Moral values

[Guest Recombo]

There are several books available today pointing out that America is struggling with a major moral dilemna. As more and more supreme court judges p!@#$%^&* decisions to allow things like gay marriage and homosexuality it seems America casts a deaf ear to it.

 

Unfortunately, loss of moral values will lead to grave cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. If it's gay marriage today, will it be free sex in the streets tomorrow, then legalizing various forms of assault, then finding rights in the slaying of each other? Surely anyone can conceive where we could go in just a few short years without a fundamental grip on what is right and wrong.

 

As I think about this I am concerned. It really comes down to one thing when you talk about morals: concern for your fellow man (or woman).

 

Here in these short few words I have expressed no form of religious bias for a set of common rules. Given that, provide opinion about moral righteousness and how it may or may not affect your life.

[Vile Requiem]

The male G-Spot is in the anus.

 

Yet another "WTF God" moment.

[Guest Recombo]

Thank you for enlightening us with your sexual orientation. Does your version of 'Family Feud' will include questions such as:

 

"100 people surveyed, top 6 answers on the board: Name a prophylactic used by gay men under 20."

[Dr.Worthless]

The male G-Spot is in the anus.

 

Yet another "WTF God" moment.

 

Not techincally. It happens that the prostate is most-easily stimulated through the anus, thats where it is closest to. When engaging in anal-sex or anal stimulation, thats what is being stimulated.

 

*disclamer* I have this knowledge through other means than personal experience.

[»Ducky]

There are several books available today pointing out that America is struggling with a major moral dilemna. As more and more supreme court judges p!@#$%^&* decisions to allow things like gay marriage and homosexuality it seems America casts a deaf ear to it.

 

Unfortunately, loss of moral values will lead to grave cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. If it's gay marriage today, will it be free sex in the streets tomorrow, then legalizing various forms of assault, then finding rights in the slaying of each other? Surely anyone can conceive where we could go in just a few short years without a fundamental grip on what is right and wrong.

 

As I think about this I am concerned. It really comes down to one thing when you talk about morals: concern for your fellow man (or woman).

 

Here in these short few words I have expressed no form of religious bias for a set of common rules. Given that, provide opinion about moral righteousness and how it may or may not affect your life.

What personal stake do you have in gay marriage?

None? Then what's the problem.

Bigot

 

Not techincally. It happens that the prostate is most-easily stimulated through the anus, thats where it is closest to. When engaging in anal-sex or anal stimulation, thats what is being stimulated.

 

*disclamer* I have this knowledge through other means than personal experience.

Anal cavity is where it is accessed the easiest. Did you just want to hear yourself speak? It was obvious he knew what and where it was.

[Aileron]

Look, after thought about this, it isn't really about the right of gays to marry. Really, they already have the right to marry any place, any where, any time. The problem is no one will recognize it as a marriage.

 

Its not about a gay couple's right to say "we are married", it is about those who wish to say "no, you are not". A marriage certificate basically forces the rest of the people in the country to recognize the marriage a a legitimate marriage like any other. But society doesn't view them as marriages like any other, they view them as "gay marriages". Their marriage is not like any other's theirs is a gay one. So, society doesn't want to view their marriage in the way that a marriage certificate would try to make them. That means that in seeking "rights" (as I said, they have all the rights they need, they want a certificate) of the few, you are pushing aside the rights of the many, and calling those who don't like it bigots.

 

Maybe we should compromise, and give gay couples a "gay marriage certificate". Give them their own territory if you will, so they stop going after ours.

 

 

 

 

Ducky, you are so concerned with being a "bigot" that you can't see the complexity of the issue. These are not black people asking to vote, these are gay people asking to marry, and giving them this request would turn society upside down. We are staking our whole society on this issue, so whatever decision we make should be thought out.

 

Also, the gay rights movement is kind of like a ship travel in the wake of a larger civil rights movement ship. Instead of gaining the ground themselves, they point to ground gained by the civil rights movement, and make similar claims. This is wrong - such an important issue needs to stand on its own, without guilt leftover from the 60s. Calling the other side "bigot" not only is an overly quick decision, but also puts homosexual's in the wake of african americans. They are too different groups, and they need to have two different struggles at very least.

[»Ducky]

It all comes to homosexuality in the end. Whether you agree or disagree.

They want a piece of paper.

GIVE IT TO THEM.

 

Again I ask, what personal stake is it of yours if Jimmy and Johnny want to be wed.

Legally binding weddings take place constantly out of the sight of "God".

Difference? None.

 

You can relate gay rights to black rights in a simple way.

It is my honest opinion, that often things are analyzed too deeply and the founding logic is lost along the way.

Will the event turn heads and make possible chaos if it were to be allowed. Yes.

But these are signs of progress. A good majority of people outside blacks themselves wanted to never see them with equal rights. We were big boys, we got passed it (for the most part.) We saw it as wrong and fixed it. It didn't take a speech, a person or a march to convince us, we knew already.

Half of us know this is wrong, we are just waiting for the other half to catch up.

So until then, Bigots.

[MasterDrake]

Yes it appears that since you have been here ducky all you have done is insult people over and over. Did I strike a nerve with the "I hate gays" statement from the T3 Forums, maybe not.

 

Anyways if you continue on your current path of insulting over and over no one with recognize your posts and just ignore them. Because a "little kid having a temper tantrom" will not win over anyone.

 

Now on gay marriage I have no idea why I don't want it I just feel it as being very wrong I don't know why its just a feeling I have. I think that chaos might break lose or some other group will come up wanting something thats even more ridiculous than them. Maybe I am just scared of this change but I am sure that the american people with make the right choice when the time comes. Majority rules right so if we want to embrace this then it will happen.

 

No with your comparison of the black race to the homosexuals that is just crazy I sure if we had a black man stand next to you he with knock your teeth out for it gay or not. The African Americans have contributed so much to this great country we call home and have done so much they deserve everything we en!@#$%^&*le them to.

 

Then the Homosexuals come along and say we are different so we deserve everything we want without question. I don't remember there being any historical or contribution to the country or society to give them parades. I don't know why I should have to treat a gay man different because he is gay. Its just gets more stupid with each day, but I know the day a man calls sexual har!@#$%^&*ment on me the day it has gone to far.

 

Any who I am expecting a big flame from ducky because he hates hearing me talk to poorly about homosexuals. I think ducky is striaght maybe that has changed in the past years I have known him and thats why its a touchy subject. Anyways have fun kids.

[Guest Recombo]

For a man who claims to have protested retaliation on 9/12, you sure seem to be the opposite.

 

No matter. If you want gay and lesbians in your society ducky, why not go to Europe or a country where it's permitted. Do I have personal stake? No, other than being offended by it. I do not care to know homesexual men or women nor will I have any tolerance of it.

 

So you say I am unfair? It is equally unjust to expect me to accept it. There is simply no reason to call me a bigot. Americans are completely 100% permitted to speak out against that which they oppose.

[Dr.Worthless]

Half of us know this is wrong, we are just waiting for the other half to catch up.

So until then, Bigots.

 

So in other words, Ducky's opinion is better than everyone elses. If you don't agree with him, you're obviously either stupid or a Bigot.

 

Go Go Gadget -*BAD WORD*-!!

[Dr.Worthless]

So you say I am unfair? It is equally unjust to expect me to accept it. There is simply no reason to call me a bigot. Americans are completely 100% permitted to speak out against that which they oppose.

 

Sorry, Not in Ducky's america! Remember, the one he hates?

[white_0men]

Ducky was wrong to call you bigots, but your reasoning doesn't seem to be much more logical. Gay marriages leading to sex in the streets? Gay marriages leading to legalized assault? Gay marriages leading to a right to slay each other? Are you -*BAD WORD*-ing kidding me?

 

I guess it makes no difference that homosexuality has been observed in animals and that it seems to be completely natural. You just have a feeling that it's going to lead to something else, there's not much I can say to argue with that.

[Guest Recombo]

Am I kidding? Follow litigation a little Omen and you might be blown away by what judges permit...and what they don't. Just observe it in your local community for starts.

 

Yes, some species of west african frogs change sex in a single sex environment. Animals to it to prevent the extinction of their kind. I'm pretty sure that two dudes aren't thinking 'we better procreate now to prevent the end of man.'

[white_0men]

Are you even thinking when you are writing?

 

How did you get from gay marriage will lead to the right to slay each other to read litigation about what judges permit? Do you really expect me, or anyone else, to believe that a judge is going to go from allowing a gay couple to be married and then turn around and allow people to kill each other?

 

I wasn't talking about frogs.

[»Ducky]

Alrighty, you are all up for straight people and dislike the recognition of homosexual for no reason other than a "feeling."

My bad, you aren't bigots?

 

You are all en!@#$%^&*led to your own opinion, but when you have no ground to stand on, nothing to hold onto in order to help you get your opinion across. That tells me that your opinion is stupid. "Just because" will never be a valid arguement; and that is all I recieved here.

 

So until you tell me why it is so wrong to you. Personal reason why this small injustice should not be allowed, don't attempt to flame me.

Remember, freedom of religious choice, so we can't be resorting back to the bible.

[Dr.Worthless]

Remember, freedom of religious choice, so we can't be resorting back to the bible.

 

Well sure they can. If the person believes in the bible that is their choice. If they choose to let the bibles teaching influence their opinions, that is their choice also.

 

I personally am torn between my moral ideals (which are influenced by the bible) and my social ideals (no reason for them to be treated different than everyone else.)

 

While the arguement that destroying the un-written rule of marriage between a man and a woman opens up marriage to any sexual orientation is kinda ludicrous, in the laws eyes it would be correct. And while I don't have any trouble with two men or two women marrying, I do have a problem with someone marrying a shirt, or a dog, etc.

 

Simply writing legislation having marriage as 2 human beings would solve the above.

[»Ducky]

Well sure they can. If the person believes in the bible that is their choice. If they choose to let the bibles teaching influence their opinions, that is their choice also.

Agreed, but to tell someone else they shouldn't do it because of the things you believe in?

This is a hard question to deal with, because we all believe we know whats best for another. What happened to "Only God can judge me."

 

If I cut up your statement to exclude your religious thoughts on the matter. You have the same social understanding that I do.

I exclude religion in my overall belief because others don't believe in the same religious factors as myself, it certainly is a "walk in my shoes" type of deal.

 

Thanks for posting your genuine opinion.

[Vile Requiem]

If the person believes in the bible, God made it feel good to get a long smooth shaft up the arse, thus obviously he condones it as he personally created Adam. Otherwise he'd make it feel like going to the dentist or something, or create a flap of skin that only allowed exits, not entries.

 

So really, there's no religious grounds for being against homosexuality. and in paticular Recombo has been arguing a scientific standpoint, which is actually a smart argument.

 

Except he called me gay in the process, which is notta coo, and it DOES make him a homophobic kid who's even too young to understand sexual dynamics in society thus making his ramblings moot.

 

On the other hand, Worthless is not a bigot (from what he has posted anyway).

[Dr.Worthless]

So really, there's no religious grounds for being against homosexuality. and in paticular Recombo has been arguing a scientific standpoint, which is actually a smart argument.

Well, I can make a scientific arguement also.

 

Firstly consider that self preservation is the strongest instinct in most every animal. Closely tied to self preservation is survival of the race, IE -*BAD WORD*- everything like mad so you have the most chances of passing on your genes. If this is Genetically inside of us, to procreate so we can insure the survival of our genes, why would it be natural for a creature to be attracted (sexually) to something it cannot procreate with?

 

On the other hand, Worthless is not a bigot (from what he has posted anyway).

 

I wouldn't consider myself a bigot, I have no problem with homosexuality. It does bother me when homosexuals feel it necessary to flaunt their sexuality, and it would certainly bother me if I was hit on sexually by a homosexual, but as people I don't view homosexuals any differently than myself. They just "like to get a long smooth shaft up the arse" rofl.

 

If the person believes in the bible, God made it feel good to get a long smooth shaft up the arse, thus obviously he condones it as he personally created Adam. Otherwise he'd make it feel like going to the dentist or something, or create a flap of skin that only allowed exits, not entries.

 

Well, not necessarily Vile. Your arguement is that since it feels good, God must have wanted it to happen. Not Exactly... True, While it may (or may not) feel good to have a penis up your butt, that doesn't mean its necessarily "good" or "evil". The "good" there would be a "pleasure of the flesh", which is wrong. So is excessive eating, drinking (alcohol), sex, etc. It ties into the whole "freedom of choice" idealism behind christianity.

[Guest Recombo]

Vile, thanks for your patronistic view of me. I'm flattered to know that you think so highly of someone of 'lesser intellect' than yourself. When you walk down the street, do you notice the plane of air between you and level ground?

 

Did you even read the initial post? I asked simply that we refrain from religious views in order to keep it neutral but you disregarded it.

 

Tell me Vile, am I really the homophobic kid? Or is that simply proof of your inability to speak to the subject matter at hand? Can you please refrain from posting anything here when it is nothing more than animosity towards those who take a stance and have conflicting opinion?

[Guest Recombo]

I hear that free falling feels exceptional! It just so happens that gravity sends you straight toward the earth's core, and regardless of how it feels, you will come to a quick end at ground 0.

 

But ya know, since it feels good...God must have intended it for us all.

[Vile Requiem]

I find that, quite ironically, Jerry Fallwell actually has a point for once when he states that Christian fundamentalists have taken over the Republican Party at least for the time being (in that they control Bush's fate entirely because the Repubs focused on a Southern Strategy since the Civil Rights Act of LBJ), in what will lead to a major split between "traditional" Eisenhower Republicans, the Bush Neo-Con supporters, and the Fundementalists if Bush is not reelected. The beginning rumblings of this are evident in Republican Congressmen blasting the Iraq direction.

 

And considering as the Republicans are one of two major political parties in this country, and it's one of the two major arguments against homosexuality (the other being darwinism), and it professes to teach people "morals", Christianity has a LOT to do with this argument.

 

But as far as my own personal morality goes, I have no problem with homosexuality. I'd estimate 10% of my school's population is gay, and you'd never know it because they don't walk around and hit you in the face with that information. They live their own -*BAD WORD*- lives and that's exactly how it should be. Let's give them their equal rights under the law because they happen to be American Citizens who have committed no crime and thus deserving of such rights. Failure to do so is discrimination, plain and simple.

[Aileron]

-*BAD WORD*-, Ducky, you just made my arguement for me.

 

Our country has religious freedom, meaning one have have whichever opinion of marriage you want, meaning someone can't force on opinion of marriage on you.

 

Couple that with what a marriage license does. It forces people to recognize a marriage, whether or not they personally agree with it.

 

So, by giving a gay couple a marriage ceritificate, you are telling every religious group that does not view gay couples as married that they cannot practice that aspect of their religion, violating the first amendment.

 

pffft...we don't need an amendment banning gay marriage, we already have one! As long as there are religions that disapprove of gay marriage, the government cannot force those religions by means of marriage certifcate to recognize them.

[sshyperion]

Let's look at this discussion (as we've been trying to at times) excluding all religious aspects to the concept of marriage. In terms of general human rights, non-heterosexual people should be/are en!@#$%^&*led to the ability to be legally married. In the religious elements !@#$%^&*ociated that's a different story but is irrelevant for the core issue. Secular law, whether it has been influenced at one point or another should not be bound today by such religious ferver. the person earlier above who said that allowing gay marriage would give precedent for other obvious outrageous social alterations/legal alterations should realize that the precedent for anything "outrageous" can happen from any other legal event besides gay marriage. Btw, the right to bear arms in the US, is that not a legal way to slay another given certain cir-*BAD WORD*-stances? There is your first precedent without even relating to gay marriage. I agree with Omen and the others that "just because" is not a valid logical excuse. Where are your "feelings" based from? Are they coming from religious/religious-based personal upbringing?

 

I am catholic in background and pretty much everyone knows the catholic church's view on non-heterosexual marriage. Yet, I disagree with that totally and believe that all people are en!@#$%^&*led to legal "marriage" regardless of what a single religious group or groups say. when it comes to social rights we should not look at what organized religions believe but what is good for people in general. Denial of such a right on the basis of "just because" or "biologically" or "because God" this and that is not a reason or even a half decent excuse. would you like it if we followed Hindu belief and were not permitted to kill cattle for food or if we went with traditional amish beliefs in technology and its uses and were banned from using the major advances in both medical and social comforts that technology can bring us? I find that the cons of such decisions outweigh the pros too much. Same goes for equal marriage. To deny people the right to legally be "married" is just as bad as saying "we're sorry because of a religious aspect that shouldn't be used in making law we're denying you the right to be officially recognized as a married couple." To deny non-heterosexual people the ability to marriage we're setting a horrible precedent as well for future exclusions. We're back to wide scale segregation within our society more so than it already is and was in the past. I don't know about some of you but others can agree it's nothing good for the short and long run in society by prohibiting equal marriage.

[»Ducky]

So, by giving a gay couple a marriage ceritificate, you are telling every religious group that does not view gay couples as married that they cannot practice that aspect of their religion, violating the first amendment.

Rofl, and by not giving it, you are telling every religious group that sees it as ok to no longer continue with their own beliefs.

That had to be the worst arguement I have seen all week.

 

I won't tell you what you cannot do because of my own beliefs and you do the same for me? Is there a problem.

THAT'S CALLED PUSHING YOUR RELIGION.

I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about the issue.