Bill to allow gay marriage in Pennsylvania

[Spike]

One day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its rulings on gay marriage, two state House Democrats said Thursday that they will introduce a bill that would allow same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

"LGBT Pennsylvanians are seeing their neighbors in New York, Maryland and Delaware, among other states, now qualify for the approximately 1,000 federal rights and benefits that come with civil marriage and they are increasingly asking why they don't have those same rights, as well as the state rights and benefits," Sims said in the statement.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/06/bill_to_allow_gay_marriage_in.html#/0

[steeldawg]

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit:

[X-Terminator]

I used to care about this issue, but I don't anymore. Let them get married and be miserable for the rest of their lives like straight people do.

[Spike]

I used to care about this issue, but I don't anymore. Let them get married and be miserable for the rest of their lives like straight people do.

I tend to agree

- - - Updated - - -


:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit:

what is that?

clap three times if you're gay?

[GoSlash27]

I have always been adamantly supportive of same sex couples' right to marry. I've always seen the role of government in marriage as regulating a binding contract, and their attempts to dictate which marriages are acceptable are oppressive IMO.

[fansince'76]

As I consider marriage to be an archaic and outdated institution anyway (not to mention an increasingly bad deal legally if you're a male), I honestly don't give a damn.

I am, however, extremely tired of this being such an issue of focus for governments on both local and national levels when there are much more important problems that they continue to ignore. Massive unemployment? Nothing. Ever mounting and crushing amounts of debt? Nothing. Failing schools? Nothing. Crumbling infrastructure? Nothing. Gay marriage? Front and center on the docket!

And everybody hurry and put up those big red "equals signs" on your Facebook profiles to show how supportive you are of this!

[GoSlash27]

As I consider marriage to be an archaic and outdated institution anyway (not to mention an increasingly bad deal legally if you're a male), I honestly don't give a damn.

I am, however, extremely tired of this being such an issue of focus for governments on both local and national levels when there are much more important problems that they continue to ignore. Massive unemployment? Nothing. Ever mounting and crushing amounts of debt? Nothing. Failing schools? Nothing. Crumbling infrastructure? Nothing. Gay marriage? Front and center on the docket!

And everybody hurry and put up those big red "equals signs" on your Facebook profiles to show how supportive you are of this!

It's no accident that politicians focus on wedge issues instead of serious matters.

[Godfather]

Socons should be happy about this. Wait until all of the same sex couples get hit with the marriage tax penalty. They'll raise a huge fuss (and rightfully so), but libs will suddenly care about the unfairness of the penalty. Same goes for married couples having higher out of pocket costs under Obamacare.

I'll get to put up a red "=" sign in support of ending discrimination against married couples. Can't wait.

[ALLD]

I care more about legalizing marijuana and I don't do drugs. I am also not gay, not that there's anything wrong with it....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-_oK-9KJt4

[Spike]

Let me explain one thing to all y'all...


from a strictly biological point of view if you want a species to go extinct or just reduce their population in the future then go ahead and pretend non-breeding pairs are OK

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...you are talking unripe fruit here except for the adoption option, not that there's anything wrong with that

other than that I don't really care what you heathens do

you will all burn when the sky gods return

[Chidi29]

About time since practically the entire northeast has legalized it.

[GoSlash27]

Let me explain one thing to all y'all...


from a strictly biological point of view if you want a species to go extinct or just reduce their population in the future then go ahead and pretend non-breeding pairs are OK

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...you are talking unripe fruit here except for the adoption option, not that there's anything wrong with that

other than that I don't really care what you heathens do

you will all burn when the sky gods return

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wAxDMfEGhoY/TMuWrpgfuaI/AAAAAAAAAVk/tGhRx4Bmkt0/s320/Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg
/that's 5 things...

[Dwinsgames]

I could tolerate such behavior much better when they where still hidden in closets , I do not want to sit in a bar or restaurant and see two dudes necking ...

sorry If that offends anyone but as Chidi said ( to somebody ) in another thread why be someone here that you are not in person .....

[GBMelBlount]

I have always been adamantly supportive of same sex couples' right to marry. I've always seen the role of government in marriage as regulating a binding contract, and their attempts to dictate which marriages are acceptable are oppressive IMO.

Do you think two guys having anal sex is "normal" or "natural" Slash?

[GoSlash27]

Do you think two guys having anal sex is "normal" or "natural" Slash?

Why do you ask?

- - - Updated - - -


I could tolerate such behavior much better when they where still hidden in closets , I do not want to sit in a bar or restaurant and see two dudes necking ...

sorry If that offends anyone but as Chidi said ( to somebody ) in another thread why be someone here that you are not in person .....

Screw political correctness. I don't think most people want to see that, not even gay dudes. But let's face it... gay marriage doesn't make you any more or less likely to see that.

[Bluecoat96]

You may all call me a conservative whackjob, but I believe that homosexuality can be classified in the same manner as a mental illness or disorder.

[Dwinsgames]

Screw political correctness. I don't think most people want to see that, not even gay dudes. But let's face it... gay marriage doesn't make you any more or less likely to see that.


I am not so certain of that , the way I see it the more publicly accepted two same sex people are the more you will see it , the more you see of it the more flamboyant it will be ....

I could be wrong ( I hope I am wrong ) ....

everything starts small and gains momentum the more you see of it just like NFL TD celebrations they started small and got larger and larger until the league put their foot down and started penalizing them when crossing specific parameters of the " new rules " , rules that never existed prior to celebrations becoming prevalent...

just my take , time will tell

[Spike]

You may all call me a conservative whackjob, but I believe that homosexuality can be classified in the same manner as a mental illness or disorder.


I can't wait till the sky gods return and burn all them heathens

yea verily

[GBMelBlount]

Why do you ask?



If this is a bit too personal for you to answer I would certainly respect your rare need for privacy and not think any differently of you.

You just always seem so eager to enlighten everyone that I thought you would jump at the chance to be front and center on this.

[GoSlash27]

If this is a bit too personal for you to answer I would certainly respect your rare need for privacy and not think any differently of you.

You just always seem so eager to enlighten everyone that I thought you would jump at the chance to be front and center on this.

It's not personal at all, and I don't mind enlightening you ;)
That enlightenment starts with the answer to my question: "Why do you ask?" You asked me that question for a reason, and I would like to know what that reason is.

[GoSlash27]

I am not so certain of that , the way I see it the more publicly accepted two same sex people are the more you will see it , the more you see of it the more flamboyant it will be ....

I could be wrong ( I hope I am wrong ) ....

everything starts small and gains momentum the more you see of it just like NFL TD celebrations they started small and got larger and larger until the league put their foot down and started penalizing them when crossing specific parameters of the " new rules " , rules that never existed prior to celebrations becoming prevalent...

just my take , time will tell

I'm thinkin' it'll go the other way. I think the whole PDA thing is really just an act of protest. I think once it gets to the point where most people react like "So you like the cack. Who freakin' cares?", it'll die out. Dudes in general aren't big into making out in public, and the gay guys I know aren't any different in that regard.

[smokin3000gt]

I am not so certain of that , the way I see it the more publicly accepted two same sex people are the more you will see it , the more you see of it the more flamboyant it will be ....

I could be wrong ( I hope I am wrong ) ....


I agree with you. The only issues I have with gay marriage is the more 'ok' and 'equal' it is to be gay in the public eye, the more likely we are to see dudes kissing and making out at a bar, park, or wherever. It's not right and down right fucking disgusting. My biggest issue with it though is what comes after marriage. Kids. I think it's wrong for gay couples to bring kids into it. They might be ok with what they do, but the child has no choice or say whether or not they are brought up in that kind of environment. You can say anything you want to about how it's no different being raised by gay parents than real ones but you will never convince me.

And once it's ok for them to marry like regular couples, then adoptions are next on the ballot. It's a slippery slope as we've seen already. First it was gay marriage, now bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports are open to the opposite sex if they identify as that sex. (http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/state-ordering-girls-locker-rooms-open-to-boys/) Now it's OK for gay boy scout pack leaders. That's bullshit. I wouldn't my son camping in the woods gay man just the same as I wouldn't want a man as pack leader of the girl scouts or my daughter spending the night in the woods him.


If it's what you're into then fine, I don't care but keep it to yourself. I also have rights and I don't me or my children exposed to it.
I'm sick and tired of all the political correctness surrounding this issue too.

[Dwinsgames]

I agree with you. The only issues I have with gay marriage is the more 'ok' and 'equal' it is to be gay in the public eye, the more likely we are to see dudes kissing and making out at a bar, park, or wherever. It's not right and down right fucking disgusting. My biggest issue with it though is what comes after marriage. Kids. I think it's wrong for gay couples to bring kids into it. They might be ok with what they do, but the child has no choice or say whether or not they are brought up in that kind of environment. You can say anything you want to about how it's no different being raised by gay parents than real ones but you will never convince me.

And once it's ok for them to marry like regular couples, then adoptions are next on the ballot. It's a slippery slope as we've seen already. First it was gay marriage, now bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports are open to the opposite sex if they identify as that sex. (http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/state-ordering-girls-locker-rooms-open-to-boys/) Now it's OK for gay boy scout pack leaders. That's bullshit. I wouldn't my son camping in the woods gay man just the same as I wouldn't want a man as pack leader of the girl scouts or my daughter spending the night in the woods him.


If it's what you're into then fine, I don't care but keep it to yourself. I also have rights and I don't me or my children exposed to it.
I'm sick and tired of all the political correctness surrounding this issue too.


:amen:

[GBMelBlount]

Why do you ask?


Checkmate.

LOL.

[ALLD]

The next step would be to change the name of the football team from Green Bay.

[GBMelBlount]

The next step would be to change the name of the football team from Green Bay.



What on earth are you talking about? :noidea:




http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/51/96/collegehumor.cde3c37bc89aeb8b5ac505894a4ec7d7.jpg

[GoSlash27]

Checkmate.

LOL.

*That* doesn't come off as desperate... :rolleyes:
C'mon man, don't give up so easily. Just answer the question.

[7SteelGal43]

You may all call me a conservative whackjob, but I believe that homosexuality can be classified in the same manner as a mental illness or disorder.

ouch

[7SteelGal43]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmEux9PlOj4

[steeldawg]

You know whats really disgusting? The amount of ignorant bigotry that is on display in this thread. :flipoff:

[GoSlash27]

You know whats really disgusting? The amount of ignorant bigotry that is on display in this thread. :flipoff:

Aaaand done.
http://calibermag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/cains-train-wreck.jpg

[fansince'76]

Just what this thread was missing - the self-righteous, holier than thou PC bit...

[Dwinsgames]

You know whats really disgusting? The amount of ignorant bigotry that is on display in this thread. :flipoff:


the one thing in life you can NOT control is how you feel .....

I have never seen two male ( buck ) deer trying to be " united "

I have never seen two male anything ( other than humans ) considered a couple ...

it is against the laws of nature that in itself should be reason enough to be opposed to this ....

nobody here should be shocked of this coming from you , hell after all you are always the one who wants to infringe on the rights of normality and force the rights of the abnormal on everyone ...

[Chidi29]

the one thing in life you can NOT control is how you feel .....

I have never seen two male ( buck ) deer trying to be " united "

I have never seen two male anything ( other than humans ) considered a couple ...

it is against the laws of nature that in itself should be reason enough to be opposed to this ....

nobody here should be shocked of this coming from you , hell after all you are always the one who wants to infringe on the rights of normality and force the rights of the abnormal on everyone ...

1500 species practice homosexuality

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

[Dwinsgames]

1500 species practice homosexuality

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx


many of what they are talking about have both male and female parts

[Chidi29]

many of what they are talking about have both male and female parts

Like dwarf chimps?

[Dwinsgames]

Like dwarf chimps?


I said many , not all thus the 1,500 number is inflated much like gun violence numbers when they include self inflicted and shot by Police or by a home owner defending himself

[Chidi29]

I said many , not all

Well there goes your claim to have "never" seen it in nature.

[smokin3000gt]

wow.. point made. good job chidi :rolleyes:

[Dwinsgames]

Well there goes your claim to have "never" seen it in nature.


does it , considering what I said was this
I have never seen two male anything ( other than humans ) considered a couple ..

note the word I

[steeldawg]

the one thing in life you can NOT control is how you feel .....

I have never seen two male ( buck ) deer trying to be " united "

I have never seen two male anything ( other than humans ) considered a couple ...

it is against the laws of nature that in itself should be reason enough to be opposed to this ....

nobody here should be shocked of this coming from you , hell after all you are always the one who wants to infringe on the rights of normality and force the rights of the abnormal on everyone ...

yes its very common in nature and what the hell are the rights of normality and how in the hell am I forcing abnormality on people? I just choose to see gay people for hat they are and that's human beings who deserve the same rights and freedoms as anyone else.

[Dwinsgames]

yes its very common in nature and what the hell are the rights of normality and how in the hell am I forcing abnormality on people? I just choose to see gay people for hat they are and that's human beings who deserve the same rights and freedoms as anyone else.


yet a law abiding citizen should have to give up his right to own a gun of his choice ..... fucking libs

[steeldawg]

does it , considering what I said was this

note the word I

Oh so just because you've never seen it, it's "against the laws of nature" ?

[Dwinsgames]

DISCLAIMER THIS VIDEO IS NOT SUITABLE FOR WORK OR AROUND SMALL CHILDREN OR EASILY OFFENDED PEOPLE .....

CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKvtyvoy4Xk

[Chidi29]

does it , considering what I said was this

note the word I

So if you personally don't see it, it doesn't exist, right?

EDIT: Steeldawg beat me to it

[steeldawg]

yet a law abiding citizen should have to give up his right to own a gun of his choice ..... fucking libs

where in the world have I asked anyone to give up their right to own gun, please post my words on this and what does this have to do with guns?

[st33lersguy]

You know whats really disgusting? The amount of ignorant bigotry that is on display in this thread. :flipoff:

Just because people have opinions that are different from yours, doesn't mean they are ignorant bigots

[steeldawg]

Just because people have opinions that are different from yours, doesn't mean they are ignorant bigots

if there opinion is gay people shouldn't have equal rights or that something is wrong with someone just because they are gay, then that's exactly what they are. Just because its someone opinion doesn't mean its exempt from being ignorant or bigoted. It was also peoples opinion that African americans should be slaves it was also someones opinion women shouldn't vote those are still ignorant and bigoted.

[fansince'76]

Just because its someone opinion doesn't mean its exempt from being ignorant or bigoted.

Which in itself is a matter of opinion...

[zulater]

You know whats really disgusting? The amount of ignorant bigotry that is on display in this thread. :flipoff:

People are honestly expressing their opinion. That a problem to you? Oh you of course it as, as a "so called proggressive liberal any view contrary to your own is ignorant and bigoted. Asshole.


As to me. I'm ok with Gay marriage. But I know it's only a matter of time before the LGBT or whatever they call themselves will go after Churches that wont officiate gay ceremonies.

[steeldawg]

People are honestly expressing their opinion. That a problem to you? Oh you of course it as, as a "so called proggressive liberal any view contrary to your own is ignorant and bigoted. Asshole.


As to me. I'm ok with Gay marriage. But I know it's only a matter of time before the LGBT or whatever they call themselves will go after Churches that wont officiate gay ceremonies.

And I told them what I think of their opinion and their bigoted uneducated view of gay people. Why would gay people go after churches? You think after all this time of religions telling gays they are evil putting them to death and keeping them oppressed that now they are going to go after churches for wedding ceremonies? Gays fought for the right to marry and be recognized by the government it has nothing to do with church ceremonies or the medieval religions that have hated them for centuries.

[zulater]

And I told them what I think of their opinion and their bigoted uneducated view of gay people. Why would gay people go after churches? You think after all this time of religions telling gays they are evil putting them to death and keeping them oppressed that now they are going to go after churches for wedding ceremonies? Gays fought for the right to marry and be recognized by the government it has nothing to do with church ceremonies or the medieval religions that have hated them for centuries.

What makes me think it? Everything I've witnessed in life to this point. Give it 2 or 3 years and any church that wont marry gays will have their 501 status threatened.

But here's an example already of it. http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-marriage-supporters-threaten-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exemption-41856/

And I know in order to gain public support they've claimed they wont go after churches that refuse to marry them. But once they've passed the hurdle of getting gay marriage accepted and legal everywhere they absolutely will attack any and all that stand in their way. Like I said it's not a matter of if it's only a matter of when and every honest person knows it.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way dawg who are you to decide what's bigoted and ignorant when it comes to a matter of one's opinion?

They have information and beliefs that tell them they are correct in their thinking. So it's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of ingrained values and belief.

[steeldawg]

What makes me think it? Everything I've witnessed in life to this point. Give it 2 or 3 years and any church that wont marry gays will have their 501 status threatened.

But here's an example already of it. http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-marriage-supporters-threaten-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exemption-41856/

And I know in order to gain public support they've claimed they wont go after churches that refuse to marry them. But once they've passed the hurdle of getting gay marriage accepted and legal everywhere they absolutely will attack any and all that stand in their way. Like I said it's not a matter of if it's only a matter of when and every honest person knows it.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way dawg who are you to decide what's bigoted and ignorant when it comes to a matter of one's opinion?

They have information and beliefs that tell them they are correct in their thinking. So it's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of ingrained values and belief.

They want their status revoked not for their religious belief but because the church was collecting money and passing out pamphlets to influence a political stance which if your a tax exempt group regardless of if your a church or not you cannot do." they will absolutely attack" really? if they wanted to attack churches they didn't need this law to do it, one has nothing to do with the other. I understand its peoples belief but so what its still bigoted. That's like saying racists aren't racist because they are just expressing an ingrained belief.

[GoSlash27]

"By the way dawg who are you to decide what's bigoted and ignorant when it comes to a matter of one's opinion? "

Same person you or I would be to demand laws to force everyone to conform to our personal opinions of what's "normal and natural", I suppose. :noidea:

This thread is yet another example of lefties and righties arguing over *how* the government should be involved in people's personal business instead of *whether* they should be involved in people's personal business.
/this is why we can't have nice things...

[steeldawg]

Same person you or I would be to demand laws to force everyone to conform to our personal opinions of what's "normal and natural", I suppose. :noidea:

This thread is yet another example of lefties and righties arguing over *how* the government should be involved in people's personal business instead of *whether* they should be involved in people's personal business.
/this is why we can't have nice things...

Im not asking for anyone to conform, all im saying is that gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. gay people having equal rights does not take away anyone elses rights. these people that come on here and talk about gay being a mental disorder, disgusting, liken them to child molestors and then say don't call me a bigot im just expressing an opinion as if that somehow absolves them of all prejudices.

[zulater]

Same person you or I would be to demand laws to force everyone to conform to our personal opinions of what's "normal and natural", I suppose. :noidea:

This thread is yet another example of lefties and righties arguing over *how* the government should be involved in people's personal business instead of *whether* they should be involved in people's personal business.
/this is why we can't have nice things...

I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm also not opposed to people that are. And I don't feel that they should be branded as ignorant or bigoted for doing so.

I also don't think being anti gay marriage is the same as being racist as has been stated by Dawg.

[steeldawg]

I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm also not opposed to people that are. And I don't feel that they should be branded as ignorant or bigoted for doing so.

I also don't think being anti gay marriage is the same as being racist as has been stated by Dawg.

that was not stated by me, and saying things like being gay is unnatural and they shouldn't have the same rights to marry as everyone else is bigotry! taking a specific group of people and demanding that their rights are limited due to your own personal bias is bigotry.

[Dwinsgames]

unless you have a dog in this race why is it so important to you anyways ?

clearly it will not bother you to see two men sucking face at the local theater or Bar or where ever since they in your mind should have the same rights as anyone else ....

so no reason for you to oppose it if it does not bother you ...

so why does it bother you so much that it bothers other people ????

[steeldawg]

unless you have a dog in this race why is it so important to you anyways ?

clearly it will not bother you to see two men sucking face at the local theater or Bar or where ever since they in your mind should have the same rights as anyone else ....

so no reason for you to oppose it if it does not bother you ...

so why does it bother you so much that it bothers other people ????

yes they should have the same right to suck face in a bar regardless if I want to see it or not!!!!!!!!!!!!! this might come as a shock to you but they already have the right to be gay they where fighting for the right to marry. I don't want to watch anyone making out at a bar but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do it!!!!

[zulater]

that was not stated by me, and saying things like being gay is unnatural and they shouldn't have the same rights to marry as everyone else is bigotry! taking a specific group of people and demanding that their rights are limited due to your own personal bias is bigotry.

Of course being gay is unnatural. Biologically speaking man and woman were made for each other for mating. Sticking it up another guy's ass is deviant and unhealthy.

But hey that's their business. It really doesn't bother me. But I'm not going to condemn those that are moraly opposed to it either.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv

The risk of spreading disease through anal sex is much greater than through vaginal intercourse.

[steeldawg]

Of course being gay is unnatural. Biologically speaking man and woman were made for each other for mating. Sticking it up another guy's ass is deviant and unhealthy.

But hey that's their business. It really doesn't bother me. But I'm not going to condemn those that are morraly opposed to it either.

case and point!!! being gay is natural its a matter of attraction it also occurs in nature. being gay is not a choice, you didn't come to a certain point in your life and choose to be heterosexual it occurred naturally the same thing for homosexuals they are attracted to the same sex its not like their doing it to piss off bible humpers.

- - - Updated - - -


Of course being gay is unnatural. Biologically speaking man and woman were made for each other for mating. Sticking it up another guy's ass is deviant and unhealthy.

But hey that's their business. It really doesn't bother me. But I'm not going to condemn those that are moraly opposed to it either.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv

The risk of spreading disease through anal sex is much greater than through vaginal intercourse.

straight people have anal sex too its not exclusive to being gay.

[X-Terminator]

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to hit the wall at 100mph...

[GBMelBlount]

Slash couldn't even answer a simple question. Checkmate + Owned. LOL.

No question in my mind that sexual preference is more based on how each person is wired and happens across other species.

For this reason I have no problem accepting people who choose this lifestyle because to them it IS natural imo.

However while I accept and understand those who choose this lifestyle it does not mean I endorse or embrace it quite as eagerly and excitedly as slash and steeldawng who fall all over themselves to project themselves as soooooo socially enlightened and accepting. :rolleyes:

While they may wring and clap their hands about how gay marriage should be legalized :cheer2:.....I am not sure I agree.

I am actually interested in seeing a good debate on this.

[ALLD]

How does this thread go three pages and nobody has once mentioned Tom Brady?

[salamander]

How does this thread go three pages and nobody has once mentioned Tom Brady?

Tom Brady is gay.

/thread.

:chuckle:

[steeldawg]

Slash couldn't even answer a simple question. Checkmate + Owned. LOL.

No question in my mind that sexual preference is more based on how each person is wired and happens across other species.

For this reason I have no problem accepting people who choose this lifestyle because to them it IS natural imo.

However while I accept and understand those who choose this lifestyle it does not mean I endorse or embrace it quite as eagerly and excitedly as slash and steeldawng who fall all over themselves to project themselves as soooooo socially enlightened and accepting. :rolleyes:

While they may wring and clap their hands about how gay marriage should be legalized :cheer2:.....I am not sure I agree.

I am actually interested in seeing a good debate on this.

why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

[silver & black]

why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

No reason I can think of. On the flip side.... why should they be allowed to marry?

I'm of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with same sex "unions" getting the same benefits as "married" couples.............. being male/female. I just don't think it should be called a "marriage".
.

[steeldawg]

No reason I can think of. On the flip side.... why should they be allowed to marry?

I'm of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with same sex "unions" getting the same benefits as "married" couples.............. being male/female. I just don't think it should be called a "marriage".
.

Its the same union between 2 people that love eachother, and when looked at under the law it should be looked at as equal to any other marriage. They should be allowed to marry because they want to be married and we afford that right to heterosexuals its an equal rights issue.

[GoSlash27]

No reason I can think of. On the flip side.... why should they be allowed to marry?

I'm of the opinion that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with same sex "unions" getting the same benefits as "married" couples.............. being male/female. I just don't think it should be called a "marriage".
.

If it was up to me personally, I'd say they should be allowed to marry simply because they want to and their marriage doesn't harm anyone else.

As for why they should be allowed to get married in this country, it's because America isn't the sort of country where the government should be deciding who's allowed to get married and who's not. Leave that shit for Iran.

As for why they should be allowed to get married as a practical matter, it's because they're gonna want to get divorced some day, or one of them is going to need to make medical decisions on behalf of the other, or one of them is going to die and the surviving one will need property rights and guardianship of any kids, etc.

This is the danger of living in a democracy; people think they're entitled to vote on someone else's rights and ask questions like "why should they be allowed".

[steeldawg]

If it was up to me personally, I'd say they should be allowed to marry simply because they want to and their marriage doesn't harm anyone else.

As for why they should be allowed to get married in this country, it's because America isn't the sort of country where the government should be deciding who's allowed to get married and who's not. Leave that shit for Iran.

As for why they should be allowed to get married as a practical matter, it's because they're gonna want to get divorced some day, or one of them is going to need to make medical decisions on behalf of the other, or one of them is going to die and the surviving one will need property rights and guardianship of any kids, etc.

This is the danger of living in a democracy; people think they're entitled to vote on someone else's rights and ask questions like "why should they be allowed".

exactly, you put it much better than I did.

[GBMelBlount]

If it was up to me personally, I'd say they should be allowed to marry simply because they want to and their marriage doesn't harm anyone else.

As for why they should be allowed to get married in this country, it's because America isn't the sort of country where the government should be deciding who's allowed to get married and who's not. Leave that shit for Iran.

As for why they should be allowed to get married as a practical matter, it's because they're gonna want to get divorced some day, or one of them is going to need to make medical decisions on behalf of the other, or one of them is going to die and the surviving one will need property rights and guardianship of any kids, etc.

This is the danger of living in a democracy; people think they're entitled to vote on someone else's rights and ask questions like "why should they be allowed".

Then naturally you support NAMBLA and consensual sex with children too.

If the government shouldn't be able to decide what is considered an appropriate marriage then who are they to decide what an appropriate age is to start having sex, right?

As long as it is consensual between two people then why should age matter either, right Slash?

[X-Terminator]

Then you obviously must support NAMBLA and sex with children if it is consentual.

errrr....ummmm....backpedal, deflect, qualify.....3......2......1

Um, there's one small problem with your quote here. Pedophilia is illegal, while homosexuality is not. Therefore Slash's point is more than valid.

[GoSlash27]

Then you obviously must support NAMBLA and sex with children if it is consensual....after all the age of 18 is just arbitrary an irrelevant age randomly picked by an overreaching governemnt, right?

You're just so cute... don't know when to give up :D
Children don't have legal majority, and before you ask neither do livestock or home appliances.

/how did I know you'd be the one to take the discussion there? :D

[steeldawg]

Then you obviously must support NAMBLA and sex with children if it is consentual.

errrr....ummmm....backpedal, deflect, qualify.....3......2......1

Ah yes Que the slippery slope argument,No its the support of 2 consenting adults being able to enter into a legally binding contract. Up next, you will tell us gay marriage will lead to beastiality.

[GoSlash27]

Um, there's one small problem with your quote here. Pedophilia is illegal, while homosexuality is not. Therefore Slash's point is more than valid.

Actually, there are several *large* problems with his quote.
It conflates supporting their rights with condoning their decisions.
It conflates gay marriage with homosexuality.
It conflates homosexuality with pedophilia.
It conflates a legal act with an illegal act (as you mentioned)
and it ties it all up in a neat little strawman argument with a pretty bow, where he pretends I said something I didn't.

But, you know... par for the course for him. ;)

[GoSlash27]

I would also like to take this moment to point out that most of the folks in this discussion think of themselves as "conservatives". You know... the folks who usually complain about the government being too big, too powerful, too irresponsible, and too ready to interfere in their personal business?

But open up this discussion, and see how quickly their attitudes flip about "freedom" and "government".

Somebody asked why our government is always dealing with silly subjects like gay marriage instead of something really important? Well... this is why.

[steeldawg]

I would also like to take this moment to point out that most of the folks in this discussion think of themselves as "conservatives". You know... the folks who usually complain about the government being too big, too powerful, too irresponsible, and too ready to interfere in their personal business?

But open up this discussion, and see how quickly their attitudes flip about "freedom" and "government".

Somebody asked why our government is always dealing with silly subjects like gay marriage instead of something really important? Well... this is why.

I think one of the participants in this thread ( zulater ) made thread a few weeks ago where he was mad about guys being arrested in a prostitution sting, I don't remember exactly what he said but it was something along the lines of it shouldn't be illegal because its a decision between 2 consenting adults.

[GoSlash27]

Ah yes Que the slippery slope argument,No its the support of 2 consenting adults being able to enter into a legally binding contract. Up next, you will tell us gay marriage will lead to beastiality.

It could lead to polygamous/ polygynous marriages. That'd be a discussion worth having.

[Chidi29]

Then naturally you support NAMBLA and consensual sex with children too.

If the government shouldn't be able to decide what is considered an appropriate marriage then who are they to decide what an appropriate age is to start having sex, right?

As long as it is consensual between two people then why should age matter either, right Slash?

This premise equates being gay as the same as being immature and unable to fully understand the consequences of your decision (as in the case of kids).

Needless to say, that's far off base and your idea is full of fallacies.

[steeldawg]

It could lead to polygamous/ polygynous marriages. That'd be a discussion worth having.

I don't think gay marriage leads to that, they really don't have anything to do with one another. Heterosexual marriage leaves the same door open for polygamy as gay marriage does.

[Dwinsgames]

I just do not understand why anyone who is straight would be so quick to defend Gay marriage and then do so so vigorously ....

[GoSlash27]

I don't think gay marriage leads to that, they really don't have anything to do with one another. Heterosexual marriage leaves the same door open for polygamy as gay marriage does.

It does, and I'll tell ya why:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/28/polygamy-supreme-court/2473157/

[steeldawg]

I just do not understand why anyone who is straight would be so quick to defend Gay marriage and then do so so vigorously ....

because this is America and we still believe in equal rights and freedom.

[GoSlash27]

I just do not understand why anyone who is straight would be so quick to defend Gay marriage and then do so so vigorously ....

I just do not understand why anyone who is white would oppose slavery.
I just don't understand why anyone who is male would support voting rights for women.
I just don't understand why anyone who does not own a gun would support the 2nd Amendment....

I suppose you don't have to understand that, but a majority of Americans support it and a majority of Americans aren't gay.

[Chidi29]

because this is America and we still believe in equal rights and freedom.

This.

[steeldawg]

It does, and I'll tell ya why:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/28/polygamy-supreme-court/2473157/

But its not gay marriage that leads to polygamy, meaning you don't need gay marriage in order to make polygamy happen. Polygamists may have hope now that gays where able to marry but the issues are very different, Gay marriage was just a same gender issue where polygamy is a multiple partner issue.

[Dwinsgames]

because this is America and we still believe in equal rights and freedom.

and it took you till 2013 to speak out .. interesting

[steeldawg]

and it took you till 2013 to speak out .. interesting

huh? are you implying that gay rights just became an issue in 2013?

[GoSlash27]

But its not gay marriage that leads to polygamy, meaning you don't need gay marriage in order to make polygamy happen. Polygamists may have hope now that gays where able to marry but the issues are very different, Gay marriage was just a same gender issue where polygamy is a multiple partner issue.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4104/5166465451_ded900eaf8_z.jpg

The legal challenges are going to start in support of polygamous marriages as a *direct result* of this SCOTUS ruling. So whether it's the same issue or not in your mind is a moot point. Gay marriage *will* lead to a discussion about polygamy.
/ am I wrong?

[zulater]

case and point!!! being gay is natural its a matter of attraction it also occurs in nature. being gay is not a choice, you didn't come to a certain point in your life and choose to be heterosexual it occurred naturally the same thing for homosexuals they are attracted to the same sex its not like their doing it to piss off bible humpers.

- - - Updated - - -



straight people have anal sex too its not exclusive to being gay.

Straight people have anal sex yes,, and when they do it's deviant behaviour. Look the word up if you can't understand.

I don't believe people for the most part choose to be gay. ( with the exception of prison gay) But at the same token it's not something anyone wants their child to be. Oh yeah you learn to accept it if you're a loving parent. But no one desires their child to grow up to be gay. You don't want to be the grandparent at the park explaining why your grandkid looks nothing like anyone in the family because your daughter's the butch, and there's technically not an ounce of your DNA involved here. It's abnormal. Also I think the word gay is a huge misnomer, because from the one's I've been around most I've found to be miserable in life.

[Dwinsgames]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4104/5166465451_ded900eaf8_z.jpg

The legal challenges are going to start in support of polygamous marriages as a *direct result* of this SCOTUS ruling. So whether it's the same issue or not in your mind is a moot point. Gay marriage *will* lead to a discussion about polygamy.
/ am I wrong?


I think you are correct , all the while I do not agree with that either ... I just do not see it any differently , if the government does not have a right to determine who can and can not get married why should they be able to tell you to how many people you can be married to at the same time ...

that will be argued , how successfully is anyone's guess

[zulater]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4104/5166465451_ded900eaf8_z.jpg

The legal challenges are going to start in support of polygamous marriages as a *direct result* of this SCOTUS ruling. So whether it's the same issue or not in your mind is a moot point. Gay marriage *will* lead to a discussion about polygamy.
/ am I wrong?

Nope. Welcome to America 2020 where anything goes.

[steeldawg]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4104/5166465451_ded900eaf8_z.jpg

The legal challenges are going to start in support of polygamous marriages as a *direct result* of this SCOTUS ruling. So whether it's the same issue or not in your mind is a moot point. Gay marriage *will* lead to a discussion about polygamy.
/ am I wrong?

sure it will lead to a discussion and hope for polygamists but the issues are totally different polygamy could still make a case without gay marriage.

[GoSlash27]

and it took you till 2013 to speak out .. interesting
http://www.biography.com/people/barry-goldwater-9314846/videos

"Mister Conservative" was speaking out before anyone else.

[steeldawg]

Straight people have anal sex yes,, and when they do it's deviant behaviour. Look the word up if you can't understand.

I don't believe people for the most part choose to be gay. ( with the exception of prison gay) But at the same token it's not something anyone wants their child to be. Oh yeah you learn to accept it if you're a loving parent. But no one desires their child to grow up to be gay. You don't want to be the grandparent at the park explaining why your grandkid looks nothing like anyone in the family because your daughter's the butch, and there's technically not an ounce of your DNA involved here. It's abnormal. Also I think the word gay is a huge misnomer, because from the one's I've been around most I've found to be miserable in life.

yes I understand deviant behavior and anal sex is not deviant behavior its actually pretty common between straight couples. As far as the rest of your post all I can say is WOW!!!!!

[zulater]

yes I understand deviant behavior and anal sex is not deviant behavior its actually pretty common between straight couples. As far as the rest of your post all I can say is WOW!!!!!

That's because you live in make believe world where everyone thinks in a PC way.

[GoSlash27]

sure it will lead to a discussion and hope for polygamists but the issues are totally different polygamy could still make a case without gay marriage.

Well then we are in agreement after all. Since we both see it coming down the street, we may as well hash that one out.
I just mentioned this to point out that, while pedophilia, bestiality, and Hank marrying his Dodge aren't legit slippery slope concerns, polygamy *is*.

If limiting the genders involved is arbitrary and capricious, why isn't limiting the number equally arbitrary and capricious?

[Dwinsgames]

yes I understand deviant behavior and anal sex is not deviant behavior its actually pretty common between straight couples. As far as the rest of your post all I can say is WOW!!!!!

wow ???

what is wrong with his post ???

do you think Parents gaze at their newborn baby through the nursery window at the hospital and look at one another and say Gee George I hope he turns out to be homosexual ???
or do you think it is more plausible they look at one another and say their lays the family namesake and I hope he fathers many grandchildren for us to spoil and love ???

Really steeldawg you can not possibly think a parent hopes their kids is gay ...please lay down the crackpipe

[GoSlash27]

yes I understand deviant behavior and anal sex is not deviant behavior its actually pretty common between straight couples. As far as the rest of your post all I can say is WOW!!!!!

Funny... I agree with Zu on his whole post, and that s*&t's pretty rare, yo. :D

If you seriously think people (even gay people) wouldn't prefer their kids to be straight or you seriously think most gay people haven't gone through some serious hardships.... I'd suggest talking it over with them. That's not an easy road and I don't envy them.

[zulater]

Funny... I agree with Zu on his whole post, and that s*&t's pretty rare, yo. :D

I didn't even say there's anything wrong with anal sex or that I'm against it, but it's deviant behaviour by definition.

Also I have gay associates, I would even say gay friends, but they live differently than most of us.

And yes no one wants their loved ones to be gay. When it's thrust upon you you learn to accept it, but no parent looks at their child in the crib wanting them to grow up gay.

[steeldawg]

Funny... I agree with Zu on his whole post, and that s*&t's pretty rare, yo. :D

If you seriously think people (even gay people) wouldn't prefer their kids to be straight or you seriously think most gay people haven't gone through some serious hardships.... I'd suggest talking it over with them. That's not an easy road and I don't envy them.

sorry slash but your wrong anal sex is very popular with heterosexual couples. Of course we all have dreams for our kids, but a lot of parents want there kids to grow up happy and if they are gay then they are gay there is nothing abnormal about it. just because our kids don't turn out exactly how we want doesn't mean they are going to be miserable or that there is anything abnormal about them. I know many proud parents of gay children, so this idea that its a black eye on any family that has a gay member is crazy.

[zulater]

sorry slash but your wrong anal sex is very popular with heterosexual couples. Of course we all have dreams for our kids, but a lot of parents want there kids to grow up happy and if they are gay then they are gay there is nothing abnormal about it. just because our kids don't turn out exactly how we want doesn't mean they are going to be miserable or that there is anything abnormal about them. I know many proud parents of gay children, so this idea that its a black eye on any family that has a gay member is crazy.

I didn't say it was a black eye. It's just not something anyone wants. Once there you deal with it. But given the choice no one is saying hell yeah give me the gay kid.

[GoSlash27]

sorry slash but your wrong anal sex is very popular with heterosexual couples. Of course we all have dreams for our kids, but a lot of parents want there kids to grow up happy and if they are gay then they are gay there is nothing abnormal about it. just because our kids don't turn out exactly how we want doesn't mean they are going to be miserable or that there is anything abnormal about them. I know many proud parents of gay children, so this idea that its a black eye on any family that has a gay member is crazy.

#1 "unpopular" and "deviant" are 2 entirely different things, although I agree it's not something for our government to impose by edict.
#2 "Normal" and "happy" are 2 entirely different things as well, which is (I believe) the point Zu was making. "Gay" does not make for an easy life, and any parent who cares about the happiness and well- being of their child hopes their kid is straight. If that turns out not to be the case, then you accept your kid for who he/ she is (which he said), but pretending that there's no problems associated with it is intellectually dishonest.

[zulater]

#1 "unpopular" and "deviant" are 2 entirely different things, although I agree it's not something for our government to impose by edict.
#2 "Normal" and "happy" are 2 entirely different things as well, which is (I believe) the point Zu was making. "Gay" does not make for an easy life, and any parent who cares about the happiness and well- being of their child hopes their kid is straight. If that turns out not to be the case, then you accept your kid for who he/ she is (which he said), but pretending that there's no problems associated with it is intellectually dishonest.

I've found that people married to political correctness don't have the ability to be honest about real life issues.

[GBMelBlount]

Um, there's one small problem with your quote here. Pedophilia is illegal, while homosexuality is not. Therefore Slash's point is more than valid.

Um, there is one small problem with your counterpoint. Slash's point is the government should not be deciding these matters and the only reason pedophilia is illegal is because the government chose an age for adulthood.

So if you don't feel the government has the right to determine what they feel is a normal marriage why should they be able to decide what age is normal to start having sex?

Make up your mind XT.

- - - Updated - - -


You're just so cute... don't know when to give up :D
Children don't have legal majority, and before you ask neither do livestock or home appliances.

/how did I know you'd be the one to take the discussion there? :D

Neither do gays.

Checkmate AGAIN.

[The Patriot]

sorry slash but your wrong anal sex is very popular with heterosexual couples. Of course we all have dreams for our kids, but a lot of parents want there kids to grow up happy and if they are gay then they are gay there is nothing abnormal about it. just because our kids don't turn out exactly how we want doesn't mean they are going to be miserable or that there is anything abnormal about them. I know many proud parents of gay children, so this idea that its a black eye on any family that has a gay member is crazy.

This is gonna sound pretty cruel, but I know many proud parents of handicapped children. Those kids may be great people and go on to do great things, but it doesn't make a handicap something to be desired.

[GoSlash27]

Neither do gays.

Checkmate AGAIN.

WTH do you mean "gays don't have legal majority"? O_O You obviously don't know what that term means, so let me google it for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=legal+majority)
/ come back when you know something...
// "checkmate" indeed :lol:

[GBMelBlount]

This is gonna sound pretty cruel, but I know many proud parents of handicapped children. Those kids may be great people and go on to do great things, but it doesn't make a handicap something to be desired.

I've never worried about that. It is what it is. If we found out our child was gay I wouldn't even blink. Wouldn't think any differently of them. Wouldn't love them any less. Wouldn't judge them....and if they met someone they fell in love with someone of the same sex that loved them and made them happy I would be happy for them.

I don't look at it the same as a child being born with a handicap Patriot. I understand your point but I guess I look at it as it is what it is and we have no control over that, only how we respond to it.

- - - Updated - - -


WTH do you mean "gays don't have legal majority"? O_O You obviously don't know what that term means, so let me google it for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=legal+majority)
/ come back when you know something...
// "checkmate" indeed :lol:

Ouch. I got absolutely owned on that one. LOL.

STILL, the government arbitrarily chooses the legal age.

If you feel the government limitations of marriage being between a man and a woman are arbitrary and wrong then why do you feel the government should be able to place an arbitrary age below which sex is legal if it is also between two consensual people and not hurting anyone else?

[GoSlash27]

Ouch. I got absolutely owned on that one. LOL.

Deep breath, man. It's a discussion, not Mortal Kombat. :hug:

- - - Updated - - -

BTB, I do look at it as very similar as having a handicap. It makes their life more difficult than it would otherwise be.

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/confessions-gay-parent-7-reasons-why-hope-kids-152600302.html

[zulater]

Google gay pride parade. Click on images, and if you're straight tell me you think this is normal or it doesn't make you more than just a little uncomfortable.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gay+pride+parade&noj=1&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iN3QUeH6LMTB4AOOwoC4Cw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=809


Call me a homophobe if you like. It's the price one pays for honesty.

[GoSlash27]

If you feel the government limitations of marriage being between a man and a woman are arbitrary and wrong then why do you feel the government should be able to place an arbitrary age below which sex is legal if it is also between two consensual people and not hurting anyone else?

Fair question. Before I delve into that, I want to clarify one thing: I don't "feel" anything about these topics. I "think". I don't believe that emotion should play a part in my reasoning. So moving on...

Yes, the age of 18 is arbitrary. There are plenty of people who are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to make their own decisions at a much younger age, and others who can't when they're much older.
If there's a more appropriate way to legally differentiate between the two, then I'm willing to hear it out.
In the meantime, we *have* to make a distinction between the two because it makes the difference between a voluntary participant and a victim. Nobody has any rights that victimize somebody else.

[X-Terminator]

Um, there is one small problem with your counterpoint. Slash's point is the government should not be deciding these matters and the only reason pedophilia is illegal is because the government chose an age for adulthood.

So if you don't feel the government has the right to determine what they feel is a normal marriage why should they be able to decide what age is normal to start having sex?

Make up your mind XT.

No, my point is you can't legislate for something that is already illegal, so your "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water. Homosexuality has never been illegal in this country, to the best of my knowledge. Allowing gay marriage will never lead to acceptance of adult-child relationships because the latter is against the law, and those laws will never be repealed.

[GoSlash27]

Google gay pride parade. Click on images, and if you're straight tell me you think this is normal or it doesn't make you more than just a little uncomfortable.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gay+pride+parade&noj=1&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iN3QUeH6LMTB4AOOwoC4Cw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=809

Call me a homophobe if you like. It's the price one pays for honesty.

Not sure who that's in response to or why you brought it up, but gay marriage doesn't really have anything to do with condoning homosexuality.
If gay pride parades make you uncomfortable, I see no reason why you should attend them. It's not like it's compulsory.
I've never seen one myself.

[zulater]

Not sure who that's in response to or why you brought it up, but gay marriage doesn't really have anything to do with condoning homosexuality.
If gay pride parades make you uncomfortable, I see no reason why you should attend them. It's not like it's compulsory.
I've never seen one myself.

It's not in responce to anything directly. It's more along the lines of why people view gays differently. Because they are! :lol:

Just throwing it in there. Relevancy can be whatever anyone wants it to be.

[GoSlash27]

No, my point is you can't legislate for something that is already illegal, so your "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water. Homosexuality has never been illegal in this country, to the best of my knowledge. Allowing gay marriage will never lead to acceptance of adult-child relationships because the latter is against the law, and those laws will never be repealed.

Actually, they were in many places. Some places they still are, although nobody enforces them any more.

[The Patriot]

I've never worried about that. It is what it is. If we found out our child was gay I wouldn't even blink. Wouldn't think any differently of them. Wouldn't love them any less. Wouldn't judge them....and if they met someone they fell in love with someone of the same sex that loved them and made them happy I would be happy for them.

I don't look at it the same as a child being born with a handicap Patriot. I understand your point but I guess I look at it as it is what it is and we have no control over that, only how we respond to it.


I agree that that's the right thing to do, but I imagine for most parents it would be tough. I mean, what if it was something more serious like transgenderism? Suppose your 10 year-old son came to you and told you he wants to be a girl. That would be tough for any parent.

- - - Updated - - -


Actually, they were in many places. Some places they still are, although nobody enforces them any more.

Yeah, sodomy laws weren't struck down by the Supreme Court until 2003.

Don't ask me why I know that. :chuckle:

[GoSlash27]

It's not in responce to anything directly. It's more along the lines of why people view gays differently. Because they are! :lol:

Just throwing it in there. Relevancy can be whatever anyone wants it to be.

"Relevancy" is a relative thing. :D
Government making gay marriage legal and personal approval of homosexuality are 2 completely different subjects. It's not at all unusual for someone to support (even vehemently) a gay couple's right to marry each other, yet hold no opinion or strongly oppose their fudge-nudging itself.
And legally, you can't tie the two together. The SCOTUS just said so a few days ago.

Sorta relevant (and *HIGHLY NSFW*) word on this subject from Doug Stanhope (starts at 1:19)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWGFzbKiVww

[GoSlash27]

Hey DWins,
What did you mean when you mentioned "Rights of normality" (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/17695-Bill-to-allow-gay-marriage-in-Pennsylvania?p=381694&viewfull=1#post381694)?
Steeldawg asked that question, and you never answered it.

[Dwinsgames]

Hey DWins,
What did you mean when you mentioned "Rights of normality" (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/17695-Bill-to-allow-gay-marriage-in-Pennsylvania?p=381694&viewfull=1#post381694)?
Steeldawg asked that question, and you never answered it.

The rights of those who do not want to see two dudes making out in public ....

when something becomes legal it becomes desensitized , the more desensitized the populous becomes the more prevalent open PDA will become ...

example .... during prohibition you did not have people openly drunk in public because they did not want to be caught with booze or be questioned on where they got the booze to get drunk , since prohibition was lifted public drunkenness is seen ( no not common place because it is still a crime ) but PDA would not be a crime ( and isnt now either ) but public tolerance is not yet desensitized ...

I can not prove this , it is just my gut feeling ... but at the same time it can not be disproved either ( not at this date and time ) we will have to wait and see and not every area will be affected the same way just like we do not in my area see open gay activity such as one would find in say San Francisco .....

I hope I am wrong , but I doubt I am

[GoSlash27]

What makes you think that anybody has a right to not see two dudes making out in public?

[Dwinsgames]

What makes you think that anybody has a right to not see two dudes making out in public?


fair question , impossible to answer .... but at the same time I am 110% positive I do not want to see it ...

right , wrong or somewhere in the grey area aside nobody can help how they feel on a topic

[GoSlash27]

It's not impossible to answer. You don't *want* to see that (and neither do I), but you claimed that you have a *right* to not see that. Where do you think that "right" would come from?

[X-Terminator]

Hell, I don't want to see a STRAIGHT couple sucking face in public, so it makes no difference to me in that regard.

Unless it's 2 hot chicks making out. In that case, they can kiss and fondle each other all they want, as long as I get to film it. :heh:

[Dwinsgames]

It's not impossible to answer. You don't *want* to see that (and neither do I), but you claimed that you have a *right* to not see that. Where do you think that "right" would come from?


I believe it is immoral , I do not believe anyone should have to see immorality in a public place ....

not everyone will see it that way but that is how I feel about it personally ......

perhaps it is my moral upbringing , standards , and belief system

here maybe this can say what I and not eloquent enough to say ....

Q . Some people say homosexuality is natural and moral; others say it is unnatural and immoral. How do we know?
A. Our standard can only be what God says. In Romans 1 we read,

God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Rom 1:26-27).

https://bible.org/article/homosexuality-questions-and-answers

[Chidi29]

I believe it is immoral , I do not believe anyone should have to see immorality in a public place ....

not everyone will see it that way but that is how I feel about it personally ......

perhaps it is my moral upbringing , standards , and belief system

here maybe this can say what I and not eloquent enough to say ....

Q . Some people say homosexuality is natural and moral; others say it is unnatural and immoral. How do we know?
A. Our standard can only be what God says. In Romans 1 we read,

God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Rom 1:26-27).

https://bible.org/article/homosexuality-questions-and-answers



That is a perfectly acceptable personal guideline to follow. But can't be used when applying it to the entire nation. Separation of Church and State. Religion can't be an answer.

[steeldawg]

This is gonna sound pretty cruel, but I know many proud parents of handicapped children. Those kids may be great people and go on to do great things, but it doesn't make a handicap something to be desired.

Im not saying its something a parent desires, im saying that if the kid turns out to be gay its nothing for a parent to be disappointed about.

[steeldawg]

#1 "unpopular" and "deviant" are 2 entirely different things, although I agree it's not something for our government to impose by edict.
#2 "Normal" and "happy" are 2 entirely different things as well, which is (I believe) the point Zu was making. "Gay" does not make for an easy life, and any parent who cares about the happiness and well- being of their child hopes their kid is straight. If that turns out not to be the case, then you accept your kid for who he/ she is (which he said), but pretending that there's no problems associated with it is intellectually dishonest.

Im not going to argue with you on the first point we just wont agree. the second point yes there is a different between normal and unhappy but in his post he calls being gay abnormal and he says gay is a misnomer because all the gay people he knows are miserable. There are problems associated with a heterosexual life as well, being gay doesn't mean your life will be hard and full of problems and if you could just manage to like vagina those problems will all melt away. I think pretending that every parent of a gay child is secretly wishing that their child was something different then exactly what they are is intellectually dishonest. If my child turned out gay and they met someone who made them very happy and then you told me i could go back do it over again and make him straight there would not be a chance in hell I would do it.

- - - Updated - - -


I believe it is immoral , I do not believe anyone should have to see immorality in a public place ....

not everyone will see it that way but that is how I feel about it personally ......

perhaps it is my moral upbringing , standards , and belief system

here maybe this can say what I and not eloquent enough to say ....

Q . Some people say homosexuality is natural and moral; others say it is unnatural and immoral. How do we know?
A. Our standard can only be what God says. In Romans 1 we read,

God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Rom 1:26-27).

https://bible.org/article/homosexuality-questions-and-answers



You can live according to whatever fairytale you choose but our freedoms are protected from the archaic teachings of the bible.

[GoSlash27]

^ What Chidi said. We have to be careful when defining rights in order to avoid infringing somebody else's rights. Like when the liberals trot out silliness like "everybody has a right to free health care"; no... actually we don't. There are no rights where somebody else has to pay for it.
Likewise, nobody has a right to not be offended, or "a right to normality", because that infringes somebody else's right to say/ do things you don't like so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

XT,

Hell, I don't want to see a STRAIGHT couple sucking face in public, so it makes no difference to me in that regard.

Unless it's 2 hot chicks making out. In that case, they can kiss and fondle each other all they want, as long as I get to film it.

Hell, I don't want to see that either. 2 hot chicks doing that screams to me "fake". Yeah, I got issues :D

[Dwinsgames]

our freedoms are protected from the archaic teachings of the bible.

you can be disillusioned all you want by the " separation of church and state " clause in the Constitution , but this Country was founded by an older document than the Constitution and God is named in name of GOD and also named as the Creator ...

and to end this madness from further debate about it I will enclose a copy of that document so this part will not need to be revisited .....

as for the Bible being a fairy tale you will have to answer to that sentiment in the end not me but much smarter men than you or I where firm believers many of them will be named in that document I spoke of earlier ...

the real foundation of this Nation and like a house without a foundation it shall crumble



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/clear_pixel.gif
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/clear_pixel.gif




http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/clear_pixel.gif


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/red_pixel.gif

[ALLD]

I saw two guys kissing in Key West and it was disgusting. Next thing you know they will allow a gay to play QB on the Patriots.

[steeldawg]

you can be disillusioned all you want by the " separation of church and state " clause in the Constitution , but this Country was founded by an older document than the Constitution and God is named in name of GOD and also named as the Creator ...

and to end this madness from further debate about it I will enclose a copy of that document so this part will not need to be revisited .....

as for the Bible being a fairy tale you will have to answer to that sentiment in the end not me but much smarter men than you or I where firm believers many of them will be named in that document I spoke of earlier ...

the real foundation of this Nation and like a house without a foundation it shall crumble



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/clear_pixel.gif
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/clear_pixel.gif




http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/clear_pixel.gif


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/red_pixel.gif






This country was founded on freedom not Christianity, the decleration of independence holds no legal power unlike our constitution which is the law of the land. The decleration was exactly that a decleration of our independence and nothing more. The document also states all men are created equal, it also also states goverments are institute by men nowhere does it mention Christianity or the bible. It says the words god and creator which could mean many things to many people, Christians don't have a monopoly on the words god or creator. For someone who is always crying about his constitutional 2nd amendment right you are pretty quick to dismiss the first amendment. When our founding fathers started making the law of the land one of the first things they did was put in the 1st amendment no law shall be passed respecting the establishment of religion, I don't know how they could of made it any clearer? Yes the bible is nothing but a story made up to keep people under control, much like santa clause to little kids.

[Dwinsgames]

You know whats really disgusting? The amount of ignorant bigotry that is on display in this thread. :flipoff:


This country was founded on freedom not Christianity, the decleration of independence holds no legal power unlike our constitution which is the law of the land. The decleration was exactly that a decleration of our independence and nothing more. The document also states all men are created equal, it also also states goverments are institute by men nowhere does it mention Christianity or the bible. It says the words god and creator which could mean many things to many people, Christians don't have a monopoly on the words god or creator. For someone who is always crying about his constitutional 2nd amendment right you are pretty quick to dismiss the first amendment. When our founding fathers started making the law of the land one of the first things they did was put in the 1st amendment no law shall be passed respecting the establishment of religion, I don't know how they could of made it any clearer? Yes the bible is nothing but a story made up to keep people under control, much like santa clause to little kids.

right back at ya , talk about the pot calling the kettle black ??

[steeldawg]

right back at ya , talk about the pot calling the kettle black ??

Why is that because I don't believe in your mythical god?

- - - Updated - - -


right back at ya , talk about the pot calling the kettle black ??

how does not believing in the bible make me a bigot, the difference between you and me is even though I think your religion is ridiculous I still support your right to practice it. You on the other hand think other peoples rights should be restricted in accordance with your bible.

[Dwinsgames]

Why is that because I don't believe in your mythical god?

- - - Updated - - -



how does not believing in the bible make me a bigot, the difference between you and me is even though I think your religion is ridiculous I still support your right to practice it. You on the other hand think other peoples rights should be restricted in accordance with your bible.


and I do not believe in your right to be a fudgepacker so I guess that makes us even

[steeldawg]

and I do not believe in your right to be a fudgepacker so I guess that makes us even

No again you are not comprehending I support your right to believe in magic, this is America. Im not gay but I support peoples right to be gay because I believe in America, if you want to live in a society where governments legislate based on religion move your ass to iran.

[Count Steeler]

Just a reminder to keep things civil, gentlemen. Cool off.

[zulater]

This country was founded on freedom not Christianity, the decleration of independence holds no legal power unlike our constitution which is the law of the land. The decleration was exactly that a decleration of our independence and nothing more. The document also states all men are created equal, it also also states goverments are institute by men nowhere does it mention Christianity or the bible. It says the words god and creator which could mean many things to many people, Christians don't have a monopoly on the words god or creator. For someone who is always crying about his constitutional 2nd amendment right you are pretty quick to dismiss the first amendment. When our founding fathers started making the law of the land one of the first things they did was put in the 1st amendment no law shall be passed respecting the establishment of religion, I don't know how they could of made it any clearer? Yes the bible is nothing but a story made up to keep people under control, much like santa clause to little kids.

To totally dismiss the beliefs of billions of people of faith with one sentence, as if you're the all fucking knowing makes you a total piece of :poop:.

[7SteelGal43]

now that's funny, I don't care who ya are.

[Seven]

I'll be sad when gay marriage is legalized in Pennsylvania. I've gone back and forth on the issue for a long time, generally supporting gays but at the same time there is something in me that says it isn't right that I can no longer ignore. I sort of feel like it's in line with having a relationship or sex with someone who is underaged. I guess that's the best way I can describe my personal feelings about it. I do feel like gays are mislead or there is something wrong with them. But at the same time, what is "normal"? Why should normal dictate what two guys who are attracted to each other do? So as you can see, I'm sort of conflicted. But in the here-and-now traditional view of society thinking, for me, I'm not a fan of gay marriage. And please, refrain from the unnecessary and small-minded "uneducated" insults. No one knows anymore about this situation than the next person. There is nothing to be "educated" on. This issue is entirely about belief and anyone who says otherwise on either side of the fence can fuck off. This isn't a question that can be answered by facts. So I don't discount anyone's opinion. That said, I don't think I support gay marriage. I recognize that there is enough of the population that is gay that we should give them some type of rights, but don't call it "marriage". We should call it something else but give them the same benefits, in MY opinion. I do think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

[steeldawg]

To totally dismiss the beliefs of billions of people of faith with one sentence, as if you're the all fucking knowing makes you a total piece of :poop:.

Aww don't cry Zu, see the problem is I have no problem with the people I just don't believe in the religion and its funny to watch how angry you people get at someone who wont buy into the fairy tale.

[steeldawg]

I'll be sad when gay marriage is legalized in Pennsylvania. I've gone back and forth on the issue for a long time, generally supporting gays but at the same time there is something in me that says it isn't right that I can no longer ignore. I sort of feel like it's in line with having a relationship or sex with someone who is underaged. I guess that's the best way I can describe my personal feelings about it. I do feel like gays are mislead or there is something wrong with them. But at the same time, what is "normal"? Why should normal dictate what two guys who are attracted to each other do? So as you can see, I'm sort of conflicted. But in the here-and-now traditional view of society thinking, for me, I'm not a fan of gay marriage. And please, refrain from the unnecessary and small-minded "uneducated" insults. No one knows anymore about this situation than the next person. There is nothing to be "educated" on. This issue is entirely about belief and anyone who says otherwise on either side of the fence can fuck off. This isn't a question that can be answered by facts. So I don't discount anyone's opinion. That said, I don't think I support gay marriage. I recognize that there is enough of the population that is gay that we should give them some type of rights, but don't call it "marriage". We should call it something else but give them the same benefits, in MY opinion. I do think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

You see this is not about belief, it is a matter of education and tolerance. You can believe whatever you want to but that doesn't mean that others should have to adhere to that belief. Gays should have the right to marry because they human beings and their rights are no less than anyone elses therefore letting them get married and calling it something else would still be treating them as unequal. Also I don't understand how two people of age in a relsationship can feel like a relationship where one person is underage, what does that have to do with being gay?

[GoSlash27]

This issue is entirely about belief and anyone who says otherwise on either side of the fence can fuck off.
YMMV. This issue is about belief, but certainly not "entirely". It's about the balance between individual liberty and government authority. It's about whether 2 same- sex consenting adults have the right to marry each other and whether the government has the power to deny it to them.

I recognize that there is enough of the population that is gay that we should give them some type of rights, but don't call it "marriage". We should call it something else but give them the same benefits, in MY opinion. I do think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I could get behind this. I've said for years that if the government would just get out of the "marriage" business and refer to it legally as "civil union" for everybody, we could lay this to rest and move on to something important. After all, the government's permission doesn't "sanctify" a marriage, the Church does.

[The Patriot]

I'll be sad when gay marriage is legalized in Pennsylvania. I've gone back and forth on the issue for a long time, generally supporting gays but at the same time there is something in me that says it isn't right that I can no longer ignore. I sort of feel like it's in line with having a relationship or sex with someone who is underaged. I guess that's the best way I can describe my personal feelings about it. I do feel like gays are mislead or there is something wrong with them. But at the same time, what is "normal"? Why should normal dictate what two guys who are attracted to each other do? So as you can see, I'm sort of conflicted. But in the here-and-now traditional view of society thinking, for me, I'm not a fan of gay marriage. And please, refrain from the unnecessary and small-minded "uneducated" insults. No one knows anymore about this situation than the next person. There is nothing to be "educated" on. This issue is entirely about belief and anyone who says otherwise on either side of the fence can fuck off. This isn't a question that can be answered by facts. So I don't discount anyone's opinion. That said, I don't think I support gay marriage. I recognize that there is enough of the population that is gay that we should give them some type of rights, but don't call it "marriage". We should call it something else but give them the same benefits, in MY opinion. I do think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

This would probably be the fairest option. The government should recognize civil unions. Marriage is a religious/spiritual institution. Any Christian will tell you that a man and a woman don't need the state's permission to be married. It would be great if you could get married in your church and then separately sign a document stating that you want to bear the legal responsibilities/obligations of a civil union. That way gays would have the same rights as married couples by signing a document, and religious people wouldn't be forced to recognize gay couples as marriage. Hopefully then we could finally move on.

[silver & black]

I recognize that there is enough of the population that is gay that we should give them some type of rights, but don't call it "marriage".

I think most people feel this way. That's what I was getting at in my earlier post.

[zulater]

Aww don't cry Zu, see the problem is I have no problem with the people I just don't believe in the religion and its funny to watch how angry you people get at someone who wont buy into the fairy tale.

No what I don't like is your total disregard and lack of respect for what you don't believe to be true. You're a douche of the first order.

[X-Terminator]

OK, enough of the personal attacks. I knew this thread would end up turning to complete shit, as does any thread that has to do with this topic. Either knock it off, or the thread gets locked.

[Seven]

You see this is not about belief, it is a matter of education and tolerance. You can believe whatever you want to but that doesn't mean that others should have to adhere to that belief. Gays should have the right to marry because they human beings and their rights are no less than anyone elses therefore letting them get married and calling it something else would still be treating them as unequal. Also I don't understand how two people of age in a relsationship can feel like a relationship where one person is underage, what does that have to do with being gay?

Gays have a different function than straight people. Something, chemically, is different about them. You're either of the opinion that that difference is insignificant or significant. Personally, I do feel like something something is wrong with them. Or maybe, generations ago it was wrong, something that was taboo that got perverts off. And maybe that taboo-like-excitement has carried down through genes and generations and made same sex attraction a legitimate feeling. But point is, I do believe there is something wrong with it fundamentally whatever the cause. Just as there is something wrong with having sex - even consensual - with a fourteen year old girl. The child doesn't know enough to make that decision but will do it based on sort of instinct. I feel like that chemical differential in gays is the same type of misguiding force that confuses the individual. But at this point it's too late. We're too far gone. Gays are a part of society and it's been deemed culturally acceptable so I do think they should have equal rights. But no matter what the government says it will never be marriage.

- - - Updated - - -


This would probably be the fairest option. The government should recognize civil unions. Marriage is a religious/spiritual institution. Any Christian will tell you that a man and a woman don't need the state's permission to be married. It would be great if you could get married in your church and then separately sign a document stating that you want to bear the legal responsibilities/obligations of a civil union. That way gays would have the same rights as married couples by signing a document, and religious people wouldn't be forced to recognize gay couples as marriage. Hopefully then we could finally move on.

Best post in this thread.

[Seven]

YMMV. This issue is about belief, but certainly not "entirely". It's about the balance between individual liberty and government authority. It's about whether 2 same- sex consenting adults have the right to marry each other and whether the government has the power to deny it to them.

Marriage isn't a right. It's a legal designation derived from an unrelated tradition. Gays are legally permitted to be together, no one is stopping them. The government isn't denying them. It simply won't recognize them as a certain legal status.


I could get behind this. I've said for years that if the government would just get out of the "marriage" business and refer to it legally as "civil union" for everybody, we could lay this to rest and move on to something important. After all, the government's permission doesn't "sanctify" a marriage, the Church does.

Exactly what I mean. I don't see why gays want to be "married" anyway to be honest. "Marriage" is a tradition that has shunned them for centuries. They should start their own tradition of "Union" or something. I have no problem with that. But it shouldn't be "marriage".

[Spike]

I knew this thread would end up turning to complete shit.

all my threads are for entertainment purposes only

[GoSlash27]

Marriage isn't a right. It's a legal designation derived from an unrelated tradition. Gays are legally permitted to be together, no one is stopping them. The government isn't denying them. It simply won't recognize them as a certain legal status.



Exactly what I mean. I don't see why gays want to be "married" anyway to be honest. "Marriage" is a tradition that has shunned them for centuries. They should start their own tradition of "Union" or something. I have no problem with that. But it shouldn't be "marriage".

So just so we're clear, you would support the government ceasing the use of "marriage" as a legal term altogether? Not just for gays, but for everyone? 'Cuz that's what I'm talking about.

[steeldawg]

Gays have a different function than straight people. Something, chemically, is different about them. You're either of the opinion that that difference is insignificant or significant. Personally, I do feel like something something is wrong with them. Or maybe, generations ago it was wrong, something that was taboo that got perverts off. And maybe that taboo-like-excitement has carried down through genes and generations and made same sex attraction a legitimate feeling. But point is, I do believe there is something wrong with it fundamentally whatever the cause. Just as there is something wrong with having sex - even consensual - with a fourteen year old girl. The child doesn't know enough to make that decision but will do it based on sort of instinct. I feel like that chemical differential in gays is the same type of misguiding force that confuses the individual. But at this point it's too late. We're too far gone. Gays are a part of society and it's been deemed culturally acceptable so I do think they should have equal rights. But no matter what the government says it will never be marriage.




- - - Updated - - -



Best post in this thread.

Ive got news for you seven there is something chemically different about everyone it's called DNA, all people are different but that doesn't mean that they cant have the same rights. There is nothing wrong with gay people its a natural attraction because of their genetic makeup. You know whats funny is child molestors, repeat spousal abusers, schizo's, handicapped, all have the right to get married why is there not a campaign to prevent these folks from getting married?

- - - Updated - - -


So just so we're clear, you would support the government ceasing the use of "marriage" as a legal term altogether? Not just for gays, but for everyone? 'Cuz that's what I'm talking about.

That would be fine in my eyes, equal for everyone.

[Dwinsgames]

So just so we're clear, you would support the government ceasing the use of "marriage" as a legal term altogether? Not just for gays, but for everyone? 'Cuz that's what I'm talking about.


I believe he is saying the term Marriage is a Religious ceremony (( What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.)) and since Religions do not accept Gays they are not going to willfully perform ceremonies thus drop the term Marriage for gays and have them legally Unioned by a justice of the peace ....

[Seven]

So just so we're clear, you would support the government ceasing the use of "marriage" as a legal term altogether? Not just for gays, but for everyone? 'Cuz that's what I'm talking about.

Yes. I don't care what the government calls it. The government doesn't dictate marriage. If they want to make "civil unions" the new legal status for couples who have a marriage-like relationship, that's fine. But marriage should be the tradition of vows a man and a woman take. Gays should call it something different.

- - - Updated - - -


Ive got news for you seven there is something chemically different about everyone it's called DNA, all people are different but that doesn't mean that they cant have the same rights. There is nothing wrong with gay people its a natural attraction because of their genetic makeup. You know whats funny is child molestors, repeat spousal abusers, schizo's, handicapped, all have the right to get married why is there not a campaign to prevent these folks from getting married?

Dawg, I feel like I've explained my views pretty well. If you aren't going to pay attention to my posts, please don't reply to them. I've stated several times that I think gays should have equal rights. But it will not be marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a tradition that has held up for millions of years. The gay community should start a different form of commitment. One that can uphold the standards of matrimony but will be called something else. As Slash has suggested, legally we could make all "marriages" this type of union. But government doesn't dictate marriage. Tradition does.

[ALLD]

I have to agree with Seven. The gov't either reduces marriage to the legal status of civil union or packs Tom Brady's fudge.

[steeldawg]

Yes. I don't care what the government calls it. The government doesn't dictate marriage. If they want to make "civil unions" the new legal status for couples who have a marriage-like relationship, that's fine. But marriage should be the tradition of vows a man and a woman take. Gays should call it something different.

- - - Updated - - -



If you aren't even going to read my posts please just go.

Ya I read your post, you think there is something wrong with gay people because chemically they are different, the point is we are all different and diferent doesn't mean wrong. Also yes having sex with underage kids is wrong but I still don't see what that has to do with being gay or gays getting married.

[Chidi29]

Dawg, I feel like I've explained my views pretty well. If you aren't going to pay attention to my posts, please don't reply to them. I've stated several times that I think gays should have equal rights. But it will not be marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a tradition that has held up for millions of years. The gay community should start a different form of commitment. One that can uphold the standards of matrimony but will be called something else. As Slash has suggested, legally we could make all "marriages" this type of union. But government doesn't dictate marriage. Tradition does.

Then it isn't equal rights...

[Seven]

Then it isn't equal rights...

You're not comprehending.

- - - Updated - - -


Ya I read your post, you think there is something wrong with gay people because chemically they are different, the point is we are all different and diferent doesn't mean wrong. Also yes having sex with underage kids is wrong but I still don't see what that has to do with being gay or gays getting married.

Define marriage.

[Dwinsgames]

Then it isn't equal rights...


it will never be " equal rights " then unless they found their own churches because most churches are not going to perform the ceremonies ....

as stated above ((What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate )) and God does not condone being gay as established earlier in this thread ....

[Seven]

Then it isn't equal rights...

Marriage as a legal status and marriage as a tradition are two different things. Marriage shouldn't be a legal status, that should be called something else. I'm not referring to that when I say gays shouldn't be able to marry. Marriage - wedlock - is a tradition that dates back millions of years and is a commitment between a man and a woman. You can't simply change a tradition. You can call it "marriage" all you'd like but it will be a faux marriage. You can be "married" as is recognized by the government, but you won't be married as is recognized by millions of years of marriage. This is why we either need to change the legal term to civil unions or abolish the legal designation altogether. People are clearly confused very easily as is evidence by this thread.

[GBMelBlount]

The gov't either reduces marriage to the legal status of civil union or packs Tom Brady's fudge.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/91000/Tom-Brady-Gay-Football-Player---91386.jpg

[steeldawg]

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/91000/Tom-Brady-Gay-Football-Player---91386.jpg

Did he do something different to his hair?

[GoSlash27]

As crazy as it sounds, I believe we're all in agreement on this one; the government defines their role as "regulating contracts for civil union" and simply doesn't use the word "marriage" as a legal term anymore.
We should probably learn to take "yes" for an answer at this point and spend the rest of the thread making fun of Tom Brady.
:grouphug:

[GBMelBlount]

Did he do something different to his hair?

Either that or he put a sock in his shorts.


http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/91000/Tom-Brady-Gay-Football-Player---91386.jpg

[Seven]

As crazy as it sounds, I believe we're all in agreement on this one; the government defines their role as "regulating contracts for civil union" and simply doesn't use the word "marriage" as a legal term anymore.

Yes, that would pretty much fix everything.

[Seven]

Here is the other big issue I have with gay "marriage" and why I think we should simply disband the legal status of marriage. The gays, as a community, are polygamous, promiscuous and sex-driven. That's not my opinion, that's fact. They are much more polygamous than straight couples. Even in gay "marriages" the relationship is often "open". Each party often has multiple boyfriends on the side. If you're going to be get "married", get married. Don't reap the financial benefits but continue to live as a single man. I realize there are straight couples that are "swingers", too, but this type of behavior isn't just common amongst gay couples it is the norm. Again, this isn't "marriage". We should simply get rid of the designation altogether. It's at a point where not only is behavior such as this disrespecting the tradition, but divorce rates are so high, what's the point? Marriage has been shat on, chewed up and spit out over the last few decades. Maybe it's not even worth fighting for anymore. But I appreciate what it once meant and I'm saddened to see the meaning of a tradition that was once so strong turned into what it is now - a joke.

[steeldawg]

Here is the other big issue I have with gay "marriage" and why I think we should simply disband the legal status of marriage. The gays, as a community, are polygamous, promiscuous and sex-driven. That's not my opinion, that's fact. They are much more polygamous than straight couples. Even in gay "marriages" the relationship is often "open". Each party often has multiple boyfriends on the side. If you're going to be get "married", get married. Don't reap the financial benefits but continue to live as a single man. I realize there are straight couples that are "swingers", too, but this type of behavior isn't just common amongst gay couples it is the norm. Again, this isn't "marriage". We should simply get rid of the designation altogether. It's at a point where not only is behavior such as this disrespecting the tradition, but divorce rates are so high, what's the point? Marriage has been shat on, chewed up and spit out over the last few decades. Maybe it's not even worth fighting for anymore. But I appreciate what it once meant and I'm saddened to see the meaning of a tradition that was once so strong turned into what it is now - a joke.

This is completely ridiculous nothing you just said is "fact". gay means your attracted to the same sex it has nothing to do with swinging, polygamy, or group sex. How can gay people be more polygamous than straight people, polygamy means your married to multiple people, so your either a polygamist or your not and since polygamy is illegal I don't know how this could be a fact.

[Seven]

This is completely ridiculous nothing you just said is "fact". gay means your attracted to the same sex it has nothing to do with swinging, polygamy, or group sex. How can gay people be more polygamous than straight people, polygamy means your married to multiple people, so your either a polygamist or your not and since polygamy is illegal I don't know how this could be a fact.

Please try and read more carefully. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's frustrating to have to post the same point two or three times just for you to comprehend it. What I said was, the gay community is generally polygamous, promiscuous and sex-driven. If you know anything about gay culture, you know that is true. It's not an insult, it's just true. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean you are polygamous, but the gay community consists mostly of "open" relationships. There are very few committed relationships in the traditional sense. Polygamy is very popular as are one time sexual encounters or hooking up. Again, that's not an insult at all, but that type of culture doesn't manifest itself well with regards to the traditional sense of marriage.

[silver & black]

The points made in this thread couldn't possibly be any clearer to understand. I'm of the opinion that "some" people just love to argue for the sake of arguing.

[steeldawg]

Please try and read more carefully. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's frustrating to have to post the same point two or three times just for you to comprehend it. What I said was, the gay community is generally polygamous, promiscuous and sex-driven. If you know anything about gay culture, you know that is true. It's not an insult, it's just true. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean you are polygamous, but the gay community consists mostly of "open" relationships. There are very few committed relationships in the traditional sense. Polygamy is very popular as are one time sexual encounters or hooking up. Again, that's not an insult at all, but that type of culture doesn't manifest itself well with regards to the traditional sense of marriage.

What are you talking about my response is the same to your ridiculous post and your completely ignorant understanding of gay culture. The gay community cannot be generally polygamous, because polygamy means your married to more than one person that is illegal and also has nothing to do with being gay! Gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people , and sex driven? are you honestly telling me that its a fact that gay people don't love each other that they don't enjoy spending time with each other unless they are having sex? You are making quite a judgement there and trying to pawn it off as fact.

[Seven]

What are you talking about my response is the same to your ridiculous post and your completely ignorant understanding of gay culture. The gay community cannot be generally polygamous, because polygamy means your married to more than one person that is illegal and also has nothing to do with being gay! Gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people , and sex driven? are you honestly telling me that its a fact that gay people don't love each other that they don't enjoy spending time with each other unless they are having sex? You are making quite a judgement there and trying to pawn it off as fact.

I have absolutely no idea where the bold statements came from. They are all wrong or have nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not sure how to make my points any clearer than I already have. If you aren't able to comprehend them, I apologize. But you're clearly not understanding.

[steeldawg]

I have absolutely no idea where the bold statements came from. They are all wrong or have nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not sure how to make my points any clearer than I already have. If you aren't able to comprehend them, I apologize. But you're clearly not understanding.

umm your saying these things are facts about gay culture which they are clearly not therefore you are ignorant to gay culture.
gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people meaning the level of promiscuity in gay culture is no different from straight culture. you have promiscuous gays and straight its not general within gay culture.
yes gay people love each other their relationships are not generally sex driven they are no different from straight relationships.

[GoSlash27]

The points made in this thread couldn't possibly be any clearer to understand. I'm of the opinion that "some" people just love to argue for the sake of arguing.

Nuh- uh! :p
/I keed...

[Seven]

umm your saying these things are facts about gay culture which they are clearly not therefore you are ignorant to gay culture.
gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people meaning the level of promiscuity in gay culture is no different from straight culture. you have promiscuous gays and straight its not general within gay culture.
yes gay people love each other their relationships are not generally sex driven they are no different from straight relationships.

Dawg, I'm sorry but I'm not the one who is ignorant about gay culture. That would be you. You're simply not educated on gay behavior and it is incredibly blatant. Ever hear of Grindr? Daddyhunt, Manhunt? How about Recon? What's the last gay bar you've been to? I frequent Longbada Lounge here in western PA with friends. How many gay couples do you know? I know five. Four are in open relationships, the other is in a polygamous relationship. Ever watch any gay programming on television? Check up on Canada's 1G5G, it might open your eyes. I have plenty of experience with the gay community. I'm not insulting gay culture, I'm just telling you the truth. Monogamy and commitment as straight couples know it largely does not exist in the gay community. That's absolutely not to say there aren't very committed monogamous gay couples, but they are pretty rare. Now can we move on from this and continue the discussion? I don't want to argue about something that is established. It's pointless. It's like arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't = 4.

[zulater]

umm your saying these things are facts about gay culture which they are clearly not therefore you are ignorant to gay culture.
gay people are no more promiscuous than straight people meaning the level of promiscuity in gay culture is no different from straight culture. you have promiscuous gays and straight its not general within gay culture.
yes gay people love each other their relationships are not generally sex driven they are no different from straight relationships.

Uh so why did Aids spread like wild fire through the gay community in the 80's and not so much with hetro-sexuals? :doh:

[steeldawg]

Uh so why did Aids spread like wild fire through the gay community in the 80's and not so much with hetro-sexuals? :doh:

uh because gay men don't have vaginas, do you really think its because they were having more sex than straight people?

[Seven]

uh because gay men don't have vaginas, do you really think its because they were having more sex than straight people?

Post of the century.

[zulater]

uh because gay men don't have vaginas, do you really think its because they were having more sex than straight people?

Uh yeah. Ask them. Most any honest gay man would tell you that I'm quite sure.

[Seven]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0)
http://www.wehoville.com/2012/11/03/ask-a-gay-do-most-gay-couples-have-open-sexual-relationships/ (http://www.wehoville.com/2012/11/03/ask-a-gay-do-most-gay-couples-have-open-sexual-relationships/)
http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/Many-gay-couples-negotiate-open-relationships-3241624.php (http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/Many-gay-couples-negotiate-open-relationships-3241624.php)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-curry/how-do-gays-crack-the-monogamy-code_b_3478177.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-curry/how-do-gays-crack-the-monogamy-code_b_3478177.html)

[Dwinsgames]

I would have missed that had Seven not quoted it ... I have never seen anything so stupid posted on this forum to date

[steeldawg]

Dawg, I'm sorry but I'm not the one who is ignorant about gay culture. That would be you. You're simply not educated on gay behavior and it is incredibly blatant. Ever hear of Grindr? Daddyhunt, Manhunt? How about Recon? What's the last gay bar you've been to? I frequent Longbada Lounge here in western PA with friends. How many gay couples do you know? I know five. Four are in open relationships, the other is in a polygamous relationship. Ever watch any gay programming on television? Check up on Canada's 1G5G, it might open your eyes. I have plenty of experience with the gay community. I'm not insulting gay culture, I'm just telling you the truth. Monogamy and commitment as straight couples know it largely does not exist in the gay community. That's absolutely not to say there aren't very committed monogamous gay couples, but they are pretty rare. Now can we move on from this and continue the discussion? I don't want to argue about something that is established. It's pointless. It's like arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't = 4.

I know many gay couples I also have gay family members, for every gay website there is a straight sex website, there also a lot more straight bars and clubs then there are gay clubs. If your getting your impressions of gay or straight culture from night clubs you are looking in the wrong places. you've established nothing gay dating scene is the same as the straight dating scene being gay has nothing to do with a persons sex drive or promiscuity, saying that gay people are generally more promiscuous is not only ignorant its just false.

[GoSlash27]

uh because gay men don't have vaginas, do you really think its because they were having more sex than straight people?

Uhh... yeah?...

Look... I don't go in for the basic gist of Seven's argument, but gays, as a subset, are *much* more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I'm astonished that you seem unaware of that fact.

[steeldawg]

I would have missed that had Seven not quoted it ... I have never seen anything so stupid posted on this forum to date

Why is that stupid? And have you read some of your own posts.

[zulater]

Any gay dude who goes to a gay bar can hook up any night he wants if he doesn't look like Quasimodo. And even then he'd hook up twice a week.

- - - Updated - - -


Uhh... yeah?...

Look... I don't go in for the basic gist of Seven's argument, but gays, as a subset, are *much* more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I'm astonished that you seem unaware of that fact.

Why would that surprise you with this guy? He lives in his own world of make believe.

[Seven]

I know many gay couples I also have gay family members, for every gay website there is a straight sex website, there also a lot more straight bars and clubs then there are gay clubs. If your getting your impressions of gay or straight culture from night clubs you are looking in the wrong places. you've established nothing gay dating scene is the same as the straight dating scene being gay has nothing to do with a persons sex drive or promiscuity, saying that gay people are generally more promiscuous is not only ignorant its just false.

I'm sorry, but you've proven to be completely uneducated. You know nothing about the gay community and, again, it is blatant. You can't even follow the simplest of points without someone having to hold your hand every step of the way. Don't bother addressing me in this thread again. No hard feelings, I just can't have a serious discussion with you. I genuinely don't mean that maliciously.

- - - Updated - - -


Uhh... yeah?...

Look... I don't go in for the basic gist of Seven's argument, but gays, as a subset, are *much* more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I'm astonished that you seem unaware of that fact.

Thanks Slash, it's one thing to disagree with me, by all means, I'm not dead-set in my opinion on this as I've made mention of several times. But how someone can ignore such a well established social pattern to try and refute my point is truly beyond me.

[GoSlash27]

Thanks Slash, it's one thing to disagree with me, by all means, I'm not dead-set in my opinion on this as I've made mention of several times. But how someone can ignore such a well established social pattern to try and refute my point is truly beyond me.

Shucks... 'tweren't nuthin'. Personally, I think this whole 'promiscuity' discussion is a side-issue to the subject at hand, but let's try to keep it real here; the gay community as a whole is more promiscuous than the heterosexual community. It's an established fact especially among males and startlingly so among males who have had 5 or more sexual partners.

It's one thing to treat people as as equally worthy of dignity and respect, but it's an entirely different thing to pretend that everybody's identical and there aren't any differences....

[steeldawg]

Uhh... yeah?...

Look... I don't go in for the basic gist of Seven's argument, but gays, as a subset, are *much* more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I'm astonished that you seem unaware of that fact.

Meaning its much harder to contract hiv through vaginal sex, also gays are not more promiscuous the studies show that roughly 50% of married men will cheat seven is citing gay open relationships. Just because gay couples allow there relationship to be open and straight people just cheat does not make one more promiscuous than the other.

[Seven]

Shucks... 'tweren't nuthin'. Personally, I think this whole 'promiscuity' discussion is a side-issue to the subject at hand, but let's try to keep it real here; the gay community as a whole is more promiscuous than the heterosexual community. It's an established fact especially among males and startlingly so among males who have had 5 or more sexual partners.

It's one thing to treat people as as equally worthy of dignity and respect, but it's an entirely different thing to pretend that everybody's identical and there aren't any differences....

Well I guess that's my fault, but I didn't intend for it to become the entire discussion. I didn't think anyone would raise issue with the statement in and of itself... seeing as it is nearly irrefutable. I simply don't think married couples should be in "open" relationships. And seeing as gays are very often involved in that type of relationship, even after "marriage"... it's just another ding against gay marriage for me. But I think what we've established here is that marriage, as a legality, is severely outdated in general. Both from a gender standpoint and practice standpoint. There should be reform. Will it happen? Probably not anytime soon. But I'm glad we, for once, have all pretty much come to a consensus on one of the issues raised here.

[GoSlash27]

Meaning its much harder to contract hiv through vaginal sex, also gays are not more promiscuous the studies show that roughly 50% of married men will cheat seven is citing gay open relationships. Just because gay couples allow there relationship to be open and straight people just cheat does not make one more promiscuous than the other.

14.4% of gay males have had 11-20 sexual partners, compared to 9.3% of heterosexual males.
14.4% of gay males have had 20-100 sexual partners, compared to 5.1% of heterosexual males.
4% of gay males have had more than 100 sexual partners, compared to 0.4% of heterosexual males.
2.4% of gay males have no idea how many sexual partners they've had, compared to 0.7% of heterosexual males.

*THAT* makes one group more promiscuous than the other. Get real.

[7SteelGal43]

Wow. Some very interesting reading. Thoughts, opinions and beliefs that go from one end of the spectrum to the other and all points in between. I wouldn't use the term uneducated, but I certainly get the feel that there is some lack of knowledge, understanding. Would anyone care to know a 'born that way' conservtive Christian lesbians view on the matter ?

[Seven]

Wow. Some very interesting reading. Thoughts, opinions and beliefs that go from one end of the spectrum to the other and all points in between. I wouldn't use the term uneducated, but I certainly get the feel that there is some lack of knowledge, understanding. Would anyone care to know a 'born that way' conservtive Christian lesbians view on the matter ?

Absolutely. The more varied viewpoints the better.

[zulater]

14.4% of gay males have had 11-20 sexual partners, compared to 9.3% of heterosexual males.
14.4% of gay males have had 20-100 sexual partners, compared to 5.1% of heterosexual males.
4% of gay males have had more than 100 sexual partners, compared to 0.4% of heterosexual males.
2.4% of gay males have no idea how many sexual partners they've had, compared to 0.7% of heterosexual males.

*THAT* makes one group more promiscuous than the other. Get real.

Great stats, but even without the stats to anyone who hasn't led a sheltered life this is so self evident that you'd almost have to be a liar or an idiot not to see it.

- - - Updated - - -


Wow. Some very interesting reading. Thoughts, opinions and beliefs that go from one end of the spectrum to the other and all points in between. I wouldn't use the term uneducated, but I certainly get the feel that there is some lack of knowledge, understanding. Would anyone care to know a 'born that way' conservtive Christian lesbians view on the matter ?

Is there such a thing? :lol: I keed I keed. :wink02:

[GoSlash27]

Wow. Some very interesting reading. Thoughts, opinions and beliefs that go from one end of the spectrum to the other and all points in between. I wouldn't use the term uneducated, but I certainly get the feel that there is some lack of knowledge, understanding. Would anyone care to know a 'born that way' conservtive Christian lesbians view on the matter ?

Let 'er rip, Ma'am! :drink:

[The Patriot]

Meaning its much harder to contract hiv through vaginal sex, also gays are not more promiscuous the studies show that roughly 50% of married men will cheat seven is citing gay open relationships. Just because gay couples allow there relationship to be open and straight people just cheat does not make one more promiscuous than the other.

Come on man, you got to be kidding me here. There was this whole discussion about the gay lifestyle during the aids epidemic... It's the whole reason gays were dying in droves only months after the outbreak.

[zulater]

Before 7Steelergal answers if I could venture a guess I'd say lesbians are probably more monogamous than straight woman and certainly their gay male counterparts.

[GoSlash27]

Before 7Steelergal answers if I could venture a guess I'd say lesbians are probably more monogamous than straight woman and certainly their gay male counterparts.

Not according to the gay ladies I know. In fact, they have a joke about it:
Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
A: A moving van.
I'm sure SteelGal will catch the reference...

[Seven]

Before 7Steelergal answers if I could venture a guess I'd say lesbians are probably more monogamous than straight woman and certainly their gay male counterparts.

I know a couple of lesbians but have really never had much conversation with them, about their sexual orientation or habits anyway. I've had a ton of discussion with gay guys, but not gay females. I'll be really interested to see what 7steelergal's thoughts are.

[steeldawg]

Come on man, you got to be kidding me here. There was this whole discussion about the gay lifestyle during the aids epidemic... It's the whole reason gays were dying in droves only months after the outbreak.

ya so what straight people where still having as much sex during the aids epidemic it was just harder for them to contract the hiv virus through vaginal sex.

[GoSlash27]

I know a couple of lesbians but have really never had much conversation with them, about their sexual orientation or habits anyway. I've had a ton of discussion with gay guys, but not gay females. I'll be really interested to see what 7steelergal's thoughts are.

I highly recommend hanging out with them. They're pretty cool people (mostly).

- - - Updated - - -


ya so what straight people where still having as much sex during the aids epidemic it was just harder for them to contract the hiv virus through vaginal sex.
Now would be a good time to crack a history book and get back to us afterwards.

[zulater]

Not according to the gay ladies I know. In fact, they have a joke about it:
Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
A: A moving van.
I'm sure SteelGal will catch the reference...

I work with tb race horses. Thus I know quite a few gay woman. Most of the ones I know seem to be mostly one partner, and tend to stay with it for awhile.

[GoSlash27]

Ya lost me there for a sec. What do thoroughbreds have to do with lesbians?

[zulater]

ya so what straight people where still having as much sex during the aids epidemic it was just harder for them to contract the hiv virus through vaginal sex.

You're right in that Aids is more transmittable through anal intercourse than vagina sex. But you're wrong in thinking that gay males weren't and aren't more promiscuous.

- - - Updated - - -


Ya lost me there for a sec. What do thoroughbreds have to do with lesbians? For some reason horses attract them in droves. The running joke at Delaware Park ( among the lesbians I might add) is that despite the fact that the track lies on a flood plane it will never in fact flood, because of all the dikes. :chuckle: .

[GoSlash27]

^ /me likes this comment :D

I've spent the last decade or so up to my eyeballs in lesbians/ bisexual women. You kinda know a few, end up hangin' out with them, and next thing you know you're surrounded by them. It's weird how so many of 'em seem to know so many others....
Anywho, the prevailing pattern around here seems to be intense and monogamous, but very short relationships. Sort of a serial monogamy thing, but faster. They fall in love quick and it's over just as quick.
It's not universal, of course. Some of them are just "players", and others settle down and have long committed relationships. I know many lesbian couples who's marriages (it's legal out here) I'd put up against any heterosexual couple's marriages.

[steeldawg]

I highly recommend hanging out with them. They're pretty cool people (mostly).

- - - Updated - - -


Now would be a good time to crack a history book and get back to us afterwards.

crack a history book to find out what? gays where contracting hiv at a higher rate because they where having anal sex. straight people who at that time made up about 98% of the population where most certainly having more sex than gay people where but it wasn't spreading because its extremely rare for hiv to be spread through vaginal intercourse.

[Seven]

I highly recommend hanging out with them. They're pretty cool people (mostly).

I've "partied" with a few of them (reluctant to use that term but it's accurate) and the thing I always take away is that they are a very diverse group. Whereas I do think gay men tend to be pretty stereotypical in a lot of cases, lesbians aren't at all - particularly ones of my generation. You have everything from tomboy to hipster to eastern cultural influences in at least their styles. And I assume their personalities vary just as much. I'll be spending some time in a college town for work this fall and I should be around a few acquaintances then. Hopefully I'll manage to get some conversation in between all the other stuff.

[zulater]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/25/reviews/970525.25kevlest.html

From the 1970's on, core groups of gay males arose in cities like New York and San Franciso, transmitting the virus to one another by practicing unprotected anal and oral sex with dozens to hundreds of partners, mainly in bathhouses, discos and sex clubs. Gay men outside the core patronized the bathhouses too, establishing a bridge between the infected group and the rest of the gay population.

Mr. Rotello reports, however, that resistance to such change remains powerful among many gay males. It has been reinforced by the advent of therapeutic drugs -- notably the protease inhibitors -- that appear to have made AIDS a disease you live with rather than die from; by glorifications of being H.I.V. positive as putting those with the virus beyond the anxieties of risk; and by celebrations of the circuit as an escape from the reality of so many friends dying young. The bathhouses are thriving, and most men even in committed gay relationships continue to engage in casual third-party sexual encounters. ''For various reasons,'' Mr. Rotello comments tartly, ''we are, in effect, defending the behaviors that are killing us.''

[Seven]

crack a history book to find out what? gays where contracting hiv at a higher rate because they where having anal sex. straight people who at that time made up about 98% of the population where most certainly having more sex than gay people where but it wasn't spreading because its extremely rare for hiv to be spread through vaginal intercourse.

1. Your reasoning that just because there were more straight people than gay people around means that, per capita, the heterosexuals were having more sex is flawed. 2. You really think 98% of the population was straight? Good god. And I'm supposed to be the anti-gay guy.

[GoSlash27]

1. Your reasoning that just because there were more straight people than gay people around means that, per capita, the heterosexuals were having more sex is flawed. 2. You really think 98% of the population was straight? Good god. And I'm supposed to be the anti-gay guy.

Zu hit the nail on the head. Bath houses. Unprotected sex with multiple partners. Read up on it.
http://thecastro.net/AIDS/AIDS.html

[Chidi29]

Well this thread has derailed nicely...

None of what is being discussed is relevant to gay marriage.

[Seven]

Zu hit the nail on the head. Bath houses. Unprotected sex with multiple partners. Read up on it.
http://thecastro.net/AIDS/AIDS.html

I didn't know about the bath houses. But the whole aids issue, again, brings me back to - is being gay right or wrong? Our bodies weren't made to reproduce with a member of the same sex, so what does that mean? I don't believe you can help who you are attracted to. But at the same time, we lock people up who were attracted to teenagers and acted on that attraction. I recognize the difference being we deem the children not mature enough to consent to a sexual relationship, but my point is, if you born with who you are attracted to, what's the difference between a pervert and a gay man (besides the obvious)?

[GoSlash27]

Well this thread has derailed nicely...

None of what is being discussed is relevant to gay marriage.

Meh. We solved that problem like 2 hours ago. We're working on a cure for cancer now. :D

[Seven]

Well this thread has derailed nicely...

None of what is being discussed is relevant to gay marriage.

How the hell not? I appreciate you have an opinion on the matter, but what's up with all the hit & run pot shots? Almost everything discussed here has been more than relevant. We're having a real conversation on the morality of gay attraction. How does that not apply to gay marriage?

- - - Updated - - -

It almost seems like some of you guys want to post topics, have a dozen posts that say "I agree" and that be the end of the thread. What's the problem with a drawn out discussion?

[zulater]

Actually in fairness gay males probably aren't really much more promiscuous than straight males. The difference is the abundance of willing partners if you're gay. Seriously if you're single and straight you're always looking and usually willing. But other than prostitutes there's not many one night opportunities with self respecting woman and girls available to you. That's not to say straight woman don't ever engage in one night stands. They just don't make a practice of it. Maybe once or twice in their lives they might indulge. But not nearly as often as single men want them to. :chuckle:

[The Patriot]

crack a history book to find out what? gays where contracting hiv at a higher rate because they where having anal sex. straight people who at that time made up about 98% of the population where most certainly having more sex than gay people where but it wasn't spreading because its extremely rare for hiv to be spread through vaginal intercourse.

Straight people may have been having the same amount of sex, but the sex was mostly in monogamous relationships. Gay men are known for having many many partners. You've been given the statistics.

[zulater]

How the hell not? I appreciate you have an opinion on the matter, but what's up with all the hit & run pot shots? Almost everything discussed here has been more than relevant. We're having a real conversation on the morality of gay attraction. How does that not apply to gay marriage?

- - - Updated - - -

It almost seems like some of you guys want to post topics, have a dozen posts that say "I agree" and that be the end of the thread. What's the problem with a drawn out discussion?

Here here! :applaudit:

[Seven]

Actually in fairness gay males probably aren't really much more promiscuous than straight males. The difference is the abundance of willing partners if you're gay.

Actually, while that's humorous, it's also a really fair and interesting point.

[GoSlash27]

I didn't know about the bath houses. But the whole aids issue, again, brings me back to - is being gay right or wrong? Our bodies weren't made to reproduce with a member of the same sex, so what does that mean? I don't believe you can help who you are attracted to. But at the same time, we lock people up who were attracted to teenagers and acted on that attraction. I recognize the difference being we deem the children not mature enough to consent to a sexual relationship, but my point is, if you born with who you are attracted to, what's the difference between a pervert and a gay man (besides the obvious)?

I suck as a judge of "right and wrong" afa how other people live their lives, so I pretty much leave that to them. I have my hands full just dealing with my own decisions.
I know you're talking about it in philosophical terms rather than legal, but honestly... once people are free to chart their own course (for better or worse), I really don't care so long as nobody's being victimized.

- - - Updated - - -


Straight people may have been having the same amount of sex, but the sex was mostly in monogamous relationships. Gay men are known for having many many partners. You've been given the statistics.

To be fair, the majority of gay men *aren't* any more promiscuous than straight men. There's a small minority of them that are man- hoochies, and that skews the numbers.

[fansince'76]

Monogamy and commitment as straight couples know it largely does not exist in the gay community.

Doesn't really exist in the straight community anymore either...

[Chidi29]

How the hell not? I appreciate you have an opinion on the matter, but what's up with all the hit & run pot shots? Almost everything discussed here has been more than relevant. We're having a real conversation on the morality of gay attraction. How does that not apply to gay marriage?

- - - Updated - - -

It almost seems like some of you guys want to post topics, have a dozen posts that say "I agree" and that be the end of the thread. What's the problem with a drawn out discussion?

What does how much someone has sex matter if they should have the legal right to be married? It's not like all or even a majority fall into that category anyway so it's ridiculous to punish everyone. To me, this idea is just a red herring.

I'd stay in this thread more like I was but then I saw it go off track and turn into a name-calling war. So that's why I backed out.

[GoSlash27]

What does how much someone has sex matter if they should have the legal right to be married? It's not like all or even a majority fall into that category anyway so it's ridiculous to punish everyone. To me, this idea is just a red herring.

I'd stay in this thread more like I was but then I saw it go off track and turn into a name-calling war. So that's why I backed out.

You are absolutely right, and I raised the exact same point myself. But as I said, we've already come to an agreement on the subject of gay marriage, so now we're just jawin'.

[Seven]

Doesn't really exist in the straight community anymore either...

Yeah, that's sort of the conclusion I've found myself at over the course of this thread. While I want to defend traditional marriage and think it's worth defending, I realize those who value it are a dying breed - gay, straight, hermaphrodite... doesn't matter. Traditional values are vanishing in our culture. Sometimes that's good, but for the most part it's bad - in my opinion. I guess the gay marriage thing is just the tip of the iceberg. We'll see where we land. Maybe it all works out for the best. But somehow I don't feel that way.

- - - Updated - - -


What does how much someone has sex matter if they should have the legal right to be married? It's not like all or even a majority fall into that category anyway so it's ridiculous to punish everyone. To me, this idea is just a red herring

So in your opinion a marriage can be an open relationship and there is nothing wrong with that?

[GoSlash27]

So in your opinion a marriage can be an open relationship and there is nothing wrong with that?

I'll field that one :D

In my United States of Whateva (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaTT859Yk0) the answer to that one is "don't marry a hooker". That's something for the participants to decide, not the government or the rest of us sidewalk supervisors.

[Seven]

I'll field that one :D

In my United States of Whateva (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaTT859Yk0) the answer to that one is "don't marry a hooker". That's something for the participants to decide, not the government or the rest of us sidewalk supervisors.

I'm not saying I disagree, but then what's the point of marriage? If there is no commitment it doesn't mean anything. But, as you say, we've already established that marriage as a legality is stupid. Now we're just shooting the shit, eh?

[The Patriot]

To be fair, the majority of gay men *aren't* any more promiscuous than straight men. There's a small minority of them that are man- hoochies, and that skews the numbers.

Oh sure. Men want sex. Women have standards. There's a reason straight males call it "getting lucky." :sofunny:

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not saying I disagree, but then what's the point of marriage? If there is no commitment it doesn't mean anything. But, as you say, we've already established that marriage as a legality is stupid. Now we're just shooting the shit, eh?

Marriage is quickly becoming the lottery for women. Marry a rich guy, no-fault divorce him somewhere down the line, a couple court orders later, and it's an early retirement! Thank you, new wave feminism.

[GoSlash27]

I'm not saying I disagree, but then what's the point of marriage? If there is no commitment it doesn't mean anything. But, as you say, we've already established that marriage as a legality is stupid. Now we're just shooting the shit, eh?

There's as much commitment in that contract as in any other. :noidea: It's just a legal agreement to pool resources and delegate each other responsibilities and decision making authority for their mutual benefit and the benefit of their kids, if any. How the interested parties agree to handle their sex lives is really their own business so long as they agree to it.

This does raise an interesting topic, tho': What do *you* think the point of marriage is?

[Seven]

There's as much commitment in that contract as in any other. :noidea: It's just a legal agreement to pool resources and delegate each other responsibilities and decision making authority for their mutual benefit and the benefit of their kids, if any. How the interested parties agree to handle their sex lives is really their own business so long as they agree to it.

This does raise an interesting topic, tho': What do *you* think the point of marriage is?

Not a legal agreement.

[GoSlash27]

Not a legal agreement.

Okay... you've told me what you think it's not. So tell me what you think it is.

[Chidi29]

So in your opinion a marriage can be an open relationship and there is nothing wrong with that?

Yes. That is what I'm saying. Morally, do I agree? No. But I don't get to be the moral authority on matters that don't hurt other peope.

[Seven]

Okay... you've told me what you think it's not. So tell me what you think it is.

I think marriage should be the stereotypical, romanticized intimate relationship between a man and a woman. A real commitment. And I think it used to be that. But now, I think for many - woman in particular - it's a status symbol. A way to keep up with the Jones's. It's just something people do, with no real meaning behind it. So in that sense, you're correct. It is all about making life easier for you by sharing the burden with someone else out of pure convenience. But I don't think that's what the spirit of marriage is, that's just what modern society has turned it into. There isn't "as much" commitment in that as any other, not in the traditional sense of marriage. But it's clear that value has eroded into a legal designation that simply exists to make life easier. Perhaps I'm being naïve in thinking the type of marriage I hope to have one day exists. But I hope not.

[GBMelBlount]

Seven

"All i (Woodley) gotta say is ive never been so motivated 2 work out as i am 4 tmrw"

On a side note, THAT is funny. :lol:

[Seven]

Yes. That is what I'm saying. Morally, do I agree? No. But I don't get to be the moral authority on matters that don't hurt other peope.

I agree. Which is why I'm for equal benefits for gays. But as I said, it won't be marriage. The government can't simply erase millions of years worth of tradition by passing a bill.

- - - Updated - - -


On a side note, THAT is funny. :lol:

Direct quote, my man. Straight from his status bar on Facebook :chuckle:

[Chidi29]

I agree. Which is why I'm for equal benefits for gays. But as I said, it won't be marriage. The government can't simply erase millions of years worth of tradition by passing a bill.


Sure they can. If it's the right thing to do. Not that I'm equating the two, but that's what they did with slavery.

[Seven]

Sure they can. If it's the right thing to do. Not that I'm equating the two, but that's what they did with slavery.

Slavery had a physical reality to it that gay marriage does not. Slavery existed. The only thing stopping gays from being "married" is legal jargon. Radical difference. Marriage as a belief can't be changed by legislature just as religion can never be changed by legislature. You can't kill an idea (traditional marriage) like you can kill something that exists physically (slavery). Just like religion doesn't exist in legislature, neither should marriage or any other binding personal agreement. It's not something that's dictated by law. There should be a term that legally binds assets for spouses, but again, it shouldn't be marriage.

[Chidi29]

Slavery had a physical reality to it that gay marriage does not. Slavery existed. The only thing stopping gays from being "married" is legal jargon. Radical difference. Marriage as a belief can't be changed by legislature just as religion can never be changed by legislature. You can't kill an idea (traditional marriage) like you can kill something that exists physically (slavery). Just like religion doesn't exist in legislature, neither should marriage or any other binding personal agreement. It's not something that's dictated by law. There should be a term that legally binds assets for spouses, but again, it shouldn't be marriage.

My point was that you can change tradition by passing a bill.

You're right it can't be changed as a religious belief. Regardless of what happens, there will always be a sector that will see the difference in the two marriages (straight and gay). But it can't be changed on the legal level. To me, it is dictated in part by law because you have to get to marriage license which can be provided by the state. That part could and should be changed.

[GoSlash27]

I think marriage should be the stereotypical, romanticized intimate relationship between a man and a woman.

Could you be more specific? I mean... you can have the stereotypical, romanticized intimate relationship *without* getting married, so what is the purpose of marriage?

[Seven]

My point was that you can change tradition by passing a bill.

You're right it can't be changed as a religious belief. Regardless of what happens, there will always be a sector that will see the difference in the two marriages (straight and gay). But it can't be changed on the legal level. To me, it is dictated in part by law because you have to get to marriage license which can be provided by the state. That part could and should be changed.

As I said early on in this thread, this topic is entirely opinion based and no one is right or wrong, including myself. What you posted is your opinion, and I respect it. I think at the end of the day most of us have about the same feeling towards the issue, we just have differing opinions on how it should happen. You don't seem to care much about the term that is used, whereas I do. Maybe I'm just clinging to the past.

- - - Updated - - -


Could you be more specific? I mean... you can have the stereotypical, romanticized intimate relationship *without* getting married, so what is the purpose of marriage?

The promise of commitment beyond simply the spoken word.

- - - Updated - - -


My point was that you can change tradition by passing a bill.

You're right, tradition was the wrong word to use. Tradition will be changed by legalizing gay marriage. I mean traditional marriage as a belief.

[Chidi29]

As I said early on in this thread, this topic is entirely opinion based and no one is right or wrong, including myself. What you posted is your opinion, and I respect it. I think at the end of the day most of us have about the same feeling towards the issue, we just have differing opinions on how it should happen. You don't seem to care much about the term that is used, whereas I do. Maybe I'm just clinging to the past.

At the risk of going around in circles, my main idea of the topic...

As long as marriage is used as a term by the government (which it likely always will), it should be treated as a legal action in the eyes of the law. And gay marriage should be given equal treatment.

[Seven]

At the risk of going around in circles, my main idea of the topic...

As long as marriage is used as a term by the government (which it likely always will), it should be treated as a legal action in the eyes of the law. And gay marriage should be given equal treatment.

Yes, you're correct. I distinguished a difference between what I'm talking about (marriage as a belief) vs. marriage as a legal term several posts if not pages back. Legally, you're absolutely right and I have no problem with gays getting equal rights. I just don't believe it's marriage in the spirit of the belief. I don't think the government should use the term marriage, but you are correct in your assessment that they probably always will. All of that has pretty much been my sentiment from the start. I apologize if I wasn't clear in my convictions.

[Chidi29]

Yes, you're correct. I distinguished a difference between what I'm talking about (marriage as a belief) vs. marriage as a legal term several posts if not pages back. Legally, you're absolutely right and I have no problem with gays getting equal rights. I just don't believe it's marriage in the spirit of the belief. I don't think the government should use the term marriage, but you are correct in your assessment that they probably always will. All of that has pretty much been my sentiment from the start. I apologize if I wasn't clear in my convictions.

It's all good. Obviously, the issue is not black and white but varying shades of grey.

When we talk about whether or not marriages should be legal, we're looking at it through the government's perspective. Their role is to take the belief out of the equation since beliefs vary from person to person, group to group. All we're left with is the legal term. Which is why it should be legal.

[Seven]

It's all good. Obviously, the issue is not black and white but varying shades of grey.

When we talk about whether or not marriages should be legal, we're looking at it through the government's perspective. Their role is to take the belief out of the equation since beliefs vary from person to person, group to group. All we're left with is the legal term. Which is why it should be legal.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the morality discussion isn't relevant to the overall conversation in my opinion. While the two topics are separate they also go hand in hand. I don't come to this forum to nod my head in agreement with every politically correct opinion, I come here to explore new ideas and see what other people are thinking. Whether that be about the Steelers or gay marriage, I'm not going to hesitate to take the conversation in a certain direction if I'm interested to. I really don't feel like the discussion on this thread got out of hand. I think it has all pertained to gay marriage for or against in one way or another. I think we drew some interesting conclusions and I've really enjoyed some of the varied responses that were posted. There are still several ideas that I'd love to see put into dialogue here but it seems as if the brakes have been tapped. To me, that's unfortunate. This is a "discussion" board after all. I thought I was tackling an interesting point of view - something beyond "Yes gay marriage should be legal because *PC talk*" or "No gay marriage should not be legal because *religious talk*." If you disagree, I truly am sorry. I know I'm not for everyone :chuckle:

[GoSlash27]

The promise of commitment beyond simply the spoken word.
the promise of commitment to what, exactly?
I swear I'm not trying to paint you into a corner here by begging the question, I'm just trying to get a precise answer nailed down.

Pretend I'm from another planet and have never heard of this "marriage" concept. What is it's purpose?

[zulater]

the promise of commitment to what, exactly?
I swear I'm not trying to paint you into a corner here by begging the question, I'm just trying to get a precise answer nailed down.

Pretend I'm from another planet and have never heard of this "marriage" concept. What is it's purpose?

To feed divorce lawyers. :heh:

[Seven]

the promise of commitment to what, exactly?
I swear I'm not trying to paint you into a corner here by begging the question, I'm just trying to get a precise answer nailed down.

Pretend I'm from another planet and have never heard of this "marriage" concept. What is it's purpose?

Marriage is a personal contract to be intimately and emotionally committed to only one lover.

[zulater]

Marriage is a personal contract to be intimately and emotionally committed to only one lover.

By that definition gays shouldn't be excluded from it.

[Dwinsgames]

By that definition gays shouldn't be excluded from it.


what he omitted is it is a religious ceremony , and based on the Bible that the religions are based being Gay is not permissible thus they would not / should not perform a ceremony ...

BUT we will see Gays trying to file suit against the churches for discrimination ..its just the next can of worms we will face

[zulater]

what he omitted is it is a religious ceremony , and based on the Bible that the religions are based being Gay is not permissible thus they would not / should not perform a ceremony ...

BUT we will see Gays trying to file suit against the churches for discrimination ..its just the next can of worms we will face

Agreed./

[steeldawg]

Actually in fairness gay males probably aren't really much more promiscuous than straight males. The difference is the abundance of willing partners if you're gay. Seriously if you're single and straight you're always looking and usually willing. But other than prostitutes there's not many one night opportunities with self respecting woman and girls available to you. That's not to say straight woman don't ever engage in one night stands. They just don't make a practice of it. Maybe once or twice in their lives they might indulge. But not nearly as often as single men want them to. :chuckle:

This is exactly my point gays are no more promiscuous than straights, The thing is males are more promiscuous than woman so in a gay scenario the guy is more likely to find a willing partner. Like this a gay guy makes sexual advances at 6 guys and lands 3 , a straight guy makes sexual advances at 6 women but only lands 1, there is a difference in the number of partners but there is no difference in the promiscuity, because if women operated on the same level of promiscuity as men the number would be equal. Its evident with lesbians they have low numbers of partners and aren't very promiscuous so it has nothing to do with them being gay. someones sexual orientation has nothing to do with them being a slut.

[Chidi29]

I agree, but that doesn't mean the morality discussion isn't relevant to the overall conversation in my opinion. While the two topics are separate they also go hand in hand. I don't come to this forum to nod my head in agreement with every politically correct opinion, I come here to explore new ideas and see what other people are thinking. Whether that be about the Steelers or gay marriage, I'm not going to hesitate to take the conversation in a certain direction if I'm interested to. I really don't feel like the discussion on this thread got out of hand. I think it has all pertained to gay marriage for or against in one way or another. I think we drew some interesting conclusions and I've really enjoyed some of the varied responses that were posted. There are still several ideas that I'd love to see put into dialogue here but it seems as if the brakes have been tapped. To me, that's unfortunate. This is a "discussion" board after all. I thought I was tackling an interesting point of view - something beyond "Yes gay marriage should be legal because *PC talk*" or "No gay marriage should not be legal because *religious talk*." If you disagree, I truly am sorry. I know I'm not for everyone :chuckle:

I'm all for discussion...especially in the offseason when Steelers' talk is a bit tough to come by. And I don't want it to be a place where we all just pat each other on the back and never disagree. That's boring.

But I feel part of what was being discussed wasn't very constructive or relevant. It doesn't lead us any further to an answer. So we just go around in circles for two days until eventually one of the Admins gets fed up and locks the thread.

[steeldawg]

what he omitted is it is a religious ceremony , and based on the Bible that the religions are based being Gay is not permissible thus they would not / should not perform a ceremony ...

BUT we will see Gays trying to file suit against the churches for discrimination ..its just the next can of worms we will face

Marriage is only a religious ceremony if you want it to be one, If not it only requires a contract and a judge no religion is required.

[zulater]

This is exactly my point gays are no more promiscuous than straights, The thing is males are more promiscuous than woman so in a gay scenario the guy is more likely to find a willing partner. Like this a gay guy makes sexual advances at 6 guys and lands 3 , a straight guy makes sexual advances at 6 women but only lands 1, there is a difference in the number of partners but there is no difference in the promiscuity, because if women operated on the same level of promiscuity as men the number would be equal. Its evident with lesbians they have low numbers of partners and aren't very promiscuous so it has nothing to do with them being gay. someones sexual orientation has nothing to do with them being a slut.

Did it ever occur to you that it's nature's plan that men's sexual appetite is to be somewhat contained by the female? That to keep men from being total whorebag sluts, nature made it so we would have to work to obtain it. That sex isn't to be taken for granted, that in order to succeed we'd either have to stand out in some way or give something of ourselves to show ourselves worthy. Look at animals in nature. The female in heat usually doesn't hook up with the first suitor that comes along. Nature makes her more choosy than that. She looks for favorable traits that will be passed on to her brood.

Well in effect that's the way it works with hetrosexuals. And maybe as an animal species that sort of give and take is good for the mind and soul as well as your physical well being.

One last poor analogy and I'm done. :chuckle: Two men are like a highway without a speed limit or warning signs on the curves. In other words it's a wreck waiting to happen.

[zulater]

A religious take on it might be that it's God's plan that a woman saves a man from his very nature. That the right woman completes us and makes us strong enough to turn our weakness into a mutual strength. I do think that when you find the right one, the bond between a man and a woman makes both whole.