PDA

View Full Version : Gay Rights



MagicNakor
09-19-2003, 10:51 AM
I'm really only posting this because, hell, we need a new topic. And this one's a hot one around here, at any rate.

So here're some links to help fill in those that may not know too much about the legislation in Parliment right now.

There's Reuters. (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3463559)
This one's got articles...from the Globe and Mail and National Post, I think. Probably'll give more than the international Reuters one, anyhow. (http://www.canada.com/national/features/samesexmarriage/)

The question put forward is basically, "Do you support or oppose same-sex couples being allowed to marry and register their marriage with their provincial government?"

And at the same time, Svend Robinson's bill to protect gays under the anti-hate laws passed yesterday at 140-110. Here's (http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=9A6F834F-D72C-47A0-BABE-668235B5F49C) a small article on that one.

Oh, and on a side-note, on Tuesday the provincial court of British Columbia decided that possession of marijuana was legal. Or, at the very least, not illegal.

Now, I haven't found too many weblinks regarding this from an American point-of-view, and it's difficult to transcribe what's shown on television, however - there has been quite a bit of grumbling from the Republicans. That's not terribly suprising, though. ;)

Just like Rick Mercer so eloquently stated - "It's like we woke up and suddenly we're a European country."

:ninja:

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 10:55 AM
amen

bigboab
09-19-2003, 11:21 AM
Are we not going to be allowed to do anything because of religious intolerance? Now(According to James Bond, and he rules) we are not to use our computers because God forbids IT. :P

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 11:28 AM
amen

Snee
09-19-2003, 11:31 AM
More women for me I say. :lol:

Can't say I understand the gay thing, but you don't see many of them hurting others for their sexual orientation, belief's or whatnot.

They seem an awfully understanding bunch having gone through lots of crap themselves. And I don't think that letting them live together in harmony or whatever is too much to ask.

Just a thought....

Edit:....maybe it came to me because I live in a "European country"?

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 11:42 AM
amen

MagicNakor
09-19-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 12:28
...but seriously though, God had intended us to marry man to woman NOT man with man and woman with woman.

if we allowed this then what's next? man with donkey?

give me a break

catholics rulez
That's the slippery slope argument. Furthermore, what if the people in question aren't Catholic? Or even Christian? Which version of God is going to be imposed on people? I'm not entirely sure how Mormonism works, but I do know that polygamy is an accepted part of it.

There's also a movement of "let them find their own word," which would be basically the same thing as marriage, but called something else.

:( My time's up, unfortunately. I got to start these topics but now I can't seem them grow for a while. Take care until I get back. :)

:ninja:

Snee
09-19-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 12:42
i'd like to add to this:

Canada is probably the ONLY country with more tolerance toward gays than the rest of the world.
....world in this case meaning northern America? :lol:

The chemical imbalance thing has been argued before, something about brains, glands and hormones. Other "known causes" have been believed to be unnatural environments (one-gender schools, prisons). If this is right I can't say, the last thing I heard was that it was supposed to perfectly natural, don't think I heard it from a scientist though.

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 11:55 AM
amen

ilw
09-19-2003, 12:08 PM
I don't really see why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to be married per se, because what other people are doing basically doesn't affect or concern me.

There seem to me to be 2 reasons why gay couples would want marriage rights, one is its really an acceptance/commitment thing and the other is the legal rights and status accorded to a married couple (eg inheritance, tax breaks and various other legal benefits of married couples) . I see no reason why same sex couples shouldn't be accorded the normal legal benefits and rights of heterosexual couples, but I'm unsure about the tax breaks.
Apparently same sex marriages on average are shorter in duration than (the similar generation's) traditional marriages and the argument is that gay couples don't take the institution of marriage as seriously as heterosexual couples. This got me thinking about why married couples get benefits and i suppose it comes down to the fact that marriage is supposed to be the basis for starting a family ie having children. Which is something that gay couples basically can't do and so i kind of disagree with them getting the tax breaks. However, should gay couples be allowed to adopt/have surrogate children? I'm divided on that one purely because of how it will affect the child, will the child suffer by not having a 'normal' family? I can't really decide if gay parents are better than a single parent (btw are single mothers/fathers allowed to adopt?)

Edit: readibility

Edit 2nd time: yeah europe has same sex marriages in quite a few countries.

junkyardking
09-19-2003, 12:14 PM
People of any sexual orientation be they Gay, Bi sexual, Trans sexual should have the same rights as everybody else that includes marriage,
In Australia they dont allow gay marriage yet but the tax office treats gay couples as a couple while the social sercurity doesnt.


As for God there isnt any, Christians didnt even invent marriage, marriage exsited before most if not all religions. :D

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 12:17 PM
amen

ilw
09-19-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 13:17
but what if they adopt child and you haven't thought about how gay parents can affect child psychologically and how this is gonna affect them when they grow up. are they gonna turn out to be gays? or this will change their views on sex? is it gonna be a postive or negative effect? we dont know about that.
I think you have to assume being gay was a bad thing in order to argue that the children might turn out gay. The thing is that heterosexual couples don't need a licence to have children and so there are lots of bad parents out there perfectly free to have children.
Without any evidence that gay parents adversely affect children there doesn't seem to be any basis on which to exclude them from bringing children up, though of course the counter argument is that we shouldn't put the children at risk in order to experiment.

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 12:38 PM
amen

junkyardking
09-19-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 12:17
ok if gay couples marry, there are whatever issues, let it be tax, child benefits, or whatnot

but what if they adopt child and you haven't thought about how gay parents can affect child psychologically and how this is gonna affect them when they grow up. are they gonna turn out to be gays? or this will change their views on sex? is it gonna be a postive or negative effect? we dont know about that. I mean, how would you feel if your parents were gay?

this is, after all, a controversial issue and a lot of people disagree gays should have the right to be married.
Gay people should be allowed to have/adopt children just like everybody else,
the psychologically part tends to be used by people who oppose gay adoptions,
How they would effect the child psychologically is exactly the same as hetrosexual parents effect there children, you will get good and bad parents just like hetrosexual parents,
There are alot of people around mostly if not all from hetrosexual parents who are full of hate, crazy and what not, some times it's parenting sometimes it's not sometimes it's a combination of things.

The only problem i see is when the kids go to school and find out he/she has gay parents, but the kids who would make this an issue and what not tend get that from there parents and socity, it's this kind of intolerance and disrespect that makes up this world at the moment.

human_pet
09-19-2003, 01:16 PM
What if this homosexual tradition lives on and becomes a trend?What would happen to mankind's generation?Die out just because some people have these "desire" to be an aid carryier and some others would want mankind to stop reproducing and thus ending the cycle of life...You see everything that God forbids there's a very good reason behind it,some we know of the harms and some we don't,but God knows us better than we do ourselves...

Peace :) and may human generation lives on :P

Snee
09-19-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by human_pet@19 September 2003 - 14:16
What if this homosexual tradition lives on and becomes a trend?What would happen to mankind's generation?Die out just because some people have these "desire" to be an aid carryier and some others would want mankind to stop reproducing and thus ending the cycle of life...You see everything that God forbids there's a very good reason behind it,some we know of the harms and some we don't,but God knows us better than we do ourselves...

Peace :) and may human generation lives on  :P
....Sorry but that argument is flawed, if god, assuming he exists is as is proclaimed, omnipotent, then this is all according to his plan. and if there is indeed something wrong with homosexuals (not saying there is) then this might just as well be gods way of eliminating their genes from the future genepool. As they have no natural means of procreating within their "unholy" relation, they will have no offspring after all.

Don't really think it's a trend either, I figure a lot of people was in hiding during the years before this became accepted and they were probably quite unhappy, now they don't have to hide and thus we see more of them, I don't think it's contagious really.

And come to think of this similar sexual orientations have been accepted before, just look at ancient greece.


Brothers of Plato, in real life. These two are Socrates primary interlocutors during the Republic. It can be inferred from the text that Plato liked and respected his brothers--his placing them there itself indicates this. Their personalities are not terribly evident--it is clear that Glaucon is somewhat competitive and a lover of young boys (a socially acceptable taste in ancient Greece), Adeimantus the less softly spoken of the two (he disagrees with Socrates more vehemently), and that both of them are very intelligent.

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 01:35 PM
amen

Snee
09-19-2003, 01:37 PM
Yup! as I said, it's hard to become a majority when you can't procreate.

ilw
09-19-2003, 01:40 PM
If you assume its genetic, then full acceptance of gays would probably eventually lead to there being fewer gays because there would be fewer marrying the opposite sex and having children in an effort to lead a 'normal' life.

Snee
09-19-2003, 01:51 PM
I shouldn't assume that should I? :lol:

Anyhow not only are homosexuals a minority today, but they do also have a harder time getting children (adoption, or cloning if you want to go sci-fi, are not that easy compared to natural procreation), if it was a matter of passing on one's values, if it was a social trend so to speak, then they would still be a minority, since they don't get the same chance to further their beliefs.

junkyardking
09-19-2003, 03:01 PM
I like how belivers of god come into these debates saying god forbids this and that but it doesnt stop them from commiting theft on p2p or having sex outside marriage ;)

Also human_pet assumes that homosexuaity is only modern , which is completly untrue homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and the human population continues to increase, what is it now 6 billion and still increasing.
I also see education about Aids has failed you, Aids has nothing to do with homosexuality, it's about having unprotected sex with multiable partners thus putting yourself at higher risk wither your hetro, bi ,trans or gay.

It&#39;s seems humans will try to find anything to discrimate agaist each other wither it be skin color or sexual prefrence, alot use the idea of a God just to discriminate more. <_<

HeavyMetalParkingLot
09-19-2003, 03:19 PM
I like how belivers of god come into these debates saying god forbids this and that but it doesnt stop them from commiting theft on p2p or having sex outside marriage


christianity would be much to hard an ideology to live with if you know, could alter it here nd there to better suit yourself.........

and just so you know, in america it is usually the politicians and white southern males who are anti-gay. gays have become "trendy" currently with hit television shows like "boy meets boy" and "queer eye on the straight guy".

lynx
09-19-2003, 03:24 PM
I, for one, am sick to death of hearing about these so called &#39;Gay Rights&#39;.
Many of the &#39;rights&#39; that are claimed are actually things which are denied to everyone, but the gays seem think they are a special case.

As an example, one of the squares in London had the foliage trimmed as part of normal &#39;tidying up&#39;. The sexual activities of the gays who &#39;cruised&#39; in this square could then be seen by the local residents, who complained. The gays then argued that the bushes should be allowed to grow back so they could continue their activities. The point is that these same activities between heterosexuals would still be illegal - why were the gays demanding special circumstances for themselves?

We don&#39;t see special interest groups being set up for heterosexuals, with millions in public money and grants being put aside, why should homosexuals expect special treatment. If they want to be treated the same as everyone else, they should start acting the same as everyone else, but instead the seem to want to continually bring attention to themselves. I think that in many cases (particularly in showbusiness) they are actually just trying to get themselves noticed.

HeavyMetalParkingLot
09-19-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by lynx@19 September 2003 - 15:24
I, for one, am sick to death of hearing about these so called &#39;Gay Rights&#39;.
Many of the &#39;rights&#39; that are claimed are actually things which are denied to everyone, but the gays seem think they are a special case.

As an example, one of the squares in London had the foliage trimmed as part of normal &#39;tidying up&#39;. The sexual activities of the gays who &#39;cruised&#39; in this square could then be seen by the local residents, who complained. The gays then argued that the bushes should be allowed to grow back so they could continue their activities. The point is that these same activities between heterosexuals would still be illegal - why were the gays demanding special circumstances for themselves?

We don&#39;t see special interest groups being set up for heterosexuals, with millions in public money and grants being put aside, why should homosexuals expect special treatment. If they want to be treated the same as everyone else, they should start acting the same as everyone else, but instead the seem to want to continually bring attention to themselves. I think that in many cases (particularly in showbusiness) they are actually just trying to get themselves noticed.
anyone else notice how easily you could fit blacks, jews, or whoever else you hate into this post?

lynx
09-19-2003, 03:39 PM
I&#39;m sure if you wanted to you could twist my post into appearing to be an attack on almost any group YOU wished to. It still doesn&#39;t alter the facts.

ilw
09-19-2003, 03:42 PM
So are you actually against same sex marriages or just against positive discrimination?

lynx
09-19-2003, 04:04 PM
I don&#39;t care one way or the other about same sex marriages, I don&#39;t think it is natural, but as long as it isn&#39;t &#39;pushed in my face&#39; I don&#39;t care what homosexuals get up to.

I think positive discrimination of any sort is a bad thing, as it happens (but please do not imply from this that I am in favour of negative discrimination). It leads to distortions, people being employed who are not suitable, and resentment, which in turn results in hate crimes. This does not merely apply to homosexuals.

Rat Faced
09-19-2003, 07:08 PM
have you seen how gays talk in tv interviews? have you heard their sounds? their sounds tend to be higher than the average males and what does that indicate? chemical imbalance? hormone thing? something medical? i mean, it&#39;s not nornal.


Thats effeminate.

Not all Gays are effeminate, and not all effeminates are Gay.

Its much easier to "Point" to Gays when they are generalised this way on TV.



As to the original topic.

I think people should be free to marry whoever they want. In a lot of countries the tax breaks are moving away from "married" couples, and swinging towards "with children" anyway, to reflect the number of couples with children that are unmarried.

I see nothing wrong with a Gay couple with an adopted child claiming this type of tax break...its what its for.

As to a Gay couple adopting a child?

Why not?

There is no way you can say all hetrosexual couples are good parents, and surely thats what matters...whether the child is loved and nertured properly.


The argument that the child will grow up Gay just doesnt wash....as most Gays parents arent Gay.

Some people should just face the fact that Gay is normal, and you are born with your sexuality, you dont choose it. Face it, a blokes body is bloody ugly/funny, they wouldnt Choose to fancy it.

Just be glad the girls do (well, the non Gay Girls anyway) ;)


I have a theory as to why Lesbiens are accepted by men, and Gay men arent.... we can understand why the girls fancy girls, we do too.

We cant understand why the men fancy blokes.

Billy_Dean
09-19-2003, 07:22 PM
It&#39;s a well known fact that children brought up by gay parents always turn out gay.

They are also more likely to become junkies and rob old people.

Most long term prisoners are gay too, which proves most gays are criminals.

That&#39;s what I heard anyway.


:)

Rat Faced
09-19-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@19 September 2003 - 19:22
It&#39;s a well known fact that children brought up by gay parents always turn out gay.

They are also more likely to become junkies and rob old people.

Most long term prisoners are gay too, which proves most gays are criminals.

That&#39;s what I heard anyway.


:)
wow........just change the word "Gay" for the baddie of the day....and you have brought the subject round to American Foreign Policy....


j/k

james_bond_rulez
09-19-2003, 08:42 PM
Amen to that

bigboab
09-19-2003, 09:15 PM
In the UK the Labour government legalised homosexuality in the 60&#39;s with a legal age of 21. They(Labour) reduced that age to 18 in the 80&#39;s or 90&#39;s. Now they(Labour) are reducing it to 16. Will it be compulsory under the next labour government?

Rat Faced
09-19-2003, 09:38 PM
They have equalised the age of consent.

If you were 15, 16 or 17...or had a bf/gf that age, i bet you&#39;d complain if they equalised it the other way..

ie: Age of consent = 18. (or worse, 21)


Now if they made Age of Consent for homosexuals 15, and kept hetros at 16...you&#39;d have a point.


If they make sex compulsary at 16.....then im really upset to have missed out on that by 22 years.

And i know a lot of young males and females that would love it....Im sure they think that already ;)

hobbes
09-20-2003, 01:23 AM
resolved

clocker
09-20-2003, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@19 September 2003 - 12:22
It&#39;s a well known fact that children brought up by gay parents always turn out gay.

They are also more likely to become junkies and rob old people.

Most long term prisoners are gay too, which proves most gays are criminals.

That&#39;s what I heard anyway.


:)
I can only assume that this is a sample of hybrid Brit/Aussie humor.

Sometimes it&#39;s hard to tell with old Billy.

dingoBaby
09-20-2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by lynx@19 September 2003 - 11:24
I, for one, am sick to death of hearing about these so called &#39;Gay Rights&#39;.
Many of the &#39;rights&#39; that are claimed are actually things which are denied to everyone, but the gays seem think they are a special case.

As an example, one of the squares in London had the foliage trimmed as part of normal &#39;tidying up&#39;. The sexual activities of the gays who &#39;cruised&#39; in this square could then be seen by the local residents, who complained. The gays then argued that the bushes should be allowed to grow back so they could continue their activities. The point is that these same activities between heterosexuals would still be illegal - why were the gays demanding special circumstances for themselves?

We don&#39;t see special interest groups being set up for heterosexuals, with millions in public money and grants being put aside, why should homosexuals expect special treatment. If they want to be treated the same as everyone else, they should start acting the same as everyone else, but instead the seem to want to continually bring attention to themselves. I think that in many cases (particularly in showbusiness) they are actually just trying to get themselves noticed.
In a later post you mentioned something about "the facts". Where are the facts in this rant? All I see is part of some story about the shrubs and alot of generalizations.

How is demanding the right to have a legally recognized marriage the same as demanding special circumstances? Take religion and religious views out of the equation, because it doesn&#39;t apply to everyone, and what do you have left? Discrimination, plain and simple.

Mr. Blunt
09-20-2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 04:42
have you seen how gays talk in tv interviews? have you heard their sounds? their sounds tend to be higher than the average males and what does that indicate? chemical imbalance? hormone thing? something medical? i mean, it&#39;s not nornal.
What is normal?

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 02:27 AM
amen

hobbes
09-20-2003, 02:33 AM
it looks like rain

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 02:38 AM
amen

hobbes
09-20-2003, 02:49 AM
Smells like rain.

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 02:55 AM
amen

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 02:57 AM
amen

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 03:03 AM
amen

hobbes
09-20-2003, 03:09 AM
Yes, it is raining now, feels warm on my skin.

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 03:15 AM
amen

hobbes
09-20-2003, 03:21 AM
Where did I put my fudge?

As for my feelings on gays, I think ratfaced did a pretty good job.

3rd gen noob
09-20-2003, 03:22 AM
i haven&#39;t read much of the thread, but i&#39;m against same-sex &#39;marriages&#39;

hobbes
09-20-2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@20 September 2003 - 04:22
i haven&#39;t read much of the thread, but i&#39;m against same-sex &#39;marriages&#39;
If a religion prohibits same sex marriages then they should not be married.

If marraige is requested for legal reasons-property, ownership, assets, I could care less. Let them have a state bond. They will be living together anyway, why not allow them the same privledges that straight couples enjoy?

The issue of adoption is a little complicated. Two gay men with a boy might lead to local uproar even if they act as ideal parents. The child may have great parents, but will be a victim of socities&#39; judgements.

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 03:38 AM
ok as i was saying something about God...I can&#39;t remember hobbes disrupted my train of thought :D

I dont wanna get into the philosophy and the whole 9 yards but I dont think gayism came into play until the early 1930 or the early 1900s.

If you ask older generations, if you ask them what gay is, they&#39;ll tell you gay means cheerful.

So is gay the result of the late pop culture? or is it something different. I dont care. All I know is this was NOT how the entire human culture started.

and u might argue that the times have changed and whatnot and people are more open about sex, even same-sex marriages.

call me old-fashioned but it just doesn&#39;t sit right with the whole notion that a family is made of 2 men or 2 women. This is just unheard of in the past. Men are meant to be with women and have families and children.

well then some1 asked me what is "normal" marriage? well I&#39;ll say a normal marriage is the union of a man and a woman. And a happy marriage and family is when both members contribute financial means as well as spritual support into the family. so a gay couple can have a happy family, but a normal marriage? not in my religion.

thanks

MagicNakor
09-20-2003, 04:31 AM
In older (more recent) generations, if one was homosexual, one was a confirmed bachelor. ;)

In ancient Greece, it was such a common practice that there are at least 4 words describing the varying stages of same-sex relationships. I&#39;d likely have more to say, but I&#39;m pressed for time and the little ;)s are taking up the "last 10 posts" slot. ;)

:ninja:

hobbes
09-20-2003, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@20 September 2003 - 05:31
In older (more recent) generations, if one was homosexual, one was a confirmed bachelor. ;)

In ancient Greece, it was such a common practice that there are at least 4 words describing the varying stages of same-sex relationships. I&#39;d likely have more to say, but I&#39;m pressed for time and the little ;)s are taking up the "last 10 posts" slot. ;)

:ninja:
Don&#39;t ask, don&#39;t tell&#33;

3rd gen noob
09-20-2003, 04:33 AM
apparently the most offensive insult in ancient greece was:

"your breath smells of your slave&#39;s semen"

:rolleyes:

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@20 September 2003 - 04:33
apparently the most offensive insult in ancient greece was:

"your breath smells of your slave&#39;s semen"

:rolleyes:
mmm...ewww

is this real? there were gays in ancient greece? i haven&#39;t done any research in this field

3rd gen noob
09-20-2003, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@20 September 2003 - 04:37
i haven&#39;t done any research in this field
it shows...:rolleyes:

yes, it&#39;s true
infact, young men used to go on trips with older men into the forest...they did &#39;things&#39;

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+20 September 2003 - 04:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 20 September 2003 - 04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-james_bond_rulez@20 September 2003 - 04:37
i haven&#39;t done any research in this field
it shows...:rolleyes:

yes, it&#39;s true
infact, young men used to go on trips with older men into the forest...they did &#39;things&#39; [/b][/quote]
yeah but that&#39;s different though, isn&#39;t it?

they "do it" out of lust, not love

3rd gen noob
09-20-2003, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@20 September 2003 - 04:42
yeah but that&#39;s different though, isn&#39;t it?

they "do it" out of lust, not love
it&#39;s still homosexual activity, no matter the context...

hobbes
09-20-2003, 04:44 AM
Aristotle and Plato did this. Or was it Socrates.

It was considered an honor for a student to please his educator. This was a socially acceptable option for the teacher to penetrate the student.

The student was supposed to accept this as his role, but it was considered wrong for the teacher to want to be sodomized. Yes, it was considered like a jack off, not out of love.

To be homosexual you must be physically aroused by same sex, I think the Greeks practiced the "any port in a storm technique"

That is where the term "Greek style" comes from.

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@20 September 2003 - 04:44
It was considered an honor for a student to please his educator. This was a socially acceptable option for the teacher to penetrate the student.


wow is this where all the sex with professors came from?

I had no idea...

interesting

MagicNakor
09-20-2003, 06:13 AM
The earliest reference I know about to homosexuality is from Ancient Egypt.

But in Ancient Greece, it was the "boy-lovers" that were most sought after - that is from the ages of 12-14. It was more between a man and a youth than two men. Young men were the Greek ideal, combining both beauty and intellect.

Then there&#39;s the long litany of European noblemen that secretly preferred other men.

At any rate, homosexuality&#39;s likely been around just about as long as heterosexuality has. ;)

:ninja:

Billy_Dean
09-20-2003, 07:19 AM
Believers in evolution should study apes, they do it. They don&#39;t get married tho&#39;&#33;



:)

lynx
09-20-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by dingoBaby+20 September 2003 - 02:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dingoBaby @ 20 September 2003 - 02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@19 September 2003 - 11:24
I, for one, am sick to death of hearing about these so called &#39;Gay Rights&#39;.
Many of the &#39;rights&#39; that are claimed are actually things which are denied to everyone, but the gays seem think they are a special case.

As an example, one of the squares in London had the foliage trimmed as part of normal &#39;tidying up&#39;. The sexual activities of the gays who &#39;cruised&#39; in this square could then be seen by the local residents, who complained. The gays then argued that the bushes should be allowed to grow back so they could continue their activities. The point is that these same activities between heterosexuals would still be illegal - why were the gays demanding special circumstances for themselves?

We don&#39;t see special interest groups being set up for heterosexuals, with millions in public money and grants being put aside, why should homosexuals expect special treatment. If they want to be treated the same as everyone else, they should start acting the same as everyone else, but instead the seem to want to continually bring attention to themselves. I think that in many cases (particularly in showbusiness) they are actually just trying to get themselves noticed.
In a later post you mentioned something about "the facts". Where are the facts in this rant? All I see is part of some story about the shrubs and alot of generalizations.

How is demanding the right to have a legally recognized marriage the same as demanding special circumstances? Take religion and religious views out of the equation, because it doesn&#39;t apply to everyone, and what do you have left? Discrimination, plain and simple. [/b][/quote]
You didn&#39;t have the guts to quote my later post then? Or could it be that it didn&#39;t suit your agenda?

Billy_Dean
09-20-2003, 10:35 AM
@ Dingo baby. Why is it not OK to have views on gays, but OK to have a username that trivialises the tragic death of a young child killed by a dingo?



:)

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 10:38 AM
here we go again :D

netweiser
09-20-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 September 2003 - 11:55
amen
why do u keep saying amen? <_<

also i dont see a problem with gay ppl gettin marrid. its their life&#33;

james_bond_rulez
09-20-2003, 02:18 PM
nah I was just refering to my last post as my point of view. my previous posts have been controversal so I modified them to say amen

clocker
09-20-2003, 02:37 PM
I think that the issue needs to be considered in two parts.

The first would be does a religion wish to recognize a gay union as being comparable to the traditional male/female union.

The second would be does the state wish to recognize a gay union as legal and accord the couple the same benefits as the standard married couple.

I don&#39;t care about the first, that would seem to be a decision best left to the religion in question.

The second issue is where I think most of the problem lies as there is much more at stake ( not to trivialize the importance of religion ). Do insurance companies, pension plans, Social Security, etc. need to extend the same benefits to same sex partners as they do opposite sex couples?
I would say yes.
It&#39;s hardly as though the traditional form of marriage is such a rousing success these days that alternative forms shouldn&#39;t be considered. Divorce rates are high, and family stability should be the ultimate goal here. If extending the social benefits to ANY couple willing to give it a go will increase the number of two parent households, then I&#39;m all for it.

hobbes
09-20-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 September 2003 - 08:19
Believers in evolution should study apes, they do it.* They don&#39;t get married tho&#39;&#33;



:)
There is a catch here, a trade off, if you will.

In ape society, ALL of the females belong to the alpha. The ultimate propagation of the fittest, strongest.

The only way the other males get nookie is to do it secretly. Hence the strongest and most clever pass on their genes. Unfortunately for the ladies these clandestine lovers must perform their act quickly lest the alpha male break their spines, hence the survival of the "premature ejaculator".

So unless you are the biggest and strongest, or you&#39;re "efficient" in your business, you might be quite lonely.


As for homosexuality in nature, animals exhibit this behavior as well, it is not a human invention.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-hbd120601.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/wcs-hbd120601.php)

Biggles
09-20-2003, 03:49 PM
I have to say I can&#39;t really see this as an issue to get bent out of shape about.

Although the idea of being intimate with another man doesn&#39;t wet my sponge I can&#39;t say I really care one way or another what two other men or women get up to in their own bedroom. Cue the "I have always been a closet lesbian" jokes from the guys. :D

I am a little surprised that people seem to be unaware that homosexual behaviour is as old as human sexual behaviour (i.e. very old indeed). The term lesbian comes from Saphos of Lesbos a female poet from the Ancient Greek civilisation who lived on the island of Lesbos (which is still there and still called Lesbos).

In a free society an individual should be allowed to pass on their pension, property etc., to whomsoever they like. I do not think it is the business of Church or State to say otherwise. Consequently, I am for equality of legal rights for all regardless of race, colour, creed, or orientation. Positive discrimination is, however, silly and counter-productive and in the EU not permitted I believe. I have always held the view that the extremely earnest politically motivated types set their own causes back more than they assist them. Thatchell (can&#39;t remember his first name) being a case in point - would anyone really want to spend more than 1 minute listening to him rant no matter how right he might be.

I have never understood the "undermining marriage argument". In fact it is one of the silliest last ditch standpoints I can recall. Exactly how many people are going to say "That&#39;s it - call off our wedding, homosexuals have equal rights. The ball is burst, the game is over". I would suggest a grand total of none. Those heterosexuals who wish to marry will do so regardless of what others are doing.

The religious aspect is seperate and not relevant to legal rights. Churches of all religions are free to marry whoever they like (or not as the case may be). Some churches will not marry divorcees. This is their privilege - however, no religious body should be in position to enforce legally their view on those who do not subscribe to their particular flavour of belief.

Gemby!
09-20-2003, 10:43 PM
i dont know why but i dont agree with the gay marriage thing
probably how i have been brougt up or something (no bad comments please)

i aint gonna say some long sentance about why i think this or act like i totally disagree or something cos i dont mind gay people being - umm gay :P its just i dont think they should get married

TheDave
09-20-2003, 11:06 PM
if marriage is holy matrimony.

and god doesnt agree with gays

does that mean for gay marriages to be proper they have to be evil

jbrockz
09-21-2003, 12:59 AM
i believe those who have seen from both the view-points, church and state, have at least attempted to see the whole picture....there are many things [read laws, provisions, etc] where the church and state clash. example, when galileo said that the sun and not the earth is the center and that the earth is not flat, he was arrested by the church officials who declared him a heretic. however, i don&#39;t think there is a single individual today that would say the earth is flat and all those who say otherwise are heretics. if the science was thwarted right there, maybe we would still be believing that the earth is flat. the issue was spared by many from being seen from only a religious standpoint and we have that to thank for today&#39;s world of science and its rapid progress.

i believe that gay marraiges, from the state standpoint, should be made legal and carry all the perks of hetero wedlock. As for religion, well, to quote from the book, &#39;&#39;a brief history of time&#39;&#39; by stephen w. hawking

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He
described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast
collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and
said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.” “You’re very
clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down&#33;”

That is the nature of belief, once it has become a part of you, you don&#39;t change it. So, the decision to accept or reject from a religious standpoint is best left with the individual.

hobbes
09-21-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by jbrockz@21 September 2003 - 01:59
i believe those who have seen from both the view-points, church and state, have at least attempted to see the whole picture....there are many things [read laws, provisions, etc] where the church and state clash. example, when galileo said that the sun and not the earth is the center and that the earth is not flat, he was arrested by the church officials who declared him a heretic. however, i don&#39;t think there is a single individual today that would say the earth is flat and all those who say otherwise are heretics. if the science was thwarted right there, maybe we would still be believing that the earth is flat. the issue was spared by many from being seen from only a religious standpoint and we have that to thank for today&#39;s world of science and its rapid progress.

i believe that gay marraiges, from the state standpoint, should be made legal and carry all the perks of hetero wedlock. As for religion, well, to quote from the book, &#39;&#39;a brief history of time&#39;&#39; by stephen w. hawking

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He
described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast
collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and
said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.” “You’re very
clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down&#33;”

That is the nature of belief, once it has become a part of you, you don&#39;t change it. So, the decision to accept or reject from a religious standpoint is best left with the individual.
I love that quote, I use it all the time.

It is my shorthand to my friends that the person speaking doesn&#39;t even have a clue of their own illogic, no insight whatsoever.

I just poke my friends, point to the offender, and say, "It&#39;s turtles all the way down". ;)


Just curious, what languages do you speak and which would you consider the one in which you are most comfortable.

jbrockz
09-21-2003, 01:48 AM
:lol:

about the last part, i sent you a PM.

james_bond_rulez
09-21-2003, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by jbrockz@21 September 2003 - 00:59
That is the nature of belief, once it has become a part of you, you don&#39;t change it. So, the decision to accept or reject from a religious standpoint is best left with the individual.
mmm interesting, so you are saying it&#39;s up to individuals to decide if it is religously, politically, and socially acceptable to have gay marriages.

but this is not simply a matter of right and wrong, this is a matter of what you believe.

If people believe that gay marriages are not acceptable, do you label them with the lady that says "it&#39;s turtles all the way down"? NO

It&#39;s imprecise science.

jbrockz
09-21-2003, 03:52 AM
mmm interesting, so you are saying it&#39;s up to individuals to decide if it is religously, politically, and socially acceptable to have gay marriages.

but this is not simply a matter of right and wrong, this is a matter of what you believe.

If people believe that gay marriages are not acceptable, do you label them with the lady that says "it&#39;s turtles all the way down"? NO

i think its important to explain the context of the little old lady. i cannot speak for stephen hawking, but i can tell you what i think. during the time of galileo, a flat earth was the official church-sanctioned version of the universe. if we were somehow to be transported to that era, we would find that EVERYONE believed in it. Sailors set sail to discover the edge of the world. One would be considered the village idiot for speaking about such things as galaxies and black holes and supernovae and nebulae, terms that are commonplace and proved by modern technology in today&#39;s era. in fact, galileo existed centuries ago. even an old lady from a century ago would know the earth was round cause by then the question of the earth&#39;s shape was put to rest and newton et al were coming up with laws of motion and gravity and predicting the path of planets. i think stephen hawking used the little old lady to symbolise hard-set beliefs, the natural human tendency to resist change.

I am not saying anyone who believes being gay is evil is wrong, i m just saying this is what religious people believe today, and i m not the one to ask them to change. I have the strength of my beliefs and they have the strength of theirs. Maybe, a century from now someone saying this would be told, &#39;&#39;yeah right, its turtles all the way down&#39;&#39;, but as of today, this is the official church-santioned version and one cannot disregard it. Hence, the decision to personally accept the notion of gay wedlock is best left to the individual and his beliefs.

infamousalbo101
09-21-2003, 04:53 AM
gay people are so gay :P

jbrockz
09-21-2003, 05:11 AM
:D :lol:

Biggles
09-21-2003, 12:56 PM
Perhaps I mis-read the introduction to Brief History, but I took the quote to mean not that the little old lady really believed that the world was flat and sat upon an infinite number of turtles, but rather she was humourously demonstrating that "knowing" anything required, to a degree, a leap of faith. I took its inclusion in Stephan Hawkings book to indicate that he himself approached the subject matter with a element of humility and was not claiming to offer the whole truth (whatever that might actually mean).

:rolleyes: Anyway, everyone knows, thanks to the insights provided by Terry Pratchett, that there are four elephants between the world and the turtle.

J'Pol
09-21-2003, 03:41 PM
Great A&#39;Tuin.

On topic, it really is a legal issue, given that for those who do not believe in God there can be no religious aspect. For those who do then they probably believe that God either accepts the marriage or he does not. We do not decide for him.

So from a purely legal standpoint, if two people wish to take out a contract with each other and sign it in front of witnesses and someone empowered by the state to authorise the contract then let them. It really is their own business whether they are both men, both women, or one of each.

jbrockz
09-21-2003, 05:26 PM
Anyway, everyone knows, thanks to the insights provided by Terry Pratchett, that there are four elephants between the world and the turtle.

:lol: love the guy...haven&#39;t read all 26, but he really cracks me up. maybe if galileo was thwarted, that would be our perception :lol:


Perhaps I mis-read the introduction to Brief History...

as i wrote above, &#39;&#39;i cannot speak for stephen hawking, but i can tell you what i think&#39;&#39;. :)

hobbes
09-21-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@21 September 2003 - 13:56
Perhaps I mis-read the introduction to Brief History, but I took the quote to mean not that the little old lady really believed that the world was flat and sat upon an infinite number of turtles, but rather she was humourously demonstrating that "knowing" anything required, to a degree, a leap of faith. I took its inclusion in Stephan Hawkings book to indicate that he himself approached the subject matter with a element of humility and was not claiming to offer the whole truth (whatever that might actually mean).

:rolleyes:&nbsp; Anyway, everyone knows, thanks to the insights provided by Terry Pratchett, that there are four elephants between the world and the turtle.
I find it no more difficult to believe that she honestly believed in turtles, than others literally believing that Noah built an ark over 104 year period, collected 2 of all the world animals, and God killed every animal and plant on the planet.

Reading that story, I did not get the picture that the old woman was being anything more than literal. Perhaps I did not pick up on her subtle irony.

Anyway, the whole concept of science is to know something without relying on faith. Galileo did not say that the earth is round because a raven whispered it in his ear. He used his observational skills to intuit that the Earth was a round structure. Then, based on this assumption, he designed experiments to test this idea.

So I know that if I drop my shorts they will fall to my ankles, I am a man of science. Next time I drop my shorts though, I will do it in the privacy of my own home ;)

bigboab
09-22-2003, 02:59 AM
Are you lot on the original thread here?

Billy_Dean
09-22-2003, 06:03 AM
Bishop John Spong discussing homosexual rights. (http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/catech.html)

Just to bring this thread back on topic.



:)

protak
09-22-2003, 07:07 AM
Flamer or not???? :huh: If ya think this is normal behavior folk&#39;s have another drink. :unsure: Sodom and Gamora, the lord clearly states two men shall not lay down together. :angry: If ya think it&#39;s a trend, or fad or phase or whatever..... wrong. The aids arguement can be just that an arguement. But the fact is, it is still a predominantely gay disease, and to think there&#39;s no God&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :o

Billy_Dean
09-22-2003, 07:25 AM
Hi tim, don&#39;t see you over this way much, how is ya?

So let me get this straight, God, whoever She is, decided to wipe out gays, so sent AIDS down to get rid of them. Is that right?

So, two questions:
1. Why did She allow it to spread to the hetero community?
2. Why didn&#39;t She just cure them?


:)

jbrockz
09-22-2003, 07:49 AM
lol, billy

junkyardking
09-22-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by protak@22 September 2003 - 07:07
Flamer or not???? :huh: If ya think this is normal behavior folk&#39;s have another drink. :unsure: Sodom and Gamora, the lord clearly states two men shall not lay down together. :angry: If ya think it&#39;s a trend, or fad or phase or whatever..... wrong. The aids arguement can be just that an arguement. But the fact is, it is still a predominantely gay disease, and to think there&#39;s no God&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :o
What aload of shit, Christian bull, your god also said do not steal but as you’re on a p2p board I assume you use p2p for the latest music and whatever.
As I understand you can’t argue that Copyright Infringement is not stealing in front of your God.

I also see Aids Education has failed for you and you wish to dwell in ignorance, Aids is predominantly now a heterosexual disease, millions of Africans can account for this.

As HIV/Aids is mostly contracted though sexual activity alot of Christians see this as Gods punishment because them and there God have "issues" with sex.

You notice how all the other diseases which have mostly nothing to do with sex, Cancer, Heart disease, stroke, influenza, SARS and so on
Receive little attention from Christians yet they kill more than Aids.

Any excuse to be a Bigot I say. <_<

Billy_Dean
09-22-2003, 08:38 AM
I think Tim&#39;s point about AIDS, (correct me if I&#39;m wrong Tim), is that it was started by Gay men practicing anal sex, and spread to the heterosexual community through bi-sexual men. Once in the hetero community it spread rapidly because of the greater population involved.


:)

Biggles
09-22-2003, 03:20 PM
Aids has always been a largely heterosexual disease. The overwhelming majority of cases in the world are heterosexual. It has been around perhaps 50 years or more and is endemic in many sub-Saharan populations.

The fact that the disease was introduced initially to the US and some European countries through homosexual contact is well known.

However, to call it a divine judgement on homosexuals shows not the nature of God but rather how ethno-centric we are and how parochial some commentators are. Would your God really kill millions of African children to get at a few thousand US homosexuals?

protak
09-22-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@22 September 2003 - 08:38
I think Tim&#39;s point about AIDS, (correct me if I&#39;m wrong Tim), is that it was started by Gay men practicing anal sex, and spread to the heterosexual community through bi-sexual men.* Once in the hetero community it spread rapidly because of the greater population involved.


:)
Yes Rikk that is my point. Cancer and all those other disease&#39;s that kill, have been around for hundred&#39;s of year&#39;s unlike aid&#39;s, which I believe became predominant in the late 70&#39;s early 80&#39;s ( In North America). To blame God for not just healing us is, well ludicrous, he did&#39;nt start this or any disease, we did, whether it be from bad diet&#39;s, smoking, drinking, car and industrial pollution, the list is just too long, to continue. I live in Canada were they allow same sex marriage...PPPPLEASSSE.
If ya want to be a fag or les that&#39;s up to you, your choice, but please don&#39;t shove it down our throat, dont ask for special right&#39;s, because I can think of no fewer than 10-20 ? different organizations or groups that really deserve rights, that have&#39;nt even been acknowledged. But that starts a completely different thread.
EDIT NOTE: I did not say it was god&#39;s divine judgement on homosexual&#39;s, someone took my personal opinion, to think I was speaking on behalf of a christian belief.....

protak
09-22-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@22 September 2003 - 07:25
Hi tim, don&#39;t see you over this way much, how is ya?

So let me get this straight, God, whoever She is, decided to wipe out gays, so sent AIDS down to get rid of them. Is that right?

So, two questions:
1. Why did She allow it to spread to the hetero community?
2. Why didn&#39;t She just cure them?


:)
Hey Billy how are ya???? :lol:
To answer your question NO&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
1. Lifestyle..
2. Lifestyle..
If we can&#39;t live by the law&#39;s of the land why would he.

hobbes
09-23-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by protak+22 September 2003 - 19:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (protak &#064; 22 September 2003 - 19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@22 September 2003 - 08:38
I think Tim&#39;s point about AIDS, (correct me if I&#39;m wrong Tim), is that it was started by Gay men practicing anal sex, and spread to the heterosexual community through bi-sexual men.* Once in the hetero community it spread rapidly because of the greater population involved.


:)
Yes Rikk that is my point. Cancer and all those other disease&#39;s that kill, have been around for hundred&#39;s of year&#39;s unlike aid&#39;s, which I believe became predominant in the late 70&#39;s early 80&#39;s ( In North America). To blame God for not just healing us is, well ludicrous, he did&#39;nt start this or any disease, we did, whether it be from bad diet&#39;s, smoking, drinking, car and industrial pollution, the list is just too long, to continue. I live in Canada were they allow same sex marriage...PPPPLEASSSE.
If ya want to be a fag or les that&#39;s up to you, your choice, but please don&#39;t shove it down our throat, dont ask for special right&#39;s, because I can think of no fewer than 10-20 ? different organizations or groups that really deserve rights, that have&#39;nt even been acknowledged. But that starts a completely different thread.
EDIT NOTE: I did not say it was god&#39;s divine judgement on homosexual&#39;s, someone took my personal opinion, to think I was speaking on behalf of a christian belief.....[/b][/quote]
How does equal = special? This is a legal issue, not a religious one. Your God is just a story you made up, as are the rules you gave him. BTW, God causes almost every disease. Have you heard of micro-organisms? Bad diet and drinking doesn&#39;t create them. Remember the bubonic plague, 75% of the human population died. In fact, the 1918 influenza pandemic killed up to 40 million, did this happen because we were snacking betwen meals?

I thought that using guilt to explain illness (you are sick because you are naughty- God is punishing you) went out a while back, with blood letting and witch hunting.



As noted in the thread, homosexual activity has been documented in primates, indicating that this is not a morality issue. This is how some people are born. The essence of being homosexual is not the sex act but the arousal.

Whether you have sex or not changes nothing. If you are physically aroused by same sex then you are homosexual. Why would God let babies be born with natural urges that would lead them to damnation?

I have liked females since before kindergarten, I really didn&#39;t know what I wanted from them until my testicular tumor started to control my mind, but always I knew I liked their smell, touch and presence.

Hell yeah, I (we all) pretended to hate each other as grade schoolers with cootie spray and such, but as Shakespeare said, "Me thinks the woman doth protest too much".

Anyway, did any of you sit down and vote. Did you logically tally up the pros and cons of women vs men. 3 to 2 is the final score, looks like I&#39;m going with the ladies. Hell no, you didn&#39;t, you have no concious control over this.


Protak:
"But the fact is, it is still a predominantely gay disease, and to think there&#39;s no God&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; "

As for AIDS, it seems you make up your facts, just like you make up your God. You conjure them from nothingness. What were we to garner from that last bit, other than this is God&#39;s judgemnet? Or did you just wish to lead us down that path and at the end say, "Oh, I wasn&#39;t implying nothin&#39;".

The reason that it is transmitted more efficiently from male to male is that the passage used is more fragile than the vagina, there is absolutely nothing magical about it- no "gay" bullet. And homosexual intercourse NEVER created the virus, it has been around all along and humans are the new host.

Anyway, your posts have been well balanced. Equal parts ignorance and intolerance. The neat thing is that I will flamed for that line, but no one will comment on this " If ya want to be a fag or les that&#39;s up to you, your choice, but please don&#39;t shove it down our throat, dont ask for special right&#39;s" Go figure.

protak
09-23-2003, 04:09 AM
Ohhh I get it know, when you change the law that is not special, that is equal....
My God is Jesus, the bible is the oldest book in the world, maybe you should try reading it. No don&#39;t you&#39;ll probably disagree with all of it. I did not say sick people were naughty, and being punished, I merely implied that there diet&#39;s and/or lifestyle may not help.
[b]" Bad diet and drinking does&#39;nt create them". "Have you heard of micro-organism"?
"Public opinion survey&#39;s show consumer&#39;s believe the biggest threat to health originates in man- made substances in food-preservatives and flavouring&#39;s. YET the world health organisation, has confirmed the greatest danger&#39;s actually come from naturally occurring micro-organism&#39;s such as salmonella and certain strain&#39;s of E-coli." If this whole argument is about legal issues and not religious, then should the different religious groups that do not sanction this whole issue, have the wright to fight it in court also? Should heterosexual people that don&#39;t think this is normal have anti-gay parades? Atleast we have one thing in common, Your posts have an equal amount of ignorance and....intolerance.... :x

MagicNakor
09-23-2003, 04:27 AM
Unfortunately, the Bible isn&#39;t the oldest book in the world.

That honour goes to a six-page book of gold written in Etruscan. You can see it if you&#39;re in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Edit: A religious group that does not sanction gay-marriage doesn&#39;t have to fight anything in court. They just simply refuse to perform one.

:ninja:

protak
09-23-2003, 05:47 AM
Unfortunately, the bible is&#39;nt the oldest book in the world
I fail to agreeHistory of the English Bible (http://www.greatsite.com/engbibhis/)
Scroll to bottom for dates...
And i was&#39;nt talking about same sex marriage.... :)

MagicNakor
09-23-2003, 06:20 AM
Here. (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/95/381/10124_etruscan.html)

:ninja:

J'Pol
09-23-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 September 2003 - 05:27


Edit: A religious group that does not sanction gay-marriage doesn&#39;t have to fight anything in court. They just simply refuse to perform one.


I think I said something like that earlier, however in a more verbose way.

It is not a religious matter (see my earler). It is purely a legal contract as such I have no problem with whoever wants to marry.

Personally my marriage in the eyes of God means more to me than my marriage in the eyes of the state. (Which I can take or leave). To me my marriage is an oath before God, not a contract.

MagicNakor
09-23-2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@23 September 2003 - 09:10
I think I said something like that earlier, however in a more verbose way...

Certainly. I just summarized. ;)

:ninja:

Billy_Dean
09-23-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@23 September 2003 - 17:10
Personally my marriage in the eyes of God means more to me than my marriage in the eyes of the state. (Which I can take or leave). To me my marriage is an oath before God, not a contract.
Can I ask you, in what exact form is your god?

Do you believe in the "Old Man With a White Beard Living in Heaven" god?

I&#39;m serious this time BTW.


:)

ilw
09-23-2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by protak@23 September 2003 - 05:09
Ohhh I get it know, when you change the law that is not special, that is equal....

This is what happens when cousins marry.


maybe you should try reading it {the bible}. No don&#39;t you&#39;ll probably disagree with all of it.
Well duh :rolleyes:

Biggles
09-23-2003, 07:01 PM
Protak

I am not interested in disputing your religious position. However, you do yourself no favours by disputing the antiquity of ancient texts by providing a link which is supposed to prove your own point and which (perfectly correctly) shows a timeline only going back to 500BC. You must be aware that there are many texts which pre-date this. Extracts from the Egyptian Book of the Dead written on tomb walls go back to 1500BC and beyond. The Zarathustrian texts are also from at least 600BC and some argue 1000BC. It is difficult to determine the age of the Vedic scripts but they are reckoned to be at least from 1500BC and may have origins which are much older. The teachings of Bhudda, Confucius, and Lao Tze all date from the 500BC - 600BC era too. In short, there are a lot of old texts out there.

It would appear you are gainsaying simply for the sake of it.

However, it does not matter whether the texts you use are the oldest or were written last week, if you subscribe to them and they forbid homosexual marriage then whatever religion you hold has the right to not sanction such a marriage in its church. The word church meaning community rather than building.

This issue of equal rights has nothing to do with religious disapproval. It is purely a legal matter. Many religious leaders of the 19th century disapproved of universal sufferage. The woman&#39;s place was in the home and consequently should not be troubled by wordly matters such as voting. However, popular argument won the day and the law was changed. You may deem this change to be special treatment (I am unclear as to what your precise argument is on this point). No one on here is arguing that same sex couple should have special case treatment just the same treatment under the law.

I like JPaul&#39;s position. It is right and proper that someone who has religious convictions should view their religious vows as more special than perfunctory legal requirements.

However, seeking to dictate the legal requirements on those who do not share specific religious convictions is not a good route to take. I think you would view it as a bad thing if you were told that you could no longer eat bacon in order to show due deference to the religious feelings of others. I certainly would be unimpressed by such a move. Nevertheless, if someone insisted that they had a right to set up a bacon butty stall in the local Mosque I would question their motives.

The debate regarding homosexuality within a religion is the provenance of those who hold genuine religious convictions appropriate to that faith and is no business of those outside that faith (imho). The results of such internal debates may determine who joins what subsequently but there should be no outside interference (unless it turns violent, litigacious or both).

hobbes
09-23-2003, 08:03 PM
Biggles,

I enjoyed reading your post, but you are preaching (if I may use the term) to the choir with me.

I have no doubt your eloquence with be wasted on its intented target, which is why I have nothing further to say.

Biggles
09-23-2003, 08:29 PM
Hobbes

I fear you may be right and as preaching is the last thing I want to do I will draw a line under this particular train of thought. :)

gbfan
09-23-2003, 08:49 PM
I don&#39;t get this argument. What I do or don&#39;t do in MY life is none of YOUR business. Period end of argument. From a 25 year old married father of 2.

If you&#39;re worried about disease this is a just plain stupid point for more reasons than already posted.

And if you are worried about what your children will think education is the way. Not sheltered stupidity.

Sry I just don&#39;t get it :blink:

J'Pol
09-23-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@23 September 2003 - 21:29
Hobbes

I fear you may be right and as preaching is the last thing I want to do I will draw a line under this particular train of thought. :)
MTV Generation

Short Bursts.

Telegraph Thinking.

Bottom Line Arguments. Who cares, they are not hurting anyone. It&#39;s just a contract. Live and let live. Don&#39;t tell me what to do, I won&#39;t tell you.

I have rapidly come to the conclusion that this is the only form of language which is universally acceptable here. However every once in a while one likes to think, no. I have things to say and a way in which I would like to say them. So I will do. Those who chose to make the effort can benefit from the subtle nuances. The shades of expression. They can enjoy the post even if they disagree with the views expressed. Enjoy the art of it&#39;s creation, the picture in words.

Then reply with feck off arse head, who does you think you is.

protak
09-23-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+23 September 2003 - 08:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 23 September 2003 - 08:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@23 September 2003 - 05:27


Edit: A religious group that does not sanction gay-marriage doesn&#39;t have to fight anything in court. They just simply refuse to perform one.


I think I said something like that earlier, however in a more verbose way.

It is not a religious matter (see my earler). It is purely a legal contract as such I have no problem with whoever wants to marry.

Personally my marriage in the eyes of God means more to me than my marriage in the eyes of the state. (Which I can take or leave). To me my marriage is an oath before God, not a contract. [/b][/quote]
I hear ya&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Amen :D

protak
09-23-2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 September 2003 - 06:20
Here. (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/95/381/10124_etruscan.html)

:ninja:
No Here (http://www.holy--bible.com)

MagicNakor
09-24-2003, 01:48 AM
You can&#39;t possibly be arguing that Christianity is The Oldest Religion. :rolleyes:


The Holy Bible is a phenomenal account of history, comprised of 66 books, written over approximately 1600 years...


The small book which age is over 2500 thousand years...The Etruscans had been around for a half-millenia before the Roman Empire built upon their ruins, and then were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC.

I&#39;m not certain where you&#39;re getting that 1600 is greater than 2500+. Perhaps I ought to take that mathematical course. My bank account would certainly appreciate it.

As Biggles already stated, there are texts far older than the Bible. I used the Etruscan book because you said that the Bible was the oldest book. It&#39;s not. But this is reminiscent of another "discussion" not too long ago. It was impossible then, and it&#39;ll remain impossible.

:ninja:

protak
09-24-2003, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@24 September 2003 - 01:48
You can&#39;t possibly be arguing that Christianity is The Oldest Religion. :rolleyes:


The Holy Bible is a phenomenal account of history, comprised of 66 books, written over approximately 1600 years...


The small book which age is over 2500 thousand years...The Etruscans had been around for a half-millenia before the Roman Empire built upon their ruins, and then were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC.

I&#39;m not certain where you&#39;re getting that 1600 is greater than 2500+. Perhaps I ought to take that mathematical course. My bank account would certainly appreciate it.

As Biggles already stated, there are texts far older than the Bible. I used the Etruscan book because you said that the Bible was the oldest book. It&#39;s not. But this is reminiscent of another "discussion" not too long ago. It was impossible then, and it&#39;ll remain impossible.

:ninja:
No I&#39;m not arguing christianity is the oldest religion at all??? :blink:
Maybe you should take the math course.... Because 1500 b.c. + 2003 a.d. =3503 yrs. old.
Give or take a couple of month&#39;s. :o
BTW how did you concluded I was arguing about the age of christianity, when in fact we were discussing, the age of book&#39;s. :unsure:

thewizeard
09-24-2003, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by protak+24 September 2003 - 06:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (protak &#064; 24 September 2003 - 06:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@24 September 2003 - 01:48
You can&#39;t possibly be arguing that Christianity is The Oldest Religion.* :rolleyes:


The Holy Bible is a phenomenal account of history, comprised of 66 books, written over approximately 1600 years...


The small book which age is over 2500 thousand years...The Etruscans had been around for a half-millenia before the Roman Empire built upon their ruins, and then were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC.

I&#39;m not certain where you&#39;re getting that 1600 is greater than 2500+. Perhaps I ought to take that mathematical course. My bank account would certainly appreciate it.

As Biggles already stated, there are texts far older than the Bible. I used the Etruscan book because you said that the Bible was the oldest book. It&#39;s not. But this is reminiscent of another "discussion" not too long ago. It was impossible then, and it&#39;ll remain impossible.

:ninja:
No I&#39;m not arguing christianity is the oldest religion at all??? :blink:
Maybe you should take the math course.... Because 1500 b.c. + 2003 a.d. =3503 yrs. old.
Give or take a couple of month&#39;s. :o
BTW how did you concluded I was arguing about the age of christianity, when in fact we were discussing, the age of book&#39;s. :unsure:[/b][/quote]
This has been discussed before, it has got nothing to do with the present topic. Even if it is the oldest book, which it is not, it proves nothing.

Here is a straw for you; it might be the oldest mass produced book.

Edit: A manuscript is not a book. MagicNakor can give you a description of what a book is.

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 09:11 AM
Definition of &#39;natural&#39;:

Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: natural death.

Homosexuality is not natural. No species on Earth could survive if all of its individuals were homosexual. Besides the fact that everyone seems to be ignoring here: there&#39;s a reason different sexes exist&#33; There is a reason we have different sex organs&#33; And the male anus isn&#39;t meant to be one of them&#33;

Definition of &#39;normal&#39;:

Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one&#39;s normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
Free from mental illness; sane.

Funny that the dictionary should mention mental illness...

http://www.ucg.org/gn/gn48/homosexuals.htm

What amazes me though, is the fact that homosexuals continue to fervently demand that normal people recognise being gay as &#39;inherent&#39;. Funny that, considering that THOUSANDS of homosexuals have actively CHOSEN to live normal, decent lives. A European study recently revealed that the average length of a homosexual relationship is less than two years. How pathetic is that?

Not surprising really, considering that most homosexuals are seeking out the affection lacking from their childhood and end up with nothing but sex.

TO ALL HOMOSEXUALS: I would sincerely recommend that you visit this website if you are prepared to turn from your harmful lifestyle and seek HELP:

http://www.narth.com/

Good luck my fallen comrades&#33;

Rat Faced
10-02-2003, 09:49 AM
Calvarian....that has to be the most biggoted post ive ever read.

For starters, we&#39;ve already agreed that Homosexuality is not confined to Humanity....it appears in nature. We see male animals humping other male animals all over...

Your calculations appear to have missed out asexual species; which are numerous...and therefore by analogue MUST be homosexual, as there is no opposite sex for them to reproduce with.

Your assumption that the male anus isnt a sex organ......well, granted i&#39;ve not used mine as such, id still like to know how you came to this conclusion. The male G Spot is located there i believe, which must be some sort of incentive.


I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.

The very fact that you can appreciate that a man looks good, without fancying him...puts you firmly on that scale. Women are much more honest with themselves, generally, about their own sexuality.

lynx
10-02-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.
Not up to your usual standard, RF.

"A psychologist pointed out that...". Oh well, it MUST be true if a psychologist pointed it out. I remember at university that you could either do a proper degree, but if you weren&#39;t quite good enough for that (or just plain lazy), you could do a degree in psychology - two whole hours of lectures per week, and an essay to write once per fortnight, I don&#39;t know how they managed it. Obviously the staff couldn&#39;t understand it either, because after the first year they dropped to a single one hour lecture per week. Still, it&#39;s good to know that these well trained people are there to guide us.


The very fact that you can appreciate that a man looks good, without fancying him...puts you firmly on that scale.So I am honest enough to admit that another guy is good looking, so I&#39;m half way to geing gay? Give me a break. If you are so unsure of your own sexuality, feel free to say so, but don&#39;t tar all of us with the same brush.

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
Calvarian....that has to be the most biggoted post ive ever read.

For starters, we&#39;ve already agreed that Homosexuality is not confined to Humanity....it appears in nature. We see male animals humping other male animals all over...

Your calculations appear to have missed out asexual species; which are numerous...and therefore by analogue MUST be homosexual, as there is no opposite sex for them to reproduce with.

Your assumption that the male anus isnt a sex organ......well, granted i&#39;ve not used mine as such, id still like to know how you came to this conclusion. The male G Spot is located there i believe, which must be some sort of incentive.


I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.

The very fact that you can appreciate that a man looks good, without fancying him...puts you firmly on that scale. Women are much more honest with themselves, generally, about their own sexuality.
Rat Faced, seeing as how you are a global moderator, and I don&#39;t know you, I think I&#39;ll choose my words carefully. The MOST bigoted post you&#39;ve ever read? Surely not...

It appears in nature does it? Perhaps you&#39;d like to give some examples. I know of two or three myself, however, this is missing the point. I said that nowhere in nature does homosexuality exist as a means for SPECIES SURVIVAL. No species could survive if all of it&#39;s members were homosexual (except of course, the human species, which can manipulate genetics and in vitro fertilisation and other such things). Can you refute this statement? Because I would love to hear it.

I would also prefer if you did not put words in my mouth. I&#39;ve been studying science in high school and college for close 5 years now, so do not attempt to rebut me with talk of asexual species. Once again you have completely ignored the point I was making. Asexual species exist because in such species, this is the natural order of perpetuation. Since gender does not exist per se in such species, heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot exist.

Why are you even discussing some creatures? Asexual animals.... you&#39;re basically talking about bacteria&#33; Microscopic organisms with no propensity for intelligence or reason or morality&#33; What&#39;s the point?

My assertion that the male anus is not a sex organ isn&#39;t an assumption at all. Try looking in any first year college human biology textbook and it will reveal all. And the fact that you tried to justify the location of the male g spot as a reason for using it in this way only further strengthens my argument that homosexual relationships are more strongly centred around sexual encounters than any long term relationship goals.

As for your psychologist... I&#39;m sure that if you watch or read the news at least occasionally you&#39;ll realise that one can find a &#39;scientist&#39; or &#39;doctor&#39; who&#39;ll say whatever you want. The fact is that psychologists do not require any formal medical training, and thus essentially have little knowledge on human biology. I&#39;d much sooner stake my faith on a pyschiatrist, who at least receives basic medical training and understands the human form, when it comes to matters such as what is physically &#39;natural&#39;.

The fact is Rat Faced, you&#39;ve completely ignored the fact that the NARTH has helped to reform thousands of ex-homosexuals. And regardless of the rhetoric from the gay organisations, homosexuals IN WESTERN COUNTRIES still have much higher rates of STDs, AIDS especially, than heterosexuals. Doesn&#39;t this give any sort of indication that just maybe, at the very least, homosex is unhealthy? I&#39;m sure as a well informed member of this board, Rat Faced, that you followed up on my website link.

Dr Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist for over a decade, president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and mediator of the transition of thousands of homosexuals, quotes:

"Research has shown that the basic common cause of homosexuality, whether male or female, is an emotional detachment from the parent of the same sex", and usually early in childhood.

Is Dr Nicolosi qualified to speak on such a subject? I think so. Homosexuality is part of a much broader destructive lifestyle. I personally know (knew) three homosexuals. One of them died last year from an alcohol poisoning and drug OD. He also suffered chronic depression. A girl, 18, killed herself when her homosexual lover left her. And the third, is now in a heterosexual relationship.

Granted, this is not an accurate depiction of the homsexual population at large. But is sure isn&#39;t very convincing of the naturalness and normality of homosexuality is it RF?

Question: If homosexuality is a healthy and natural alternative is heterosexuality, why then is the average homosexual lifespan (~55yr) almost 25 years shorter than heterosexuals (~75-80yr)???

Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 02:26 PM
Wow, Calvarian has been to college and high school for 5 years, I&#39;m impressed, I thought from your posts that you were a complete idiot, now I realise you have some way to go&#33;


:)

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 14:26
Wow, Calvarian has been to college and high school for 5 years, I&#39;m impressed, I thought from your posts that you were a complete idiot, now I realise you have some way to go&#33;


:)
Petty, BD, even for you. I have two questions for you (feel free to decline them if you see fit):

1. What country are you from/living in?
2. Why are you such a &#39;shit stirrer&#39;?

I thought this board had some sort of restriction as to personal abuse on members, or was that just an honour system? Yeah, that sounds more like it actually. You can draw your own conclusions from that Billy Dean...

ilw
10-02-2003, 02:36 PM
Its not just single celled organisms, snails and slugs are commonly hermaphroditic ie they possess both sexual organs I&#39;m not sure if that qualifies them as homosexual or not, but there is only a single sex so i think it does. Homosexuality as you state has been found in quite a large number of species in nature, no its not to continue the species, but so what that doesn&#39;t make it unnatural and its not contagious so what do you care if someone is happy being gay.
I think the psychological theory that its not all black and white in terms of your sexuality is quite a widely held and respected view I rather doubt its one psychologist on his own.

STD&#39;s are more easily spread through male homosexual sex (though not female) because basically your arse isn&#39;t up to that kind of treatment, the solution here probably isn&#39;t to ban all gay sex, perhaps a more reasonable approach would be promote the use of condoms?

Until we know what causes homosexuality the wild theories abound, I would bet large amounts of money that its more complex than "emotional detachment from the parent of the same sex" , my personal opinion is that like most things its a nature and nurture thing, ie genetic and environmental.

As for depression among gays, that may have a good deal to do with the way society and in particular people such as yourself treat them. (and this depression along with the STD problem undoubtedly contribute to earlier deaths, though I have a shred of doubt about your figures.)

El_Jefe
10-02-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by lynx+2 October 2003 - 06:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 2 October 2003 - 06:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.
Not up to your usual standard, RF.

"A psychologist pointed out that...". Oh well, it MUST be true if a psychologist pointed it out. I remember at university that you could either do a proper degree, but if you weren&#39;t quite good enough for that (or just plain lazy), you could do a degree in psychology - two whole hours of lectures per week, and an essay to write once per fortnight, I don&#39;t know how they managed it. Obviously the staff couldn&#39;t understand it either, because after the first year they dropped to a single one hour lecture per week. Still, it&#39;s good to know that these well trained people are there to guide us.

[/b][/quote]
I may be wrong, but I think RF is referring to Alfred Kinsey and his seven point scale of sexual orientation.

He was originally a biology professor, whose specialty was entomology.

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by ilw@2 October 2003 - 14:36
Its not just single celled organisms, snails and slugs are commonly hermaphroditic ie they possess both sexual organs I&#39;m not sure if that qualifies them as homosexual or not, but there is only a single sex so i think it does. Homosexuality as you state has been found in quite a large number of species in nature, no its not to continue the species, but so what that doesn&#39;t make it unnatural and its not contagious so what do you care if someone is happy being gay.
I think the psychological theory that its not all black and white in terms of your sexuality is quite a widely held and respected view I rather doubt its one psychologist on his own.

STD&#39;s are more easily spread through male homosexual sex (though not female) because basically your arse isn&#39;t up to that kind of treatment, the solution here probably isn&#39;t to ban all gay sex, perhaps a more reasonable approach would be promote the use of condoms?

Until we know what causes homosexuality the wild theories abound, I would bet large amounts of money that its more complex than "emotional detachment from the parent of the same sex" , my personal opinion is that like most things its a nature and nurture thing, ie genetic and environmental.

As for depression among gays, that may have a good deal to do with the way society and in particular people such as yourself treat them. (and this depression along with the STD problem undoubtedly contribute to earlier deaths, though I have a shred of doubt about your figures.)
No, it doesn&#39;t qualify them as homosexuals. Homosexuality cannot exist in single gender species.

And yes, that does make it unnatural. The very definition of unnatural is that which is not commonly found in natural environments.

The psychologist I quoted is not on his own. He is one of many in his field. He is just the most well known that I could find, anyway.

"my personal opinion is that like most things its a nature and nurture thing, ie genetic and environmental."

You&#39;re entitled to your opinion, ilw, but since you&#39;ve no training or experience in the subject, I&#39;ll place my faith in the expert.

It&#39;s pretentious of you to claim how I *treat* homosexuals. How on earth would you know? I&#39;ll have you know I treat them as I would any other person, with respect. Just because I disagree with their sexual preference doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t view them as unhuman or anything.

Besides, if homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, then why should homosexuals suffer such high rates of depression? How about, because their in-built sense of conscience is telling them that they&#39;re doing the wrong thing. Just a thought.

Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 23:33
Petty, BD, even for you. I have two questions for you (feel free to decline them if you see fit):

1. What country are you from/living in?
2. Why are you such a &#39;shit stirrer&#39;?

I thought this board had some sort of restriction as to personal abuse on members, or was that just an honour system? Yeah, that sounds more like it actually. You can draw your own conclusions from that Billy Dean...
I&#39;ll make you a deal. you stop posting shit, and I&#39;ll stop stirring it&#33;


:)

lynx
10-02-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by El_Jefe+2 October 2003 - 14:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El_Jefe @ 2 October 2003 - 14:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by lynx@2 October 2003 - 06:45
<!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.
Not up to your usual standard, RF.

"A psychologist pointed out that...". Oh well, it MUST be true if a psychologist pointed it out. I remember at university that you could either do a proper degree, but if you weren&#39;t quite good enough for that (or just plain lazy), you could do a degree in psychology - two whole hours of lectures per week, and an essay to write once per fortnight, I don&#39;t know how they managed it. Obviously the staff couldn&#39;t understand it either, because after the first year they dropped to a single one hour lecture per week. Still, it&#39;s good to know that these well trained people are there to guide us.


I may be wrong, but I think RF is referring to Alfred Kinsey and his seven point scale of sexual orientation.

He was originally a biology professor, whose specialty was entomology. [/b][/quote]
Sounds like he had a bug up his arse. :P

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by El_Jefe+2 October 2003 - 14:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El_Jefe @ 2 October 2003 - 14:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by lynx@2 October 2003 - 06:45
<!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.
Not up to your usual standard, RF.

"A psychologist pointed out that...". Oh well, it MUST be true if a psychologist pointed it out. I remember at university that you could either do a proper degree, but if you weren&#39;t quite good enough for that (or just plain lazy), you could do a degree in psychology - two whole hours of lectures per week, and an essay to write once per fortnight, I don&#39;t know how they managed it. Obviously the staff couldn&#39;t understand it either, because after the first year they dropped to a single one hour lecture per week. Still, it&#39;s good to know that these well trained people are there to guide us.


I may be wrong, but I think RF is referring to Alfred Kinsey and his seven point scale of sexual orientation.

He was originally a biology professor, whose specialty was entomology. [/b][/quote]
Congrats El Jefe&#33; One could easily write a book on how bigoted and ignorant Kinsey and his report were. And in fact, one has&#33; Or several to be precise. His lies are the reason everyone seems to believe that &#39;10%&#39; of the population is homosexual. Since his studies were done mostly on prisoners and sexual deviants, it&#39;s no surprise he came to that conclusion.

ilw
10-02-2003, 03:17 PM
If u accept that theres a sex (even a single one) then the sex has to be between same sex creatures and hence homosexuality, but thats semantics and completely useless.

yes i did assume that with the level of distaste you seem to express here on homosexuality that you (even if not openly) treat your homosexual acquaintances differently to heterosexual ones. Is this completely untrue? I didn&#39;t mean to imply you are a gaybasher or anything simply that the ostracism homosexuals face is often less to do with the extreme homophobes and more to do with the larger group who simply will never accept them for who they are.

you claim to be listening to the expert(s), but theres experts claiming that theres genetic predispositions and physiological differences between hetero and homosexuals, my personal opinion was based on having listened to both sides of the argument, your post makes it sound like you&#39;ve found the only expert.

yes perhaps its their conscience <_<

Edit: btw your avatar doesn&#39;t work, remove the preceding http:// (you;ve got http://http:// at the moment)

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 03:36 PM
Thanks for the advice ilw. It should be working now. ;)

I didn&#39;t mean to give the impression I&#39;d found the only expert. I&#39;m aware that many doctors/psychiatrists/etc. support the &#39;inherent&#39; homosexuality theory.

I&#39;m just wary of these geneticists who claim that a gene is responsible. Fair enough a gene may predispose something to a particular way of behaving, but the person&#39;s free will is the be all and end all. If we starting believing that we&#39;re slaves to our genes, then we remove all consequences from our actions. What would happen a homicidal gene was discovered? Can you imagine the law cases? It would be endless. I was just trying to make the point that it&#39;s a choice, just like anything else in this life. In the end (unless there&#39;s a gun to your head), you decide what you do or don&#39;t do, regardless of your heart, gut feeling, or anything else. It&#39;s all in the mind.

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+2 October 2003 - 14:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 2 October 2003 - 14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 23:33
Petty, BD, even for you. I have two questions for you (feel free to decline them if you see fit):

1. What country are you from/living in?
2. Why are you such a &#39;shit stirrer&#39;?

I thought this board had some sort of restriction as to personal abuse on members, or was that just an honour system? Yeah, that sounds more like it actually. You can draw your own conclusions from that Billy Dean...
I&#39;ll make you a deal. you stop posting shit, and I&#39;ll stop stirring it&#33;


:) [/b][/quote]
Ha&#33; Nice try BD. But I will make you deal. Stop posting on this site altogether and you&#39;ll stop looking like such a fool.

ilw
10-02-2003, 03:47 PM
Well we have mental illness which you can be genetically predisposed to and in a homicide case if the perpetrator had one of these illnesses then it would be taken into account, ie limited culpability and different sentencing because of it. When something goes wrong in your brain you have 0 control over it.

Anyway this still doesn&#39;t explain why you care whether someone is gay, it doesn&#39;t really affect you does it. Is this some kind of altruism, are you trying to help these people? Can you not see the possibility that you&#39;ve got it wrong and that you&#39;ll just be hurting them.

Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 03:48 PM
You&#39;re wasting your time with this one ilw, look where he gets his "authority" from...
Source (http://www.ucg.org)


:)

Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 03:57 PM
ilw, this forum originally started as a question as to whether or not gay couples should be able to marry or adopt kids, didn&#39;t it? I don&#39;t think they should.

Why do I care? Yeah, altruism would be it. The general trend of everything I have read and seen up until this point would indicate to me that homosexuality is not a good way to live. In any case, I doubt how I could possibly hurt a homosexual by posting a few messages on a single message board???

P.S. Billy Dean.... your ignorance shines through once again. Don&#39;t think I use religion as the sole source of my authority. It&#39;s hard not to when you examine the FACTS. Still, I count my religion as greater authority than your delusional and fallible mind any day.

ilw
10-02-2003, 04:07 PM
Obviously you&#39;re hurting no one on the board, I was speaking theoretically if your opinions were put into practice. Ie people who found themselves to be gay were reeducated or couselled into being straight.
The original post was I think just about gay marriage and why people have a problem with it, it spread onto what marriage was about and then onto the question of children.
What about in Ancient Greece, where sodomy was the norm, peoples consciences were clear, depression isn&#39;t associated and society didn&#39;t spectacularly collapse?

J'Pol
10-02-2003, 07:39 PM
Wouldn&#39;t single sex species be asexual or androgynous as opposed to homosexual.

If homosexuality is hereditary and homosexuals do not engage in heterosexual relationships, having children, which a lot have done and continue to do then homosexuality will surely die out. The gene will not be passed on.

If however the level of homosexuality were to stay the same, in spite of homosexuals no longer procreating, then surely one would have to accept that it is programmed into the human race.

Obviously if one consders homosexuality to be the result of environmental conditioning then this would not be the case.

Like I said earlier, if a marriage in the eyes of the state is purely a contract, which I believe it to be, then let people make any contract that both parties freely agree to.

Rat Faced
10-02-2003, 08:58 PM
Just one question Calvarian...

You said:


As for your psychologist... I&#39;m sure that if you watch or read the news at least occasionally you&#39;ll realise that one can find a &#39;scientist&#39; or &#39;doctor&#39; who&#39;ll say whatever you want. The fact is that psychologists do not require any formal medical training, and thus essentially have little knowledge on human biology. I&#39;d much sooner stake my faith on a pyschiatrist, who at least receives basic medical training and understands the human form, when it comes to matters such as what is physically &#39;natural&#39;.



So why does all your evidence come from a psychologist and a Religious Website?

Thankyou El Jefe, for digging out the name...

Linx, I was late for work.....but had to say something to such a biggoted post, im sure you understand. :P

Biggles
10-02-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 14:49
Besides, if homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, then why should homosexuals suffer such high rates of depression? How about, because their in-built sense of conscience is telling them that they&#39;re doing the wrong thing. Just a thought.

I am not sure if that is not a little naughty. It is only recently that homosexuality has stepped out into the light of day from being an illegal act for well over a 1000 years. The reason it was illegal was because the Church said it was evil.

It is rather cruel and tautological to suggest that, after vitimising people and making them subject to the full penalties of the law, they must know it is wrong because they feel guilty.

The Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930s were subject to similar treatment and not surprisingly despair and depression were common - something the Nazis used to indicate that the Jews were less than fully functioning humans. (please note that I am comparing mechanisms here and not your faith and Nazism, which I accept are poles apart)

Equally in those civilisations that didn&#39;t bat an eyelid at homosexuality - especially Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece it wasn&#39;t identified as a problem. Indeed it was considered normal for an Ancient Greek to take a young lad as a lover and have a wife as well. The relationship between the man and the youth was complex (and sometimes platonic) and the youth gained access to guilds, customers, political connections and/or military connections. These ties bound the whole of Greek society. A strange concept to our mind but perfectly logical to them.

I do understand that there are clear constraints on those who hold certain religious beliefs and that for them homosexuality is a problem. However, these views can only be put forward as an alternative path they cannot and should not be enforced through civil law. As a number of people clearly believe Kinsey blew homosexuality out of all proportion (certainly seems high to me) by suggesting that 10% were in fact homosexual, it is clear we are talking about a tiny percentage of the human race - consequently what is all the fuss about? The human race at 6 billion is hardly endangered by the odd 1% or two who may prefer same sex relationships.

Consequently, I agree with Jpaul - it is a civil matter.

J'Pol
10-02-2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 21:59


Consequently, I agree with Jpaul - it is a civil matter.
It&#39;s not very bloody civil here pilot boy.

Biggles
10-02-2003, 09:03 PM
:D

It does seem to be a tad tetchy in places. Perhaps it is all the oestrogen in the water.

:unsure:

J'Pol
10-02-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 22:03
:D

It does seem to be a tad tetchy in places. Perhaps it is all the oestrogen in the water.

:unsure:
There&#39;s nothing wrong with my oestrogen mate, the levels are poifectly noimal.

Biggles
10-02-2003, 09:10 PM
Mian two&#33;

Rat face, why did my quote come out looking like a dog&#39;s breakfast?

J'Pol
10-02-2003, 09:27 PM
Biggles

Reading your last made me wonder, did Plato have sexual relations with his young protege&#39;s or were their relationships entirely plat .... ah &#33; never mind.

Rat Faced
10-02-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 21:10
Mian two&#33;

Rat face, why did my quote come out looking like a dog&#39;s breakfast?
I messed around with it...

You forgot to close the second QUOTE........I suggest you edit your post, and move it to where its supposed to be, before someone accuses you of posting out of context or just drivel.....

Coz i just added it in somewhere.... :P

Biggles
10-02-2003, 09:38 PM
Thanks Rat Face

I think I have it sussed now.

:unsure:

Biggles
10-02-2003, 09:45 PM
Mr Fugley

I see your problem. You have an unnatural tendancy to like Ford cars. This conflicts with your Unipart desires which, as everyone knows, are best suited to Rovers.

You need to realign your spare parts.

Hope that helps

:ph34r:

Rat Faced
10-02-2003, 09:51 PM
For all those that think homosexuality is a psyciatric disorder, mentioning no names.....

Please pay attention to the paragraphs before entering into the sexual dysfunctional behviours listed...

The current medical view..... (http://author.emedicine.com/med/topic3359.htm)

You&#39;ll note what i was saying re: Sexuality being fluid linx, in the text before going into the sexual dysfunctional disorders... :P


I knew id read it somewhere..... :blink:

Billy_Dean
10-03-2003, 02:33 PM
If they make homosexuality legal, the next thing you know, it will be compulsary&#33;

That&#39;s my opinion anyway.


:)

ilw
10-03-2003, 02:38 PM
In that case I&#39;m gonna transfer all my stocks and shares to lube companies.

j2k4
10-03-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@3 October 2003 - 09:33
If they make homosexuality legal, the next thing you know, it will be compulsary&#33;

That&#39;s my opinion anyway.


:)
The extremist rhetoric accompanying the homosexual lobby would have you think so, certainly.

Reality seldom reflects that, though.

Why is it that "movement" spokespersons only speak in extreme, militant terms?

How is it, for example, the "Reverend" Al Sharpton, whose first foray into the public arena (the Tawana Brawley hoax/fiasco) should have been sufficient to discredit him forever, is now considered to be "a leading black "spokesman", and, indeed, is running for the office of president of the United States? :o

How do things get so f**ked up?

internet.news
10-05-2003, 01:13 AM
Gays are only just humans, - for me only character of people is important although I love it if someone looks nice - so let them do, if they are glad if they can
marry, why the fucking hell not?

thanks anyway, david.

j2k4
10-05-2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by internet.news@4 October 2003 - 20:13
Gays are only just humans, - for me only character of people is important although I love it if someone looks nice - so let them do, if they are glad if they can
marry, why the fucking hell not?

thanks anyway, david.
Is it necessary that a same-sex union be termed a "marriage"?

Until now, the term "marriage" has signified the legal recognition of a union between a man and woman, ostensibly and traditionally for purposes (though not always) of starting and raising a family.

Why do they deem it necessary to co-opt the term "marriage"?

Are they somehow precluded or legally estopped from coining or adopting/adapting another term?

I sense they prefer the term "marriage", as to use the term to refer to a homosexual union would presumptively accord (legally) health benefits (such as exist) to the previously uninsured partner in the relationship, and to settle for another reference would not have this effect; the "benefits" battle would have yet to be addressed and won.

I will preface this next by noting that I have, and have had, many homosexual friends, acquaintances, and co-workers in my life.

I have not, do not, nor will I ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.

However:

In discussing this topic with them, they are very open about their felt need to share health benefits as a motivating factor in seeking legal sanction, in specific, the use of the term "marriage" to define their union.

Now-
The health-insurance industry owes it&#39;s continued viability to the actuarialists and their beloved tables.

Due to AIDS and HIV, homosexuals are very poor risks from an actuarial point-of-view; though, to the extent I have heard this point addressed in the media, an assignation of "high-risk" to a homosexual would be a red-flag discrimination case to any attorney.

As any judgementalism towards "life-style" choices is strictly taboo these days, it could be assumed that any attempt to assess the premium typical of an actuarial risk would likewise be taboo.

I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it&#39;s not even that I can&#39;t afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don&#39;t have a lobby, though.

clocker
10-05-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@4 October 2003 - 19:24


I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it&#39;s not even that I can&#39;t afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don&#39;t have a lobby, though.
Have you considered becoming gay?
You might be able to class action your way into some coverage.
The down side would be not being able to shop at Farm & Fleet anymore...

hobbes
10-05-2003, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+5 October 2003 - 03:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 5 October 2003 - 03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-internet.news@4 October 2003 - 20:13
Gays are only just humans, - for me only character of people is important although I love it if someone looks nice - so let them do, if they are glad if they can
marry, why the fucking hell not?

thanks anyway, david.
Is it necessary that a same-sex union be termed a "marriage"?

Until now, the term "marriage" has signified the legal recognition of a union between a man and woman, ostensibly and traditionally for purposes (though not always) of starting and raising a family.

Why do they deem it necessary to co-opt the term "marriage"?

Are they somehow precluded or legally estopped from coining or adopting/adapting another term?

I sense they prefer the term "marriage", as to use the term to refer to a homosexual union would presumptively accord (legally) health benefits (such as exist) to the previously uninsured partner in the relationship, and to settle for another reference would not have this effect; the "benefits" battle would have yet to be addressed and won.

I will preface this next by noting that I have, and have had, many homosexual friends, acquaintances, and co-workers in my life.

I have not, do not, nor will I ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.

However:

In discussing this topic with them, they are very open about their felt need to share health benefits as a motivating factor in seeking legal sanction, in specific, the use of the term "marriage" to define their union.

Now-
The health-insurance industry owes it&#39;s continued viability to the actuarialists and their beloved tables.

Due to AIDS and HIV, homosexuals are very poor risks from an actuarial point-of-view; though, to the extent I have heard this point addressed in the media, an assignation of "high-risk" to a homosexual would be a red-flag discrimination case to any attorney.

As any judgementalism towards "life-style" choices is strictly taboo these days, it could be assumed that any attempt to assess the premium typical of an actuarial risk would likewise be taboo.

I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it&#39;s not even that I can&#39;t afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don&#39;t have a lobby, though.[/b][/quote]
As much as I have an opinion on the subject, I find it trivial in comparison to my hope that your health continues to be well.

Take care J2 and may we continue to agree, disagree, and discuss ad infinitum.

Billy_Dean
10-05-2003, 06:51 AM
Sorry to hear that j2, I also wish you the best.

Ever thought of moving to Australia? Health insurance is guaranteed, plus we have a free health system.

It seems strange to me that the US can find so much money for it&#39;s armed forces, space exploration, and whatever, whilst sick people can&#39;t get decent medical care without insurance, which they can&#39;t get if they&#39;re sick&#33; Surely charity begins at home?


:)

fallenknight308
10-05-2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking@19 September 2003 - 07:01
I like how belivers of god come into these debates saying god forbids this and that but it doesnt stop them from commiting theft on p2p or having sex outside marriage ;)

Also human_pet assumes that homosexuaity is only modern , which is completly untrue homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and the human population continues to increase, what is it now 6 billion and still increasing.
I also see education about Aids has failed you, Aids has nothing to do with homosexuality, it&#39;s about having unprotected sex with multiable partners thus putting yourself at higher risk wither your hetro, bi ,trans or gay.

It&#39;s seems humans will try to find anything to discrimate agaist each other wither it be skin color or sexual prefrence, alot use the idea of a God just to discriminate more. <_<
Ah, but lest you forget, AIDS is an engineered virus. And was introduced into the "gay" populus during the 80&#39;s In hopes that the promiscuity would spread it faster than if it was introduced into other "groups" This was because of their Indiscriminate behavior. Now before you all start flaming (No pun intended )
I have known a few "gay" people And my brother knew people of this orientation when he was attending seminary. They have stated that its "too much trouble to use a condom during their *ahem* "activity"
Now, don&#39;t get me wrong, what two people do in the privacy of their own home is none of my nevermind, but it seems to me that there should be more awareness of the risk of contraction of this horrible disease.................


And on another subject:

Where are the rights for us beastiality enthusiasts?&#33;&#33; :P



(p.s.) Flame me all you want, just don&#39;t hate me for being right
(I know how this board can be) <_<

muchspl2
10-05-2003, 09:20 AM
http://binrock.net/cowgod/crap/boards/oh%20no%202.jpg

huuramis
10-05-2003, 09:34 AM
gay people should have no rights.

if everyone was gay there be no more humans because we would all take it up the ass.

so to all you gay people, Please dont get offended by harsh comments.

ilw
10-05-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by huuramis@5 October 2003 - 10:34
gay people should have no rights.

if everyone was gay there be no more humans because we would all take it up the ass.

so to all you gay people, Please dont get offended by harsh comments.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:




NB i&#39;m not laughing with you

ScotchGuy
10-05-2003, 09:40 AM
I just flat out don&#39;t care if gays have rights or not. If they do, good for them. If not, oh well.

huuramis
10-05-2003, 09:45 AM
i mean, i dont care if you take it up the ass, but i do care if they get special treatment, or different rights.

same with aborigenals, i think its wrong how the get special treatment and different rights to everyone else.

its not like they are special or something.

ScotchGuy
10-05-2003, 09:48 AM
So what&#39;s up with hate crimes. Why do they even exist, why is the motive of a murder even considered? If everyone wants to be equal then shouldn&#39;t the murderer be tried with out taking into account the race of both victim and murderer?

J'Pol
10-05-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@5 October 2003 - 03:24

I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it&#39;s not even that I can&#39;t afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don&#39;t have a lobby, though.
I think the fact that you cannot get health insurance due to your small home is harsh and unjustified.

Take care of yer ticker matey.

nightryder
10-05-2003, 04:27 PM
I aint trying to be racis or hatist so if you think that i am go fuk urself but i think that the way that aboriginals and gay pplz get privilaged is fuking bullshit.... for example with aboriginals, they get paid to go to skewl, they get cars thousands of dollars cheaper... get this they even get into the royal show for free&#33;&#33;&#33; and the claim that we are racis fuk that&#33;http://www.uploadit.org/files/051003-finger.gif

J'Pol
10-05-2003, 04:58 PM
Do you really and truly feel that, as long as you say you aint trying to be racist and hatist, then tell people to go fuk themself, that excuses the behaviour which follows it.

I take it you are an Australian. Would that be correct.

huuramis
10-05-2003, 05:11 PM
i am in australia too.

i think gay people should all fuck off.
(but hey, thats my opinion, at least i give reasons for my opinions)

and i think aborigenals should have the same rights as us, no more, no less.

because lets face it, we dont need more gay people.
if you gay then hey good 4 you, but dont try and make it out as a good thing, because in reality its not.

:blink: :blink: :blink:

nightryder
10-05-2003, 05:12 PM
If you red wat i sed properly, you would have noticed that i sed if you think that i&#39;m being racist or hatist which i wasn&#39;t you can go fuk urself... so go fuk urself paulhttp://www.uploadit.org/files/051003-finger.gif

P.S. I&#39;m half australian... what r u ethiopian&#33; :ph34r:

J'Pol
10-05-2003, 05:23 PM
So your racist and hatist views are non-racist and non-hatist.

I believe there are rules about racism and hatism here. I am quite sure that the Mods, probably Rat Faced in this particular part of the forum, will let you know how the rules work.

Oh I did read it btw, hence the nature of my response. What we do is put words together into things we call sentences. Other people read them and understand what we mean, or at least how they interpret it.

It&#39;s a form of communication, you may wish to give it a try.

Why do you have a problem with the native people of Australia, do you live there.

J'Pol
10-05-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by huuramis@5 October 2003 - 18:11

i think gay people should all fuck off.
(but hey, thats my opinion, at least i give reasons for my opinions)


Forgive me, I may be dense, but what exactly are these reasons you are giving for this "opinion".

nightryder
10-05-2003, 06:20 PM
Yes i do live in australia and i don&#39;t have any problem with aboriginals at all i have a problem with the way that they are treated... Get that through your head&#33;

Biggles
10-05-2003, 06:35 PM
I am curious as to how aboriginal rights has crept into this argument.

It is interesting that how a proposition that homosexuals should have equal civil rights has been skewed into some kind of notion that equal legal rights means that 1) everybody will have to homosexual whether they would or no or 2) equal rights means they will be allowed to live in Buckingham Palace.

These arguments appear to be little more than a mixture of sophistry and raw bigotry in order to deflect from a fairly legitimate request for a level playing field.

With regards indigenous peoples, those who have taken their land will always regard them with a mixture of dislike and guilt no matter where in the world. Their continued presence is a reminder that there was little pretty or fair in how they lost their property and lands. Their inability to cope with the loss and the social disintegration of their culture is like a discordant note in the conscience of those who would that they never existed in the first place. I would suggest that perhaps they are owed something and consequently the issue is totally seperate from the one this thread is about.

nightryder
10-05-2003, 06:43 PM
I understand wat your saying and i dno how it turning into a recial despute but it did and that is now the topid so thank you and gewd bye.

j2k4
10-05-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by fallenknight308@5 October 2003 - 04:13
Ah, but lest you forget, AIDS is an engineered virus. And was introduced into the "gay" populus during the 80&#39;s In hopes that the promiscuity would spread it faster than if it was introduced into other "groups"&nbsp; This was because of their Indiscriminate behavior.
I have been waiting for years for someone with a deficit in ability to think logically so great as to actually forward this inane argument.

Please, uh.....flesh this out for us, fallenknight308?

To all those who wished me well with me &#39;eart, I thank you-I am in reasonably good health, nonetheless; my cardiologist says my heart has "bounced back", to the extent that I can almost be considered to never have had an attack.

Now, if I could just shed 50 pounds&#33; :(

Rat Faced
10-05-2003, 09:04 PM
I believe everyone should read this (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=72070&st=0)


I hate having to implement "Rules" :(

Please dont make me have to write up "Rules" for this area, to keep it civil.

I think most people know what the Rules, unwritten though they are for this area, are...

J'Pol
10-05-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+5 October 2003 - 21:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 5 October 2003 - 21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fallenknight308@5 October 2003 - 04:13
Ah, but lest you forget, AIDS is an engineered virus. And was introduced into the "gay" populus during the 80&#39;s In hopes that the promiscuity would spread it faster than if it was introduced into other "groups"* This was because of their Indiscriminate behavior.
I have been waiting for years for someone with a deficit in ability to think logically so great as to actually forward this inane argument.

Please, uh.....flesh this out for us, fallenknight308?

To all those who wished me well with me &#39;eart, I thank you-I am in reasonably good health, nonetheless; my cardiologist says my heart has "bounced back", to the extent that I can almost be considered to never have had an attack.

Now, if I could just shed 50 pounds&#33; :( [/b][/quote]
You have neither Lobby nor Shed.

Sir, this is indeed a poor home, including outbuildings or lack thereof.

Biggles
10-05-2003, 09:58 PM
JPaul

You are taking that too far :D :D

(little Scottish in joke)

j2k4
10-05-2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+5 October 2003 - 16:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 5 October 2003 - 16:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@5 October 2003 - 21:50
<!--QuoteBegin-fallenknight308@5 October 2003 - 04:13
Ah, but lest you forget, AIDS is an engineered virus. And was introduced into the "gay" populus during the 80&#39;s In hopes that the promiscuity would spread it faster than if it was introduced into other "groups" This was because of their Indiscriminate behavior.
I have been waiting for years for someone with a deficit in ability to think logically so great as to actually forward this inane argument.

Please, uh.....flesh this out for us, fallenknight308?

To all those who wished me well with me &#39;eart, I thank you-I am in reasonably good health, nonetheless; my cardiologist says my heart has "bounced back", to the extent that I can almost be considered to never have had an attack.

Now, if I could just shed 50 pounds&#33; :(
You have neither Lobby nor Shed.

Sir, this is indeed a poor home, including outbuildings or lack thereof. [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I&#39;m told this is good for me, JPaul-thanks&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

J'Pol
10-05-2003, 10:13 PM
I&#39;ll get me coat.

clocker
10-05-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+5 October 2003 - 13:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 5 October 2003 - 13:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fallenknight308@5 October 2003 - 04:13
Ah, but lest you forget, AIDS is an engineered virus. And was introduced into the "gay" populus during the 80&#39;s In hopes that the promiscuity would spread it faster than if it was introduced into other "groups"* This was because of their Indiscriminate behavior.
I have been waiting for years for someone with a deficit in ability to think logically so great as to actually forward this inane argument.



To all those who wished me well with me &#39;eart, I thank you-I am in reasonably good health, nonetheless; my cardiologist says my heart has "bounced back", to the extent that I can almost be considered to never have had an attack.

Now, if I could just shed 50 pounds&#33; :( [/b][/quote]
I am amazed that the original post by fallenknight sat unchallenged for as long as it did before j2 jumped.
I guess that everyone got distracted by the "aboriginal rights" sidetrack.

But, really...
I, along with rest of the known universe, am on tenterhooks awaiting the exposition of this theory.

hobbes
10-05-2003, 10:56 PM
Fallenknight is just having some fun. He has no belief that the AIDS virus was engineered.

He is a very simple flame monger. Just look at his threads, his motivation is obvious.

MagicNakor
10-06-2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by clocker@5 October 2003 - 23:50
I am amazed that the original post by fallenknight sat unchallenged for as long as it did before j2 jumped.
I guess that everyone got distracted by the "aboriginal rights" sidetrack.

But, really...
I, along with rest of the known universe, am on tenterhooks awaiting the exposition of this theory.
Not really. Sometimes you have to "blow off" a post, especially ones obviously intended as flamebaiting. At least be subtle about it. However, all of fallenknight&#39;s ones in this area are just unsubtle flamebaiting.

:ninja:

j2k4
10-06-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by clocker+5 October 2003 - 00:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 5 October 2003 - 00:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@4 October 2003 - 19:24


I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it&#39;s not even that I can&#39;t afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don&#39;t have a lobby, though.
Have you considered becoming gay?
You might be able to class action your way into some coverage.
The down side would be not being able to shop at Farm & Fleet anymore... [/b][/quote]
Just so-

I considered same, but rejected the possibility, as the required new wardrobe would be entirely beyond my paltry means. :)

l_p_4_7
10-06-2003, 06:54 PM
I&#39;m not homophobic and I would never be nasty to a gay person. In fact, I would be friends with a gay person.

However...

Consider this:

If everyone was gay, the human race would cease to exist.

J'Pol
10-06-2003, 06:57 PM
Why ?

clocker
10-06-2003, 07:05 PM
Quiet JPaul, I&#39;m still considering....

OH&#33; Now I get it....DOH&#33;

J'Pol
10-06-2003, 07:17 PM
Clocker

Could you perhaps explain.

I was not aware that homosexuality caused sterility as well.

j2k4
10-06-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@6 October 2003 - 14:17
Clocker

Could you perhaps explain.

I was not aware that homosexuality caused sterility as well.
Perhaps it is a latent condition, as the other often is? :huh:

Hmmm.....

I think I must finish with the preponderance before proceeding to the "ponderance". ;)

clocker
10-06-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@6 October 2003 - 12:17
Clocker

Could you perhaps explain.

I was not aware that homosexuality caused sterility as well.
JPaul,
You are perhaps unaware that sterility is merely a condition engineered by "*" and introduced into the gay community circa the early eighties.
You really should pay more attention to fallenknight...



"*"= yet to be revealed

j2k4
10-06-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by clocker+6 October 2003 - 14:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 6 October 2003 - 14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@6 October 2003 - 12:17
Clocker

Could you perhaps explain.

I was not aware that homosexuality caused sterility as well.
JPaul,
You are perhaps unaware that sterility is merely a condition engineered by "*" and introduced into the gay community circa the early eighties.
You really should pay more attention to fallenknight...



"*"= yet to be revealed[/b][/quote]
You mean.........


IT&#39;S A CONSPIRACY????


Sure, okay. Sounds right to me. :D

nightryder
10-06-2003, 07:41 PM
JPaul if every1 on Earth was a poofter like you, then no1 would b fkn ni bitchs but bitchs and unless they somehow cloned pplz outa their assholes, there would be no births and the human race would cease to exist :rolleyes:

Biggles
10-06-2003, 07:54 PM
Nightryder

That is a little inelegant and also something of a gift. However it is not my style so I shall let it pass. :) :rolleyes:

J'Pol
10-06-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by nightryder@6 October 2003 - 20:41
JPaul if every1 on Earth was a poofter like you, then no1 would b fkn ni bitchs but bitchs and unless they somehow cloned pplz outa their assholes, there would be no births and the human race would cease to exist :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dah, are you trying to taunt me. I really can&#39;t make up my mind.

I was not aware that the arse was the common area used for the cells in the cloning procedure. One assumes you know this from personal experience.

Have you found that being raised by one parent, a horse at that, has effected your outlook.

sArA
10-06-2003, 09:03 PM
And surely a little co-operation and a syringe...........

Busyman
10-06-2003, 11:40 PM
I totally disagree with the gay lifestyle but.........
Leave&#39;em the fuck alone. In America a law recently passed allowing sodomy (it was illegal in certain states). This was a bullshit law to begin with. It also meant that my girlfriend wanted to give me fallatio (poor Yorick), I could go to jail. BULLSHIT.
Homosexuality is not natural by design. It does not create babies JPaul. If everyone was homosexual folk would have to rely TOTALLY on science to further the human race.


I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE OR CIVIL UNIONS. I think Vermont now allows civil unions.
So now two gay guys can now share health insurance and enjoy the benefits of "marriage" and me and my girlfriend can&#39;t unless we are married. This discriminates against heterosexual couples who are not married.
It also is BULLSHIT politics. They won&#39;t allow gay marriage because that&#39;s a juicy religious issue but they allow civil unions to appease they gay voter. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :ph34r:

J'Pol
10-07-2003, 12:28 AM
Can&#39;t argue with that.

Really, I can&#39;t I just don&#39;t understand your point.

As I understand it you are a black lesbian and you want to buy insurance but can&#39;t. Is that correct.

Busyman
10-07-2003, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@7 October 2003 - 00:28
Can&#39;t argue with that.

Really, I can&#39;t I just don&#39;t understand your point.

As I understand it you are a black lesbian and you want to buy insurance but can&#39;t. Is that correct.
No, if I can&#39;t put my girlfriend on my insurance why should two hershey highway drivers?

Smartass

MagicNakor
10-07-2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Busyman@7 October 2003 - 00:40
...So now two gay guys can now share health insurance and enjoy the benefits of "marriage" and me and my girlfriend can&#39;t unless we are married...
Sorry, wrong again.

Ever hear of "commonlaw?"

:ninja:

Busyman
10-07-2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor+7 October 2003 - 02:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor &#064; 7 October 2003 - 02:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@7 October 2003 - 00:40
...So now two gay guys can now share health insurance and enjoy the benefits of "marriage" and me and my girlfriend can&#39;t unless we are married...
Sorry, wrong again.

Ever hear of "commonlaw?"

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
Doesn&#39;t apply in all circumstances. Also commonlaw marriage is still "marriage". One could argue that the heterosexual couple should just get married. My point is a gay couple that is not married gets the benefit. The heterosexual couple does not and cannot unless they are married, commonlaw or not.