Dav Posted March 29, 2004 Report Posted March 29, 2004 thanks Bacchus and Dav. Canada is cool, the US is just embarrased that we almost defeated them in the war of 1812 with only 500 soldiers while they had almost 6 million. Good luck explaining that one what the -*BAD WORD*- has that got to do with anything?
Aileron Posted March 29, 2004 Report Posted March 29, 2004 Don't think I'm conservative on this issue, I'm neutral. I merely wanted to apply some resistance to an otherwise one-sided discussion. I don't care if they are allowed to marry or not. However, if they are allowed, I want it to have its own reason. I do not want it to be because certain races were oppressed a century ago. Equality is not absolute. Some people are born blind, but nobody thinks it wrong that airlines do not hire blind pilots. Some people are shorter than others, yet there is no protest over the lack of midgets in the NBA roster. Some people are smarter than others, but there is no desire to give the mentally re-*BAD WORD*-ed extra aid to get into med. school. The question here is whether denying a gay man the right to marry is more like denying a black man the right to vote, or like denying a handicap man the right to be a firefighter.
Dav Posted March 29, 2004 Report Posted March 29, 2004 well the dilema is that some ewould argue yes and some no. Many people are anti gay and others hold homosexual marrage as incorrect in their own value of marrige. It all comes down to a question of popular opinion as many things in democratic sociaty do, Unfortauanty thet means the few offten suffer to satisfy the many.
Sgt. Bountage Posted March 30, 2004 Report Posted March 30, 2004 Unfortauanty thet means the few offten suffer to satisfy the many.Yup, thats the hard part of choosing. I think that some countries should be allowed to have "gay-marriage" but not all... if people want to get married they have to move to these countries. This would also boost the countries economy. Thats my opinion
nikegurl637 Posted March 30, 2004 Report Posted March 30, 2004 We are the largest y'know Pfft. Russia is the largest country... then it's Canada. And the U.S is in 4th, so it isn't exactly "puny". ;P Bah. The whole reason that the gay marriage issue is brought up by Bush, who's pushing for the amendment... is because he wants to satisfy the right-right-right wings of his party. He wants their votes for the next election, because they like how he takes a strong stand on the issue. If he didn't, the party would probably split, and in the past when it happened, the split party... usually lost. While we're on the topic of Bush, I hope he treads carefully on the subject of abortion. If he takes too strong of a stand on that, he may bring women (50% of voters) against him. Anyway. I'm pro-gay marriage. I'm very interested to see how this election will turn out. Too bad I will be missing out on voting by 4 months.
Dav Posted March 30, 2004 Report Posted March 30, 2004 well whils we are on bush he appears to be despratly attemting to get him self out of the proverbial hole he has created, buy lets save it for the how many years does the us have left topic.
Bacchus Posted March 30, 2004 Report Posted March 30, 2004 imo Anti-abortion law is a major setback in women rights history.Gay marriage should be allowed. Anyway, there's no legit reason to disallow it...apart from the religious one which is bogus.Bush is a re-*BAD WORD*- being puppetered by industry, a loose cannon and a mad cow.War on Terror is cool but it shouldn't a US only prerogative. And pre-emptive war on countries like Iraq is a hollow concept , a total waste of energy and a disgrace for the White-House. Not to mention an insult to the world's intelligence.Lying is a coward's weapon. Humanity greatest lost is common sense. Love you,Didelidooo
Aileron Posted March 30, 2004 Report Posted March 30, 2004 Gay marriage should be allowed. Anyway, there's no legit reason to disallow it...apart from the religious one which is bogus.Sorry, but you are advocating the force of change. It is you who has to provide a sound arguement in favor of it. Making this a civil rights issue can work, but you have to prove that it is in fact a civil rights issue in the first place.
Dav Posted March 30, 2004 Report Posted March 30, 2004 well the religious argument is a leagal argument isnt it, there are many riligious stats and many in non religious nations with strong religious beliefs.
Sgt. Bountage Posted March 31, 2004 Report Posted March 31, 2004 hmm... I kn ow this is a bit off topic, and after this I'll complain some more on this gay marriage stuff, but I think Russia is slightly smaller... Thats what I heard anyways... maybe not, maybe you're right, what do i know!? I still think gay marriage should be dissallowed. Many Catholics who have read the bible know that God wanted us all to have children and be happy... not be gay (in the man-man or woman-woman sort of way) and not have any children. I dunno, when I see the commericials on T.V of people getting married of the same sex, I flip channels... its just gay! If you know what i mean
Bacchus Posted March 31, 2004 Report Posted March 31, 2004 What's wrong about being gay? It's not against natural law, nature proved that. And don't serve me the "family" argument...people will still be -*BAD WORD*-ing even if gays are allowed to marry.So what's the real problem? the word of GOD? c'mon. God as we have heard of him hasn't always been around you know...You don't want gays to be bounded by the sacred links of marriage, fine. You won't be sitting beside them in your afterlife. But what on earth is wrong about them getting married...in a ******* common law marriage? what's it to you all (i'd be tempted to say homophobiacs but that'd be too easy) if they benefit from the same fiscal and social advantages as any other married couples? Advocating change? off -*BAD WORD*-ing course i am! Humanity is build on change, our very way of life is one of changes. We are a socially dynamic race. Or you'd like us to go back to the trees? or back when US founders disembark maybe? he, why not going back to slavery while your at it. Prove my point? read up.
MonteZuma Posted March 31, 2004 Report Posted March 31, 2004 Bacchus...I tend to agree with everything you say....There are biological/neurological reasons why some people have homosexual desires/tendencies and its kinda unfair to walk all over these peoples access to the same kinds of rights that the majority of the community enjoy... But....I also think that it is a natural human condition for most people to be repulsed (even disgusted) by the very thought of homosexual sex. I think that for most people there is no sexual attraction to the same sex at all. In fact the opposite applies. There are sound biological and probably anthropological reasons for that. Anything that attempts to present homosexuality as having equal morality and decency as heterosexuality is always gonna be controversial. Most people aren't programmed to think like a homosexual person and will never understand. I sure as -*BAD WORD*- don't understand.
Dav Posted March 31, 2004 Report Posted March 31, 2004 that is very true monte. A fact i heard (i doubt it is true however) is that wonem will have homosexual desires at one point in their lives. However although this may be a random comment by some guy that cannot kjeep his hand out his pants there is some truth in it, men are far more anti gay then women.
Bacchus Posted April 5, 2004 Report Posted April 5, 2004 so? Anyway, Monte you're right. I don't undertsand either but i'm quite sure that homos have the same ''thought process'' as anyone else. As far as biology is concern i believe that the hormonal process and effects are about desires...not orientation, be it from psychological or natural reason is rather irrelevant as far as gay marriage is concern imo. and as far as nature is concern, I don't think it's making any difference, nor do i think that there's ''natural reasons'' why homosexuality is controversial. mammals have alwasy been doing it and a ''gay'' dog was never segregate or discriminate because of its ''defect'' behavior. What we see here is a strong ''human'' reaction, in my view it's probably a by-product of strong socialisation and it's based on prejudice, not reason. oh and Dav, women sexual drive suffers no biological degredation before more or less 60 or 70 i believe. They are capable of orgasm til' very old age it seems. well biologically...or so i heard but it's hearsay.And since i don'T ahve any problem with lesbianism whatsoever, i guess that it's only natural to assume that women don't with homosexuality either <_<
plant. Posted April 5, 2004 Report Posted April 5, 2004 gay ppl will always be different in this world, but i think marriage should be alowed. I think it is here in The Netherlands.
Dav Posted April 5, 2004 Report Posted April 5, 2004 well women really do not react to it in the same way as men. It is true that a womans sex drive remains, but her fertility is what attracts men to her in the first place. These year olds are probably having sex with their 85 yesar old husbands they have been with since they were 20.
MonteZuma Posted April 5, 2004 Report Posted April 5, 2004 Some women do. I know a young heterosexual woman with a gay brother. She is disgusted by the thought of lesbian activity.
Bacchus Posted April 6, 2004 Report Posted April 6, 2004 yep, same here. Although they don't react as strongly as men do about it. As a sidenote, almost every women i know who'd respond favorably to a threesome would prefer it with another woman rather than a second man
MonteZuma Posted April 6, 2004 Report Posted April 6, 2004 yep, same here. Although they don't react as strongly as men do about it. As a sidenote, almost every women i know who'd respond favorably to a threesome would prefer it with another woman rather than a second man Well thats a good thing
Dav Posted April 6, 2004 Report Posted April 6, 2004 yep, same here. Although they don't react as strongly as men do about it. As a sidenote, almost every women i know who'd respond favorably to a threesome would prefer it with another woman rather than a second man Well thats a good thing amen
»Ducky Posted April 6, 2004 Report Posted April 6, 2004 I usually never come into this forum.. as there is never..NEVER a right or wrong opinion. Only inane ones. More on the adoption aspect...hmm... Children must grow up in a normal environment?Welp.. I am glad I had the luxory of growing up with an alcoholic, abusive father who would beat me for no apparent reason. *High Five*Thats gotta be a -*BAD WORD*- uva lot better than having 2 fathers in general that had to p!@#$%^&* a series of tests and meetings to be even considered to adopt me, and would probably love me as If I were biologically theirs. On a scale... I would have gladly taken the gay couple over my biological.If I can admit to such.. How is it wrong?Maybe I am just the messd up one.
Bacchus Posted April 6, 2004 Report Posted April 6, 2004 you're most absolutely right i think. amen! and regarding threesome... WAY TO GO!
Aileron Posted April 6, 2004 Report Posted April 6, 2004 Societies' problem with gay adoption is obvious. While we view gays as equals, we really don't want to raise people gay. We view the individuals as equals, but not the behavior. That is the problem with both gay adoption and gay marriage, because they both cross the line between gay rights and homosexualism.
Recommended Posts