# same sex marriage



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

sorry if this has been asked already, but it seems its the big question lately.

everyone I know that disagrees with same sex marriage gives reasons such as the church dosent like it, or just because its a sin. I really think religion should not determin the laws, but at the same time I think maybe it would be a bad idea and a seprate union outside of marriage should be in place instead. but I really don't know how I feel on this issue, I voted not sure.


----------



## LaZy (Jun 17, 2003)

i Voted Not sure


----------



## STIFFY (Jul 9, 2003)

I voted no, but I think its all good as long as they are hot ******.


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

i think they should be able to the laws should be equal to everyone marriage isnt just religious its a state document and if were talking law 2 people should be able to go into a domestic partnership(marriage) together if they so choose to and not be discriminated against IMO


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

kawi ryder said:


> I voted no, but I think its all good as long as they are hot ******.












Well I guess the answer to most regards the fact if they've experienced or have delt with those kinds of people. Depending where you live, its common to see gay people and be used to their presence compared to other places where seeing them is disgusting and intollerable. Here in SF its a common thing where you see alot of guy folks (heck, we have gay parades and have an area just for them). So being accustomed to their presence alot, it doesnt really bother me. So I vote "yes" cause they're still people with the same feelings as normal folks.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

RhomZilla said:


> kawi ryder said:
> 
> 
> > I voted no, but I think its all good as long as they are hot ******.
> ...


 couldn't have said it any better..i'm so use to it..as long as they don't try to put there gay ways out there*cough*gay parades*cough* when did you ever see a straight parade?







celebrating straightness


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

I voted no.

How do I make this simple? Basically, marriage is a unity of 2 people [man and woman]. This unity takes place at a location with a priest [or other religious figure, depending on your religion]. No where in any religion does it state that man marry's a man. It does however mention numerous amount of times of men marrying women. All in all, marriage is a religious act and no religion supports gay marriages. Therefore, how are they to be married?!


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

i say let them be if they want to get married

who cares what the norm is


----------



## rday (Mar 10, 2003)

> Basically, marriage is a unity of 2 people [man and woman]. This unity takes place at a location with a priest [or other religious figure, depending on your religion]. No where in any religion does it state that man marry's a man. It does however mention numerous amount of times of men marrying women. All in all, marriage is a religious act and no religion supports gay marriages. Therefore, how are they to be married?!


unfortunately, this isnt true anymore. you can run down to the justice of the peace and get married in about an hour, without any sort of religious affiliation. do you really think the government is going to let something as profitable as marriage slip through its grasps? separation of church and state my ass!


----------



## JesseD (Mar 26, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> I voted no.
> 
> How do I make this simple? Basically, marriage is a unity of 2 people [man and woman]. This unity takes place at a location with a priest [or other religious figure, depending on your religion]. No where in any religion does it state that man marry's a man. It does however mention numerous amount of times of men marrying women. All in all, marriage is a religious act and no religion supports gay marriages. Therefore, how are they to be married?!


 i voted no as well and i agree with karen.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I voted Yes. 
Why should gays and lesbians be excluded from all the tax breaks and health care benefits married people get just because the partner they choose is of the same sex? People need to open their eyes and understand that.....just because it is not right for you does not mean you are right.
If you want to make this a religious argument than the government should take away any tax breaks or health care benefits for married people because religion and state dont mix.

Sorry Karen, I know this is a religion thing for you and that is fine, but for me it is about being able to take advantage of the financial rewards there are when you are married, and i believe they are being discriminated against.


----------



## french toast (May 2, 2003)

> Here in SF its a common thing where you see alot of guy folks (heck, we have gay parades and have an area just for them). So being accustomed to their presence alot, it doesnt really bother me. So I vote "yes" cause they're still people with the same feelings as normal folks.


I lived in SF for about a year and I totally agree with you Zilla. I also voted YES.


----------



## etalon9100 (Jul 4, 2003)

I voted unsure.

I personally would never be interested in "Same Gender" marriage, however, to each his own.

I'm an atheist, so I don't buy the "It's written in the Bible...".

I also think that in 50 years, society will look at "homosexuality" very similar to the way we now look at "equal rights".. A thing of the past.

I also believe in evolution.. same marriages can't have children (not including adoption). This is not natural. This is why I chose "unsure".

Thanks


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I think gay people should be able to get married.

I am an athiest and I believe that I should be allowed to get married - so why not gay people? _(even to each other)_


----------



## rday (Mar 10, 2003)

as far as the financial aspect of it, i feel that gay marriages are at least a better solution than the idea of allowing "domestic partners" to live together and receive benefits. that is ridiculous to me, as hetero "domestic partners" receive nothing. the marriage aspect at least elevates the relationship to a higher level than "domestic partner"


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Marriage is a *LEGAL* act-- determines your taxes and in some cases your status regarding corporate relations. All about $$$. Regardless if you feel marriage is a psychological/religious change or not, it IS still a serious legal change.

lol come to think of it, why would atheists even marry each other then?









Therefore, I can't think of any valid arguments about why same-sex marriages can't take place.


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> I voted Yes.
> Why should gays and lesbians be excluded from all the tax breaks and health care benefits married people get just because the partner they choose is of the same sex? People need to open their eyes and understand that.....just because it is not right for you does not mean you are right.
> If you want to make this a religious argument than the government should take away any tax breaks or health care benefits for married people because religion and state dont mix.
> 
> Sorry Karen, I know this is a religion thing for you and that is fine, but for me it is about being able to take advantage of the financial rewards there are when you are married, and i believe they are being discriminated against.


 Right on GG. That is BULLSHIT. I guess it's because we're wise old men! I'm straight and have a GF but I COMPLETY agree gays should be allowed to get married. If two people love each other who cares if they are the same sex? It doesn't float my boat, but who cares, if they are happy and in love then f*ck it. Then let them get married, religion has NOTHING to do with it. Religion DOES NOT belong in politics(don't even get me started







) and politics is the only thing holding back same sex marriges.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> I voted no.
> 
> How do I make this simple? Basically, marriage is a unity of 2 people [man and woman]. This unity takes place at a location with a priest [or other religious figure, depending on your religion]. No where in any religion does it state that man marry's a man. It does however mention numerous amount of times of men marrying women. All in all, marriage is a religious act and no religion supports gay marriages. Therefore, how are they to be married?!


 laws should never be based on religion. and thats kind of my argument.all religions I know forbid homosexuality, but should being gay be forbiden?if the laws where based on religion yes.but thats not how its supposed to work. morality and law are 2 different things.


----------



## etalon9100 (Jul 4, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> lol come to think of it, why would atheists even marry each other then?


 Because it's considered illegal to be an Atheist in some instances.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

etalon9100 said:


> piranha45 said:
> 
> 
> > lol come to think of it, why would atheists even marry each other then?
> ...


 your point being...?


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

nitrofish said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > I voted no.
> ...


 damn straight, these religious quacks need some common sense beat into them


----------



## etalon9100 (Jul 4, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> etalon9100 said:
> 
> 
> > piranha45 said:
> ...


 My point is that religion is often part of many laws.

Is that a good point?


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

is it in the US? no laws come to mind, tho i could certainly be forgetting something


----------



## rday (Mar 10, 2003)

as far as the financial aspect of it, i feel that gay marriages are at least a better solution than the idea of allowing "domestic partners" to live together and receive benefits. that is ridiculous to me, as hetero "domestic partners" receive nothing. the marriage aspect at least elevates the relationship to a higher level than "domestic partner"


----------



## 521 1N5 (Apr 25, 2003)

f*ck no it shouldn't be allowed...that's gross.


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

I agree With P45 BOOO RELIGOIUS QUACKS!







DO YOU PEOPLE LIVE IN THE STONE AGE! WHO cares what the church think. It's society that Matters. The church has Zero power over me and thats the way it will stay. I believe in God, because I know God would not be cool with this. He be for same sex marriges without a doubt. I know. I'm his son.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I voted NO becuase it is my personal opinion that it isnt natural. Call me close minded if you please. I do however, realize that common social pressures have outgrown religious and moral beliefs and it is only a matter of time before this is a non-issue.

I would like to commend Bush for once again stating his beliefs and intentions despite the political pressure of his position. This president, like or dislike him, has always stuck by his beliefs and word no matter what people thought. This move probably cost his thousands of votes in an election year yet he decided to speak up. Its about time we had a president that leads instead of taking orders from PAC and poll numbers.


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

basically i agree with gg marriage in the religious sense is 1 thing but were talking about the law and as u read in my post why cant 2 people enter in a domestic partnership and recieev all the benefits like anyone else i dont think its fair


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

garybusey said:


> I agree With P45 BOOO RELIGOIUS QUACKS!


don't get me wrong, I am a religious person, but Im no preacher. still my religious beliefs should not be the law of the land. I find it disturbing when people insist on religion being a factor when determining a law.

but on the other hand I don't think for example a cathloic preist should have to perform the cerimony just becaue its legal, the church may have its own rules and deny any marriage it feel inopproiate. but marriage in a legal sence (justace of the peace, etc.) is totaly different , it isn't religous based.

still I don't know what i truly feel about this issue, if it becomes a ballot question, i may just skip that one.


----------



## hays98 (Mar 8, 2003)

i think its o.k. every one has there own life styles who are we to judge was right and wrong. what ever floats your boat.


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

This boils down to this.. religon vs. love. Which would matter to most to you... your beliefs or your the way you feel?


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

JesseD said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > I voted no.
> ...


 Agreed.
E


----------



## Black Piranha (Feb 1, 2003)

i voted yes. screw religions, the bible was written by 4 guys in a basement. religion isnt the issue here. its giving gays marriage rights. free country my ass. the US is one of the more restrictive countries


----------



## bobme (Feb 17, 2003)

YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!YES!!!!







:bobme:







:bobme:







:bobme:


----------



## black_bullet (Jul 10, 2003)

Hell let them get married...I dont care. But they can have always get commited..its not a formal "marriage" since their are no legalities or religious anything...but if you love the person that much it really doesnt matter if its binding by law or religion.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I think this is pretty interesting it is cut right down the middle!


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Black Piranha said:


> i voted yes. screw religions, the bible was written by 4 guys in a basement.


 Why do you have to disrespect like that for?!


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Black Piranha said:
> 
> 
> > i voted yes. screw religions, the bible was written by 4 guys in a basement.
> ...


 I know, really, wtf! I belive what the bible says (don't remember anything about gays in it though) but that dosent meant we should base our laws on the bible.


----------



## Black Piranha (Feb 1, 2003)

i dont like religions. because i was in CCD (catholic class) for 8 years. my teacher told me everyone goes to hell except for roman catholics. she said all other religions are primative and wrong. she also said gays go to hell and people who kill themself. so i called her a bitch because most of my friends are jewish and she said they are going to hell. so i was kicked out of ccd.


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

I voted No
i agree with Ms Nattereri and Xenon.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

Black Piranha said:


> i dont like religions. because i was in CCD (catholic class) for 8 years. my teacher told me everyone goes to hell except for roman catholics. she said all other religions are primative and wrong. she also said gays go to hell and people who kill themself. so i called her a bitch because most of my friends are jewish and she said they are going to hell. so i was kicked out of ccd.


 thats why im not cathlic, but im still a christian. I hate it when religions put thier own 2 cents into things.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

nitrofish said:


> Black Piranha said:
> 
> 
> > i dont like religions. because i was in CCD (catholic class) for 8 years. my teacher told me everyone goes to hell except for roman catholics. she said all other religions are primative and wrong. she also said gays go to hell and people who kill themself. so i called her a bitch because most of my friends are jewish and she said they are going to hell. so i was kicked out of ccd.
> ...


 I doubt the catholic religion actually goes with that (you really think the Pope would say that?), it was just that old bitch's own interpretation


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> nitrofish said:
> 
> 
> > Black Piranha said:
> ...


 Actually, I happened to be near a Catholic chruch about year ago and stepped in to see the difference between the Christian ways of preaching and the Catholics way. I came to the conclusion that Christians are more open-minded and dont hate on other religions. But when I walked into that Catholic church the first thing I heard the pastor say was how Catholism is better than Christianity. He started praising how Catholics are much greater than any other. It was a crock of BS.

My point is, just because your teacher discouraged you from religion, doesnt mean you have to do the same and put down our faith.


----------



## scarfish (Apr 5, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> I voted no.
> 
> How do I make this simple? Basically, marriage is a unity of 2 people [man and woman]. This unity takes place at a location with a priest [or other religious figure, depending on your religion]. No where in any religion does it state that man marry's a man. It does however mention numerous amount of times of men marrying women. All in all, marriage is a religious act and no religion supports gay marriages. Therefore, how are they to be married?!


 That's really great. You've blatantly displayed the primary problem with our world. The secondary problem is that you'll relate that same thing to your brood - and chances are, they'll be ignorant enough to relate it to theirs some day.

This is a little off topic, but someone mentioned people that are not catholic going to hell earlier. Well I thought of something over the weekend. If people that are not of a certain sect of a certain religion are automatically destined to live in hell - and Jesus Christ introduced christianity to the world - doesn't that mean that everyone that lived before Jesus went to hell? Kind of ridiculous, don't you think? Really, if he was put here to show people the 'light', shouldn't he have been the first person to live on this damned rock? Sounds like a crock of sh*t to me...

It sucks to be so right.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

scarfish said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > I voted no.
> ...


 Amen to that, scarface









as for the jesus-and-damnation part, thats only_ one_ of the 6 trillion hypocrisies that religions everywhere are guilty of


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

you know though, the frustrating part with arguing against irrational beliefs held by people is that no matter how pristine, flawless and clear your argument is, it still won't change their mind about anything and they'll continue to refute/deny it even though they have no substance to back their claims up. I've learned this firsthand in my arguments with said people. Natt probably won't even attempt to defend her bullshit belief system.

"you cannot reason with someone when their opinion is not based on reason."


----------



## piranhasaurus (Feb 12, 2003)

i have no problem with gays living together or forming a union together. the problem i have is the use of the word "marriage". call it whatever you want, but don't call it marriage.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> piranha45 said:
> 
> 
> > nitrofish said:
> ...


 being cathloc is a form of christianity. same with many other religions such as adventist,baptist,protdistant,jahova witness.. etc. and every one has its own point of view based on the same bible.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

piranhasaurus said:


> i have no problem with gays living together or forming a union together. the problem i have is the use of the word "marriage". call it whatever you want, but don't call it marriage.


 but the question is , what is marriage? its really nothing but legal paperwork. everyone thinks its the cerimony, but its not. there isnt any difference between the gay relationship after the marriage is complete, except for legal and tax related issues.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

ok heres a twist if a guy has a sex change do you think "she" can marry another girl, but what if they are already married and he has the change after, should they stay married. or shoud a guy be able to marry another guy if one of those guys just had the change and is now a woman.


----------



## thomisdead (Mar 31, 2003)

Back on page one there people were talking about separation of church and state regarding the laws. I'm surprised no one mentioned the fact that recognized religions have to pay no taxes on their earnings. The Catholic church owns so much land because of this. The most powerful man on the planet (the pope) can barely walk, and drools all over himself.

I voted yes. Who are we to judge someone because they like people who are the same sex as theirselves? Mariage is more than a ceremony, or a religous commitment in god's eyes, or a union recognized by the government. Marriage for some people is a *personal* commitment. Some couples know that they will spend the rest of their life with ther partner, but they want the marriage anyways. It's something about the human psyche that allows them to rest easier.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

thomisdead said:


> Back on page one there people were talking about separation of church and state regarding the laws. I'm surprised no one mentioned the fact that recognized religions have to pay no taxes on their earnings. The Catholic church owns so much land because of this. The most powerful man on the planet (the pope) can barely walk, and drools all over himself.
> 
> I voted yes. Who are we to judge someone because they like people who are the same sex as theirselves? Mariage is more than a ceremony, or a religous commitment in god's eyes, or a union recognized by the government. Marriage for some people is a *personal* commitment. Some couples know that they will spend the rest of their life with ther partner, but they want the marriage anyways. It's something about the human psyche that allows them to rest easier.


 good points


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Xenon said:


> Call me close minded if you please


 your close minded









what about Nate


----------



## piranha 13 (Feb 16, 2003)

I voted don't know.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

Black Piranha said:


> i dont like religions. because i was in CCD (catholic class) for 8 years. my teacher told me everyone goes to hell except for roman catholics. she said all other religions are primative and wrong. she also said gays go to hell and people who kill themself. so i called her a bitch because most of my friends are jewish and she said they are going to hell. so i was kicked out of ccd.


 thats not right u should never mock somebody elses religions


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> you know though, the frustrating part with arguing against irrational beliefs held by people is that no matter how pristine, flawless and clear your argument is, it still won't change their mind about anything and they'll continue to refute/deny it even though they have no substance to back their claims up. I've learned this firsthand in my arguments with said people. Natt probably won't even attempt to defend her bullshit belief system.
> 
> "you cannot reason with someone when their opinion is not based on reason."


 And this coming from a guy who thinks f*cking his sister is okay...









Before you go and bash my own beliefs, check your own. I have my beliefs and the beauty of it, theyre just mine...so what if people feel the same as I do or if they dont. Thats what makes us all different and diverse. So go shove your bull$#!t down someone else's throat.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> piranha45 said:
> 
> 
> > you know though, the frustrating part with arguing against irrational beliefs held by people is that no matter how pristine, flawless and clear your argument is, it still won't change their mind about anything and they'll continue to refute/deny it even though they have no substance to back their claims up. I've learned this firsthand in my arguments with said people. Natt probably won't even attempt to defend her bullshit belief system.
> ...










ok thats it 
whenever there is religion involved in a topic it always turns nasty


----------



## scarfish (Apr 5, 2003)

Did all you chrisitians know that pratically right after the passage in the bible that reads, "A man shall not lie with another man" - there is a passage that says that it is a sin to eat shellfish?

So before you condemn gay marriages, you had best quit eating lobster, crab, and shrimp. Fools.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

> So before you condemn gay marriages, you had best quit eating lobster, crab, and shrimp. Fools.


i dont eat fish








i care for them


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scarfish said:


> Did all you chrisitians know that pratically right after the passage in the bible that reads, "A man shall not lie with another man" - there is a passage that says that it is a sin to eat shellfish?
> 
> So before you condemn gay marriages, you had best quit eating lobster, crab, and shrimp. Fools.


 Well if you want to use that as an example, then I suggest you read the whole thing because that book in the bible, which is called Leviticus, states that those rules were meant for the Levites. The Levites were God's priests. All this book [Book of Leviticus] is about are the rules that they[the Levites] needed to follow by in everyday life, *not the general public. *

BTW, I dont even eat shell fish.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Before you go and bash my own beliefs, check your own.
> 
> I have my beliefs and the beauty of it, theyre just mine...so what if people feel the same as I do or if they dont. Thats what makes us all different and diverse. So go shove your bull$#!t down someone else's throat.


 I have checked my beliefs, and all of them in my opinion are supported by some very sound logic, and I'd be glad to explain any of them at your request.

well then, go defend your original post. Demonstrate to us that there is actually some sort of logic behind the way you think; alot of us aren't seeing any, and that's why we're bashing on you.

You can say "I don't like debating it, I just stated it and I'm done", thats fine, but it also shows to me that you have no common sensibility to support your beliefs; and in my opinion that warrants some serious contempt.


----------



## SnowCichlid (Jan 10, 2003)

these are the types of threads that could lead into some trouble... keep your eyes open for trouble and try to lean the other way...


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

u stfu monkey boy!
















damn im good


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> I have checked my beliefs, and all of them in my opinion are supported by some very sound logic, and I'd be glad to explain any of them at your request.
> 
> well then, go defend your original post. Demonstrate to us that there is actually some sort of logic behind the way you think; alot of us aren't seeing any, and that's why we're bashing on you.
> 
> You can say "I don't like debating it, I just stated it and I'm done", thats fine, but it also shows to me that you have no common sensibility to support your beliefs; and in my opinion that warrants some serious contempt.


 Yeah...all of them in *YOUR* opinion make logic sense.

So because I have my religious beliefs on certain things, your gonna bash me because you dont see the same way. Last I knew you were an atheist, correct me if Im wrong. But thats why you dont see things the way I do. I cant help that. Youve already made up your mind on how you feel about the subject, so thered be no point in mean discussing my logic to someone whos already closed minded to my views.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

yes, I suppose there's no getting around that...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> *AGAINST*
> 
> 1. i voted yes. screw religions, the bible was written by 4 guys in a basement. religion isnt the issue here. its giving gays marriage rights. free country my ass. the US is one of the more restrictive countries
> 
> ...


I placed the arguements above which I thought were pertinent to this discussion.



> I have checked my beliefs, and all of them in my opinion are supported by some very sound logic, and I'd be glad to explain any of them at your request.


I'm interested in knowing how your opinions are supported by very sound logic. Please do explain.

Then when you are done, I'll be more than happy to explore each one and use my own sound logic to see how it plays out. BTW, I'm remaining neutral on this topic simply because from a science point of view reminds me of a fruit fly experiment conducted a few years ago in determining how human sexuality/preferences works.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

uhm, where do you want me to start? why I think same sex marriages are acceptable...?

I think same sex marriages should be allowed because I consider genitalia irrelevant regarding legal issues, because the impact of genitalia in human behavior is minimal, in comparison to the brain. The brain is the only part of a person's body that should be taken into account when deciding such matters because it is the only part of a person's body that influences behavior to an appreciable extent the vast majority of the time, which is precisely what legal issues attempt to govern.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Holland was (is?) the first country worldwide where married gay couples have the same rights as hetero couples, and I believe that's a good thing.

One's sexual preference is a given (people don't choose to be gay or straight [well, not without pressure from outside]: it's just the way it is, imo...), so why should gay people not have the same rights as hetero's?
Imo, if you're against gay marriage (and it doesn't matter why: religion, conservative ideas, etc.), you're undermining one of the very basics of what living in a free and democratic society stands for: same rights and the pursuit of happiness for everyone...


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Holland was (is?) the first country worldwide where married gay couples have the same rights as hetero couples, and I believe that's a good thing.
> 
> One's sexual preference is a given (people don't choose to be gay or straight [well, not without pressure from outside]: it's just the way it is, imo...), so why should gay people not have the same rights as hetero's?
> Imo, if you're against gay marriage (and it doesn't matter why: religion, conservative ideas, etc.), you're undermining one of the very basics of what living in a free and democratic society stands for: same rights and the pursuit of happiness for everyone...


yeah but the bible says you can't, so you can't. Sorry dude, its just what the bible says.... I didn't write the bible, and I don't even know who wrote the bible, but its clearly written in there that ******* are bad and can't marry. So your dutch system is WRONG. God will damn you all to hell if you don't get your system straightened out....

haha, I said straightened out


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

scarfish said:


> Did all you chrisitians know that pratically right after the passage in the bible that reads, "A man shall not lie with another man" - there is a passage that says that it is a sin to eat shellfish?
> 
> So before you condemn gay marriages, you had best quit eating lobster, crab, and shrimp. Fools.


 its a good point, where did you find that line.

but remember its a sin just to look at another in a lustfull way. we wont make it to heaven on our own deeds, we all have sin. thats where john 3:16 comes in. basicly if we belive , we will go to heaven. we have all been forgiven


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> piranha45 Posted on Aug 3 2003, 07:09 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> uhm, where do you want me to start? why I think same sex marriages are acceptable...?
> 
> *I think same sex marriages should be allowed because I consider genitalia irrelevant regarding legal issues, because the impact of genitalia in human behavior is minimal, in comparison to the brain. The brain is the only part of a person's body that should be taken into account when deciding such matters because it is the only part of a person's body that influences behavior to an appreciable extent the vast majority of the time, which is precisely what legal issues attempt to govern. *


Interesting view. So what you are stating is that the brain is the governing authority on what is based on individualism and how laws are to be written for the majority. Is that correct? or am I missing something. I'm just trying to get a grasp on your thought processes.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

> yeah but the bible says you can't, so you can't. Sorry dude, its just what the bible says.... I didn't write the bible, and I don't even know who wrote the bible, but its clearly written in there that ******* are bad and can't marry. So your dutch system is WRONG. God will damn you all to hell if you don't get your system straightened out....


Agree: when you let the Bible dictate your own opinions and points of view, this discussion is over pretty quickly...
Since I'm not religious, I see the Bible as a book, no more, no less, and that's why I'm open to approaches other than what the Bible says (I'm not bashing on people that do follow the Bible, it's just my perception and interpretation...)


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> yeah but the bible says you can't, so you can't. Sorry dude, its just what the bible says.... I didn't write the bible, and I don't even know who wrote the bible, but its clearly written in there that (homosexuals*edit*) are bad and can't marry.


 law should never be based on religion. evereyone who says its wrong is giving religious reasons, which I have no problem with, but you can't make laws that everyone must folow based on your own belifs.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> nitrofish Posted on Aug 3 2003, 07:38 PM ....law should never be based on religion. evereyone who says its wrong is giving religious reasons, which I have no problem with, but you can't make laws that everyone must folow based on your own belifs.


While I wait for piranha45 to reply, I'll take on this one. I think the Founding Fathers would find issue with your remark above since "A Creator" is mentioned in much of the work by the Founders. As I told someone else before, religious zeal is why there is a separation of church and state. Which is now being clouded in today's society.

PS: Founding Fathers pertains to United States folks. For others, check your own constitution.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Interesting view. So what you are stating is that the brain is the governing authority on what is based on individualism and how laws are to be written for the majority. Is that correct?


 yes, precisely


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> piranha45 Posted on Aug 3 2003, 07:44 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUOTE (hastatus @ Aug 3 2003, 12:33 PM)
> Interesting view. So what you are stating is that the brain is the governing authority on what is based on individualism and how laws are to be written for the majority. Is that correct?
> ...


Then if this is so, based on your views, then you have no problems with legalizing Man/child sexual relationships if there is a majority that agrees, correct?

Or if a human wishes to have sex with an animal that is perfectly alright also in your view, so long as the brain says its ok and the majority agree?

Or for that matter killing a human being is ok so long as the brain says its ok and the majority agree?

I'll get into the science part of it later down the road. I'm just narrowing down your views on human exposure and individuality based on how you view things.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > nitrofish Posted on Aug 3 2003, 07:38 PM ....law should never be based on religion. evereyone who says its wrong is giving religious reasons, which I have no problem with, but you can't make laws that everyone must folow based on your own belifs.
> 
> 
> While I wait for piranha45 to reply, I'll take on this one. I think the Founding Fathers would find issue with your remark above since "A Creator" is mentioned in much of the work by the Founders. As I told someone else before, religious zeal is why there is a separation of church and state. Which is now being clouded in today's society.
> ...


 yes they speek of a god(one nation under god,ect.), but whose god?, they never talk about a certain religion. because every religion has a differeent set of bieliefs I don't think we should base our laws on a certain one, such as christianity.

that makes me think of iraq where the musulum religion bans the drinking of alcohol, so its baned in the entire country. I don't want the united states to end up like that


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

nitrofish said:


> scarfish said:
> 
> 
> > Did all you chrisitians know that pratically right after the passage in the bible that reads, "A man shall not lie with another man" - there is a passage that says that it is a sin to eat shellfish?
> ...


 Which point do you want of his?

He got it mixed up because actually in the Bible, in the Book of Leviticus, it states not to each shellfish then a few pages later mentions not to have a man sleep with a man.

The shellfish portion can be found in Lev. 11:9
The man sleeping with another man portion can be found in Lev. 20:13


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Or if a human wishes to have sex with an animal that is perfectly alright also in your view, so long as the brain says its ok and the majority agree?


 i think it is legal as long as no harm is being done to the animal. im not a supporter of that kind of stuff belive me


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> nitrofish Posted on Aug 3 2003, 07:52 PM ...yes they speek of a god(one nation under god,ect.), but whose god?, they never talk about a certain religion. because every religion has a differeent set of bieliefs I don't think we should base our laws on a certain one, such as christianity.
> 
> that makes me think of iraq where the musulum religion bans the drinking of alcohol, so its baned in the entire country. I don't want the united states to end up like that


The term "God" is neutral which is why I stated it is being clouded by the religous right, left and middle. It means neither Christian, Muslim nor any other religous group term. What a few of the religous right are saying is that the U.S.A was founded on principals of Judeo-Christianity. Which is true, however, the original settlers left England to avoid religious presecution among other things. So it is a contradiction when today's people make laws prohibiting free exercise thereof, while holding that there is a separation.

I don't agree that religous prayers should be mandated nor do I agree it should be prohibited.......hence Free Speech and practice thereof a separation. Not so with today's society. So that is why certain groups are inadvertently taking the U.S. back to the England of yesteryear where religion was dominant in way of life and away from the U.S. Constitution as it was intended.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> nitrofish Posted on Aug 3 2003, 07:54 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUOTE (hastatus @ Aug 3 2003, 03:51 PM)
> 
> ...


 Umm, what State are you in that says its legal to have sex with animals? Also, how are you going to get the animal to agree with you?


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

hastatus said:


> , how are you going to get the animal to agree with you?


 you haven't seen the videos I have seen, that dog accually hops on her, and looks like he's loving it.puts a whole new meaning in doggy style.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> nitrofish Posted on Aug 3 2003, 09:46 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUOTE (hastatus @ Aug 3 2003, 04:04 PM)
> , how are you going to get the animal to agree with you?
> ...


That still is NOT answering the questions.


> hastatus Posted on Aug 3 2003, 08:04 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUOTE
> nitrofish Posted on Aug 3 2003, 07:54 PM
> ...


And now 3. Just because a video is made, doesn't make it legal does it?

And this part; _and looks like he's loving it._ 4. What does that say about you?


----------



## scarfish (Apr 5, 2003)

Uhh, I don't think that is anywhere near two consenting adults. So Frank, instead of playing defense, why don't you reveal your standing? It's just that I'm curious.

Oh and MissN, I was wondering, exactly how much time do you spend drowning in the bible?


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scarfish said:


> Oh and MissN, I was wondering, exactly how much time do you spend drowning in the bible?


 Not as much as your making it out to be by using the word "drowning." Whats it to you anyway? Cant I have my own beliefs about something without you criticising them, I mean you dont see me criticising you about your beliefs.


----------



## scarfish (Apr 5, 2003)

It's just that you seem to know it very well. I'm sorry if I seemed a little cross about the whole thing, but I have no respect for people that use religion (or anything else) as a reason to discriminate, judge, and hate.

Have a great day.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

scarfish said:


> It's just that you seem to know it very well. I'm sorry if I seemed a little cross about the whole thing, but I have no respect for people that use religion (or anything else) as a reason to discriminate, judge, and hate.
> 
> Have a great day.


 I feel most obliged to say "hell yeah", again


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > nitrofish Posted on Aug 3 2003, 09:46 PM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > QUOTE (hastatus @ Aug 3 2003, 04:04 PM)
> > , how are you going to get the animal to agree with you?
> ...


 because the dog jumped on top of her that makes me think the dog wanted it. these where downloaded vidoes sent to me as a joke. Im not into animal sex.I don't know for sure if its legal or not, but I heard that it was legal on talk raido.

either way, I think we are loosing the main subject, this was a gay marriage thread.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scarfish said:


> It's just that you seem to know it very well. I'm sorry if I seemed a little cross about the whole thing, but I have no respect for people that use religion (or anything else) as a reason to discriminate, judge, and hate.
> 
> Have a great day.


 Know it very well?! How you figure? I just know where to find things in it. Im sure anyone can do it. I was never descriminating, judging, or hating on gays at all. Maybe I wasnt clear enough and should be clearer. I dont care if they get a document stating their life partners or whatever so they can get the same tax breaks as married people. I could careless. But the fact of the matter is how are they to get married?! Do you really think that every gay couple wants to *JUST* go down and just have papers signed stating their personal status as married?! NO! There are those that are going to want the whole enchilada. Including the church priest and everything. Theyre going to want their "equal-rights." With no religion accepting homosexuality, what church is going to accomedate that? There wont be none...then it just starts all over again.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

scarfish said:


> It's just that you seem to know it very well. I'm sorry if I seemed a little cross about the whole thing, but I have no respect for people that use religion (or anything else) as a reason to discriminate, judge, and hate.
> 
> Have a great day.


 sounds nice in theory, but don't you discriminate against murderers, don't you think they don't deserve the same rights as law abiding indiviguals.(they deserve thier freedom taken away and put into jail) but why, well the answer is because its the right thing to do. and ms natt is doing what she thinks is the right thing to do also. how can you bad talk her for that. weather you agree or not you have to respect others beliefs.but that doesnt mean I agree.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> scarfish said:
> 
> 
> > It's just that you seem to know it very well. I'm sorry if I seemed a little cross about the whole thing, but I have no respect for people that use religion (or anything else) as a reason to discriminate, judge, and hate.
> ...


 You are assuming not a single pastor in the country would allow for a gay marriage.

There's LOTS of pastors out there that would, and even for those who might initially refuse, a little $$ can change alot.

So then, assuming there's pastors out there that WOULD do a gay marriage, do you feel its right for gays to get married?


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> scarfish said:
> 
> 
> > It's just that you seem to know it very well. I'm sorry if I seemed a little cross about the whole thing, but I have no respect for people that use religion (or anything else) as a reason to discriminate, judge, and hate.
> ...


 I don't think a priest has to perform any cerimony he feels is against his beliefs.but a justice of the peace should not have any right to refuse a marriage as long as its legal.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> So then, assuming there's pastors out there that WOULD do a gay marriage, do you feel its right for gays to get married?


 Only if the religion promotes it. Otherwise that priest/pastor makes the whole religion look bad.


----------



## Lahot (May 20, 2003)

Marriage is a title...people can live together and not get the title but that's not saying that there is any difference in how they live their lives.

I'm conservative, work for a very conservative company, but who really cares, I don't agree with it personally but if people want a silly little piece of paper saying that they are legally tied to another person let them have it...then they can pay more taxes since married people tend to owe more to the government.

just my humble opinion


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> scarfish Posted on Aug 4 2003, 01:04 AM......Uhh, I don't think that is anywhere near two consenting adults. So Frank, instead of playing defense, why don't you reveal your standing? It's just that I'm curious.


Reveal my standing? I thought I already did. Ok let me say this, humans are just 1 DNA cell away from being total apes. Granted some appear already there. But to get to your question. Humans are just slightly evolved than animals. We as humans have cultures, religions, belief's (ie; singular gods, multiple gods and goddesses). Some have none at all. But laws were created to control behavior and to a certain extent life styles. Life styles include; fornicating with animals not human and from killing people as a ritual for example and yes, in some states forbidding anal (sodomy laws).

As to what I believe, I don't believe humans are great as we think we are. Indeed when laws that govern behavior are removed its puts us one step closer to just being animals. So lets take the mask off. Animals have no rules other than survival. That is why a male dog will attempt to fornicate with other male dogs or your leg. Because it has no morals, no rules to follow. IF it feels good (in dog speak), then do it.

At the same token, homosexuality may be gene related which is a view held by some scientists and I agree on. But to the homosexual this implies gene defect. (You can't have it both ways). In early 1990's, studies showed that identical twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation than other pairs of siblings.

Yet, environment suggests contribution: I know of a set of twins where one is lesbian and the other twin is not. The one that is lesbian was molested by both her father and uncle at a young age so her fear of men pushed her into the lifestyle, which became a choice or safe haven for her. While the other twin went on and was married to a man.

What I would like to know, how many actual homosexuals and lesbians became that just on sexual molestation alone. We know with the recent priest scandles many of these men used boys to satisfy their hunger for sex. In turn these boys became homosexuals. Same goes with girls, many in jails engage in these acts because there no men around and once they leave jail, they return to opposite sex attractions. In discussing this with the lesbian twin a few years ago, her "partner" was upset that she even discussed the fact she was molested by her father to a man. I did'nt quite understand why this would really be a bad thing, other than it punches holes that homosexuals are born that way. At least not all are born that way, some are made through violence.

NIH studies were also conducted yet leaves open a big hole with regards to seratonin which Prozac )anti-depression removes. In low levels, seratonin enhances homosexual behavior. So while this study is still inconclusive, it still shows some measure that the brain function is indeed involved. While depression (as in those who have been molested) produces a potential cause to get into this sexual orientation.

Lastly, nature uses tricks in order to control population. Obviously homosexuals cannot produce offspring using same sex gender, so they must adopt or in the case of women, be impregnated artificially or through regular means.....ie; having a male co-host. Here is where religion says anal fornication is not normal and not conducive to marriage to bring forth children.

Having had numerous colonoscopy's over the years, I find no pleasure in what others find sensual or sexually satisfying. But to each their own. I hope I answered your question in what I believe in.

It's not religion nor "do it cause it feels good" and certainly, I look at people regardless of color, sex, or orientation as humans. Which is why I omitted the term "race". We are all of the human race PERIOD. That is why we are classified as **** sapiens, not Homosexuals or Straights. Which is a big problem for me, because while animals are satisfied with just living, humans are satisfied with just arguing things they little understand.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

can you say politician, damn hastas.

ill refrase the question, did you vote
a= yes it should be allowed
b=no it shouldn't be allowed
c= I don't know

answer only a,b,or c


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

my guess is "a" becase somewhere in that speach was "to each thier own".


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > scarfish Posted on Aug 4 2003, 01:04 AM......Uhh, I don't think that is anywhere near two consenting adults. So Frank, instead of playing defense, why don't you reveal your standing? It's just that I'm curious.
> 
> 
> Reveal my standing? I thought I already did. Ok let me say this, humans are just 1 DNA cell away from being total apes. Granted some appear already there. But to get to your question. Humans are just slightly evolved than animals. We as humans have cultures, religions, belief's (ie; singular gods, multiple gods and goddesses). Some have none at all. But laws were created to control behavior and to a certain extent life styles. Life styles include; fornicating with animals not human and from killing people as a ritual for example and yes, in some states forbidding anal (sodomy laws).
> ...


 This is EXACTLY why I rarely question Frank.







Makes a good bed time story though


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

hastatus said:


> humans are just 1 DNA cell away from being total apes. Granted some appear already there. But to get to your question. Humans are just slightly more evolved than animals.


It continues to baffle me why so many people bow in to their irrational feelings of insecurity, and dellude themselves into thinking otherwise







Its frustrating, really.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> piranha45 Posted on Aug 4 2003, 08:10 AM ..It continues to baffle me why so many people bow in to their irrational feelings of insecurity, and dellude themselves into thinking otherwise Its frustrating, really.


Ahhhhh, but you see that is the beauty of being "human" only humans think they are always right. If you look at the scale of maturity of humans: 0-12 years of age, they are beginning to think. 13-18, they begin to rationalize and view others older as wrong. 19-24 they are always right. At age 25-30; 0-24 are always wrong. Only by age 31 does the mind really begin to develop and experiences begin to take shape that form future mindset.

_It continues to baffle me why so many people bow in to their irrational feelings of insecurity, and dellude themselves into thinking otherwise_

What baffles me is how you would even begin to think any one really cares what you think. Your ideas on life (as well as everyone elses) is but one little speck of sand in a big sand lot. What you think of as "many" is nothing more than a cheap shot to enhance your own ego. In otherwords, you are an atypical human in lumping everyone into a category. Nothing unique about that or you other than you fit right into the proper age group.

The only thing I have read throughout this entire threads are people's beliefs and ideas. Its not for me to say who is right or who is wrong. I'm not even sure where you come up with the notion any one is insecure. What I do detect in your writing is how insecure you are in yourself. Hey no big deal. I completely understand. I have kids your age and sooner or later, they recognize how wrong they are as experiences grow. You will too. 10-15 years from now as your life progresses, your thoughts and ideas will also mature. That is human life. Animals go through the same processes as they adapt and learn survival techniques.

Young people will make or break this country. They will also make or break marriages, laws, and social mores. Ultimately, when I am dust and you are still hobbling around on this earth and your children's children look at you the way you look at older people, then you will understand. Until then, enjoy the belief that you are right. In a nutshell. Nobody really cares.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Ms_Nattereri Posted on Aug 4 2003, 07:40 AM ...This is EXACTLY why I rarely question Frank. Makes a good bed time story though


If a woman is in bed with me, there is no story, only good times.







I'll leave the story telling to the young guys.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> nitrofish.....can you say politician, damn hastas.
> 
> ill refrase the question, did you vote
> a= yes it should be allowed
> ...


a,b,or c


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Lahot said:


> I don't agree with it personally but if people want a silly little piece of paper saying that they are legally tied to another person let them have it...then they can pay more taxes since married people tend to owe more to the government.


 Your kidding about the tax part right? Compare the rate at which singles pay, along with the standard deductions and then tell me married people pay more.......trust me, they dont.

This and healthcare are the reasons it should be allowed, or the tax laws should be rewritten.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> This and healthcare are the reasons it should be allowed,


 What healthcare? If it were not for being a Vietnam Vet, I would have no health care. Wife has none. Oregon has Health Plan but it is so gutted by insurance companies few actually qualify unless they are on welfare. Are you saying Gays should be on welfare?







You asking the government to re-write laws is like asking the wolf if he wants more chickens to eat.

Taxes are unfair and certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. IRS got involved in 1913(?) and then it was supposed to be temporary. Nothing that you pay to the government is temporary.

I'm afraid health issues like AIDS (which is still spreading among homosexuals and the straight society) will remain largely unfunded because it attacks a small segment of society who use needles, anal and other means to transmit it. Schools provide free condoms, yet we still have pregnances. Human nature again.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > This and healthcare are the reasons it should be allowed,
> 
> 
> What healthcare? If it were not for being a Vietnam Vet, I would have no health care. Wife has none. Oregon has Health Plan but it is so gutted by insurance companies few actually qualify unless they are on welfare. Are you saying Gays should be on welfare?
> ...


 What I mean by this Frank, is that when one spouse works for a company, the other is gererally covered under the company insurance plan. This is not the case with domestic partners unless the company is very progressive. I was not refering to free healthcare, just that they be afforded the same rights as married couples when companies offer family insurance plans that cover spouses.

As far as taxes go, I know it will never happen, but doent this cross the boundry of church and state?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> grosse gurke Posted on Aug 4 2003, 06:05 PM ....What I mean by this Frank, is that when one spouse works for a company, the other is gererally covered under the company insurance plan. This is not the case with domestic partners unless the company is very progressive. I was not refering to free healthcare, just that they be afforded the same rights as married couples when companies offer family insurance plans that cover spouses.
> 
> As far as taxes go, I know it will never happen, but doent this cross the boundry of church and state?


OIC, what you are saying then, companies should pay the extra costs for insurance coverage. Where does that leave the small business owner? Will he be mandated to pay it as well?
I'm curious to know if you (as a business owner) would have no objections to paying additional costs. And how much is too much?

_As far as taxes go, I know it will never happen, but doent this cross the boundry of church and state?......_ Yes and No. Biblically, Jesus stated "render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God's._ Pretty clear to me.....Pay taxes.

Yet, tax laws historically included churches and owning property. I believe, correct me if wrong, powerful lobbying freed churches from taxes because of "their helping the poor." Which makes no sense to me, since there will always be poor and looking at church property today, that's some prime real estate. Not picking on Catholics, but I find it amazing the amount of money that goes into the Vatican and its lavish lifestyle. An argument heard from a friend a few years ago about my remark was that "the people wanted the Pope to live in splendor." Beats me for someone that follows Christ teachings how they can equate wealth with the well-being of the poor since the poor are still poor. I never understood how giving God money brings you extra prayers.

Again part of nature and survival of the most fit._


----------



## Sux (Dec 24, 2002)

I say whatever floats your boat if they are 2 *****'s then hell ya but if it is 2 gays keep it to urself







but in the conastion there was nothing about this subject but im sure ben franklin or one of them like saucegh fests lol


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Sux said:


> I say whatever floats your boat if they are 2 *****'s then hell ya but if it is 2 gays keep it to urself
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 from what I hear ben franklin was a fuckin pimp-- died of syphilis at like 90 yrs old


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > grosse gurke Posted on Aug 4 2003, 06:05 PM ....What I mean by this Frank, is that when one spouse works for a company, the other is gererally covered under the company insurance plan. This is not the case with domestic partners unless the company is very progressive. I was not refering to free healthcare, just that they be afforded the same rights as married couples when companies offer family insurance plans that cover spouses.
> >
> > As far as taxes go, I know it will never happen, but doent this cross the boundry of church and state?
> 
> ...


 Businesses are not required to provide this coverage. But IMO the ones that do provide family coverage should also provide for domestic partners that are recognized as married (should this ever get passed.)
If I were a business owner, and chose to offer family coverage, I would not have an issue with providing the same coverage for same sex married people.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Businesses are not required to provide this coverage. But IMO the ones that do provide family coverage should also provide for domestic partners that are recognized as married (should this ever get passed.)
> If I were a business owner, and chose to offer family coverage, I would not have an issue with providing the same coverage for same sex married people.


Then you believe that coverage should be volunteer not mandated?

Interesting, because the current argument (here in Oregon) is that employers be mandated to provide coverage. Which is why there is an uproar over "gay rights or special rights". You live in Oregon, were you not aware of this?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > Then you believe that coverage should be volunteer not mandated?
> >
> > Interesting, because the current argument (here in Oregon) is that employers be mandated to provide coverage. Which is why there is an uproar over "gay rights or special rights". You live in Oregon, were you not aware of this?
> 
> ...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> grosse gurke Posted on Aug 4 2003, 08:07 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think coverage should be manditory if the company meets the minimum requirement of employees. *Then what you are saying is private owners have no right to run their business without undue hardship (ie; having to pay extra dividends whether they want to or not) even with a minimum of employees? In otherwords, its ok for me to pick your pocket since its for a worthy cause whether you like it or not. I like your way of thinking.
> ...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

> I think coverage should be mandatory if the company meets the minimum requirement of employees. *Then what you are saying is private owners have no right to run their business without undue hardship (ie; having to pay extra dividends whether they want to or not) even with a minimum of employees? In otherwords, its ok for me to pick your pocket since its for a worthy cause whether you like it or not. I like your way of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I mean is if a company has a minimum of 15 (I just picked a #) employees, they are required to provide health insurance for the employees. It is an added expense, but one that should be absorbed. Are you saying people should pay for their own insurance and the companies should harbor no burden? That would be fine if they paid employees enough for them to cover this added cost. It would be great for me being a single male, my insurance is about 1/3 that of a single female my age.



> Should a couple enter into a marriage I think they should receive the same coverage * reguardless if it is a same sex marriage **or "traditional" marriage.* I dont think that is providing special rights, just equal rights.
> 
> Explain further what you mean by "traditional" marriage and same sex marriage. I thought it was the same since that is what gay rights people are stating, a union between 2 people? How are you able to differentiate if the vows are the same?


I dont think there should be a difference, however, I dont think at this time a marriage between same sex partners is recognized. I was just stating that they should both be considered a marriage.



> I am not saying every gay couple should receive this, just those that enter into a legal marriage.
> * My understanding is that a piece of paper should not make any difference, they should be recognized with or without. Then it should also apply to people that live with animals as lovers. They too should be recognized. *


My whole argument is that a marriage should be the legal joining of 2 consenting adults. That is it. Should that joining be 2 men, 2 women, or a man and woman should not be of concern to the government. And that couple should get to take advantage of the perks married couples currently receive. If a couple does not wish to get legally married than they are S.O.L.. It is all about a piece of paper because there are advantages to having that piece of paper....and disadvantages











> Havent lived in Oregon for almost 4 years...but hope to move back soon!!
> 
> Hope so too.


If and when I do, it will me much easier to debate in person....my fingers are getting tired


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Your fingers are getting tired?? I think I fell asleep twice while trying to read all that.

I dont think weve had a debate this long since all the war threads. Good job Frank and Jeff...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> grosse gurke Posted on Aug 4 2003, 09:43 PM .....What I mean is if a company has a minimum of 15 (I just picked a #) employees, they are required to provide health insurance for the employees. It is an added expense, but one that should be absorbed. Are you saying people should pay for their own insurance and the companies should harbor no burden? That would be fine if they paid employees enough for them to cover this added cost. It would be great for me being a single male, my insurance is about 1/3 that of a single female my age.


*Interesting view except for flaws, who is say (other than yourself) what you are really worth? Does the person who slings hamburgers 5 days a week worth more than a mother who toils 24/7 rearing kids, feeding husband and no insurance, then say an executive who sits at a desk making pencil decisions while making inflated wages and has insurance? And who mandates they should be required to provide health insurance? I don't disagree with you. In a perfect world it should be so. But in reality, how full is your pocket book?

You say "it should be absorbed" says who? Are you speaking for the majority of the small business owners who try to carve out a living while making government (ie; IRS) mandates. While also awaiting malpractice suits? Or better yet Sexual harrassment complaints? This is the real world. Not many companies can "absorb" additional costs. Those that try have a "out of business" sign hanging. Discrimination even in wages is prevalent, with males having the upper hand. Doubt many females would disagree with that.*



> I dont think there should be a difference, however, I dont think at this time a marriage between same sex partners is recognized. _I was just stating that they should both be considered a marriage_.





> My whole argument is that a marriage should be the legal joining of 2 consenting adults. That is it. Should that joining be 2 men, 2 women, or a man and woman should not be of concern to the government. And that couple should get to take advantage of the perks married couples currently receive. If a couple does not wish to get legally married than they are S.O.L.. It is all about a piece of paper because there are advantages to having that piece of paper....and disadvantages


*So the institution of marriage as was originally (and historically) between a man and a woman is now over based on sexual preference. I don't see the connection. If you say, religion should be expunged by society to recognize same sex marriages (ie; removal of all values, moral, ethical, religious biblical views) in order to satisfy a small percentage of the population (ie; 10%) then I think marriage itself should be desolved and no licenses should be required. Make it a level playing field, no tax credits, no tax shelters, no insurance benefits. Just live with each other PERIOD. Religion itself should be banned since it is irrelevent and their beliefs (ie what God ordains is BS based on todays secular society).

To me that makes more sense than investing so much time just to line a few pockets. Personally, I don't care what Joe does with Jim behind closed doors. Anymore than Mark with Mary (even if she brings the lamb along). It remains my belief that marriage is indeed a precursor to legally have children under the law which protects them by having a father and a mother. Yet, one can only look at the welfare rolls and see what happens when a father drops out or a mother and the State takes on the burden (namely taxpayers) to support said children. The only advantage I see with same sex marriages or unions whatever you want to call it, is that no children will be conceived unless of course they are artifically produced. So the seed that produces homosexuals will simply cancel itself out and they will become a nutured population. Natures way of ridding species that refuse to adapt to those that do adapt. I know it sounds cold, but that is how nature works. Perhaps in a thousand years humans might become asexual so there will be no use for males or females. But until then the human mind will not allow the perfect world (ie; no killing, no hating, no bigotry and certainly same sex unions) and this is simply a frivolous attempt to make the majority conform to the whims of a few.

I say, more power to the people. Enjoy these United States because like Rome, it too will disappear once the laws are removed and people look the other way for fear of reprisals.*



> If and when I do, it will me much easier to debate in person....my fingers are getting tired


*Debate in person? Surely you jest. I'd rather drink a beer with you, let the world worry for itself and let today's youth pick up the burned shell we call humanity.







*


----------



## Reddevill (Jun 10, 2003)

:rock: 
I couldnt help but get involved in this one, the bottom line is that there really is no room for religion in government, period.

Look at it this way,... if you have kids (boy or girl) and after raising them from babies to young adults, they turn out to be gay, would you agree with Govt. dictating how they live their lives?

I have two girls, am hispanic and come from a catholic background which obviously does not condone same sez marriage. Bottom line is I would want my girls to be happy and if that meant they were happy with someone of their same gender, so be it.

They are my kids and I would want fairness for them regardless of their sexual preference.


----------



## marcc420 (Jun 14, 2003)

i dont care what any one says gays shuld not be able to rome the earth let alone marry.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

marcc420 said:


> i dont care what any one says gays shuld not be able to rome the earth let alone marry.


 its alright bro every forum needs to have a resident troglodyte


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

marcc420 said:


> i dont care what any one says gays shuld not be able to rome the earth let alone marry.


Now that's one intelligent remark









Please keep discriminatory stuff like that to yourself next time, ok







It's ok to have your own point of view on this, but keep the forum rules in mind, or don't throw in your 2 cents...

btw: scary how tolerant the majority of PFury is concerning this issue [/end sarcasm]


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

and religion is the source for all of it.... how hypocritical eh?


----------



## scarfish (Apr 5, 2003)

nitrofish said:


> scarfish said:
> 
> 
> > It's just that you seem to know it very well. I'm sorry if I seemed a little cross about the whole thing, but I have no respect for people that use religion (or anything else) as a reason to discriminate, judge, and hate.
> ...


 This will be my last post on this thread, but it is completely necessary.

A murderer chooses to _harm_ somebody. Do not compare being gay to being a murderer. I do not have to respect anybody's beliefs, especially if their beliefs descriminate against people that've done no harm.


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

i am truly amazed that in this day and age, in this world, after all the crap that people have gone through, that there still exists people who feel they have the right to determine what ANYONE, other than themselves, has the right to do or not to do!
it's incredible to me!
what makes anyone 'better', more deserving, more entitled, etc, etc,etc. than anyone else? 
how can anyone say you have the right or dont have the right to marry anyone? i dont think love is a matter of public consumption. it's between 2 (usually) people and noone else.
i'm married and i'm not gay. so the issue is your tax dollars paying for benefits or something absurd?
what is the real reason anyone would even pretend to have the right to determine anyone else's life?
in this day and age, discrimination is unforgivable


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

...and another thing-
how are we as a people going to ever evolve into a universal species if we cant even get past the color of skin or sexual orientation?
it's embarrassing and archaic for the human species to continue to think this way. think about it.
if you dont agree with someone elses lifestyle, then dont pay attention to them..turn the dial, turn the page, dont buy it, whatever.

As long as we limit ourselves, as a species, to smallmindedness, we will remain small.


----------



## marcc420 (Jun 14, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> marcc420 said:
> 
> 
> > i dont care what any one says gays shuld not be able to rome the earth let alone marry.
> ...


 what do the forum rules have to do with gay marrages? what do you expect? when some one asks what every ones point of veiw on gay marrages i mean dam if you want to love the butthole thats your thing but do it in front of me and i am not liable to what will happen. o if great unky hittler where still around he would tell you what he would think at the end of a firing squad.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

marcc420 said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > marcc420 said:
> ...


 Hes talking about rule numero uno! [Rule #1].. Respecting each of our members. Who knows we may have a member on the board that isnt straight and by you saying what you just did, its going against that rule. Thats all.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > nitrofish.....can you say politician, damn hastas.
> >
> > ill refrase the question, did you vote
> > a= yes it should be allowed
> ...


 very funny


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

nitrofish said:


> hastatus said:
> 
> 
> > > nitrofish.....can you say politician, damn hastas.
> ...


 Talk about a delayed reaction!!







How many pages ago was that one







J/K


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

marcc420 said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > marcc420 said:
> ...


Wow no Kidding Judazz. Marcc420 Sounds like that Guy that Ravaged Europe in the early 1940's.... Really Intelligent stance, Well Educated too.....hahahahahahahahahah BOOOOOOO


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

it's rather obvious that some of our members have many shortcomings in their own character. That's usually reason no. 1 when someone has such passion against someone else in such violent terms.
Can anyone here rationally explain how you could want to kill someone or certain people that you 
A.) don't even know
b.) doesn't really exist except within your own mind
c.)drives you to use Hitler as a reference--of which you agree
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

other than fear and jealousy, i cant explain it...what a waste of such incredible potential, in general.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Zartan Posted on Aug 6 2003, 03:19 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> it's rather obvious that some of our members have many shortcomings in their own character. That's usually reason no. 1 when someone has such passion against someone else in such violent terms.
> Can anyone here rationally explain how you could want to kill someone or certain people that you
> ...


Probaby so, but consider this:

As much as gay and lesbians wish to say "their relationship is normal" I tend to agree, except for certain concepts of it.

1) The anal opening was designed for the natural purpose of defecating. It is well known medically, that repeated use of it for other than its purpose causes the muscles there to stretch and deteriorate over time.

2) The male sex organ was designed for reproduction (excluding pleasure too). With that in mind, its purpose is to fertilize female sex organs.

3) The female sex organ was designed by nature as the recepticle for sperm to create life.

Now where the contradiction lies in Homosexual lifestyle or behavior is;

1) They (Female) use dildoes to replace the male organ to facilitate sex in their receptacles.
2) They (male) use their own organs to place inside the anus, which is a vagina replacement for a female.

I believe this may be why the term "confusion" comes into play. Now granted sex is just one aspect of the relationship. Emotion does enter into it (ie; love). But as I stated earlier, this type of relationship (according to Nature) has only 2 ways to go. 1) end as a species 2) evolve to asexual.

So tell me all, which do you think is most applicable?


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> nitrofish said:
> 
> 
> > hastatus said:
> ...


 i havent been around much lately


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

hastatus said:


> > Zartan Posted on Aug 6 2003, 03:19 PM
> > 1) They (Female) use dildoes to replace the male organ to facilitate sex in their receptacles.
> 
> 
> Frank said receptacle.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Xenon Posted on Aug 6 2003, 08:19 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUOTE (hastatus @ Aug 6 2003, 12:09 PM)
> 
> ...


I thought it was a much better synonym than using orifice or vagina, since the wiring is there.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > Xenon Posted on Aug 6 2003, 08:19 PM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > QUOTE (hastatus @ Aug 6 2003, 12:09 PM)
> >
> ...


 Wiring?!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Ms_Nattereri Posted on Aug 6 2003, 09:05 PM........Wiring?!


Yes wiring. Human body is composed of electrical impulses through nerve endings. Hence "wiring". Experiment with your body more, you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

Also, for all of us "normal" people:
1.the mouth is designed for the intake of food and air, as well as for talking..not smoking, oral sex or other various ,everyday uses.
2. hetero sexual men put their sex organs inside the anus of females on a regular basis..sometimes as an extension of their emotional feelings towards their partner
3. what is natural is a product of evolution. If the human species tended exclusively towards homosexuality, the human race would end, as you stated...
what is "normal"?
how does anyone elses relationships affect you?how does your relationships affect others? do you care?

still, noone can answer as to why any two people, gay in this case, shouldn't get married?


----------



## 521 1N5 (Apr 25, 2003)

Zartan said:


> Also, for all of us "normal" people:
> 1.the mouth is designed for the intake of food and air, as well as for talking..not smoking, oral sex or other various ,everyday uses.
> 2. hetero sexual men put their sex organs inside the anus of females on a regular basis..sometimes as an extension of their emotional feelings towards their partner
> 3. what is natural is a product of evolution. If the human species tended exclusively towards homosexuality, the human race would end, as you stated...
> ...


 anus


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Zartan Posted on Aug 6 2003, 09:11 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Also, for all of us "normal" people:
> 1.the mouth is designed for the intake of food and air, as well as for talking..not smoking, oral sex or other various ,everyday uses.
> ...


*Sure they have. Its instituted by humans and the law. Whether you choose to follow it or not is entirely up to you as a person. The only viable solution for those gays that wish to "marry" create your own religion and God. Seems fairly simple to me. Shouldn't matter to the rest of society. Then the "normal" population has no reason to worry that "gays" will corrupt their churches.*

PS: Then in becomes "protected" under religous freedom.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > Ms_Nattereri Posted on Aug 6 2003, 09:05 PM........Wiring?!
> 
> 
> Yes wiring. Human body is composed of electrical impulses through nerve endings. Hence "wiring". Experiment with your body more, you'll see what I mean.










Ohhh that kind of wiring...gotcha


----------



## scarfish (Apr 5, 2003)

Alright I lied, one more post.

I was just wondering what everyone thought of the gay bishop that has been allowed to raise in rank? Maybe it's just me, but I think that that displays a religion, or at least religious leaders, accepting homosexuality.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scarfish said:


> Alright I lied, one more post.
> 
> I was just wondering what everyone thought of the gay bishop that has been allowed to raise in rank? Maybe it's just me, but I think that that displays a religion, or at least religious leaders, accepting homosexuality.


 Where'd you hear/see that?


----------



## jimbo (Feb 5, 2003)

I havent read much of this post, but I'll say what i think.

Same sex marriages are not right, 1 man, and 1 woman under the.....of god, not 1 man and another man. or 1 woman and another woman, although the lesbian marriage would be a good movie


----------



## scarfish (Apr 5, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> scarfish said:
> 
> 
> > Alright I lied, one more post.
> ...


 It's been all over the news due to it's extremely high controversy. A panel of bishops had to put it to a vote I guess, and the openly gay bishop was allowed to rise. A lot of church members are upset, but I think that this is a good thing. I don't have a link to it yet, I'll post one in a little while.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

scarfish said:


> A lot of church members are upset, but I think that this is a good thing.


Must be in the Catholic religion, since were talking bishops. Either way, yeah theyre going to be mad. He being a bishop is supposed to represent the religion and all its laws, morals, and values in the Bible and uphold to that. The Bible is against homosexuals. So for him to be a bishop, is like a slap to the face to all people that follow that religion. Its like hes saying its okay to go against the teachings of the Holy Book.

How can it be a good thing that they are upset?! The guy went against what the hold dearly to them. In this case, the guy cant say he has a right to be there because this is religion were talking about, not a place in a political office. So the government cant get involved.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Its the bishop from the Anglican Church......yes the church is split.

Also DisneyWorld is under fire for allowing Gay Pride Day during regular hours and Homosexuals were filmed engaging in sex outdoors for all to see, including children. This was filmed by some groups opposed to DisneyWorld laxing their rules to allow gays to be 'themselves'.

Last, Boy Scouts are under fire by ACLU being sued by Agnostic couple and Gay partners. Why? Because they pay a $1 a year fee to keep a park opened that costs millions of dollars a year funded by Boy Scouts and open to everyone. The San Diego judge also ruled the Boy Scouts is a religious organization, contrary to the Supreme Court decision.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

scarfish said:


> Alright I lied, one more post.
> 
> I was just wondering what everyone thought of the gay bishop that has been allowed to raise in rank? Maybe it's just me, but I think that that displays a religion, or at least religious leaders, accepting homosexuality.


 yes I noticed that also. and the news is that he in a relationship at the moment with another guy. so im guessing its not cathloic becase they don't allow any relationships at all.

I wont be surprized if 10-20 years from now its a non issue and looked apon in the same way as the womens sufferage movement (womens right to vote). it just seems like the logical progression of things, like it or not.

ps. damn you,







you lied to us all, you promiced that was your last post. j/k


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

hastatus:
religion can be named as another word for a "lifestyle"--it is a system of beliefs that you live your life by...i think homosexuals have that.
-but why should they be discriminated out of the religions we all subscribe to? why should they have to "create" their own religion? they may have been raised in a certain vein and they may believe in that vein...and in this country, we are given freedom to be treated as equals, regardless of our religious beliefs,etc..so i think we should be doing the harder thing, which is to say, we as a society, if we truly believe the "all men are created equal" , should accept whatever lifestyle it is they live. You dont have to like it, but you really do and should accept it and move on with our own lives.

As far as society setting what is normal by laws and statutes, you've got to be kidding me! Maybe in Utopia or in a good book or movie, but in reality, politics is what causes laws and statutes to appear and dissappear...yes, based on what politicians think will get them elected which is supposed to represent the majority, but that's just not the case,(excuse the pun). If you take a look at the latest laws and so on that are enacted, a large portion of them are designed to placate a small minority of people who either control a large portion of the money or that have gone down the road of litigation. It is incredible how many useless and insane "laws" are on the books. And let's not get into a democrat littany of crap or a republican moral high ground argument.
I'm simply talking about what is universal. and it's something we humans, for all our intelligence, cant seem to get past: we are all the same species, living on a tiny little speck of cosmic dust in an incomprehensible universe, facing all the same issues of life and death and we are all equal in our desires and needs. We need to let people be who they are, get past wasting precious brain power arguiing over why someone likes something other than i do, and get on to the more important issues of disease prevention and cure, starving each other, etc. I know i sound like a flaming liberal, but i'm not. i'm an Independent, with republican tendencies on alot of issues.
This is such a ridiculous issue, it boils my blood. So what if two men or two women want to get married. What the hell does it mean to anyone other than them?

i will give you the argument on physical issues such as aids, as a valid concern, but if we stopped wasting our hot breath on whethjer or not two people of the same sex can get married, and use it to educate people on disease prevention and on a cure, it will be a much better result than trying to prevent something that cant be prevented..that is, stopping people who want to be together, from being together.

i heard the bishop was Episcopalian.

I want to know where it says the bible is against homosexuals? chapter and verse or verses will be fine.


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

CMON PEOPLE. Gay people are human too. Who the HELL are we to tell them what to do? Thats the main point. NO-ONE here has the right to determine the way someone lives their life. Thats Not cool at all...







Gary Busey himself would not be cool with this...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Zartan Posted on Aug 7 2003, 05:25 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> hastatus:
> religion can be named as another word for a "lifestyle"--it is a system of beliefs that you live your life by...i think homosexuals have that.
> ...


*I'm not a religious fanatic, so can't help you. My threads are based in Natural Selection. But I will reverse your question. Please show us all where it states without question that Homosexuality is approved by your God? Chapter and verse or verses would be fine too.*

*PS: The only part I know about the bible is Genesis, the part where God told Adam and Eve to go forth and be fruitful.

I don't see God telling any Tom and/or Larry to go forth and be fruitful. Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, just stating what I know and read. Lastly, as I stated before, if the Gay population wishes to have its own religion following its own bible and god. Then it is protected unde U.S. constitution. I don't see what the problem is, other than their attempts to insert "their values" on the majority. See my point?*



> garybusey Posted on Aug 7 2003, 05:28 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CMON PEOPLE. Gay people are human too. Who the HELL are we to tell them what to do? Thats the main point. NO-ONE here has the right to determine the way someone lives their life. Thats Not cool at all...


See the above to answer this question;...... _NO-ONE here has the right to determine the way someone lives their life. Thats Not cool at all_.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Zartan said:


> *-but why should they be discriminated out of the religions we all subscribe to? why should they have to "create" their own religion?*
> ---------------------------------------
> they may have been raised in a certain vein and they may believe in that vein...and in this country, we are given freedom to be treated as equals, regardless of our religious beliefs,etc..so i think we should be doing the harder thing, which is to say, we as a society, if we truly believe the "all men are created equal" , should accept whatever lifestyle it is they live.
> 
> ...


Theyre descriminated out of religions because the religion doesnt accept it. Plain and simple. For example the Catholic religion. They follow the Bible, and in the Bible its against homosexuality. Therefore, why follow a religion thats against you.

Well here you guys fought in this thread how you cant mix politics with religion. Now you want to involve them both. You just cant. In our Constitution all men are created equal. But thats dealing with politics and government, NOT religion. And in most religions, theyre against homosexuality. Thats just how its been. The Bible has always been against it and look how long its been around. For people to say it will change within the next 20 years...it just wont happen.

As for verses and such you might want to take a look on page 4. We went over that.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

A bible thumper







. What better person qualified to answer the biblical questions.







And she has a valid point.


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Zartan said:
> 
> 
> > *-but why should they be discriminated out of the religions we all subscribe to? why should they have to "create" their own religion?*
> ...


 WHO CARES ABOUT THE BIBLE! Who are they to tell people what to do OR influence others to choice that way. LOAD OF CRAP. I'll say it again, RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITCS. And nor should It have ANY impact on anyone who choses not be affiliated with it. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Bamn. Thats it.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

garybusey said:


> Theyre descriminated out of religions because the religion doesnt accept it. Plain and simple. For example the Catholic religion. They follow the Bible, and in the Bible its against homosexuality. Therefore, why follow a religion thats against you.
> 
> Well here you guys fought in this thread how you cant mix politics with religion. Now you want to involve them both. You just cant. In our Constitution all men are created equal. But thats dealing with politics and government, NOT religion. And in most religions, theyre against homosexuality. Thats just how its been. The Bible has always been against it and look how long its been around. For people to say it will change within the next 20 years...it just wont happen.
> 
> As for verses and such you might want to take a look on page 4. We went over that.


WHO CARES ABOUT THE BIBLE! Who are they to tell people what to do OR influence others to choice that way. LOAD OF CRAP. I'll say it again, RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITCS. And nor should It have ANY impact on anyone who choses not be affiliated with it. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Bamn. Thats it. [/quote]
You need to read what I say and understand it before bashing it. I never said religion had a place in politics. Read paragraph 2 again only this time understand what Im saying. I only brought the Bible in the conversation as a freakin example. To prove my point to Zartan. If you read what he wrote he asked why shouldnt gays be able to practice a religion and I use the Catholic religion as an example why.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> WHO CARES ABOUT THE BIBLE! Who are they to tell people what to do OR influence others to choice that way. LOAD OF CRAP. I'll say it again, RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITCS. And nor should It have ANY impact on anyone who choses not be affiliated with it. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Bamn. Thats it.


I put in bold Ms.Nattereri remarks that apply to your question:



> Ms_Nattereri Posted on Aug 7 2003, 06:45 PM ....Theyre descriminated out of religions because the religion doesnt accept it. Plain and simple. *For example the Catholic religion. They follow the Bible, and in the Bible its against homosexuality. Therefore, why follow a religion thats against you.*
> 
> Well here you guys fought in this thread how you cant mix politics with religion. Now you want to involve them both. You just cant. *In our Constitution all men are created equal. But thats dealing with politics and government, NOT religion.* And in most religions, theyre against homosexuality. Thats just how its been. The Bible has always been against it and look how long its been around. For people to say it will change within the next 20 years...it just wont happen.
> 
> As for verses and such you might want to take a look on page 4. We went over that.





> Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Bamn. Thats it.


Good example of what I refered to earlier as a dictator. Most organisms have a leader which dictates how others live. That is not a democracy. Thanks for making my point.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I was going off line for a bit and then got to thinking how much political correctness has entered our lives in the last 30 some years. I went back to an old dictionary I kept around. _The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (copyrighted, 1969-1976)._ In it was the historical definition of _Marriage_. Far different than today's dictionary which pretty much are filtered to define current uses.

Here is the definition of marriage and one I can associate with churches like the Roman Catholics et al. I italizied the pertenient portions:

*marriage n. 1. a. The state of being a husband and wife; wedlock. b. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. 2. The act of marrying or the cermoney of being married: a wedding. 3. Any close union; aa true marriage of minds. 4. The combination of a the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle. [Middle English mariage, from the Old French, from marier, to Marry.]*

_The combination of a the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle._ ......if one didn't get the translation right, it appears; _as in pinochle_ a card game was omitted and would qualify as homosexual standing using "same suit" as the guideline.

I'm sure the older crowd here might remember the firestorm of the early to middle 70's when these revision were being made to make dictionary's "polically correct". It was also during this same period that the bible was being revised for easy reading.


----------



## Bootlegged (Jul 27, 2003)

OH MAI! THIS THREAYUHD MAKES MEI THENK OF SEXAY LESBIANS!!!!1

*JERKZS!!!!!!!11*


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Bootlegged said:


> *JERKZS!!!!!!!11*


 You know we have a smily that does that...


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Bootlegged said:
> 
> 
> > *JERKZS!!!!!!!11*
> ...


 yeah dude get with the program already


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

oh boy, so much to refute, yet so little time in the day!
Political correctness is one of the most assinine concepts ever developed.
let's just get that out of the way.

Let me say, at this point, my responses are more of a debate addiction than a real desire to go on and on...because i've learned at least one thing on the web..and that is NOONE ever changes their mind based on the arguments of others, whether they are correct or not..as well as the limitations of the medium. It can be quite difficult to have a good, rational argument where both sides completely understand(i didnt say agree) each other when the form of communique is only written and responses are randomly posted-as opposed to point/counterpoint in a formal debate. Also, it's difficult to allow yourself to write page after page, when sometimes that is completely neccessary. That being said, let's continue:

I have searched page 4 and found Zero references and quotes from any bible or torah or any other form of religious scripture. Pls link me if i missed it. If i haven't missed it, my request still stands. Chapter and verse.
But my argument, which hastatus has misunderstood, is not for the inclusion of religion and the importance of it in this argument, but rather, as you stated, to leave it out of the argument. Besides, it keeps going back to why the gay people should create their own religion so they are protected under the constitution, a document written by and fought over, men and women. Isn't it logical to change or amend the written word of man than to "create" an arbritrarily based set of "values", call it religion and then be happy? As if constitutional protection has any real meaning in that case anyway.

I have to leave now, but i've got a lot more to address here, either tonight or tommorrow. i hate to leave arguments unfinished.

btw, my name is frank, as well, fwiw...
In the name of somebody famous who wants a political career, "i'll be back".
(that sounds so self important in this context...not my intention)


----------



## 521 1N5 (Apr 25, 2003)

let's lock this thread...seeing same sex marriage all day makes me sick....


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

goldfish chunks in teeth said:


> let's lock this thread...seeing same sex marriage all day makes me sick....


tsk tsk, others are having grand debates here, goldfish. I'd contribute myself but I'm not 31 years old yet


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Zartan Posted on Aug 7 2003, 10:17 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> oh boy, so much to refute, yet so little time in the day!
> Political correctness is one of the most assinine concepts ever developed.
> ...


----------



## sags (Aug 8, 2003)

Not to change the subject but if religion is to come into play as if it's all great, think about this! Religion has caused more wars and deaths than any other subject known. I think they need to work some things out before telling other people what is right and wrong. Do what YOU want!!!! and as long as it does no harm to others why should we even have an opinion.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

I can't belive how split this is, almost 50/50. it will be interesting what happens when we vote on it for real.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

my final remarks

at first I voted i don't know but I have been thinking, well this dosent affect me, it dosen't bother me either, so why should I care? yes its a little odd and maybe not a great idea for some gays to marry (or many strait people who get married for bad reasons)but either way, it won't change the way i live my life. so what the heck, they want to marry, I say let them.


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

Nice Nitro! Good to see your Open minded! They don't bother me, so why should I care. Frank rasies some excellent points, good to see someone listened. Can't listen to me though, because to me I'm right and they are wrong, it's that simple....


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

Hastatus wrote:, "*not really. The gay movement is to change religion to fit their lifestyle (ie; approval of gay marriages), contrary to teachings by specific religious organizations. I don't know about the written word of man other than how it is done via the legislature. However, I believe that the written word of God according to religious leaders is a whole different ball game. I'm not here to defend religion, gays or marriage. "

The gay movement is not about changing religion. The gay movement is the same as the slavery issue, women's rights and the civil rights movements. All of these movements are based in the inherent rights of all being equal under God, as it is written now, in religious writings and our bill of rights and constitution. There is no need to change religion; there is a need for people to change their level of acceptance. The gay movement is about acceptance in our current society--they wish to be accepted into our society, as it is. They do not want to change or rewrite religion, or even the bill of rights. They believe, rightfully, that their rights to be treated as equals in all aspects of society are inherent in the bill of rights and constitution now and that discrimination is the mitigating factor as to why they are not.
Some people hide behind religion while others dont even hide what is nothing more than discriminatory hatred.

"I believe that the written word of God according to religious leaders is a whole different ball game."--show me where the written word of God says this, not the words of relgious "leaders" interpretations.

"I'm not here to defend religion, gays or marriage. I'm simply asking two very simple questions. And it goes to the source of Natural Law, please answer:

If two of the same sex engage in sex will they be able to produce a viable population, therefore to propagate the species? or will they simply cease to exist as a species? I'm still waiting for an answer."
--This question assumes that all people are gay and that as a result of that, there is no longer the desire to propogate the species. That is a fatal assumption! Even if only a handful of people in the world are gay, they still have children, and through many of the same ways hetero people do. Being gay does not mean you aren't human with human needs and instincts. The instinct to carry on your species does not die because something else turns you on, even if you have to seek "alternative" methods. Further, even if the whole population was gay, that instinct does not go away, nor does that desire, therefore the species would continue. And who knows where that would lead.

Frank Zartan wrote,"I have to leave now, but i've got a lot more to address here, either tonight or tommorrow. i hate to leave arguments unfinished."

Frank Magellan responded,"So do I, particularly when my main questions are not answered by anyone."

I say, c'mon..that is nothing more than fatigue talking there. All questions are answered. Maybe not disproven to your satisfaction, but certainly answered. And then, isn't that the way debates go? But then, noone has provided chapter and verse per my request to show where in the bible it says homosexuality is not approved by God...

Garybusey, which frank raises good points?*


----------



## Jags (Aug 4, 2003)

hell ya wit 2 girls:nod: but wit( no offense) 2 guys no way


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Zartan Posted on Aug 8 2003, 05:19 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Hastatus wrote:, "not really. The gay movement is to change religion to fit their lifestyle (ie; approval of gay marriages), contrary to teachings by specific religious organizations. I don't know about the written word of man other than how it is done via the legislature. However, I believe that the written word of God according to religious leaders is a whole different ball game. I'm not here to defend religion, gays or marriage. "
> 
> ...


----------



## garybusey (Mar 19, 2003)

I was speaking about Frank(hastatus). He's right the rest are wrong. Time will only be in favor of this stance. 10 years from now this will have probably gone through no matter what. Society is evolving, get used to it people....


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

no,no,no. this is not being made a personal issue. i simply used your name(mispelled and all, i apologize) to differentiate between our statements..if i simply used the name "frank", there would be confusion because we are apparently both named "frank".

That notwithstanding, i again refer to my notion of the difficulties of arguiing or even serious discussion online. I am apparently misunderstanding your point and i believe you are misunderstanding mine as well. That is the only explanation to some of the answers we've both given. They are so offbase and offpoint in some cases that it boggles my mind, as yours as well, i'm sure.
I'll bet we agree on more than we disagree, if we were having this conversation in person.

With that in mind, there is no point continuiing the debate as is. As competitive as i am, sometimes you have to see the train running on a circular track and get off.

However, can anyone, ...will anyone....list chapter and verses from the Bible where homosexuality is discussed and judged as bad or unacceptable?
i'm not saying it doesn't exist, i'm simply asking for information ....
does anyone know of anywhere in the Bible where this is discussed?
Btw, this is not to justify my point(s), it's for curiosity by now!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> garybusey Posted on Aug 8 2003, 08:14 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I was speaking about Frank(hastatus). He's right the rest are wrong. Time will only be in favor of this stance. 10 years from now this will have probably gone through no matter what. Society is evolving, get used to it people....


Society yes, which is normal every 10-20 years then revises itself to fit into what is "normal" for humans.

Natural Law? No. Species will evolve as an organism or perish if it can not reproduce itself. A fitting end to this topic since Natural Law is not a topic anyone wishes to talk about for or against, just socialistic views as Gary Busey has indicated.


----------



## Zartan (Jul 21, 2003)

start a new thread on natural law, with a different example or premise...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Zartan Posted on Aug 8 2003, 09:41 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> start a new thread on natural law, with a different example or premise...


 I believe someone has "Creation vs Evolution".


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

I think this topic is GAY!!

Later
Eric


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > Zartan Posted on Aug 8 2003, 09:41 PM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > start a new thread on natural law, with a different example or premise...
> 
> ...


 its enough to make me







might as well bring up politics and abortion next


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

nitrofish said:


> hastatus said:
> 
> 
> > > Zartan Posted on Aug 8 2003, 09:41 PM
> ...


 Its already been done







all thanx to Xenon and it last 3 pages.


----------



## mmmike247 (Jul 22, 2003)




----------

