I think this point of contention is worthy of it's own thread though.

It seems more common on Japanese girls is what I have noticed.

[redsox39]

Gays are actually some of the more hateful people around. You go anywhere near a few gays and talk about religion and the response is bad. I know this and don't think that is right. Many of the supposed "free" thinkers on the left are very much guilty of this as well. I agree with you on this one.

I think that you feel I am coming off as too militant when that is not what I was out to do. It is the net and I am new to this site so it is maybe hard to figure out my tone. I am not angry when I post any of this or anything.

I don't even live in the USA so most of it doesn't impact me. If I did live in the USA it wouldn't be somewhere as faggy as California anyway. People in Cali are too weird even for me.

I chose this forum to post on this because too many other forums will kick you out if you say anything that isn't politically correct. I figured people around here have thick skins.

To me it seems that you have quite strong feelings yourself but other than joking about NASCAR I don't say you are a foaming at the mouth neo con.

Tar called me a fag so I just gave him some of his own back. I don't even really think he is a red neck.

The thing is I don't think gays are supporting any prop in any state that imposes upon the liberty of Mormons to live their lives as they choose. I don't think what the USA really needs are more laws telling people what to do anyway. Where does it stop?


Much better post...you will always get flamed for being a flamer, just the way it goes.

The only thing I really got spirited about was the "Heterosexuality" is a choice. I mean, did you read that in the "Why am I Gay?" book? That is just silly, and if you thought about it for more than a few minutes, you would know it too.

In any case, you are technically a new guy who loves cock...you are going to get flamed. Ask Smuckers.

[Tar Heel]

Look closer at some of the vids out there. Around the hole many of them have stubble from shaving. I think this point of contention is worthy of it's own thread though.

It seems more common on Japanese girls is what I have noticed.

what is it with the japs and not shaving their junk? I can't even watch half of the asian porn out there because it looks like they've got JJ from goodtimes in a leglock.

[IdiotBrain]

Don King tween the legs.

I think it has something to do with them looking like children anyway... and removing the poon furr just makes them look even younger.

Not that I mind.

[Abnormal]

No, of course not, because nothing is absolute, but i am pretty sure more than half of religious people hold that kind of sentiment.


I really don't care about those types of people though. I don't have to hate them because I don't surround myself with them. If religious people would keep their religious beliefs out of politics then I would not have the need to ever discuss what they think.

Sometimes I do feel a bit of resentment against such groups obviously but at the end of the day they are entitled to their perverse, warped lifestyle every bit as much as I am. Even if I don't personally agree with it.

[The Batman]

what is it with the japs and not shaving their junk? I can't even watch half of the asian porn out there because it looks like they've got JJ from goodtimes in a leglock.

On top of that they have to pixel shade it. Its like, WTF you trying to do?

The problem with hair on a pussy in porn is that its either a ton or nothing at all. No where in the middle, where its nice and cozy.

[Tar Heel]

I really don't care about those types of people though. I don't have to hate them because I don't surround myself with them. If religious people would keep their religious beliefs out of politics then I would not have the need to ever discuss what they think.

Sometimes I do feel a bit of resentment against such groups obviously but at the end of the day they are entitled to their perverse, warped lifestyle every bit as much as I am. Even if I don't personally agree with it.

Plus, the ultra religious type always have daughters that are huge anal whores.

[The Batman]

Sometimes I do feel a bit of resentment against such groups obviously but at the end of the day they are entitled to their perverse, warped lifestyle every bit as much as I am. Even if I don't personally agree with it.

Unfortunately they don't feel the same way. They feel like your not entitled because they don't agree with it.

[IdiotBrain]

Landing strips FTW.


Never did care for the little hearts and whatnot.

[Abnormal]

Much better post...you will always get flamed for being a flamer, just the way it goes.

The only thing I really got spirited about was the "Heterosexuality" is a choice. I mean, did you read that in the "Why am I Gay?" book? That is just silly, and if you thought about it for more than a few minutes, you would know it too.

In any case, you are technically a new guy who loves cock...you are going to get flamed. Ask Smuckers.


All is fair in war and love. I am not too worried about some shit on the internet.

I still can't say that you are born the way you are anymore than I am though. On that we will never agree. As I said earlier though what does it really matter? It doesn't change how I am now or what the situation is now. I don't need to worry too much about how I got here, it is more important to know where I am and where I am going.

Just as it doesn't matter to most here at GMF how the ugly girl ended up in their bed after a drunken night. The logistics of getting rid of her are more important.

[Abnormal]

On top of that they have to pixel shade it. Its like, WTF you trying to do?

The problem with hair on a pussy in porn is that its either a ton or nothing at all. No where in the middle, where its nice and cozy.


They do not have to pixelate the area around the anus. I have some films and they will show you explicit close ups of asshole being violated by a dildo. They won't show any dick or cunt though. I think this is one reason Japanese use toys so much.

[IdiotBrain]

Take her outside, blindfold her, spin her in circles till she's dizzy and give her a shove.


Works every time.

[The Batman]

They do not have to pixelate the area around the anus. I have some films and they will show you explicit close ups of asshole being violated by a dildo. They won't show any dick or cunt though. I think this is one reason Japanese use toys so much.

Yeah, your right. Its some stupid law that some emperor put in place. No genitalia in movies.

[Phil Theehor]

I like that all sides can find a common ground. Porn. Everyone loves porn.

[Tar Heel]

...except the dead dude from 2 guys 1 horse.

[Abnormal]

I like that all sides can find a common ground. Porn. Everyone loves porn.

Straight porn is always hotter though. Those chicks do shit even no gay dude would do.

[The Batman]

I like that all sides can find a common ground. Porn. Everyone loves porn.

hallelujah. preach the word brotha!

[The Batman]

Straight porn is always hotter though. Those chicks do shit even no gay dude would do.

i am afraid to ask, like what....

[mongo]

fail has posted so fucking much in this thread. lock.

http://forum.gorillamask.net/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=11184

[Abnormal]

i am afraid to ask, like what....

Have you not watched straight porn? If I go to a torrent site and the title says they don't do at the very least A2M and double anal it isn;t worth downloading.

[The Batman]

Have you not watched straight porn? If I go to a torrent site and the title says they don't do at the very least A2M and double anal it isn;t worth downloading.

i know whats in straight porn. So, dudes don't do A2M and double anal? And if not, great. As long as chicks continue to, we should all be fine.

[Abnormal]

Well some dudes do all of that but not the kind I would want to marry.

[redsox39]

Unfortunately they don't feel the same way. They feel like your not entitled because they don't agree with it.


Batman speaks for All Religous people because apparently, he is one!

[Abnormal]

Batman speaks for All Religous people because apparently, he is one!


Is that you and your transsexual friends in your avatar in some sort of college hazing ritual? Chicks with dicks get paddled #33?

[The Batman]

Batman speaks for All Religous people because apparently, he is one!

Come on, Religious people feel like gay's aren't entitled to getting married because they don't agree with it and feel like what they do is an abomination.

[wonderllama]

Religious people who don't agree with gays getting married only think that because they've been TOLD to think that. Religion removes the ability for individuals to make decisions on their own...they simply refer to their Bible, or in this case, what their local preacher is telling them.

Gimps.

[Abnormal]

The past two comments are pretty much spot on.

[Phil Theehor]

The past two comments are pretty much spot on.


Not really. You, sir, are open-assed yet close-minded.

And had you deigned to read the thread you would have seen differently.

Some religious people interpret the bible a certain way (like "God says be mean to fags"). Let me clue you into something. They don't like people who are different (period). Then, they use religion (or other things) to justify said bigotry.

I am somwhat religious. Yet, I don't interpret the bible that way. As I said earlier in the thread, my take is that as Christians, we should be nice to everyone (even homos). If you are really offending God (which I don't believe, as you were made that way), then he'll deal with you.

Even if it is a sin (which again, I don't think it is), that doesn't give Christians an excuse to persecute you. Rather, Christians are instructed to love everyone, even sinners.

I understand the mo community being a little upset with the church-goers, because it seems that a lot of the heat is coming from that direction. What you have to understand is that the heat is not coming from religion, rather it is coming from bigots who hide behind religion.

[HAWK]

Well, technically, the bible does say "hate the sin, love the sinner."

So even if one believes homo's are evil. A Christian has to recognize that they're commanded to love the sinner. And that's where so many miss it.

[Rover]

Well, technically, the bible does say "hate the sin, love the sinner."

So even if one believes homo's are evil. A Christian has to recognize that they're commanded to love the sinner. And that's where so many miss it.Your Bible is broken. I dare you to find that anywhere in the Bible. It's a cute saying that gets thrown around a lot, but while there's a lot of love in the Bible, God doesn't command anyone to love a sinner.

That saying is a complete excuse to do whatever you want and take no personal responsibility.

[freegood]

Your Bible is broken. I dare you to find that anywhere in the Bible. It's a cute saying that gets thrown around a lot, but while there's a lot of love in the Bible, God doesn't command anyone to love a sinner.

That saying is a complete excuse to do whatever you want and take no personal responsibility.

I think the point is to let God do the judging and not do God's job for Him.

Taking matters into your own hands by filling hate into your heart shows a complete lack of faith.

[Rover]

Yes, there is a lot of love in the Bible and a lot about not judging others and letting God do the judging.

But there is not a "love the sinner, hate the sin" message in the Bible. There is compassion for the sinner, but not love. And while you aren't supposed to hate the sinner, not hating something doesn't mean you love it.

[redsox39]

Is that you and your transsexual friends in your avatar in some sort of college hazing ritual? Chicks with dicks get paddled #33?

If any of my friends and I looked like that, you sure as fuck wouldn't see me in here!

[Archangel]

Again with this "Christians hate teh gheyz" shit...


Once and for all:

When the Bible was written, there was no concept of people being born a certain way. You literally were what you did; the whole notion of character, nature and personality is a very recent development, originating in the 17th century.

Paul spoke out against men who put their dicks into other men's arses. Epistemologically speaking, he simply didn't know that there were such things as "homosexuals"; to him, they were simply blokes who liked buggering other blokes, a practice that I myself find rather objectionable.
But now that we know that people are born in a certain manner, and some aspects of their nature are pre-set, things have to be revised. It is impossible for a Christian to hate ANYONE for something that isn't the other person's actual fault. Colour of skin, gender, height, weight, and indeed sexual orientation - which we now know to be congenital, as well.

So everybody who uses my fucking faith to justify hate towards people who by chance were born a certain way is an idiot that doesn't know epistemology, and as such can go suck a dick.

[Tar Heel]

Arch, stop being such a faggot.

[Archangel]

Blow me.

[Archangel]

Wait, that doesn't sound right.

[Claydon]

Wait, that doesn't sound right.


Since you are a citizen of the EU, I think it makes PERFECT sense.

France is just next door.... ;)

[atoms]

Yes, there is a lot of love in the Bible and a lot about not judging others and letting God do the judging.

But there is not a "love the sinner, hate the sin" message in the Bible. There is compassion for the sinner, but not love. And while you aren't supposed to hate the sinner, not hating something doesn't mean you love it.

Translations of the bible mostly come to us from "original" greek. In greek there are 5 primary words for love, and several other words that sometimes get translated as love. To get hung up on the word love is to get yourself confused. What is clear is that Jesus tries to illustrate that we are not in a position to condemn, as in the parable about the adulteress where Jesus says that let you who are without sin cast the first stone (paraphrasing).

One more thought. There really seem to be two institutions of marriage. A religious institution and a civil institution. I'm not sure why religions have such a trouble with a change in the civil institution. To me it is simply a matter of words. Whether it is called a Civil Union or a Marriage, the rights should be the same. And if they are not, then that is taking away from the rights of those who can not join in a civil union/marriage. That being said, I'm not sure why everything is automatically a slippery slope, and there is an assumption that opening up the civil institution will necessarily become a degradation of the religious institution. That is, religions can set there own rules for who get's married within their church. Many do not allow members of a church to marry non-members (I believe this is true of the LDS). Frankly I'd be ok with a law that somehow repeated the existing separation of church and state...that is guaranteed someone's right to marry/civil union, while stating that religions are free to do as they please for marriages within their church.

[Archangel]

5? I always thought 4...

Hmm.

[Yelram]

I agree with this guys argument.



Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage Al Rantel
Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok. First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.
As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.
To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.
Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?
There is an answer.
Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.
While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.
The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.
What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.
And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?

[Archangel]

So he's, like, Aunt Tom?

[Morfin]

I don't agree with his assessment of the issue. He seems to be saying that gays who want to marry, should just accept what they have and those who want to be married and are vocal about it are "forcing" it on the rest of society.

I believe that gays should have the right to marry, just the same as a heterosexual couple. To withhold this is to deny them a right that others have, which is discrimination and an equal protection violation. Arch's comment about "Aunt Tom" is an apt one, in that this author is basically advocating just living your life quietly and accept that your rights are different.

I really disagree with the author's closing comment:

This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?

First, yes, marriage is an old institution. However, the idea of romantic love and marrying whom you want, is a relatively-young institution (and, in many areas of the world still an anachronism). Hell, if you want to argue "its an old, established way of life" so why change the status quo, let's talk about slavery. Slavery is an institution stretching back thousands of years. Societies depended on it, economies depended on it, including, the U.S. South just 150 years ago. Should we have allowed that to continue just because the slaves wanted to achieve a political end of equality?

Second, these so-called "real goals" may be a desire to be considered a normal part of society, but is that bad? Why is this different than the issue of voting rights and the problems that blacks had with "separate but equal" facilities? I strongly answer the author's closing question, "Yes."

[redsox39]

I don't agree with his assessment of the issue. He seems to be saying that gays who want to marry, should just accept what they have and those who want to be married and are vocal about it are "forcing" it on the rest of society.

I believe that gays should have the right to marry, just the same as a heterosexual couple. To withhold this is to deny them a right that others have, which is discrimination and an equal protection violation. Arch's comment about "Aunt Tom" is an apt one, in that this author is basically advocating just living your life quietly and accept that your rights are different.

I really disagree with the author's closing comment:



First, yes, marriage is an old institution. However, the idea of romantic love and marrying whom you want, is a relatively-young institution (and, in many areas of the world still an anachronism). Hell, if you want to argue "its an old, established way of life" so why change the status quo, let's talk about slavery. Slavery is an institution stretching back thousands of years. Societies depended on it, economies depended on it, including, the U.S. South just 150 years ago. Should we have allowed that to continue just because the slaves wanted to achieve a political end of equality?

Second, these so-called "real goals" may be a desire to be considered a normal part of society, but is that bad? Why is this different than the issue of voting rights and the problems that blacks had with "separate but equal" facilities? I strongly answer the author's closing question, "Yes."

Sure romantic Marriage is fairly young, but the Heterosexual couplings in them has never changed.

[atoms]

C.S. Lewis agreed with you.

The five I am talking about are 3 that are definitely love..

Eros - Passionate love....lust

Philia - Dispassionate virtuous love. In modern greek this translates more to friendship

Agape - General affection for someone (or sometimes something). In modern greek this translates to our love. But would also be used for I love my mother, or I love spaghetti

The next two are not always translated as love....but often are.

Storge - A familial love. Similar to Agape, but usually used exclusively for members of your family, and not common in ancient Greece

Thelema - Desire, as in desire to do something. e.g. I love to work

These are the most common greek words that equate to love, but I once was at a lecture where a Jesuit scholar said there is a list of 28 words in the Bible that have been translated as love. It is possible he was exaggerating, but did not seem like the exaggerating type.

5? I always thought 4...

Hmm.

[Archangel]

Ah. Okay. I took the Platonic definitions, Agape, Philia, Stoika and Eros. But those work, too.

[redsox39]

I think you need another thread where you can discuss languages...although it IS kinda homo...

[Archangel]

I think you shouldn't tell one of this section's mods what to do in this section...

[HAWK]

Your Bible is broken. I dare you to find that anywhere in the Bible. It's a cute saying that gets thrown around a lot, but while there's a lot of love in the Bible, God doesn't command anyone to love a sinner.

That saying is a complete excuse to do whatever you want and take no personal responsibility.

My bad. I wasn't trying to imply that that exact phrase is in the bible. You are wrong to say that this "message" is not in the bible. Jesus' whole lecture about those without sin casting the first stone is a prime example.

As far as your statement that I'm making excuses to do and say what I want...you are wrong again. Anyone who believes the bible and does not love the sinner is a hypocrite. The bible commands we love our neighbor, etc. There is no stipulation that we don't have to love our neighbor if he/she is a sinner. So your bit about compassion or whatever is again false.

And one more thing...

St. Augustine in his letter 211 (c. 424) contains the phrase Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, which translates roughly as "With love for mankind and hatred of sins."

Even Ghandi said in his 1929 bio: "Love the sinner but hate the sin."

Having said that...I treat everyone like assholes...straight or gay. So fuck it.

[Madrum]

335 AD - Supposed Christians violently hold sway in the Roman empire. Emperor Constatine to save his ass legalizes christianity, declares Jesus as divine (3.5 centuries after he's dead), a bunch of elitists hold a conclave to decide what goes into the new holy book and what doesn't. Women are subjugated, other religions are slowly squeezed out or exerminated. Hence the beginning's of todays Christianity, woohoo. Don't even get me started on that Islam crap either. (Oh for the record, I'm agnostic).

So unless your a religious extremist (and I call a religious extremist anyone who believes their way of belief is absolute and passively or violently tries to force that view on others), why the fuck would anyone care if a homosexual person wants to get a piece of paper to legalize their relationship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a war being fought at the moment against people who forcible want to wipe out or subjugate anyone that doesn't believe in 'their' belief system. Wouldn't it be fair to say that a small percentage of the people fighting that war to preserve your way of life are homosexual as well? Crap, homosexuality has been around since Adam bent over to pick up some reeds in the river.

If they want to do that, it effects my quality of life to the percentage of 0.0%

A church does not have to recognize homosexuality and can bar those types of marriages in their church, fair enough too. To force a church to recognise something they don't believe is as bad as a church trying to force the State to follow their ways.

I wish that people put as much effort into the care of their fellow man as they did into this bullshit. Perhaps then the world would not be in such a shithole condition as it is today. Oh well, perhaps we can get another anti-abortionist (right to life) to blow up another abortion clinic, that should just add the icing to the cake.