# Gay marriage legal in Massachussetts



## acludem (May 16, 2004)

Well folks, Massachussetts is marrying gay couples as of about 15 minutes ago.  The U.S. Supreme Court refused to step in and grant a stay.  Gay marriage is now legal in Massachussets, and thus far the world hasn't come to an end.  Congratulations to these couples, I wish them all the best.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4991967/

acludem


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 16, 2004)

Be patient. The World will end sooner than you think.


----------



## OCA (May 16, 2004)

GOD BLESS AMERICA! Abnormality is celebrated. Just another sign that we are on the road to ruin. 

Hey I want the right to take a big dump in the middle of the street whenever I get the notion, think I can convince somebody in Massachusets to sponsor a bill?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 16, 2004)

Oh and i just have to say thank you. Thanks for pushing one of the few issues that will take the news off the prisoner scandal and reignite the Conservative base. Looks like Bush's next four years will be certain.


----------



## dmp (May 16, 2004)

...as it was in the days of Noah...so shall it be before Christ's return.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *GOD BLESS AMERICA! Abnormality is celebrated. Just another sign that we are on the road to ruin.
> 
> Hey I want the right to take a big dump in the middle of the street whenever I get the notion, think I can convince somebody in Massachusets to sponsor a bill? *



Maybe not in Mass. but youd already have the right in San Fran.


----------



## acludem (May 16, 2004)

Massachussetts will show people that gay marriage is no threat to the sanctity of marriage.  Soon people will forget why they were opposed to gay marriage.  Just as people have forgotten why they were opposed to interracial marriage (well most people anyway).  We, here in Missouri, will have a ban on gay marriage amendment on our ballot in November, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Today is a great day for equality in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and in the United States.

acludem


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 16, 2004)

So, if you know any gay couples planning on getting married in Massachussetts, be sure to get them a nice wedding gift.  And wish them well, it's the civilised thing to do.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *GOD BLESS AMERICA! Abnormality is celebrated. Just another sign that we are on the road to ruin.
> 
> Hey I want the right to take a big dump in the middle of the street whenever I get the notion, think I can convince somebody in Massachusets to sponsor a bill? *



God knows (which one I leave up to you) you're full of it. :teeth:


----------



## acludem (May 16, 2004)

:clap1: 

acludem


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *So, if you know any gay couples planning on getting married in Massachussetts, be sure to get them a nice wedding gift.  And wish them well, it's the civilised thing to do. *



Civilized?  I doubt it.  Abnormal and against nature.... YES.

The same lefties that bitch about the "right" ruining nature, is now taking the first steps to ensure they do a more thorough job than we ever could have...


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by acludem _
> *Well folks, Massachussetts is marrying gay couples as of about 15 minutes ago.  The U.S. Supreme Court refused to step in and grant a stay.  Gay marriage is now legal in Massachussets, and thus far the world hasn't come to an end.  Congratulations to these couples, I wish them all the best.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4991967/
> ...



Good.  Finally.  I wish the happy couples wall the joy in the world.  May whatever they may believe in give them peace and happiness.  The gay couples, married to each other or not, will make no difference to the marriage I have with my wife. To this day, I will never understand the reasons why people would be opposed to gay marriages unless they were insecure in their own lives and commitments.  Anyway, congratulations to the people of Massachusetts.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by freeandfun1 _
> *Civilized?  I doubt it.  Abnormal and against nature.... YES.
> 
> The same lefties that bitch about the "right" ruining nature, is now taking the first steps to ensure they do a more thorough job than we ever could have... *



These are also the same peope who have been preaching this sexual pervsion crap for years and are shocked and upset when some soldiers in Iraq follow have listened.


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

Well.... next someone will want to marry their brother or sister. Or maybe somebody will want to marry their pet! Hell, why stop with queers, maybe some parent will want to marry their daughter or son!

If the word "marriage" can be construed any way that suits whoever it is that pushes their agenda, even if it's perverted and against nature, lets go all the way with it then. Why stop now?

BROTHERS, SISTERS, PARENTS, PETS, hell I think I want to marry a PLANET!

This unholy union between same sexes is another straw that will sooner or later break the back of America. We're just a little further down the moral toilet.


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

Now on to a much more important homosexual agenda:


http://www.bway.net/nambla.org/


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *Now on to a much more important homosexual agenda:
> 
> 
> http://www.bway.net/nambla.org/ *



And that will be next. Old men wanting to marry little boys, (micheal jackson), and old women wanting to marry little girls. And I mean "LITTLE". Like 10 or 12 years old.

Why not? It's no more perverted than two men or two women marrying. It's just another twist on the same old story. "Liberals and their push to undo anything holy".

Any marriage other than that between a MAN and a WOMAN is *SPITTING* in the Lord's face. But then, I don't see many "religous" queers. "Religon" stands in the way of them and their unholy, perverted, if it feels good do it, Satan driven ways.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *These are also the same peope who have been preaching this sexual pervsion crap for years and are shocked and upset when some soldiers in Iraq follow have listened. *



I don't recall that I've ever advocated perversion. Allowing two people of the same gender to have a loving and committed relationship which entails all of the benefits, priviledges and responsibilities that we straight folks enjoy in our marriages is something I have advocated though. 

Face it, there is no rational justification for barring the state of marriage from same gender couples...none. 

As to Abu Ghraib...That is a perversion of the first order where violence and coercion were used aginst prisoners, most of whom, by ICRC estimates are innocent. There is no moral equivalency, and for you to imply that there is suggetsts a certain level of depravity on your part.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *And that will be next. Old men wanting to marry little boys, (micheal jackson), and old women wanting to marry little girls. And I mean "LITTLE". Like 10 or 12 years old.
> 
> Why not? It's no more perverted than two men or two women marrying. It's just another twist on the same old story. "Liberals and their push to undo anything holy".
> ...



Sorry, but that argument is nothing more than a straw man, and it will not come to pass. 

As to religion, where I grew up, it was commonly held that the louder one spoke of their own piety and the sins of others, the greater were their owns sins which they were trying to conceal. You, obviously, have a good many sins to conceal.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *I don't recall that I've ever advocated perversion. Allowing two people of the same gender to have a loving and committed relationship which entails all of the benefits, priviledges and responsibilities that we straight folks enjoy in our marriages is something I have advocated though.
> 
> Face it, there is no rational justification for barring the state of marriage from same gender couples...none.
> ...



You can try to call it whatever "nice" thing you want. doesnt change that it is perversion. Nor does it change the fact that the state is not God and cannot give gay couples the same benefits privelages and responsibilities of marriage. They will never be able to create life.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Sorry, but that argument is nothing more than a straw man, and it will not come to pass.
> 
> As to religion, where I grew up, it was commonly held that the louder one spoke of their own piety and the sins of others, the greater were their owns sins which they were trying to conceal. You, obviously, have a good many sins to conceal. *



Either that or you are the one trying to justify your sins though your self righteous attitude. After all you are following the example you claim to have grown up with. The rest of us grew up in normal community where you dont redefine words or try to claim bad actions are good regardless of your own personal faults.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

There is NO VALID ARGUMENT that exists in the world today that can prove that homosexuality is normal and natural, therefore two people of the same sex getting married is not normal or natural. End of story. 

Don't try to argue it you'll only end up making yourselves look silly. 

All the people in Massachusets will end up like the people in San Francisco, with worthless pieces of paper when the constitutional ban is enacted. Sad that a bunch of ultra leftists would screw with people's lives this way.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *There is NO VALID ARGUMENT that exists in the world today that can prove that homosexuality is normal and natural, therefore two people of the same sex getting married is not normal or natural. End of story.
> 
> Don't try to argue it you'll only end up making yourselves look silly.
> ...




They want to get married because of their 'right to choose' - not biology.  

Bad precedents are being set - but nothing which wasn't warned against years ago.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *All the people in Massachusets will end up like the people in San Francisco, with worthless pieces of paper when the constitutional ban is enacted. Sad that a bunch of ultra leftists would screw with people's lives this way. *



there will be no constitutional amendment banning this. its too risky of a political venture and the requirements to amend the constitution are too demanding for the political makeup of the house and senate


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

Being gay is due to hormone levels in utero during certain points during gestation. It's not a choice. It's not definitely genetic, but it is developmental.

Choke on that, haters.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Choke on that, haters. *



and RWA delivers a stunning uppercut to his opponents.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *and RWA delivers a stunning uppercut to his opponents.  *



Stunning?  Par for the course.


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Being gay is due to hormone levels in utero during certain points during gestation. It's not a choice. It's not definitely genetic, but it is developmental.
> 
> Choke on that, haters. *



NOT all homosexuals.  I have a cousin that is gay.  He and two other cousins (born at different times and to different parents) were all taught by the same teacher at a young age.  They all (well, one has committed suicide and another has died of aids, so I guess that only leaves the living one) admitted that they felt they ended up gay because that techer molested them as children.  To deny that homosexual abuse at an early age contributes to the prevalence of homosexuality in this world is just idiotic.

I too believe that a certain % of gays ARE born that way.  We see birth  *defects* all the time.  But I also recognize that many are *taught* to be gay at an early age.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

I was in the Army with a friend who confessed he was gay - claimed his Uncle had molested him for years...

People 'choose' their behavior.  Gay is as Gay does.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom:

Marlin: "Let's watch as the other player hater allies of OCA decide if they should mimic oca's homophobia to maintain their alliance with monkeyman, oca, or  side with RWA, the one who's right.  Let's watch and take notes.  Stay down, your scent will give you away."


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

These young people are confused then. I was molested by the pastor of my church when I was 11 and I'm not gay..........so we'll rule out that being molested makes you gay.


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *These young people are confused then. I was molested by the pastor of my church when I was 11 and I'm not gay..........so we'll rule out that being molested makes you gay. *



It depends on your strength of mind and your mental capabilities.  You cannot lump all people into one category.  I did not say all I said many.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *These young people are confused then. I was molested by the pastor of my church when I was 11 and I'm not gay..........so we'll rule out that being molested makes you gay. *



WOw dk.  That must have been weird.  What was the extent of the molestation?  was it a repeated thing?  Was their inimidation?  This is not a setup to punk you out.  Though that IS something I would do.  I'm not doing it now.


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *I was in the Army with a friend who confessed he was gay - claimed his Uncle had molested him for years...
> 
> People 'choose' their behavior.  Gay is as Gay does. *



Could not agree more.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *These young people are confused then. I was molested by the pastor of my church when I was 11 and I'm not gay..........so we'll rule out that being molested makes you gay. *



It's about 'factors' here.  I'd wager the majority of Homosexuals suffer from issues with parents, issues with love, homelife, confusion about love, attraction; I'd suspect a large portion were subjected to repeated sexual abuse - there could be a myriad of circumstances which lead ppl to homoseuxal acts.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *RWA - Poetic as usual! *



I am humbled, prostrate before the best mod in the world, Emperor Evil! 

There's a promotion in the cards for you, sir.  I can feel it.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

Oh - only dumb people assign the label 'homophobic' to people who believe 'science' and 'biology' over 'liberal agenda'.



I'm not scared of guys who love cock.  I've met a few who are very attractive people - great personalities, great minds - just a jacked up view about themselves.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *WOw dk.  That must have been weird.  What was the extent of the molestation?  was it a repeated thing?  Was their inimidation?  This is not a setup to punk you out.  Though that IS something I would do.  I'm not doing it now. *



It happened during the summer before I turned twelve. It lasted all summer. It wasn't intimidation though. The pastor capitalized on the situation I was in because my parents had just divorced and I no longer had a father or a father figure around to guide me. I'd rather not go into the extent of the molestation because its still somewhat unsettling to me even though I've come to terms with most of it. 

I was able to stop it by simply not going to the church anymore. In later years I wish I would have said something back then because I found out that I certainly wasn't the only one he victimized. I guess that I became an easy victim because I didn't have a correct male guidance in my life.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *It's about 'factors' here.  I'd wager the majority of Homosexuals suffer from issues with parents, issues with love, homelife, confusion about love, attraction; I'd suspect a large portion were subjected to repeated sexual abuse - there could be a myriad of circumstances which lead ppl to homoseuxal acts. *



Plus, their brains are more feminized/masculinized due to hormones exposure in utero.  Not to dismiss your environmental factors, but this is a BIG DEAL.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

That guy was an asshole.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *RW - humoring me I can see, but hey that's the best part of reading your replies! *



I actually prefer good times and harmony, these days will come, after we eliminate  the red threat and reelect George Bush.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Being gay is due to hormone levels in utero during certain points during gestation. It's not a choice. It's not definitely genetic, but it is developmental.
> 
> Choke on that, haters. *



Theory and supposition again Mr. liberal. Sorry but the burden of proof lies with your side not ours. Thanks again and better luck next time playing homosexual apologies!


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Plus, their brains are more feminized/masculinized due to hormones exposure in utero.  Not to dismiss your environmental factors, but this is a BIG DEAL. *



RWA where is your unarguable, set in stone, disproveable facts. Oh sorry they don't exist except in somebody's personal opinion column. Thanks again, better luck next time.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Theory and supposition again Mr. liberal. Sorry but the burden of proof lies with your side not ours. Thanks again and better luck next time playing homosexual apologies! *



the internet is replete with similar studies and similar conclusions.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm

"Two lines of evidence suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by innate processes: neuroendocrine (including neuroanatomical) and genetic studies. Neuroendocrine theories are more fully developed and have spurred far more research. At the same time, however, cumulative empirical support for neuroendocrine influences is perhaps more tenuous than that for genetic influences. "


I'm just wondering, oca, are you going to do your idiot monkey routine for us today?  That's a good one.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *and RWA delivers a stunning uppercut to his opponents.  *



Question: doesn't something have to be factual in order to be an uppercut? Or are we all giving in to theory and supposition in order to be seen as "PC"?

Reminder being gay will be assumed to be a lifestyle choice until proven otherwise. They've been trying for decades to prove otherwise, hasn't happened yet so logic would take you to my side.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *RWA where is your unarguable, set in stone, disproveable facts. Oh sorry they don't exist except in somebody's personal opinion column. Thanks again, better luck next time. *



Act 1 in the "Idiot Monkey Routine".


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Question: doesn't something have to be factual in order to be an uppercut? Or are we all giving in to theory and supposition in order to be seen as "PC"?
> 
> Reminder being gay will be assumed to be a lifestyle choice until proven otherwise. They've been trying for decades to prove otherwise, hasn't happened yet so logic would take you to my side. *



Act II.  The monkey gets edgy, and tries in vain to solve complications.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *the internet is replete with similar studies and similar conclusions.
> 
> http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm
> ...



Do I need to explain the differences to you in set in stone facts and personal opinion?

RWA come with your guns loaded or don't come at all. You're making yourself look worse than usual.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Question: doesn't something have to be factual in order to be an uppercut? Or are we all giving in to theory and supposition in order to be seen as "PC"?
> 
> Reminder being gay will be assumed to be a lifestyle choice until proven otherwise. They've been trying for decades to prove otherwise, hasn't happened yet so logic would take you to my side. *



all points of view on being gay are theory at this point. we've already seen that in some cases people have said they are gay because they were molested, I've already disproven that. 

-=d=- has it right when he said 'gay is as gay does'. so far theres theory based on scientific evidence that can give credence to that burgeoning theory.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Act III- I yet again wipe New Age's ass all over USMB for the hundredth time.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *all points of view on being gay are theory at this point. we've already seen that in some cases people have said they are gay because they were molested, I've already disproven that.
> 
> -=d=- has it right when he said 'gay is as gay does'. so far theres theory based on scientific evidence that can give credence to that burgeoning theory. *



Nope, all points of view are not theory and supposition. Until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a choice for whatever reason it will remain a dangerous and reckless lifestyle choice.

Now somebody please prove how a guy fucking another guy in the ass is natural and normal.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Act III- I yet again wipe New Age's ass all over USMB for the hundredth time. *



Please use the double quilted, ass servant.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nope, all points of view are not theory and supposition. Until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a choice for whatever reason it will remain a dangerous and reckless lifestyle choice.
> 
> Now somebody please prove how a guy fucking another guy in the ass is natural and normal. *



I'm oca.    I think using more words and acting like a low class bigot makes me more right.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Anybody ever hear of the time RWA hit on Aquarian our openly gay member? LMAO! I'm guessing that RWA likes to suck cock and rim assholes, whadda y'all think?


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *I'm oca.    I think using more words and acting like a low class bigot makes me more right. *



I'm RWA and I think discriminating against minorities is cool. I also believe that if I can get people to falsely believe OCA discriminates against whites I can deflect attention away from my agreements with D and Willie on race.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Anybody ever hear of the time RWA hit on Aquarian our openly gay member? LMAO! I'm guessing that RWA likes to suck cock and rim assholes, whadda y'all think? *




He just seemed like a chick, for some reason.   Maybe I picked up on his gayness.  I'm not ashamed, it was a mistake.  You got something else?  That's pathetic monkey man.  Are you sure you don't believe in evolution?  It may be your only hope for improvement.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *I'm oca.    I think using more words and acting like a low class bigot makes me more right. *




hah.

:-/

He's got a point.  The point is:  Homosexuals want acceptence for their behaviour.  Pedophiles want acceptence for their behaviour.  Murders want acceptence for their behaviour.  Con-Men want acceptence for thiers.  Liars for theirs.

Instead of simply stating "We love a cock in our anus", they cry that they are 'victims' of their genetics - which has NO basis in scientific or biological fact.    To allow one's PREFERED method of obtaining sexual pleasure should be condoned or supported is ridiculous.   I'd wager those who practice beastiality can argue that since their dog humps their leg, it's offering consent for the human to hump back.

Slippery slope when we stop drawing lines.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nope, all points of view are not theory and supposition. Until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a choice for whatever reason it will remain a dangerous and reckless lifestyle choice.
> 
> Now somebody please prove how a guy fucking another guy in the ass is natural and normal. *



why did you not pay any attention to what it is I really posted?

For one, homosexuality isn't any more reckless and dangerous than a heterosexual promiscuous lifestyle.

For two, homosexuality as a choice is as much a theory and unprovable as hormonal utero development is. Theres more science to side the scale on utero development though.

Three, if you need to have it shown to you beyond a shadow of a doubt, how can you lay claim to choice being the total proof you need?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I'm RWA and I think discriminating against minorities is cool. I also believe that if I can get people to falsely believe OCA discriminates against whites I can deflect attention away from my agreements with D and Willie on race. *



Nope.  I'm the one against discrimination,  you're for it.  Affirmative action is racial discrimination.  You support it.  Denial ain't just a river in egypt, monkeyTumor.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

btw - this thread is now a bitching match..and it sucks.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *why did you not pay any attention to what it is I really posted?
> 
> For one, homosexuality isn't any more reckless and dangerous than a heterosexual promiscuous lifestyle.
> ...



He's a f$cking idiot,  that's how.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

KL Rings the Bell.....DING DING DING DING DINGGGGG!

Round 5,343, 691, 200


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *RW - I was unaware of this attempted pick - up job!  Please refer me to the thread so I may print it out for a good laugh when I need one! *



I don't even remember.  It was funny though.  I deserve a little busting on it, for sure.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *KL Rings the Bell.....DING DING DING DING DINGGGGG!
> 
> Round 5,343, 691, 200 *



now walk around the ring with the round # sign in your blue bikini


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *btw - this thread is now a bitching match..and it sucks.
> 
> *



You suck, bitch.

"Did  I do that?" - erkel, family matters.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *
> For one, homosexuality isn't any more reckless and dangerous than a heterosexual promiscuous lifestyle.
> *



whoa there...that is NOT the case..not in the least.

Good reading:

http://www.homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

For those who don't wish to travel to the link:



> Introduction
> 
> A Hawaii court recently ruled that same-sex couples cannot be refused marriage licenses, and last year the United States Congress passed legislation designed to give states the right to deny recognition of such "marriages" conducted in another state. Homosexual activists said years ago that this decade would indeed be the "gay" nineties, and with each passing year, homosexuality and gay rights has become more and more a part of mainstream America. Today many Americans are asking, "Is there really anything wrong with homosexuality?"
> 
> ...



That's all that would fit in this post


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *now walk around the ring with the round # sign in your blue bikini   *



The blue one, eh?  In here?????   No fucking way!


LMAO


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *For two, homosexuality as a choice is as much a theory and unprovable as hormonal utero development is.*



Are you saying that ANY choice is just a theory?  If so, you are now saying that we have NO control over our own minds.  Scary.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *whoa there...that is NOT the case..not in the least.
> 
> 
> is so*


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *why did you not pay any attention to what it is I really posted?
> 
> For one, homosexuality isn't any more reckless and dangerous than a heterosexual promiscuous lifestyle.
> ...



Because it isn't natural or normal in any way, shape or form. Just like it is not natural for humans to get hooked on heroin but they still do it. Or should we try and find a predisposition excuse for that lifestyle choice also?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

Promiscuity is a bad choice for either population.  So what.  This has no bearing on causes of homosexuality.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *
> 
> 
> ...




NICE come back 

Read my edit to that reply.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

Im going to give you guys the bottom line here (no pun intended) .

This is something that could be debated for the rest of your life between you, and the other guy will never see the other side.  That is directed to ANY of you. period.

Moving on.....


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Because it isn't natural or normal in any way, shape or form. Just like it is not natural for humans to get hooked on heroin but they still do it. Or should we try and find a predisposition excuse for that lifestyle choice also? *



It is natural is if it's due to natural developmental fluctations.  There have always been gays, it's always been natural.  Quit hating.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

d - I dont wanna read it.

Id rather just say 'is so'

is so is so is so is so

neener

(Im contributing to the extreme intelligence of this thread.
besides its fun to say 'is so' and 'neener'  -  try it.  you'll have a good giggle.  really.)


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> * I guess that I became an easy victim because I didn't have a correct male guidance in my life. *


 This why it is so important to have laws against homosexuality.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

SE - LOL


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Im going to give you guys the bottom line here (no pun intended) .
> 
> This is something that could be debated for the rest of your life between you, and the other guy will never see the other side.  That is directed to ANY of you. period.
> ...



But the point kl is that people who don't know where they stand or what they think will think about these things.  OCA and I are doing this for the people.  We are noble warriors in the ideological war, and I respect OCA for his warrior's tenacity.  I know in some warped way he thinks he's doing good.  And he is good, good at letting others see the vast superiority of my cogitations.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *d - I dont wanna read it.
> 
> Id rather just say 'is so'
> ...



lol  Head in the Sand is AWESOME

:-D


:muchlove:


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

d:




neener


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by freeandfun1 _
> *Are you saying that ANY choice is just a theory?  If so, you are now saying that we have NO control over our own minds.  Scary. *



I'm saying that choice as the sole means of deciding homosexuality is theory, not that choice for anything is a theory.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener
neener


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Because it isn't natural or normal in any way, shape or form. Just like it is not natural for humans to get hooked on heroin but they still do it. Or should we try and find a predisposition excuse for that lifestyle choice also? *



I dost think you are confusing what I've said for what you want to think I said. 

I didn't say it was natural or normal, I said that the idea of homosexuality developing in utero is as much a theory as choosing to be homosexual.

Natural and normal was never brought into it by me.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I'm saying that choice as the sole means of deciding homosexuality is theory, not that choice for anything is a theory. *



The world WAS Flat until somebody proved it otherwise.

Homosexual people are they way they are because they enjoy what they do...no other reason.  If they didn't enjoy it, they'd stop.

Simple.  They PREFER to engage in homoseuxal acts.  The very nature of the label they apply to themselves shows that.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

Mr Right Wing Man,

See?  I told you it was fun :


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *It's the spice of life!  we dont have to choose a side to laugh like hell here! *



SOOOOO true!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Fantastic - please do more for uspeople reading, it is becoming very worth of a high rating! *



I do what I can.  I only do what I am capable of doing.  In those endeavors in which I am incapable, I will defer to higher levels of incapability:OCA.


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I'm saying that choice as the sole means of deciding homosexuality is theory, not that choice for anything is a theory. *



Okay, so if they cannot decide to NOT do something which EVERYBODY knows is not natural, then they must be brain damaged (defective).  That is the only conclusion one can draw.

Now, whether that defect is from raised hormone levels while in the uterus or environmental factors during life, the outcome is the same.  Therefore, in either case, they have become defective as human beings.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I'm saying that choice as the sole means of deciding homosexuality is theory, not that choice for anything is a theory. *



DK, do you believe that homosexuality is normal or abnormal? Forgetting everything else, all the other bs, just the fact of two men or two women fornicating together, normal or abnormal?


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

Several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual... It is impossible to determine the number of male paedophiles, but they may constitute as much as 10% of male homosexuals.

Why is it that homosexuals though being a small percent of the population, are the ONLY group of people that have ever formed a national association in hopes of trying to eliminate the legal consent age for children to have sex?

http://www.bway.net/nambla.org/


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

normal? abnormal?

If homosexuality isnt normal whatever that means, please tell me why its ok for 2 women to be going at it in the porn that most guys love to look at AND fantasize about being in the middle of it?

Just curious


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *DK, do you believe that homosexuality is normal or abnormal? Forgetting everything else, all the other bs, just the fact of two men or two women fornicating together, normal or abnormal? *



Yes.  let's reduce the question to a matter of blind bigotry and reactionaryism.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *normal? abnormal?
> 
> If homosexuality isnt normal whatever that means, please tell me why its ok for 2 women to be going at it in the porn that most guys love to look at AND fantasize about being in the middle of it?
> ...



Cuz some of those women are hot?

(shrug).



Nobody likes to see two ugly fat chicks going at it - cept perhaps Jim


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *normal? abnormal?
> 
> If homosexuality isnt normal whatever that means, please tell me why its ok for 2 women to be going at it in the porn that most guys love to look at AND fantasize about being in the middle of it?
> ...



You answer your own question when you say ".... that most guys love to look at AND *fantasize* about....

Fantasizing and acting are two different matters. 

Can a male get a male pregnant?  That is the only measure I need to know to know that it is NOT normal or natural.


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *normal? abnormal?
> 
> If homosexuality isnt normal whatever that means, please tell me why its ok for 2 women to be going at it in the porn that most guys love to look at AND fantasize about being in the middle of it?
> ...


 Because ramming a penis into a anus causing blood and stool to mix, would only turn a homo on.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I dost think you are confusing what I've said for what you want to think I said.
> 
> I didn't say it was natural or normal, I said that the idea of homosexuality developing in utero is as much a theory as choosing to be homosexual.
> ...



See, logic says that as a human being we were born with the innate urge to breed with the opposite sex, well biology says that also, so if those two factors are really insisputable than the lifestyle choice really doesn't have to prove anything because those are two pretty strong arguments right there. If we are animals and born with the mating sense and seeing as how you can't brred with your same sex then ta da! Choice.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *Because ramming a penis into a anus causing blood and stool to mix, would only turn a homo on. *




eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

If a guy really cares about another guy, 

he would not fuck him up the ass.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> Fantasizing and acting are two different matters.



So if you had the chance to be the lone man in a bisexual/lesbian love fest - with both of them going nuts all over each other AND you, you wouldnt do it?


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *So if you had the chance to be the lone man in a bisexual/lesbian love fest - with both of them going nuts all over each other AND you, you wouldnt do it? *



A couple of years ago, I would have said, "hell ya".  But not any more.

But if I did, it would be my CHOICE.  Not because I was "born" to do it that way.


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

Name the time and place.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *normal? abnormal?
> 
> If homosexuality isnt normal whatever that means, please tell me why its ok for 2 women to be going at it in the porn that most guys love to look at AND fantasize about being in the middle of it?
> ...



Well, as much as I liked being with two ladies on a couple of occasions neither occasion involved them going at it with each other, it was strictly females on male I personally ff past the lesbo scenes in my skin flicks as I like to see an end result


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

That was a good answer - I see your point.

Note - I said I SEE your point....I even respect it.
I am not against homosexual marriage though, and I dont expect that to change.  

But you made yoour point - thanks 

*this is directed to freedom*


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *See, logic says that as a human being we were born with the innate urge to breed with the opposite sex,
> 
> *


*
No.  Some are born with different urges.  Logic is silent on the topic.



			well biology says that also, so if those two factors are really insisputable than the lifestyle choice really doesn't have to prove anything because those are two pretty strong arguments right there.
		
Click to expand...

*
Maybe these are natural population controls.  Jever think of that, Wisenstein?


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

Two girls is different, because they do not inflict the damage that is caused by to males ripping each others anus apart in attempts to impregnate each others fecal matter.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

so its ok as long as they (the 2 men) do not engage in anal sex?  
Oral is ok?


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Why is it more important to liberals to be seen as PC than to make a simple choice between normal and abnormal concerning homosexuality?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Visually disgusting Big's, but I think it's a sense of homosexualality any way you slice it! *



Please don't discuss the scents of homosexuality.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

SE - I love your quote !!!!  :rotflmao:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Why is it more important to liberals to be seen as PC than to make a simple choice between normal and abnormal concerning homosexuality? *



How about a simple choice about race based discrimination?  Is it right or wrong?  That's the simple choice I'd like YOU to make.  Since we're comparing wish lists.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *No.  Some are born with different urges.  Logic is silent on the topic.
> 
> 
> Maybe these are natural population controls.  Jever think of that, Wisenstein? *



Nice try at grabbing straws. Better luck next time. Maybe you ought to leave this thread to the big boys and go play with the tonka trucks.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nice try at grabbing straws. Better luck next time. Maybe you ought to leave this thread to the big boys and go play with the tonka trucks. *



Nice usage of the most worn out metaphor known to man.

Maybe you and the big boys should go in the backroom and discuss changing some of your previous choices, so you could get to know each other better.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *How about a simple choice about race based discrimination?  Is it right or wrong?  That's the simple choice I'd like YOU to make.  Since we're comparing wish lists. *



AA isn't raced based discrimination therefore it is a complete and ridiculous fallacy that I support race based discrimination. But by all means change the subject if you think it will deflect attention away from the pummelling you are taking here.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *No worries, the visuals are bad enough not sure that I could handle the scents! *



What's that smell, it smells like beef and vaseline.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *AA isn't raced based discrimination therefore it is a complete and ridiculous fallacy that I support race based discrimination. But by all means change the subject if you think it will deflect attention away from the pummelling you are taking here. *



It is race based discrimination.  It's primary effect is to be discriminatory.  So it's not really fallacious.  You support racial discrimination.  If you want to argue that it's not THAT MUCH racial discrimination, that's a fair argument,  but I hate seeing you lie to yourself and others.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

SE - about pissing on your castle  LMAO


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Please don't discuss the scents of homosexuality. *



Yeah dammit! You are giving RWA a stiffy and he can't type and spank it at the same time.

BTW RWA I will not fly to Atlanta and fuck your ass just because you beg me in a PM, I cannot be bought off!


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *What's that smell, it smells like beef and vaseline. *



eeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Yeah dammit! You are giving RWA a stiffy and he can't type and spank it at the same time.
> 
> BTW RWA I will not fly to Atlanta and fuck your ass just because you beg me in a PM, I cannot be bought off! *



Act  III, full transformation into monkey-like imbecile.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *It is race based discrimination.  It's primary effect is to be discriminatory.  So it's not really fallacious.  You support racial discrimination.  If you want to argue that it's not THAT MUCH racial discrimination, that's a fair argument,  but I hate seeing you lie to yourself and others. *



Oh *sigh* everyone knows that i'm not discriminatory nor is AA in most cases discriminatory against whites but by all means continue on with your irrational rant little guy.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Oh *sigh* everyone knows that i'm not discriminatory nor is AA in most cases discriminatory against whites but by all means continue on with your irrational rant little guy. *



Yeah.  Sometimes white people get jobs,  so i guess your full race based lockout is yet to be achieved.  Better luck with your agenda going forward,  Malcolm.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *DK, do you believe that homosexuality is normal or abnormal? Forgetting everything else, all the other bs, just the fact of two men or two women fornicating together, normal or abnormal? *



I refuse to label something as 'normal' or 'abnormal' except to say that its normal that dogs chase cats, cats chase birds and mice, and that, as a norm, humans don't know what they want most of the time.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I refuse to label something as 'normal' or 'abnormal' except to say that its normal that dogs chase cats, cats chase birds and mice, and that, as a norm, humans don't know what they want most of the time. *



at the risk of being accused of siding only with my husbnad, I have to rate this response:

     

very good point


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *My God RW - You had to have your own visual for that statement! *



Men don't kiss and tell.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *Because ramming a penis into a anus causing blood and stool to mix, would only turn a homo on. *



as if anyone would be turned on by you describing it that way.


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Being gay is due to hormone levels in utero during certain points during gestation. It's not a choice. It's not definitely genetic, but it is developmental.
> 
> Choke on that, haters. *



That's why it should be treated as the sickness it is at first symptoms, "LIKE IT USED TO BE".


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *as if anyone would be turned on by you describing it that way. *



Yes.  Big d should write homosexual romance novels in his brusque tones.  They'll peg him as a top, fer sure.


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *and RWA delivers a stunning uppercut to his opponents.  *



And I counter with a "RIGHT CROSS". 

Take that "heterosexual haters".


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Yeah.  Sometimes white people get jobs,  so i guess your full race based lockout is yet to be achieved.  Better luck with your agenda going forward,  Malcolm. *



I hate to tell ya but most people just laugh at the words "discrimination against Whites". What the hell is wrong with ya? Look around, how many white ghettoes you see? Give me the unemployment percentages and let me know how many whites compared to minorities are unemployed, leaving your unemployable, lazy ass out of it. Dude you are wrong, give up your ridiculous fucking rants and get on with whatever you have left of your little, pathetic life. Quit fucking up threads on here with your bullshit!


----------



## acludem (May 17, 2004)

Well, I see you all have covered the usuals, the right's constant need to use pedophilia as a red herring to cover up their simple hatred for gay people.  Then we've gotten into the anal sex debate, I'll simply remind Big D and others, that many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex as well, so that argument is dead.  So far, as usual, I have heard NO evidence and NO logical argument that marriage between two non-related adults of the same gender will cause some sort of moral upheaval.  It's been 12 hours now, and the world is still spinning at it's normal rate.

acludem


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *And I counter with a "RIGHT CROSS".
> 
> Take that "heterosexual haters". *



I have issues with gays, especially of the activist persuasion, and because they're usually libs.  I don't want  teachers counselling my kids to get acquainted with all persuasions before they "decide" what persuasion they are.  That teacher will get the full bipartisan asswhipping.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I refuse to label something as 'normal' or 'abnormal' except to say that its normal that dogs chase cats, cats chase birds and mice, and that, as a norm, humans don't know what they want most of the time. *



In this area humans do know what they want, its preordained for male and female to be together, some just choose to engage in behavior contrary to their instincts.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by acludem _
> *Well, I see you all have covered the usuals, the right's constant need to use pedophilia as a red herring to cover up their simple hatred for gay people.  Then we've gotten into the anal sex debate, I'll simply remind Big D and others, that many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex as well, so that argument is dead.  So far, as usual, I have heard NO evidence and NO logical argument that marriage between two non-related adults of the same gender will cause some sort of moral upheaval.  It's been 12 hours now, and the world is still spinning at it's normal rate.
> 
> acludem *



You have heard logical argument - mostly in other threads of yore...but you choose to ignore the evidence.

(shrug).


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by acludem _
> *Well, I see you all have covered the usuals, the right's constant need to use pedophilia as a red herring to cover up their simple hatred for gay people.  Then we've gotten into the anal sex debate, I'll simply remind Big D and others, that many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex as well, so that argument is dead.  So far, as usual, I have heard NO evidence and NO logical argument that marriage between two non-related adults of the same gender will cause some sort of moral upheaval.  It's been 12 hours now, and the world is still spinning at it's normal rate.
> 
> acludem *



It's really more of a symptom, proof our society is in decline.  The left is using homosexuality promotion as a form of  eugenics against predominantly white nations.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

Im sure everyone will miss my pearls of wisdom, but I must gracefully bow out at this time.  Yknow, I gots things to do.

 

Have fun, guys


----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)




----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)

[saddam is getting married


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *In this area humans do know what they want, its preordained for male and female to be together, some just choose to engage in behavior contrary to their instincts. *



I hate to bust your bubble on this OCA, but its not a 'human' trait to have male/female only joinings. Thats all sexual reproducing species period. 

You're trying to take a pre-disposed notion of the animal kingdom, reproduction, and humans and say that its the way it should be so anything else is a choice. People CHOOSE to kill, does that mean the insanity defense should be thrown out entirely then?


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I hate to bust your bubble on this OCA, but its not a 'human' trait to have male/female only joinings. Thats all sexual reproducing species period.
> 
> You're trying to take a pre-disposed notion of the animal kingdom, reproduction, and humans and say that its the way it should be so anything else is a choice. People CHOOSE to kill, does that mean the insanity defense should be thrown out entirely then? *



Taking what you've written WAY OUT On a limb, and out of context, (just like a liberal eh? ) 

You are saying that Gay people are insane.



If they are insane, their contracts are invalid.

No homo-marriage.

Frankly? I'd support homo-marriage if they gave up ANY and EVERY right to be a parent.  It'd be better for a child in a homo-family, to die of SIDS than to grow up twisted and mentally fucked.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *Taking what you've written WAY OUT On a limb, and out of context, (just like a liberal eh? )
> 
> You are saying that Gay people are insane.
> ...



Yes.  Mind the breeze, monkey boy!


----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *Taking what you've written WAY OUT On a limb, and out of context, (just like a liberal eh? )
> 
> You are saying that Gay people are insane.
> ...



What are you on?
:


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *normal? abnormal?
> 
> If homosexuality isnt normal whatever that means,[/i]please tell me why its ok for 2 women to be going at it in the porn that most guys love to look at AND fantasize about being in the middle of it?
> ...



There's one problem right there. You don't know what "normal" is.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *Taking what you've written WAY OUT On a limb, and out of context, (just like a liberal eh? )
> 
> You are saying that Gay people are insane.
> ...



talk about taking out of context........

I simply pointed out that choices are not the end all answer for abnormal behavior. Brain chemistry imbalances can account for some of this in various things ranging from murder to homosexuality to kleptomania and schizophrenia


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *talk about taking out of context........
> 
> I simply pointed out that choices are not the end all answer for abnormal behavior. Brain chemistry imbalances can account for some of this in various things ranging from murder to homosexuality to kleptomania and schizophrenia *




Of course I was taking it out of context, hence my words "Taken COMPLETELY out of context" etc..   I was putting a 'liberal spin' on your words.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *There's one problem right there. You don't know what "normal" is. *



who does? and if they say they do, who are they to say that?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *Of course I was taking it out of context, hence my words "Taken COMPLETELY out of context" etc..   I was putting a 'liberal spin' on your words.
> 
> *



good one :


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *who does? and if they say they do, who are they to say that? *




People today use that line to justify all sorts of behaviour. 

"...if you don't have sense enough to come in, out of the rain..."

(sigh)


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Yep, insanity is a bullshit plea. Oh it may apply to 1 out of every 100 cases its tried and used but its completely abused by defense lawyers. 

So let me get this straight, humans are animals, all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed and reproduce with the opposite sex, this really isn't arguable as when was the last time or ever you heard of two stud horses jumping each other in a field, so if we are animals with reasoning skills how does that make homosexuality anything other than a choice?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *People today use that line to justify all sorts of behaviour.
> 
> "...if you don't have sense enough to come in, out of the rain..."
> ...



granted, there are some lines that don't need to be crossed but really now.......must we define 'normal' in such a narrow way?


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *granted, there are some lines that don't need to be crossed but really now.......must we define 'normal' in such a narrow way? *



Yes.

Normal is easy to define.

Take the behavior that MOST people do.  Those behaviours become 'Normal'. 

1-5% of our population loves to have sex w/ others of the same gender.  

That is 'abnormal'.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Yep, insanity is a bullshit plea. Oh it may apply to 1 out of every 100 cases its tried and used but its completely abused by defense lawyers.
> 
> So let me get this straight, humans are animals, all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed and reproduce with the opposite sex, this really isn't arguable as when was the last time or ever you heard of two stud horses jumping each other in a field, so if we are animals with reasoning skills how does that make homosexuality anything other than a choice? *



so because lawyers abuse the insanity defense we should declare everybody sane regardless? 

and I've never seen two stud horsed try to mate with each other, but I've seen some pretty stupid dogs try to do this with each other, and then theres this rotten cat I know with an affinity for pillows, but I guess the cats of sound mind and body and can be held accountable for his choices also, right?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Yep, insanity is a bullshit plea. Oh it may apply to 1 out of every 100 cases its tried and used but its completely abused by defense lawyers.
> 
> So let me get this straight, humans are animals, all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed and reproduce with the opposite sex, this really isn't arguable as when was the last time or ever you heard of two stud horses jumping each other in a field, so if we are animals with reasoning skills how does that make homosexuality anything other than a choice? *



I agree with monkeyman on this one.  Fry violent idiots,  crazies too.



"all animals are born with a predisposed instinct to breed an reproduce with the opposite sex"  actually you cannot use this as a premise in your sillyjism; this is what's up for debate in this thread.


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *granted, there are some lines that don't need to be crossed but really now.......must we define 'normal' in such a narrow way? *



Yes. Be deffinite. Leave no gray area. People seem to get confused on this too easily.

MAN was intended to be married to a WOMAN! What is so hard for liberals to understand about that? Why do they INSIST on TEARING DOWN what sacred vestiges of holiness MARRIAGE posseses?

What part about a "Civil Union" didn't they like, when they would have been given ALL the legal benefits of "marriage"?

What is it about "marriage" that they feel the need to destroy it?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Yes. Be deffinite. Leave no gray area. People seem to get confused on this too easily.
> 
> MAN was intended to be married to a WOMAN! What is so hard for liberals to understand about that? Why do they INSIST on TEARING DOWN what sacred vestiges of holiness MARRIAGE posseses?
> ...



While I will not engage in the normal/abnormal debate, I will say that there is a definite hatred of strong families which emanates  from the left.  The nuclear family is the main competitor with government on instilling values.  What's good for the citizenry is not always the best thing for egomaniacal liberals bent on destroying society.  Therein lies the tension.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Yes. Be deffinite. Leave no gray area. People seem to get confused on this too easily.
> 
> MAN was intended to be married to a WOMAN! What is so hard for liberals to understand about that? Why do they INSIST on TEARING DOWN what sacred vestiges of holiness MARRIAGE posseses?
> ...



I disagree about being so definitive and leaving no gray area.

I wish I knew what it was they weren't happy with about the 'civil union' though. Never could understand that part. 

and about destroying marriage? do you really think they could do any more damage than what has already been done by the heterosexual crowd?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *While I will not engage in the normal/abnormal debate, I will say that there is a definite hatred of strong families which emanates  from the left.  The nuclear family is the main competitor with government on instilling values.  What's good for the citizenry is not always the best thing for egomaniacal liberals bent on destroying society.  Therein lies the tension. *



I would also have to say that whats good for the egocentric right wing is not always the best thing for society as well, but they are usually bent on destroying other societies since they don't work with ours.


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

But the "heterosexual crowd" is who marriage was intended for. So whether they've done a good job or bad job with it really isn't relavent.

That's the issue here. _WHY DO QUEERS NEED TO BE *MARRIED* WHEN UNDER A CIVIL UNION THEY WOULD HAVE HAD ALL THE SAME LEGAL BENEFITS?_

I see it as just another liberal attack on something "Christians" hold dear and sacred. They want to CHEAPEN it and DRAG IT INTO THE GUTTER with them. That's the way I see it.

Personally, I could give a rats ass if two same sex people want to live together, or be joined in civil union and get "marriad" people's benefits. SO WHAT?

It's all about the "word" MARRIAGE!


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *But the "heterosexual crowd" is who marriage was intended for. So whether they've done a good job or bad job with it really isn't relavent.*



then the argument that they will destroy marriage isn't relevant either, is it?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I would also have to say that whats good for the egocentric right wing is not always the best thing for society as well, but they are usually bent on destroying other societies since they don't work with ours. *



Societies focused on individual rights and free markets are superior in every demonstrable way, at all stratas of society, and for society as a whole.  We would be happy to not destroy other societies, my problem is their desire to destroy us.  

Now bring up the patriot act and say it's no better than saddam.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *then the argument that they will destroy marriage isn't relevant either, is it? *




(sigh) 

I was searching and found a thread by a guy named 'dmp' - he pointed out some very real concerns with homosexual marriage.


Look it up


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Now bring up the patriot act and say it's no better than saddam. *



uh,  ok. 

Patriot Act is no better than Saddam.


now, what the hell did that mean anyway?


----------



## 007 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *then the argument that they will destroy marriage isn't relevant either, is it? *



You're twisting DK. Marriage was intended for a "MAN" and a "WOMAN". THAT IS MARRIAGE. Marriage is NOT two MEN or two WOMEN. How many times and how many ways does that need to be said?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *uh,  ok.
> 
> Patriot Act is no better than Saddam.
> ...



What's important here is your willingness to just do what I say.

Dance, Rummy, dance!


----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)

Why do you care so much?

50% of marriages end in divorce.
I think it's time for a marriage makeover.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Why do you care so much?
> 
> 50% of marriages end in divorce.
> I think it's time for a marriage makeover. *



Nah,  that's a little too "jenny jones" for me.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *then the argument that they will destroy marriage isn't relevant either, is it? *



Now THIS is a good point.


----------



## dilloduck (May 17, 2004)

DAMN  going so fast I had to just jump way out here.  Genetics or Learned who cares! Gay marriage is just the liberals way of making sure that everyone should have anything they want. They have used this issue this time. Prior to this they used race,money etc. Socialism will kill the spirit


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Why do you care so much?
> 
> 50% of marriages end in divorce.
> I think it's time for a marriage makeover. *




With higher incidents of domestic violence, disease, and other social and health issues, allowing homomarriage is somehow supposed to help?


----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Nah,  that's a little too "jenny jones" for me. *



He-he.
Seriously, though...
An institution so sacred it only lasts half of the time.

I think the playing field is just being evened.


----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *With higher incidents of domestic violence, disease, and other social and health issues, allowing homomarriage is somehow supposed to help? *



Boy you're an inelligent one aren't you,  Big D.


----------



## dilloduck (May 17, 2004)

If any married people even try to make a comparison between the two, shame on them. Be glad you have what you have and ignore the wanna-haves. First gay divorce-----what a headline !!!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *He-he.
> Seriously, though...
> An institution so sacred it only lasts half of the time.
> ...



I think gays love pissing off the squares with shit like this.  This is symbolic for both sides.  It was a good move on the dems part to bring the bigoted ugly side of the right out during the election year.  Kudos!  Maybe this will backfire though.

Let's not play into this, Ok guys.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Boy you're an inelligent one aren't you,  Big D. *


Are you saying that homosexual couples do NOT have higher rates of domestic violence, and homosexuals in general do NOT represent a larger portion of people infected with certain STDs??

I'm pretty intelligent - it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to read and interpret data.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *You're twisting DK. Marriage was intended for a "MAN" and a "WOMAN". THAT IS MARRIAGE. Marriage is NOT two MEN or two WOMEN. How many times and how many ways does that need to be said? *



call it twisting all you want. The fact of the matter is, whether anyone thinks its wrong or right, using the argument 'destroys the fabric of marriage' is irrelevant as you've pointed out. Just use the argument that its wrong, don't 'twist' another argument that is useless into it.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *What's important here is your willingness to just do what I say.
> *



just so long as you notice that I did it knowing it wouldn't have an implications to me directly. passing the buck, you know. :


----------



## dilloduck (May 17, 2004)

It'll still be called gay marriage which is "different" than your plain ole vanilla marriage. I hope they are happy and find out that gay marriage doesn't protect you from losing you spouse any more than vanilla marriage does. Give the gays some time to learn from thier mistake and the libs can move on to the next "unfair" piece of shit to bitch about


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *It'll still be called gay marriage which is "different" than your plain ole vanilla marriage. I hope they are happy and find out that gay marriage doesn't protect you from losing you spouse any more than vanilla marriage does. Give the gays some time to learn from thier mistake and the libs can move on to the next "unfair" piece of shit to bitch about *



gay and lesbian adoption is on the next ticket after right to die causes.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *gay and lesbian adoption is on the next ticket after right to die causes. *


again - this is sickening. (sigh)...

I'd rather a kid be raised by terrorists.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *again - this is sickening. (sigh)...
> 
> I'd rather a kid be raised by terrorists. *



I was being sarcastic d, I just forgot the emoticon.


----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by -=d=- _
> *again - this is sickening. (sigh)...
> 
> I'd rather a kid be raised by terrorists. *



Yeah, cuz gays aren't really people...


----------



## 5stringJeff (May 17, 2004)

Wow... 14 pages in three hours!  I'll try to jump in here...

1. Homosexuality is neither normal nor natural.  You don't need a complex scientific theory to understand this - you just need a basic anatomy lesson.  Men are made for women, and women are made for men.  It's not that hard.

2. Gay marriage "normalizes" something that is not normal.  That is what people are so upset about.  We, as a society, do not want to say that homosexuality is a normal behavior, because it isn't.  That's why the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.

3. Someone (I think acludem) said that this just goes to show how the right "hates gays."  While unfortunately that is true for some, not everyone on the Right hates gays.  Opposing behavior does not equate to hate.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Yeah, cuz gays aren't really people... *



They are people just like Muslim Extremists.  Both believe their doctrines to extremes.  Both are convinced in the nobility of their cause.

I've known and loved (Philos) gay people.  Homosexuality is as wrong as suicide bombers - it's just the homosexual agenda takes more time, and destroys people in different ways.


----------



## Aquarian (May 17, 2004)

Bah, too tired of this argument for proper response.  how about whomever among you is without sin casting the first stone against me being gay?  Take out the religious prohibition and you are left with a civil equality issue.  you can't grant one group civil rights and the social status that is accrued thereby while excluding another.  equal treatment under the law.  and homosexuality does occur in the animal world as well, there's been posts here that link to relevant articles or you can look it up.  It's occured in the human populace from way way back (b.c.).  Malthus hypothosized it may be a natural check on population which would tie into rwa's favorite post about stress on a mother during pregnancy resulting in a hormonal balance which left the child with a predilection for homosexual behaviour.  any way you slice it, you (the folks who oppose this) won't be harmed by letting us get married.  

jeff- replying specifically to you since you are one of the most level headed folks here:  so what if it's not 'normal' (see my comments about 'natural' possible causes above)?  is piercing normal? should it be outlawed?  how about a 70 year old man marrying a 21 year old girl?  normal is not necessarily equal to acceptable.

sorry if I am coming across as pissed, just tired of all the hubub over this and want to go back to my 'normal' life going to work every day and going home to my significant other, watching the world wake up to history...

ps. -=d=- : I hardly think wanting freedom to choose who you are allowed to love can be equated to muslim extremists who want to force you to worship the god they do they way they do and are willing to blow you up to get what they want.

pss. I still don't understand why conservatives would be against this, since gay marriages would bring gays into the traditionalist fold (cept for the sex thing, but then most straight folk have a few different ideas about how to do things in the bed these days than the old missionary position).


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

Aquarian, hey sweetie.  I was trying to slap some sense into these bigots around here.    I'm sorry for the entire republican party that some among us are such assholes.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

...and at no other time in history has Government made policies based on people's prefered behavior.  To equate your desire for sexual gratification from another man with civil rights is an insult to every black man like myself.

What Gays in Mass have now are SPECIAL Rights.  Before, they, like straights were governed under the SAME laws regarding marriage.

(shrug).

You are NOT a vicitim to your homosexuality.  You 'choose' to be gay because you enjoy it.  The rewards to you, are worse than the negative things associated with the LIFESTYLE.

Good luck to you - I hope you find what you are looking for.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> but then most straight folk have a few different ideas about how to do things in the bed these days than the old missionary position).




What are you talking about?  seriously.  I know one move.  But it's a good one.


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Aquarian - I personally think that you are pretty brave coming out with the info especcially on this board!  Without trying to tick you off further, and I mean no flaming by this!  can you tell me the story of RWA trying to hook uop with you?  I found this to be funny, and would be curious to know what was going through your head on this!   Sorry RW, nothing personal but I found it rather funny! *



THAT is going to be a GREAT thread!! lol!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Aquarian - I personally think that you are pretty brave coming out with the info especcially on this board!  Without trying to tick you off further, and I mean no flaming by this!  can you tell me the story of RWA trying to hook uop with you?  I found this to be funny, and would be curious to know what was going through your head on this!   Sorry RW, nothing personal but I found it rather funny! *



It was really not much.  just an overly weird post on my part when I thought he was a chick.   I think I've blocked it all out.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *OK RW, look's like Aquarian bailed on my question!  How's about providing the link? *



Can't find it.  Really. Move along.  There's nothing to see here.


----------



## Gop guy (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *GOD BLESS AMERICA! Abnormality is celebrated. Just another sign that we are on the road to ruin.
> 
> Hey I want the right to take a big dump in the middle of the street whenever I get the notion, think I can convince somebody in Massachusets to sponsor a bill? *



Oh God! LOL!

Yes!  I hope you're happy radical left!

What next you cultural terrorist fucks?

Polygamy?
Beastiality?
Pedophilia?
Incest?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gop guy _
> *Oh God! LOL!
> 
> Yes!  I hope you're happy radical left!
> ...



polygamy could be a good thing


----------



## dmp (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gop guy _
> *Oh God! LOL!
> 
> Yes!  I hope you're happy radical left!
> ...



The guy who posted this was Right-on target 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3683&highlight=marriage


----------



## 5stringJeff (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> jeff- replying specifically to you since you are one of the most level headed folks here:  so what if it's not 'normal' (see my comments about 'natural' possible causes above)?  is piercing normal? should it be outlawed?  how about a 70 year old man marrying a 21 year old girl?  normal is not necessarily equal to acceptable.
> 
> sorry if I am coming across as pissed, just tired of all the hubub over this and want to go back to my 'normal' life going to work every day and going home to my significant other, watching the world wake up to history...



Aquarian, my only point is to say that just because homosexuality is perceived as normal and/or natural does not make it morally right.  Things like piercings, while not natural, are morally neutral.  Other things that we do naturally, like showing kindness to people, is morally correct.  Other things that people do naturally, like a three-year-old refusing to share a toy, are morally wrong.  So simply saying that homosexuality comes naturally to someone does not make it a moral behavior.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Lets get to the heart of the matter, shall we? What we are talking about in regards to marriage are "special rights" for homosexuals since they are born with every single inalienable right as I am. Only difference is that they can if they want have sex with somebody of the same sex, hey no problem, just you know, keep it private, only in order to access the right of marriage by law(except in queerachusets) they are going to need to marry somebody of the opposite sex. What is so difficult about that? Marry some chick you hangout with for all the benes and bang your buddy in the can on the side. 

So now if I was still single and sharing a place with one of my childhood buddies for a few years is it cool if we get hooked up even though we have no marriage type feelings just for the benes? You see where this is going, right?

As for the Republican party looking like a bunch of bigots and laying low on this issue, that is the ABSOLUTE WRONG thing to do. Thank god Bush is president and not a certain member of this board or we'd be sure to lose the election. America is looking for strong MORAL leadership on this issue not someone who will cave at the first sign of confrontation.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *there will be no constitutional amendment banning this. its too risky of a political venture and the requirements to amend the constitution are too demanding for the political makeup of the house and senate *



But we can bypass the house and senate altogther if we so choose. although i dont know why it would be hard to get it through a Republican house and Senate. especially after the next election strengthens to GOP hold there.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Lets get to the heart of the matter, shall we? What we are talking about in regards to marriage are "special rights" for homosexuals since they are born with every single inalienable right as I am. Only difference is that they can if they want have sex with somebody of the same sex, hey no problem, just you know, keep it private, only in order to access the right of marriage by law(except in queerachusets) they are going to need to marry somebody of the opposite sex. What is so difficult about that? Marry some chick you hangout with for all the benes and bang your buddy in the can on the side.
> 
> So now if I was still single and sharing a place with one of my childhood buddies for a few years is it cool if we get hooked up even though we have no marriage type feelings just for the benes? You see where this is going, right?
> ...



I resent being called a certain member, though I am certainly a member.
I agree that it's good bush is president, for many reasons.   I just think it's a symbolic issue.  Anyone who really cares about family values will not be dissuaded from those values by gay marriage.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Actually I could give two shits less what you resent being called. I call the shots in our feud not you. You'd be wise to remember that.


----------



## Gop guy (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Actually I could give two shits less what you resent being called. I call the shots in our feud not you. You'd be wise to remember that. *



Are you a mod?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Actually I could give two shits less what you resent being called. I call the shots in our feud not you. You'd be wise to remember that. *



I'm not interested in your charity shits.  You call nothing, unwise guy!:fu2:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gop guy _
> *Are you a mod? *



nope, he's just a wannabe.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *OK RW, look's like Aquarian bailed on my question!  How's about providing the link? *



Hey biggin it was my pleasure to provide you this link 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5195&perpage=15&pagenumber=2


----------



## Big D (May 17, 2004)

Whatever will increace Aids in the homosexual, black and hispanic community's,

 I am ALL for it.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gop guy _
> *Are you a mod? *



Nope just RwA's master and if you're jumping in here it looks like i'm running the daycare too.


----------



## Gop guy (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *nope, he's just a wannabe. *



I see.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Gop guy _
> *I see. *[/QUOTE
> 
> Son do you have anything worthwhile to add to the board finally except LOL, yeah and cool?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nope just RwA's master and if you're jumping in here it looks like i'm running the daycare too. *



you're a nitwit "to the max".


----------



## Gop guy (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *you're a nitwit "to the max". *



AWESOME! You're really kicking ass today man. Don't let reality tell you elsewise.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *AWESOME! You're really kicking ass today man. Don't let reality tell you elsewise. *



Sorry to tell ya, but you suck, like usual.  Sorry it wasn't that hippy touchy feely crap you're apparently into these days.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Sorry to tell ya, but you suck, like usual.  Sorry it wasn't that hippy touchy feely crap you're apparently into these days. *



Fuck! You are tearing it up bro! Hey can I learn to be a homosexual apologist like you? How much you charge for lessons or better yet i'll put some food in your fridge seeing as how you are unemployed.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Fuck! You are tearing it up bro! Hey can I learn to be a homosexual apologist like you? How much you charge for lessons or better yet i'll put some food in your fridge seeing as how you are unemployed. *



Barter system'll work.  You can suck my dick!


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Barter system'll work.  You can suck my dick! *



Awesome! I'd like to help you out with that but from the link that I provided i'm afraid i'd be stepping on toes.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> * Sorry RW - That was funny as hell, as soon as he replied "no boobies here" you were nowhere to be found!
> Dont sweat it though, it happens to the best of us! *




yep.  friggun hilarious.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *I guess this is the Rumble in the Jungle pt.2?
> OCA Vs. RWA should go pay per view! *



Biggin its been over for about a month now. It was like Tyson-Leon Spinks back in the day, I knocked this fool out 20 seconds into the 1st round.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Awesome! I'd like to help you out with that but from the link that I provided i'm afraid i'd be stepping on toes. *



Actually, if you had actually read the thread, you would have noticed that the deal was a no go, due to gender misalignment.  You still have maneuvering room to work off your tuition, if that's REALLY your concern.  I like an excited pupil.  You'll learn better after drinking my jiz.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Actually, if you had actually read the thread, you would have noticed that the deal was a no go, due to gender misalignment.  You still have maneuvering room to work off your tuition, if that's REALLY your concern.  I like an excited pupil.  You'll learn better after drinking my jiz.
> 
> *



Are you one of them gals who gets so excited after i've been teasing the clit for a while that she pisses all over the place? I'm not into that shit. But i'll do you real good if you got a nice rack and backside maam.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Are you one of them gals who gets so excited after i've been teasing the clit for a while that she pisses all over the place? I'm not into that shit. But i'll do you real good if you got a nice rack and backside maam. *



Quit telling us your mother's day stories.  Anyway.  I have to go now.  See you nitwits later.  An hour or two.  so think of something good.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Quit telling us your mother's day stories.  Anyway.  I have to go now.  See you nitwits later.  An hour or two.  so think of something good. *



WAAAAAH WAAAAAAH! (Rocky theme plays in background now as OCA restraps title belt on)


----------



## Aquarian (May 17, 2004)

this post is zipping along, wasn't ignoring ya evil, just took 2 hours to get home after my first post, shouldn't say why or i'll sound like a bush basher (he's visiting today)   you found the answer (tho the 'sweetie' threw me a bit heh).  and it ain't brave to be posting anything on the internet, brave was coming out in highschool when kids were throwing rocks at me right in the courtyard while teachers looked the other way.  including one of the four black kids at our school of 1700 kids.  despite the lessons he should have learned from being treated poorly by some at our school, he felt ok still to call me a faggot.  as apparently d might from his post.  maybe not in so many words, but the sentiment is there when he says calling gay marriage a civil rights issue is an insult to blacks.  while it may turn out not to be the right answer to the marriage question, it is certainly not an insult when gays have suffered the same prejudices, the same crimes, the same discrimination as blacks in america, including marriage issues such as forbidding interracial marriages.  If you can't see at least some similarity your eyes are closed.

there have been a lot of points made in this rather fast moving thread, but I haven't seen any reason yet not to allow gay marriages.  there have been no valid reasons put forth as to how it would be detrimental to society to allow them.  i've seen it posited that allowing gays to marry would lead to allowing bestiality, polygamy, brother sister etc, but how about we just deal with each scenario as they come up?  Gay marriages are as specific as heterosexual marriages and do not by themselves allow for any of those other scenarios..



> _gopjeff-_ Aquarian, my only point is to say that just because homosexuality is perceived as normal and/or natural does not make it morally right. Things like piercings, while not natural, are morally neutral. Other things that we do naturally, like showing kindness to people, is morally correct. Other things that people do naturally, like a three-year-old refusing to share a toy, are morally wrong. So simply saying that homosexuality comes naturally to someone does not make it a moral behavior.



that being natural is not equal to being moral is true, as any psychopath can tell you (if they don't kill you first).  But what about homosexuality is inherently immoral?  and the tricky part is, you can't use the bible to justify calling it immoral because I need not follow your religion in this country.  The bible has many examples of morals that are almost universally accepted regardless of belief, but at the same time sections of it also hold what I will call anti moral lessons, such as stoning to death disobedient children and silly (yes, silly) rules such as not shaving (both examples in leviticus).  actually, leviticus also bars piercing and tattoos Leviticus 19:28 which says, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord."




> _oca-_Lets get to the heart of the matter, shall we? What we are talking about in regards to marriage are "special rights" for homosexuals since they are born with every single inalienable right as I am.


and


> So now if I was still single and sharing a place with one of my childhood buddies for a few years is it cool if we get hooked up even though we have no marriage type feelings just for the benes? You see where this is going, right?



it rather depends on what you think marriage is.  outside the religious definition, society teaches that when you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life sharing each others burdens you get married.  For me, that person happens to be a man.  since our government thought to provide special rights AND obligations for heterosexual couples, it is NOT a special right to ask for the same treatment.  remember, as I stated before, I personally couldn't give a rat's patoot if it is actually called marriage but they don't seem to be genuinely considering truly equivalent civil unions as an alternative.  again personally, I think that the gov't should only be involved in issuing civil union status and leave marriages to churches who feel that the blessing of god is necessary.  it's not about procreation or you wouldn't be able to marry a barren woman or a sterile man.  it's not about only love or you wouldn't be able to marry for money.  the current system allows straight folk to marry for a matter of hours like brittany but refuses to recognize the caring relationship that has been in place for years just because they don't like to think about the genitals involved??

and nobody has responded to the idea that legalizing gay unions would bring more of them into the fold of traditional society.  oh, not all of them for sure, but don't you think that some of the reason for gays being a bit 'wilder' than mainstream america is that mainstream america doesn't want them settling down with each other? 

ps.  been reading the posts being made while i've been typing.  you guys are warped, which is probably why I feel at home here despite our differences of opininion :


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *There is NO VALID ARGUMENT that exists in the world today that can prove that homosexuality is normal and natural, therefore two people of the same sex getting married is not normal or natural. End of story.
> 
> Don't try to argue it you'll only end up making yourselves look silly.
> ...



I have already gone over this.  If we are to deny things that are not normal and natural, we should not allow reading glasses to be supported on the bridges of people's noses. The top of one's nose was never intended as a place to support glasses.  Many medications are not natural.  Should we prohibit people from taking medicine not found in nature?  A dictionary was never intended to be used as a booster seat at the dinner table.  Should we outlaw the use of large books as booster seats? 

Did a bunch of ultra leftists screw with YOUR life by getting gay marriage legalized? - No.

Next excuse -


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *But we can bypass the house and senate altogther if we so choose. although i dont know why it would be hard to get it through a Republican house and Senate. especially after the next election strengthens to GOP hold there. *



curious, how do you think that would happen? or could happen?


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by gop_jeff _
> *Wow... 14 pages in three hours!  I'll try to jump in here...
> 
> 1. Homosexuality is neither normal nor natural.  You don't need a complex scientific theory to understand this - you just need a basic anatomy lesson.  Men are made for women, and women are made for men.  It's not that hard.
> *



Do you support making oral sex (even between heterosexuals) illegal?


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Matts - maybe I dont understand your line of questioning here, but what's the story on making oral sex illegal?? *



Sorry if my question was relatedly unclear.  Let me fill in the gaps:  One common argument against legalizing gay marriage is that it is not "natural".  If unnatural behavior should not be permitted, then, assuming that oral sex is not natural, oral sex should not be permitted.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *I have already gone over this.  If we are to deny things that are not normal and natural, we should not allow reading glasses to be supported on the bridges of people's noses. The top of one's nose was never intended as a place to support glasses.  Many medications are not natural.  Should we prohibit people from taking medicine not found in nature?  A dictionary was never intended to be used as a booster seat at the dinner table.  Should we outlaw the use of large books as booster seats?
> 
> Did a bunch of ultra leftists screw with YOUR life by getting gay marriage legalized? - No.
> ...



You're comparisons of glasses and dictionaries to homosexual sex and marriage is laughable. Those are adjustments not lifestyles. Next stretch of the imagination?


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Sorry if my question was relatedly unclear.  Let me fill in the gaps:  One common argument against legalizing gay marriage is that it is not "natural".  If unnatural behavior should not be permitted, then, assuming that oral sex is not natural, oral sex should not be permitted. *



Oral sex and butt banging should be legal between a MAN AND WOMAN. You see thats the key, MAN AND WOMAN, like nature dictates. Sounds better than man and man or woman and woman. I think most of the rational thinking populace agrees with me on this.


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *You're comparisons of glasses and dictionaries to homosexual sex and marriage is laughable. Those are adjustments not lifestyles. Next stretch of the imagination? *



Call it what you will. They can be adjustments and/or  they can be preferences and/or  they can be lifestyles.  (contacts or glasses, books or booster seats, people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex). The comparison is relevant and sound.


----------



## nycflasher (May 17, 2004)

I believe that there are two parts of constitutional law that may support Massachussette's recent decision and others to come:

the full faith and credit clause and equal protection(under the 14th Ammendment).

Personally, I don't see the big fucking deal.
I am not married, but imagine I will be soon. And I don't see how this effects me.

Run, run, run...the homos are coming.


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Oral sex and butt banging should be legal between a MAN AND WOMAN. You see thats the key, MAN AND WOMAN, like nature dictates. Sounds better than man and man or woman and woman. I think most of the rational thinking populace agrees with me on this. *



So you saying that oral sex and butt banging, though perhaps unnatural, is okay, as long as it is done between a man and a woman.  If so, then just saying that something should not be allowed, in and of itself, because it is unnatural is a poor reason.  For the reason to be complete, it needs to be limited by mentioning the sexes involved. 

"Sounds better" is an acoustically aesthetic trait and not necessarily a rational (logical) trait.  I like the way "One and one make four" sounds.  That does not mean that One and one make four.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Call it what you will. They can be adjustments and/or  they can be preferences and/or  they can be lifestyles.  (contacts or glasses, books or booster seats, people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex). The comparison is relevant and sound. *



Matts seeing as how at any given time depending on the choices being made in America only 1-5% of the population is gay, normal or abnormal? Is it normal for a man to stick his willy in another mans anus? 

If we all know right from wrong and I strongly believe that everybody believes at some level that homosexuality is wrong, why do people follow through with homosexual acts? Personal pleasure is my first guess although not exactly sure how taking it from behind is pleasureable, my other guess is mental illness, unable to tell right from wrong which in that case denotes some sort of medical treatment is needed.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *So you saying that oral sex and butt banging, though perhaps unnatural, is okay, as long as it is done between a man and a woman.  If so, then just saying that something should not be allowed, in and of itself, because it is unnatural is a poor reason.  For the reason to be complete, it needs to be limited by mentioning the sexes involved.
> 
> "Sounds better" is an acoustically aesthetic trait and not necessarily a rational (logical) trait.  I like the way "One and one make four" sounds.  That does not mean that One and one make four. *



Argue it every which way from Sunday but you know rationally and logically that two people of the same sex are not meant to be together in the manner that marriage or sex denotes. You know how silly it is to try and argue otherwise?

I'm saying that this does not require a degree in nuclear physics to figure out. Its common sense.


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Also between MAN AND WOMAN is exactly what i'm saying. If you want to screw your buddy in the can fine go right ahead, but don't try to legitimize your perversion by perverting the sanctity of marriage just so you can have something to hang your hat on. 

This really is all it is, homosexuals know they are wrong so they look for anything, just anything that will lend some sort of semblance of normalcy to their lifestyle choice. Little do they realize that there is nothing short of an edict from God that will normalize it in the eyes of most.


----------



## mattskramer (May 17, 2004)

_Originally posted by OCA _
*Matts seeing as how at any given time depending on the choices being made in America only 1-5% of the population is gay, normal or abnormal? Is it normal for a man to stick his willy in another mans anus? *

I don't think that it is normal, but I don't thing that "normalcy" matters.  It was not considered normal for people from different races to get married. (I don't think that you can change your race) Some people still think that "people should stick with their own kind".   Some people think that it is wrong for people from different religious persuasions to get married.  I don't think that it is normal to smoke (and smoking is not an adjustment).  I don't think that it is normal for people to chew their fingernails but some people engage in that behavior.  I would not outlaw it. 

* If we all know right from wrong and I strongly believe that everybody believes at some level that homosexuality is wrong, why do people follow through with homosexual acts? Personal pleasure is my first guess although not exactly sure how taking it from behind is pleasurable, my other guess is mental illness, unable to tell right from wrong which in that case denotes some sort of medical treatment is needed. *

I don't think that homosexual behavior, in and of itself, is wrong. (unusual, unnatural, repugnant to some but not "wrong")  I think of it as a preference (and whether that preference is due to a biochemical imbalance or childhood trauma or neither makes no difference to me).


----------



## OCA (May 17, 2004)

Well Matts we'll just have to agree to disagree but I gotta tell ya you are WAY in the minority on this issue in this country. You gotta take stands in life, it can't be whatever makes ya feel good should be legal. There have to be standards and absolutes and you don't get anymore absolute than marriage between man and woman. You might want to look at some of the fence ridin' you do on some subjects, are you afraid to offend?

Also the comparison to minorities and interracial marriage is bogus. Minorities are born the way they are, they can't change their skin color. On the other hand homosexuals always have the choice as to whether they should eat the pipe or not.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *You can try to call it whatever "nice" thing you want. doesnt change that it is perversion. Nor does it change the fact that the state is not God and cannot give gay couples the same benefits privelages and responsibilities of marriage. They will never be able to create life. *



And God is something humans made to serve as an oversized security blanket.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *And God is something humans made to serve as an oversized security blanket. *



So what if it is?  Why does it bother you?  Is it too much competition for the statist / collectivist cult you're pimping?


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *If any married people even try to make a comparison between the two, shame on them. Be glad you have what you have and ignore the wanna-haves. First gay divorce-----what a headline !!! *



Don't get too excited.... you'll never hear about it. The liberal media will see to that.

Actually you've brought up a good point. There probably already has, but it's been kept hush, hush.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *call it twisting all you want. The fact of the matter is, whether anyone thinks its wrong or right, using the argument 'destroys the fabric of marriage' is irrelevant as you've pointed out. Just use the argument that its wrong, don't 'twist' another argument that is useless into it. *



I wasn't. You were.

Marriage is two people of the opposite sex. It's been that way since the beginning of time. 

Why now, all of a sudden do queers feel the need to be "MARRIED", when they'd have all the same legal benefits with a Civil Union?

Answer that?


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *And God is something humans made to serve as an oversized security blanket. *



And you must believe in God also. Otherwise you wouldn't have the mark of the beast there in your picture of our President. You can't believe in the devil and not the Lord.

It's obvious which one of those two tickles your fancy.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

And just to add, as I've seen this nowhere in this entire thread. I feel it's my duty as a Christian to point out what the Lord's true feelings are about queers.

Now keep in mind, same sex "marriage" is what these queers want. To be joined in Holy matrimony in the eyes of the Lord. Well..... news flash queer boys and girls..... the Lord ain't diggin' it. In fact, here's what the Lord thinks about it....

*1. The Law of God Speaks Against it:

 
Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." 

Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." 

*


----------



## acludem (May 18, 2004)

That's assuming you believe the bible is the true word of God and of Jesus Christ.  Problem is, we don't know.  Which version of the bible does this come from?  Okay, okay, I'm playing the proverbial devil's advocate.  

For the non-Christian world, of which I am a part, the word of God is meaningless.  By all means, if you are opposed to homosexuality, don't practice it, associate with gay people, etc.  Just because you are personally opposed to something doesn't give you the right or the responsibility to crusade against it.  Gay people are born that way and, at least in the case of the gay people I know, they want the same rights and responsibilities as straight people.  No special treatment, no extra freedom, just the right to marry, raise a family and strive for a piece of the American dream, that's it.

acludem


----------



## Big D (May 18, 2004)

Several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual... It is impossible to determine the number of male paedophiles, but they may constitute as much as 10% of male homosexuals.

Why is it that homosexuals though being a small percent of the population, are the ONLY group of people that have ever formed a national association in hopes of trying to eliminate the legal consent age for children to have sex?

http://www.bway.net/nambla.org/


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *Several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual... It is impossible to determine the number of male paedophiles, but they may constitute as much as 10% of male homosexuals.
> 
> Why is it that homosexuals though being a small percent of the population, are the ONLY group of people that have ever formed a national association in hopes of trying to eliminate the legal consent age for children to have sex?
> ...



NO ONE will answer you on this Big D. You've got the goods on it and everybody knows it. 

There's an illegal taint to homosexuality. Most people try and just look at the two people. They can't bring themselves to "picture" exactly what it is that they do. They find that too disgusting and repulsive..... _because it is._

Queers are sick. Today's society would be leaps and bounds ahead of itself if they'd go back to treating it as such.

Had my son been born with homo tendencies, I'd have taken him to the psychiatrist, like any other responsible parent would do for a sick child.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by acludem _
> Just because you are personally opposed to something doesn't give you the right or the responsibility to crusade against it.
> 
> acludem



What kind of horse shit is that? You are NOT serious are you?

Well let me tell you something skippy, if I'm OPPOSED to something, I feel it's my *DUTY* to "crusade" against it.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *NO ONE will answer you on this Big D. You've got the goods on it and everybody knows it.
> 
> There's an illegal taint to homosexuality. Most people try and just look at the two people. They can't bring themselves to "picture" exactly it is that they do. They find that too disgusting and repulsive..... because it is.
> ...



Big D(ungheap)'s feeble attempt to associate homosexuality with paedophillia is no different than his association of race with criminal behavior.

This association of sexual orientation with psychopathology and criminality is nothing more than a thinly veiled appeal to people's fears and prejudices. You took it, hook...line..and sinker.  

Homosexuals are not "sick", just different in their sexuality, and that's enough to scare the shit out of people who are already insecure about their own sexuality. Studies have shown that the most virulent homophobes have strong, and suppressed, attraction to members of the same gender. Homosexuality was removed as a psychiatric disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual more than 30 years ago. No responsiblee, ethical psychiatrist would "treat" your child for homosexuality.  For that you'd have to find someone with roots in the lunacy of right-wing theology and ideology. 

So, if you have any gay friends who want to tie the knot, just get 'em a nice wedding gift and wish them well.


----------



## Bern80 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by acludem _
> *Massachussetts will show people that gay marriage is no threat to the sanctity of marriage.  Soon people will forget why they were opposed to gay marriage.  Just as people have forgotten why they were opposed to interracial marriage (well most people anyway).  We, here in Missouri, will have a ban on gay marriage amendment on our ballot in November, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
> 
> Today is a great day for equality in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and in the United States.
> ...



You and bully just don't get it, do you.  While what MA is doing is wrong and is the will of a few activist judges, these couple are not married.  They can call themselves married if they want, but they're not.  Marriage is a religiously derived term, coming from a religion that not only defines the term very specifically, but vehemently opposses homosexuality. 

It is biologically impossible for a homosexual couple to be married.  If you think this is narrow minded...well tell it to God.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bern80 _
> *You and bully just don't get it, do you.  While what MA is doing is wrong and is the will of a few activist judges, these couple are not married.  They can call themselves married if they want, but they're not.  Marriage is a religiously derived term, coming from a religion that not only defines the term very specifically, but vehemently opposses homosexuality.
> 
> It is biologically impossible for a homosexual couple to be married.  If you think this is narrow minded...well tell it to God. *



eau contraire. I do believe that marriage is defined by the state, not the federal government, and as such, these same sex couples are now married. I don't think its the will of a 'few activist judges' as you already know that MA is one of the most liberal states in the nation. If it were true that a majority of the populace in MA were against this there would be more reports of protests and more vehement outcries against it. That obviously isn't the case. As President Bush would say, its the sound of a few 'focus groups' that are against it.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Big D(ungheap)'s feeble attempt to associate homosexuality with paedophillia is no different than his association of race with criminal behavior.
> 
> This association of sexual orientation with psychopathology and criminality is nothing more than a thinly veiled appeal to people's fears and prejudices. You took it, hook...line..and sinker.
> ...



Bully this whole post of yours is PC run amok. Why oh why are people so afraid to make a judgement where homosexuality is concerned? We by coddling these people are doing exactly the opposite of what they need. They need people to tell them what they are doing is wrong and for someone to be a true friend and help them get the psychological or medical help they need. Hell most of em just need a long night at the Mustang Ranch in Reno and they will never think about a hairy ass again.

Nice try on the suppressed homosexuality though, although it sounds good most anti-homosexuals or right thinking people oppose it on moral and ethical grounds.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nice try on the suppressed homosexuality though, although it sounds good most anti-homosexuals or right thinking people oppose it on moral and ethical grounds. *



OCA, are you homophobic?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *OCA, are you homophobic? *



Not by the longest stretch of the imagination. I oppose it on moral, ethical and logical grounds. The only fear that I have though is homosexual infiltration of the educational system and a possible eventuality of teaching that homsexuality as a viable lifestyle equal to heterosexuality.


----------



## MtnBiker (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *OCA, are you homophobic? *



Hmmm, when someone expresses an opposition to homosexuality an attempt is made to lable them homophobic. Can we use the same logic and try to lable a person who believes in abortion "babyaphobic"?

Come on who is opposed to babies? They are so cute and innocent.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MtnBiker _
> *Hmmm, when someone expresses an opposition to homosexuality an attempt is made to lable them homophobic. Can we use the same logic and try to lable a person who believes in abortion "babyaphobic"?
> 
> Come on who is opposed to babies? They are so cute and innocent. *



Biker because in this situation and this topic it is way easier to attack the messenger rather than the message. You'll never hear 1 sound reason wht its logical for two people of the opposite sex to be together but you'll sure as hell hear homophobic thrown around quite a bit.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MtnBiker _
> *Hmmm, when someone expresses an opposition to homosexuality an attempt is made to lable them homophobic. Can we use the same logic and try to lable a person who believes in abortion "babyaphobic"?
> 
> Come on who is opposed to babies? They are so cute and innocent. *



I asked a question, I didn't attempt to label. I truly want to know why some people feel as strongly about their opposition to homosexuality or lesbianism as they do. 

I, personally, grew up with semi-homophobic families but as an adult I've come across a good number of them and with the exception of a couple of them, they were decent people who felt that their private lives were theirs, not anyone elses. Kind of like I think.

So, I think my question is valid. Do you not?


----------



## MtnBiker (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *
> 
> So, I think my question is valid. Do you not? *



Beyond a personal satisfaction of attaching a lable to someone after their answer I see no need to ask such a question. I could ask Big D if he is a racsist and regardless of his answer it will do little to change the person he is or the manner in which he posts here.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

Because somebody opposes something it automatically means they are fearful? How did you arrive at the semi-homophobic figure? That term was interesting. I'm opposed to taxes, doesn't mean I fear them. I'm opposed to instant replay in the NFL, doesn't mean I fear it.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MtnBiker _
> *Beyond a personal satisfaction of attaching a lable to someone after their answer I see no need to ask such a question. I could ask Big D if he is a racsist and regardless of his answer it will do little to change the person he is or the manner in which he posts here. *



asking the question can then lead to others, like WHY does someone feel this way or WHY then, if they don't feel that way, they came to that position? It helps to understand a persons position better if they understand the reasoning that position was obtained.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Because somebody opposes something it automatically means they are fearful? How did you arrive at the semi-homophobic figure? That term was interesting. I'm opposed to taxes, doesn't mean I fear them. I'm opposed to instant replay in the NFL, doesn't mean I fear it. *



growing up I heard all the jokes and remarks about 'fags, queers, homo's, etc. kids tease with the same remarks against other kids. My perception is that this behavior isn't automatic, its learned behavior from their parents. This is why arguments begin because now we blame sexism, racism, and any other ism's on the parents of said child and it gets us nowhere.

phobia's don't necessarily imply fear as evidenced by the websters definition below.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. 
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 18, 2004)

I look at this subject like I do abortion.

unfortunately, it is now law and not much we can do about it. 

God will decide, in the end, who is right and who is wrong.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> 
> 
> I, personally, grew up with semi-homophobic families



What, they only hated gays from the waist down?


----------



## freeandfun1 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *What, they only hated gays from the waist down? *



Or when others were looking??


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

It is natural.  There have always been gays.  It may be a minority trait/behavior, but minorities are not automatically immoral or wrong.  I have my problems with gay activists but this whole "unnatural" argument is ignorant and fallacious on it's face.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

Regardless of the Webster defenition it is quite obvious the meaning and intent behind "homophobe" when applied by the left on this topic. 

Then the part of the defenition where it says "despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous". Have you checked stats on AIDS in the homosexual community compared to heterosexuals?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Regardless of the Webster defenition it is quite obvious the meaning and intent behind "homophobe" when applied by the left on this topic.
> 
> Then the part of the defenition where it says "despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous". Have you checked stats on AIDS in the homosexual community compared to heterosexuals? *



Is it the same reason you constantly call people racists?  To villify?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *It is natural.  There have always been gays.  It may be a minority trait/behavior, but minorities are not automatically immoral or wrong.  I have my problems with gay activists but this whole "unnatural" argument is ignorant and fallacious on it's face. *



Prove that there were lifetime practicing homosexuals throughout history beyond the shadow of a doubt. Good luck.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Regardless of the Webster defenition it is quite obvious the meaning and intent behind "homophobe" when applied by the left on this topic.*



OOHHHHHH, I get it. The left is only capable of malicious intent and meaning when questioning this topic, but the right is NEVER guilty of said malicious intent.  


Really OCA, I would have thought that by now you would realize I don't label unless thats exactly the way it is, but I guess I overestimated you.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Prove that there were lifetime practicing homosexuals throughout history beyond the shadow of a doubt. Good luck. *



I don't feel like it.

You're obviously an idiot if you think human homosexuality is something new.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Prove that there were lifetime practicing homosexuals throughout history beyond the shadow of a doubt. Good luck. *



you don't seriously believe that homosexuality was an invention of the 60's 'love generation' do you?

homosexuality and lesbianism has been around for CENTURIES. To believe otherwise would only be showing an ignorance to relative history and common sense.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Is it the same reason you constantly call people racists?  To villify? *



Its called the truth when the same people openly admit that they are racists. Please don't fuck this discussion up also, I beg of you.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Its called the truth when the same people openly admit that they are racists. Please don't fuck this discussion up also, I beg of you. *



And you are what is commonly known as a homophobe.  Just put on your costume and wear it proudly.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *OOHHHHHH, I get it. The left is only capable of malicious intent and meaning when questioning this topic, but the right is NEVER guilty of said malicious intent.
> 
> 
> Really OCA, I would have thought that by now you would realize I don't label unless thats exactly the way it is, but I guess I overestimated you. *



Well I guess in this instance you are wrong, he?


----------



## dilloduck (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Prove that there were lifetime practicing homosexuals throughout history beyond the shadow of a doubt. Good luck. *



way to easy of a task


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *you don't seriously believe that homosexuality was an invention of the 60's 'love generation' do you?
> 
> homosexuality and lesbianism has been around for CENTURIES. To believe otherwise would only be showing an ignorance to relative history and common sense. *



I said practicing lifelong commitment to homosexuality. In ancient times yeah they screwed each other but they didn't know any better unlike we know now.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I said practicing lifelong commitment to homosexuality. In ancient times yeah they screwed each other but they didn't know any better unlike we know now. *



A bottomless fountain of ignorance.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *way to easy of a task *



Well Dildo have a go at it or sit back on the bench and catch splinters.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *And you are what is commonly known as a homophobe.  Just put on your costume and wear it proudly. *



Bust out the homophobe term when you have nothing left in terms of intelligence to defeat me. I accept your resignation from this topic.


----------



## Bern80 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *eau contraire. I do believe that marriage is defined by the state, not the federal government, and as such, these same sex couples are now married. *



Wrong again, the gov't chose to use a religous term to define the union of a man and a woman.  Which, depending on your interpretation of Seperation of Church and state, they can't do.  The most they can do is choose to recognize, not define it.  the gov't did not create the word or define it.  Had they known at the time that this is what it would amount to they may have used a different term


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well I guess in this instance you are wrong, he? *



meaning that I can't ask a question without fear of labeling you because its about homosexuality?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *A bottomless fountain of ignorance. *



Folks this is what New Age does when he can't defeat you on the issue. He jumps into name calling and ad hominem attacks, its his M.O. Again you can stop now cause I accept your unconditional surrender.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I said practicing lifelong commitment to homosexuality. In ancient times yeah they screwed each other but they didn't know any better unlike we know now. *



did they know any better in the 1800's? 1700's? how about 1400's? how far back do you consider ancient and how long before 'they knew better like we do now'?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Bust out the homophobe term when you have nothing left in terms of intelligence to defeat me. I accept your resignation from this topic. *



No. No.  You've misunderstood as usual, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy of using the term racist to apply to anyone you feel like, now apparently, anyone who defends evolution is included.  Why would I resign from the thread when i'm in the middle of kicking your ass? You're a silly goose.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Folks this is what New Age does when he can't defeat you on the issue. He jumps into name calling and ad hominem attacks, its his M.O. Again you can stop now cause I accept your unconditional surrender. *



Dude, you're a joke, but you're not even funny.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *meaning that I can't ask a question without fear of labeling you because its about homosexuality? *



Meaning that opposition to homosexuality is not based upon fear or misunderstanding, quite the contrary. The opposition is quite aware, probably more aware than homosexuals of the dangerous lifestyle choice they've made. Homophobic as used in this context is meant to denote an irrational fear of homosexuality. Its false and quite honestly intellectually dishonest.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Meaning that opposition to homosexuality is not based upon fear or misunderstanding, quite the contrary. The opposition is quite aware, probably more aware than homosexuals of the dangerous lifestyle choice they've made. Homophobic as used in this context is meant to denote an irrational fear of homosexuality. Its false and quite honestly intellectually dishonest. *



Yes, it's a noble position based on bigotry and hate.  Heteros are destroying society as well with their shit morality.  It's not a gay issue.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Meaning that opposition to homosexuality is not based upon fear or misunderstanding, quite the contrary. The opposition is quite aware, probably more aware than homosexuals of the dangerous lifestyle choice they've made. Homophobic as used in this context is meant to denote an irrational fear of homosexuality. Its false and quite honestly intellectually dishonest. *



how convenient of you to just completely avoid the 'aversion' part of that definition. but I certainly wouldn't want to hold you to any honesty at all, would I.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *did they know any better in the 1800's? 1700's? how about 1400's? how far back do you consider ancient and how long before 'they knew better like we do now'? *



Well I would describe ancient has being B.C. up until, well when the bible was first widely read and distributed. I'm pretty sure that in the 1400, 1700 and 1800's they knew that sticking their wick in a guys ass was wrong just like we know now.

Let me head off the ones who will say something about the bible, guess where most of the laws of this country have their origin? Thats right the bible.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well I would describe ancient has being B.C. up until, well when the bible was first widely read and distributed. I'm pretty sure that in the 1400, 1700 and 1800's they knew that sticking their wick in a guys ass was wrong just like we know now.
> 
> Let me head off the ones who will say something about the bible, guess where most of the laws of this country have their origin? Thats right the bible. *



so welfare came from the bible? why do most conservatives want to get rid of it then?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *how convenient of you to just completely avoid the 'aversion' part of that definition. but I certainly wouldn't want to hold you to any honesty at all, would I. *



Ok but the aversion is based upon reality, not fiction. The fact of the matter is, and nobody can argue this, that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle choice, no ifs ands or buts about it. Check the AIDS stats if you don't believe me. I think Big D, and I can't believe i'm saying this, put out a nice stat on that subject.

Hey I have an aversion to being bit by a Copperhead snake around here, am I irrational to have an aversion to them?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *so welfare came from the bible? why do most conservatives want to get rid of it then? *



Is that a law or a program? You're being ridiculous now, you have anything else constructive or logical to add or do you want to fall to RWA's level?


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

ahem.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Ok but the aversion is based upon reality, not fiction. The fact of the matter is, and nobody can argue this, that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle choice, no ifs ands or buts about it. Check the AIDS stats if you don't believe me. I think Big D, and I can't believe i'm saying this, put out a nice stat on that subject.
> 
> Hey I have an aversion to being bit by a Copperhead snake around here, am I irrational to have an aversion to them? *



so you're telling me that your sole aversion to homosexuality is based on how dangerous it is? If it was conducted in such a manner to be as safe as heterosexuality would you then be forced to reconsider your aversion?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Is that a law or a program? You're being ridiculous now, you have anything else constructive or logical to add or do you want to fall to RWA's level? *



Its a program based on a law, however, if you fear to be proven wrong on how our laws are based out of the bible then by all means dismiss me as non-constructive.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

Personally, I find it sad....no....actually I find it hysterically funny that liberals can be labeled on this board, but questions from liberals can be warped to be labels and then the asker can be bashed by the askee.

Thats hysterically funny.

ha.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

and yes.  I do realize Im defending my husband.  however, I would defend any person in this situation.  It just happens to be one Im married to.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Is that a law or a program? You're being ridiculous now, you have anything else constructive or logical to add or do you want to fall to RWA's level? *



Dude, people ASPIRE TO my level.  You must have put in your brain upside down this morning.  This is one of the several drawbacks to keeping your brain in a jar. I know it works well for your teeth, but you should have stopped there.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *so you're telling me that your sole aversion to homosexuality is based on how dangerous it is? If it was conducted in such a manner to be as safe as heterosexuality would you then be forced to reconsider your aversion? *



Well thats 1 part of it and the other part of it is, and this has been proved and pointed out in many ways by many different posters on this board that homosexuality is simply not normal behavior. Much like handicapped people are recognized and treated when discovered they have a handicap because there behavior or gait or speech is not normal, homosexuality is not normal behavior and denotes something wrong that may need some sort of treatment.

I would like 1 person on this board to prove to me that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality instead of this bullshit "who am I to define normal and abnormal". Can 1 person do that or am as I suspect asking the impossible?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well thats 1 part of it and the other part of it is, and this has been proved and pointed out in many ways by many different posters on this board that homosexuality is simply not normal behavior. Much like handicapped people are recognized and treated when discovered they have a handicap because there behavior or gait or speech is not normal, homosexuality is not normal behavior and denotes something wrong that may need some sort of treatment.
> 
> I would like 1 person on this board to prove to me that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality instead of this bullshit "who am I to define normal and abnormal". Can 1 person do that or am as I suspect asking the impossible? *



It is not the majority tendency or behavior; in that way it is abnormal.  But you mistakenly ascribe a negative moral value to anything abnormal.  That is your error.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

welllll - my daughter has a mental disability (slight, but there nonetheless) and she isnt abnormal (according to the state statutes).  She doesnt SEEM abnormal to me or to others.

Not a good example, but we all know that I tend to be oversensitive.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *Its a program based on a law, however, if you fear to be proven wrong on how our laws are based out of the bible then by all means dismiss me as non-constructive. *



First of all I said most not all, please don't put words in my mouth. 

Where did we get laws against murder?
Where did we get laws against stealing?
Where did we get laws against lying under oath?

I defy you to prove that the ROOT!!!!!! of most of our laws do not have some sort of origin in the bible.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Dude, people ASPIRE TO my level.  You must have put in your brain upside down this morning.  This is one of the several drawbacks to keeping your brain in a jar. I know it works well for your teeth, but you should have stopped there. *



This is a discussion between two mature adults, when I want you i'll move down to the humor section.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *This is a discussion between two mature adults, when I want you i'll move down to the humor section. *



Bleee bloe blum.  Get over yourself, goatheaded boy.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *welllll - my daughter has a mental disability (slight, but there nonetheless) and she isnt abnormal (according to the state statutes).  She doesnt SEEM abnormal to me or to others.
> 
> Not a good example, but we all know that I tend to be oversensitive. *



Well I couldn't figure out a way to put in there that although a handicap is in a way an abnormality I don't equate a mental disability on that level with the vile and disgusting abnormality that homosexuals display. Sorry I didn't mean it to come off that way. In my book one of the lowest things you can do is make fun of a handicapped person. Maybe I should stop making fun of homosexuals and show them some sympathy, he?


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

not sympathy......just not judgement that really isnt yours or mine to make.  That judgement, should there be any, should and will come from a source higher than you or I.  Dont you think? or no?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Personally, I find it sad....no....actually I find it hysterically funny that liberals can be labeled on this board, but questions from liberals can be warped to be labels and then the asker can be bashed by the askee.
> 
> Thats hysterically funny.
> ...



Well i'm not trying to bash DK, just get him back on track, he seemed to be veering a little bit there. But I can see how comparing him to RWA would seem malicious and like a violent attack. Nobody really deserves that low of a comparison.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well i'm not trying to bash DK, just get him back on track, he seemed to be veering a little bit there. But I can see how comparing him to RWA would seem malicious and like a violent attack. Nobody really deserves that low of a comparison. *



Go suck paste, bean squirter.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

that wasnt only or even necessarily directed at you....just an observation Ive been making and meaning to post.  seemed like a good place to put it


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Ah, I new it was only a matter of time before logic left and poetry started!  Suck Paste? Bean Squirter?
> 
> Thanks RW, I am laughing again! *



My real name is GoodTime Charley!


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

as much fun as Im having, I need to get back to work.  My kid will need another assignment soon and Im up to my ass in alligators in reference to my own work here.  bleh.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well thats 1 part of it and the other part of it is, and this has been proved and pointed out in many ways by many different posters on this board that homosexuality is simply not normal behavior. Much like handicapped people are recognized and treated when discovered they have a handicap because there behavior or gait or speech is not normal, homosexuality is not normal behavior and denotes something wrong that may need some sort of treatment.*



so you agree then, that homosexuality isn't a choice, its a disorder, abnormality, a treatable pshycosis of some sort?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *so you agree then, that homosexuality isn't a choice, its a disorder, abnormality, a treatable pshycosis of some sort? *



No I believe that it is a choice made by somebody who has some sort of short circuit somewhere, whether that be psychosis or what not I don't know. If I take you right now and say DK here is Linda a 5'10 stacked blonde with 36-24-36 measurements and then next to her I say this is Bob who is athletic 6'1 and 175 with a hairy ass and maybe a few hairs on his back and you choose Bob well that denotes something wrong up top, no?

I still believe that we all know inheritently right from wrong from birth but some have a short circuit somewhere that needs to be recognized, sometimes it manifests itself when they choose to be homosexual sometimes its when they choose to lead a thousand people to there deaths ala Jim Jones or somewhere in between.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *No I believe that it is a choice made by somebody who has some sort of short circuit somewhere, whether that be psychosis or what not I don't know. If I take you right now and say DK here is Linda a 5'10 stacked blonde with 36-24-36 measurements and then next to her I say this is Bob who is athletic 6'1 and 175 with a hairy ass and maybe a few hairs on his back and you choose Bob well that denotes something wrong up top, no?
> 
> I still believe that we all know inheritently right from wrong from birth but some have a short circuit somewhere that needs to be recognized, sometimes it manifests itself when they choose to be homosexual sometimes its when they choose to lead a thousand people to there deaths ala Jim Jones or somewhere in between. *



You're a convoluted mess, aren't you?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *You're a convoluted mess, aren't you? *



RWA just because you like to suck cock leave your Cartoon Network shit out of it. Will you be contributing anything constructive today or should we consider this another normal day for you?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *RWA just because you like to suck cock leave your Cartoon Network shit out of it. Will you be contributing anything constructive today or should we consider this another normal day for you? *



Can I sit on your lap?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *You're a convoluted mess, aren't you? *



I almost have to agree. You say its a choice due to a short circuit. what happened then? did he get hit on the head or rammed up the ass? what caused said short circuit and if its caused, can it be fixed? If it can't be fixed do we shoot him to put him out of the gene pool or his misery? after all, he must be desperately depressed at choosing bob's hairy ass, right?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Can I sit on your lap? *



I usually don't like pedophiles to get that close to me.

Hey did you see the results of this poll? Damn that sucks, you are not liked.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6443


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *you don't seriously believe that homosexuality was an invention of the 60's 'love generation' do you?
> 
> homosexuality and lesbianism has been around for CENTURIES. To believe otherwise would only be showing an ignorance to relative history and common sense. *



Of course it was around. But it was hidin as the hidious sickness that it is. It was also "treated" tot he best of medicines abilities. They knew it was a sickness, and made no attempt at dismissing it away as something "alternative", up to as recently as the 1950's.

I guess people used to be smarter than some are now


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I usually don't like pedophiles to get that close to me.
> 
> Hey did you see the results of this poll? Damn that sucks, you are not liked.
> ...



Yeah.  cuz you voted five times.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Of course it was around. But it was hidin as the hidious sickness that it is. It was also "treated" tot he best of medicines abilities. They knew it was a sickness, and made no attempt at dismissing it away as something "alternative", up to as recently as the 1950's.
> 
> I guess people used to be smarter than some are now *



tell me, was there any success with those medicines? because I'm sure there are some parents ready to dish out a couple force feedings if thats the case.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

DK you ever heard of that group that consists of former or reformed homosexuals? I can't remember their name right now and i'm still waiting on a new hard drive for my pc so this old pos from my neighbor doesn't really allow me to do much searching. Anyway i've seen represenatives of these guys on various talk shows and they say they made a conscious choice to be gay and then not to be gay. Any thoughts? Or are these guys lying to themselves as people like Donahue tried to paint them?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Yeah.  cuz you voted five times. *



Hey whatever lie gets you through the day New Age. 

Hey we got alot of job openings in D.C. area. Whadda ya say, job application or welfare application? Which do you want?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *DK you ever heard of that group that consists of former or reformed homosexuals? I can't remember their name right now and i'm still waiting on a new hard drive for my pc so this old pos from my neighbor doesn't really allow me to do much searching. Anyway i've seen represenatives of these guys on various talk shows and they say they made a conscious choice to be gay and then not to be gay. Any thoughts? Or are these guys lying to themselves as people like Donahue tried to paint them? *



I've never heard of such a group, however, if a person can come to honest terms with himself/herself and declare that theirs was a choice I have no problem acknowledging that THEIR's was a choice. I believe that that is also a relatively small percentage of the total in that group. Do we accept the minority premise simply because it fits the mold of what you believe?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Hey whatever lie gets you through the day New Age.
> 
> Hey we got alot of job openings in D.C. area. Whadda ya say, job application or welfare application? Which do you want? *



Well welfare is against my principles.  and I'm not looking for work now,  so you can shove them both up your ass.  Careful of the papercuts, monkeyjobber.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *tell me, was there any success with those medicines? because I'm sure there are some parents ready to dish out a couple force feedings if thats the case. *



Yes I there was. I'm 48 years old, and in my life time, I remember queers being "in the closet", and when they decided it was time to come "out of the closet", there was much discussion about this very subject. At that time there were several articles about how medicine had successfully treated homosexuals.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I've never heard of such a group, however, if a person can come to honest terms with himself/herself and declare that theirs was a choice I have no problem acknowledging that THEIR's was a choice. I believe that that is also a relatively small percentage of the total in that group. Do we accept the minority premise simply because it fits the mold of what you believe? *



Well by that line of thinking since homosexuals are a relatively small portion of the population do we believe them that they are normal and not abnormal? You are saying that the thoughts of the majority should overrule the thoughts of a minority which in theory I agree with. So shouldn't we say that, no homosexuals we are the majority and we believe you are wrong therefore no marriage.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well by that line of thinking since homosexuals are a relatively small portion of the population do we believe them that they are normal and not abnormal? You are saying that the thoughts of the majority should overrule the thoughts of a minority which in theory I agree with. So shouldn't we say that, no homosexuals we are the majority and we believe you are wrong therefore no marriage. *



"normal and not normal" does not equal "right and wrong".  When will you get this through youre severely sloped and excessively thick skull?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Well welfare is against my principles.  and I'm not looking for work now,  so you can shove them both up your ass.  Careful of the papercuts, monkeyjobber. *



I know you'd rather be a fucking bum. Congrats you are doing a bang up job!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I know you'd rather be a fucking bum. Congrats you are doing a bang up job! *



Why don't you go shit in the pool and then take a swim.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *"normal and not normal" does not equal "right and wrong".  When will you get this through youre severely sloped and excessively thick skull? *



Sorry it does in some cases including homosexuality Mr. Apologist.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well by that line of thinking since homosexuals are a relatively small portion of the population do we believe them that they are normal and not abnormal? You are saying that the thoughts of the majority should overrule the thoughts of a minority which in theory I agree with. So shouldn't we say that, no homosexuals we are the majority and we believe you are wrong therefore no marriage. *



convoluted again, or maybe i'm not understanding.

should the majority overrule the minority? in certain instances yes, but not when it comes to oppression or suppression of that minority.

when it comes to actions or relevancies that cause damage to others, then yes overrule them. 

I, personally, don't see how two people of the same sex having sex or getting married hurts me. It just doesn't. I've got more important things to worry about than to wring my hands because the non-harmful actions of two people are considered immoral or abnormal in the eyes of a majority.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Why don't you go shit in the pool and then take a swim. *



I just sit back and laugh when you self destruct. Hey you vs me is like the Durham Bulls taking on the N.Y. Yankees, you are way out of your league son.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Sorry it does in some cases including homosexuality Mr. Apologist. *



At least I'm not Mr. MonkeyNut, like you.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/822816/posts


Politically Correct Psychiatry
Citizen Magazine ^ | JAN 2003 | Linda Ames Nicolosi


Posted on 01/14/2003 7:36:01 PM PST by Remedy



A university course on changing homosexual orientation loses its accreditation after gay activists complain  and threaten. 

By Linda Ames Nicolosi 

Psychiatrist Richard Fitzgibbons says people who are attracted to same-sex partners can benefit from therapy and some can change their orientation. Thats the message he hoped to give at a one-day seminar course on homosexuality at the University of Michigan Hospital. 

But two weeks before the seminar, an official from the Michigan State Medical Association phoned the seminars organizers to say the association was yanking its accreditation of Fitzgibbons course. 

The State Medical Association received a "flood of gay-activist complaints" after the conference brochure was mailed out, according to Dr. Cathy Dowling, president of the Catholic Medical Association, Lansing Guild, which supports Fitzgibbons course. Gay activists also threatened to disrupt the seminar. 

Alarmed by the last-minute loss of accreditation, Dowling quickly located scores of scientific articles that documented support for Dr. Fitzgibbons claim that homosexuality can be changed. 

"We do not believe that people with same-sex attraction must undergo therapy," Dowling explained in a letter to the Medical Society. "Only that they have a right to know that it exists  and that it can be helpful." 

But the Michigan State Medical Society refused to reconsider the case. Supporters of the Fitzgibbons seminar wrote the medical society to complain. One letter said "it is political decisions such as this that make patients like me suspicious of treatments recommended by any doctors." 

*Another writer, a research professional, said homosexuality "is a developmental disorder, its causes and predictors are well-documented, it is treatable in adulthood, and it is highly associated with self-defeating and self-destructive behaviors and maladaptation  and those four preceding points have been politically buried or denied." *

Said another letter-writer: "I am a practicing psychiatrist with over 20 years experience. It offends me deeply that all sorts of crackpot psychological ideas and theories are allowedand even encouraged," while the argument that homosexuality is treatable gets the politically correct all up in arms." 

Coming up at the American Psychiatric Association this spring, psychiatrists are scheduled to debate about another diagnosis which will be of particular interest. Thats the diagnosis of "Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood." Gay activists have been lobbying for removal of this disorder from the psychiatric manual for many years  and if its approved, then a boy who wears high heels and a dress and wants to be a girl will be said to have nothing psychologically wrong with him.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *convoluted again, or maybe i'm not understanding.
> 
> should the majority overrule the minority? in certain instances yes, but not when it comes to oppression or suppression of that minority.
> ...



Not convoluted, you got it perfectly.

As I and many of us have stated here many times its not about sex, you want to bang your buddy fine just do it in privacy as I would ask the same of heterosexuals. Its when they decide to push acceptance of their obviously abnormal lifestyle through judges and politics then I have a problem seeing as how they already have the same rights as every other American. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexuality and are not going to be bullied by activist judges. Everyone wants to talk about a coming civil war along party lines uh uh, its going to be along social lines and its going to be brought on by the radicals in our midst such as the homosexuals.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *convoluted again, or maybe i'm not understanding.
> 
> should the majority overrule the minority? in certain instances yes, but not when it comes to oppression or suppression of that minority.
> ...



So it doesn't hurt "you". Is that all your concerned about? So you didn't get hurt in the 9/11 attack either. Does that mean you don't care about that either.

The point is, it hurts the institution of "MARRIAGE"! That's a sacred union between a man and woman in the eyes of GOD! And queers are destroying that.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *At least I'm not Mr. MonkeyNut, like you. *



A perfect example of somebody in need of psychiatry, *sigh*


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *That's a sacred union between a man and woman in the eyes of GOD! And queers are destroying that. *



And then they are coming for your kids!


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *A perfect example of somebody in need of psychiatry, *sigh* *



You've got the patients of a saint with this dimwit OCA.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *And then they are coming for your kids!  *



That's right. And after the kids they'll want the _DOGS!_


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

*Another writer, a research professional, said homosexuality "is a developmental disorder, its causes and predictors are well-documented, it is treatable in adulthood, and it is highly associated with self-defeating and self-destructive behaviors and maladaptation  and those four preceding points have been politically buried or denied."*


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *You've got the patients of a saint with this dimwit OCA. *



Awfully tough words.  You should direct them toward me, ya lady.


----------



## Aquarian (May 18, 2004)

I was about to go off on somebody but decided to reign it in.  I thank those that have discussed this in a rational (or nearly so) fashion but I'll leave the flamebaiting this thread is degenerating into to those so inclined to participate in such.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Another writer, a research professional, said homosexuality "is a developmental disorder, its causes and predictors are well-documented, it is treatable in adulthood, and it is highly associated with self-defeating and self-destructive behaviors and maladaptation  and those four preceding points have been politically buried or denied." *



Do you have a link?  Bold and red doesn't make things more convincing.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Do you have a link?  Bold and red doesn't make things more convincing. *



You guys could write in blood and still wouldn't make more convincing arguments, or sound/look less foolish.

Try it.

:


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Do you have a link?  Bold and red doesn't make things more convincing. *



Read back a ways like I do when I jump back into a thread. The "link" is above the article where I took this from.... you'd know that if you'd have read through from where you left off.


----------



## 007 (May 18, 2004)

http://www.redeemedlives.org/Resources/atcls/truth2.htm



*Telling the Truth About Homosexuality
by Rev. Mario Bergner 




Homosexuality Is Changeable

      Medically, homosexuality is changeable. Since the advent of psychology, the medical community has consistently reported successful treatment of this problem.  Listed here are six of the top doctors who, as part of their psychological or psychiatric practices, have treated homosexuals and written books about changing homosexuality: Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996), Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (1991), Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation (1986), Dr. Irving Bieber, et. al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic  Study of Male Homosexuals (1988), Dr. Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (1977) and Dr. Lawrence Hatterer, Changing Homosexuality in the Male: Treatment for Men Troubled by Homosexuality (1970).  In 1992 the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), (16442 Ventura Blvd. #416, Encino, CA 91436), was formed.  This group exists to advance the field of treatment for homosexuality.

      The most recent medical research seeking to find a biological basis for homosexuality has centered around three areas of concentration:  (1) psychoendocrine research (Doner 1988; Mayer-Bahlburg 1990; Mayer-Bahlburg 1991);   (2) brain structure studies (Swabb and Hofman 1988;  Swabb and Hofman 1990; LeVay 1991) and (3) genetics (Bailey and Pillard 1991; Bailey and Pillard 1993; Hamer 1993).    All researchers agree that even if a biological marker were found in all homosexual people, such a correlation would not imply causation.  They are quick to point out that behavior is variously determined.  They uphold a healthy respect for the complexity of human sexuality and the many known and unknown factors that contribute to sexual development.

      Biological studies of human sexual orientation are hotly disputed within the medical community.  In 1993, Dr. William Byne and Dr. Bruce Parsons published a comprehensive critique of these studies in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry.  Additionally, much of the push to find a biological basis for homosexuality comes from the influence of the politically active gay community upon the medical community.  For a comprehensive study on the politicalization of medical research seeking to find a biological basis of homosexuality see Satinover's book mentioned above

      No conclusive evidence for a biological basis to homosexuality has been found.  Most researchers state that if such evidence were found, it would merely be a predisposing factor and not a causative one.  From a Christian perspective, a predisposing biological factor contributing to the possible development of homosexuality in a person correlates to the biblical view that sins dwells in the flesh (Romans 7:18).  We all have a predisposing fleshly nature that motivates all our behaviors toward sin -- including our sexuality.  However, the Good News is that through regeneration and the exercising of our wills in concert with God's will we need not be slaves to the sinful impulses that motivate our behaviors, sexual or otherwise.


*


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *You guys could write in blood and still wouldn't make more convincing arguments, or sound/look less foolish.
> 
> Try it.
> ...



Flasher when you have kids and they are in school you will think differently.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *http://www.redeemedlives.org/Resources/atcls/truth2.htm
> 
> 
> ...



can't think for yourself, can you?


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Flasher when you have kids and they are in school you will think differently. *



About what, OCA?
I have wee little cousins and siblings(half-brothers).


----------



## pegwinn (May 18, 2004)

At this moment there are about 371 replies to this thread, so I aint reading backwards : 

But, I still think Mass is way wrong.  My next question is "How long before someone thinks to sue for the right to polygamy (sp?)".  I mean if you can be fem to fem or man to man, why cant you be fem to fem to man or vice versa.  If this was asked and answered, then sorry for the rerun.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

Additionally, much of the push to find a biological basis for homosexuality comes from the influence of the politically active gay community upon the medical community

      No conclusive evidence for a biological basis to homosexuality has been found.  Most researchers state that if such evidence were found, it would merely be a predisposing factor and not a causative one.  


That says it all right there.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *About what, OCA?
> I have wee little cousins and siblings(half-brothers). *



If they were taught from the early grades and forward that homosexuality is equal and as viable as heterosexuality would you be down with that? Don't laugh its coming, its part of their "agenda".


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *If they were taught from the early grades and forward that homosexuality is equal and as viable as heterosexuality would you be down with that? Don't laugh its coming, its part of their "agenda". *



I'm not sure my child will be attending school in the U.S.
But if they did, I would hope to teach them to make wise choices for THEMSELVES based on how I raised them and common sense. That's how I was raised.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *So it doesn't hurt "you". Is that all your concerned about? So you didn't get hurt in the 9/11 attack either. Does that mean you don't care about that either.
> 
> The point is, it hurts the institution of "MARRIAGE"! That's a sacred union between a man and woman in the eyes of GOD! And queers are destroying that. *



apples and oranges, you also didn't read the rest of my post obviously.

we're doing a fine enough job on our own destroying marriage, the 'queers' as you call them are not going to increase that. 

Another thing, you declare that this is in the eyes of GOD, what about those that don't follow religion or do not believe in god, should they not be allowed to marry then?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *That's right. And after the kids they'll want the DOGS! *



dont forget the cats and the birds. After that they'll probably want the earthworms as well.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *
> Another thing, you declare that this is in the eyes of GOD, what about those that don't follow religion or do not believe in god, should they not be allowed to marry then? *



so easy to discredit some of these wankers


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

Dammit something just struck me! Why I didn't think of this before i'll never know. 

RWA you really are against homosexuality I know. I'm guessing your support is a thinly veiled disguise so you could have another chance at a date with Aquarian. No?


----------



## 5stringJeff (May 18, 2004)

Man, I can't keep up in this thread.  8 pages since this morning.

Aquarian, in response to your reply, my beliefs about morality stem directly from the Bible, as I believe in its divine inspiration.  I'm sure that I could find secular arguments that discuss the morality of homosexuality, but by then this thread will have morphed into a giant lizard and started attacking a Japanese city. 

In response to the labeling issue, it sounded to me like DK was just trying to clarify OCA's beliefs about the whole thing.  All parties involved, IMO, should take a chill pill.  However, I will agree with OCA's statement that just because someone is morally opposed to a particular action doesn't make him a whatever-a-phobe.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Not schooling them in the US?  what's that all about? *



Well, just not thrilled with our school system. Most likely, they will attend SOME school here though. Maybe I'll home school them. Got a family whose children were all home-schooled, though, and they're all wierd as hell.

Ha-ha-ha-ha.

Plus, only a certain type of parent--one who works at home or doen't have to work, for example-- can do this.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by gop_jeff _
> *Man, I can't keep up in this thread.  8 pages since this morning.
> 
> Aquarian, in response to your reply, my beliefs about morality stem directly from the Bible, as I believe in its divine inspiration.  I'm sure that I could find secular arguments that discuss the morality of homosexuality, but by then this thread will have morphed into a giant lizard and started attacking a Japanese city.
> ...



Yeah Jeff you gotta be quick on the draw in this thread or you get left in the dust.


----------



## MtnBiker (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by gop_jeff _
> *
> 
> In response to the labeling issue, it sounded to me like DK was just trying to clarify OCA's beliefs about the whole thing.  All parties involved, IMO, should take a chill pill.  However, I will agree with OCA's statement that just because someone is morally opposed to a particular action doesn't make him a whatever-a-phobe. *



Jeff you always do a great job of bringing a sensible calm voice to a thread. I quite agree with your statement. If a person wants to clarify beliefs then just ask the questions.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MtnBiker _
> *Jeff you always do a great job of bringing a sensible calm voice to a thread. I quite agree with your statement. If a person wants to clarify beliefs then just ask the questions.  *



I'm guessing that when Jeff gets some pints in him that he gets loud and crazy lol j/k:


----------



## MtnBiker (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I'm guessing that when Jeff gets some pints in him that he gets loud and crazy lol j/k: *


It would be great fun to have a few pints with Jeff, hey Jeff lets go to the Ram sometime.


----------



## 5stringJeff (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I'm guessing that when Jeff gets some pints in him that he gets loud and crazy lol j/k: *



Yeah but I make it a point never to post while I'm drinking! :


----------



## 5stringJeff (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MtnBiker _
> *It would be great fun to have a few pints with Jeff, hey Jeff lets go to the Ram sometime.  *



I'm there at least once a week!  The one in Puyallup, at least.  They've got their Mai Bock back as the seasonal brew.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Flasher - my guess by your post is that you are in school now, no?
> How is that system?  I think it all really matters were you are located! *



I was basicly privately schooled, which was quite expensive.

Right now I am getting my MCSE certification.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by gop_jeff _
> *Yeah but I make it a point never to post while I'm drinking! : *



Oh but its fun!


----------



## Aquarian (May 18, 2004)

no prob jeff, I was just making the point that if you want to convince a non-christian that it's a moral issue, you'll eventually need a secular reasoning.  as always you have my respect for your thoughtful replies.

beware the giant lizard gozilla!


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Good luch with it Fasher! *



Thanks, bro.

In class now: token ring, ethernet...zzz. lol


----------



## NewGuy (May 18, 2004)

1. Marriage is not a Constitutional issue.

The context of the Constitution is to balance powers not make laws for behavior.

2. Marriage CAN be a state issue. 

If it is a state issue, the state sets the mandate supposedly off of voter opinion.

3. Marriage is a ritual.

Marriage is not love. Marriage is not commitment. Marriage is public symbolism.

The Bible, which is what the Nation's laws were founded on condemns homosexuality as a sin. It dictates people should NOT perpetuate sin.

Our nation treasures liberty. It was structured so that individual liberties were totally protected until they broke promises or ecroached upon the rights of others (natural law).

These two seem at odds, but they are not.

The end conclusion is that if homosexual marriage is to be treasured, it cannot be government sanctified as it is:

1. a measure of religious faith
and
2. a personal liberty

Therefore, adding tax benefits for married people discriminates against singles and makes the whole ritual a governmental discrimination policy.

The nation cannot be one that believes "all men are created equal" if it financially discriminates against singles. By the same token, it is to preserve individual liberty. It must ignore all marriage.

As such, the Bible, since it condemns sin, would put America in the position (as being a Christian foundation) of needing to ignore all governmentally recognized "marriage" except acknowleding it exists for such things as census records, and all citizens would be able to do whatever they wanted to PRIVATELY with their own rituals of commitment.

In addition, since homosexuality is a behavior, just as celebacy is, nobody HAS to engage in it, and it IS a choice.

As such, it is wrong, should be condemned, and the people who *flagrantly* engage in it ought to be shown for what they are:

Sinners trying to promote the corruption of others by adopting the same egotistical behavior which would exterminate the human race if carried to its logical conclusion and trying desperately to do all of this in the face of those of Christian faith.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *1. Marriage is not a Constitutional issue.
> 
> The context of the Constitution is to balance powers not make laws for behavior.
> ...



You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.

What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others?


----------



## NewGuy (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.*



I am concerned about the sins of others?

Where did you get that drivel?

I care about the foundation and integrity of our nation.
I care about Christ and His plan.
I care about my salvation.
I care about making sure others hear the truth about Christ.
I care about my own behavior.
I care about my salvation.



> *What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others? *



Insecure?

Did you know too much soy product causes the male hormones to DECREASE?

I suggest laying off of them for a while.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.
> 
> What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others? *



Standard rebuttal for someone on the gay topic when they can't refute the content. Surprised homophobe wasn't in there, thats usually #1 in the playbook.


----------



## NewGuy (May 18, 2004)

Christians are automatically considered homophobes.

BP knows that.

"BP"......Isn't that a place where their nozzel always gets put into your backside opening and you get "filled up"?

Why was MY sexuality in question?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *You seem to awfully concerned about the sins of others. Generally, that's a pretty good indicator that someone's trying to cover up their own sins.
> 
> What are you hiding? Or are you just so insecure about your own sexuality that you have to criticize that of others? *



Who wouldnt be concerned with the sins of others? no man is an island. No man lives in a vaccuum. Our actions effect others. We effect others around us and more importantly our actions affect _generations_ of people who come after us. You may think "Who cares what i do with my d***" welcome to the real world. Your sexual activity does affect others. You have the power to create life, and with great power come great responsibility even if you dont think it matters.  

Your sex life effects generations of people. Not only that but also effects every tax payers in this nation. We pay $20 billion dollars a year for people who have been careless with their sexual life and gotten some STD. So you think someones sex life doesnt effect others? It just shows the selfish views you have. You care more about your own instant gratification then whether your actions have any negative consequences.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Standard rebuttal for someone on the gay topic when they can't refute the content. Surprised homophobe wasn't in there, thats usually #1 in the playbook. *



Well, personally, I think that ALL of you men who are overly concerned with the sexual practices of others are secretly ashamed of your own desire to rub up against a large, erect penis.

I could be wrong, but seriously, you all spend alot of time think about OTHER guys' penises and what they do with them. Get a hobby.


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

Wow.  So many new posts!!  With a wife, a career (that does not allow me time or permission to surf), and other activities, I simply don't have the time to keep up with such an active thread.  I didn't read through all of the posts for this thread but I noticed a series of statements in one of the posts to which I wish to reply.

"I care about the foundation and integrity of our nation."
I care about it too.

"I care about Christ and His plan.
I care about my salvation."

I'm an Agnostic.  Therefore the comment does not apply to me.

"I care about making sure others hear the truth about Christ."
Good.  Communicate with others.  I care about informing others about my philosophy.

"I care about my own behavior."
I care about my behavior.

There is a difference between advising people about what you consider to be good for them and advocating legislation that forces people to behave, in ways pleasing to you, by penalty of the law.


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

"We pay $20 billion dollars a year for people who have been careless with their sexual life and gotten some STD."

Same can be said for heterosexual sex.  It sure sounds like a cry for abstinence regardless of your sexual preference.  I am still a moderate libertarian with an individualist mindset.  I believe that individuals should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. To knowingly infect someone with an STD should be a crime (if it is not).  I would also caution people to "know your partner" before having sex.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *I am concerned about the sins of others?
> 
> Where did you get that drivel?
> ...



I think you're more concerned with your own tiny ego  than anything else. It's such a delicate thing. And I left out homophobe since it was so blatantly obvious.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *I think you're more concerned with your own tiny ego  than anything else. It's such a delicate thing. And I left out homophobe since it was so blatantly obvious. *



I think his issues might go beyond ego.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Standard rebuttal for someone on the gay topic when they can't refute the content. Surprised homophobe wasn't in there, thats usually #1 in the playbook. *



If there was any rational, well reasoned argument here as to why gay and lesbian couples should be denied marriage, I would gladly rebutt and refute it. But there's not,,,So I don't.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

*sigh* Our(anti-gay marriage and anti-special rights for homosexuals) arguments are well documented, well thought out and up to this point have yet to be countered effectively. We have heard "homophobe", "afraid to rub up against an erect penis", and the good ol' famous ridiculous notion that "we have issues with our own sexuality". Anybody want to try and prove that homosexuality is normal? Somebody give that a whirl and then we'll talk. Until then we'll consider the issue pretty much null and void since y'all are at the ridiculous stage.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *If there was any rational, well reasoned argument here as to why gay and lesbian couples should be denied marriage, I would gladly rebutt and refute it. But there's not,,,So I don't. *



Lol Bully I think that the fact that your moral compass is effectively whatever brings pleasure to an individual is good to go sort of disqualifies your opinion, don't ya think?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> **sigh* Our(anti-gay marriage and anti-special rights for homosexuals) arguments are well documented, well thought out and up to this point have yet to be countered effectively. We have heard "homophobe", "afraid to rub up against an erect penis", and the good ol' famous ridiculous notion that "we have issues with our own sexuality". Anybody want to try and prove that homosexuality is normal? Somebody give that a whirl and then we'll talk. Until then we'll consider the issue pretty much null and void since y'all are at the ridiculous stage. *



are you daft? I've countered every single argument that you've brought up.

Gay marriage won't do any more damage to the institution of marriage than straight marriage already does.

Gay marriage is NOT a sin to the people that don't believe in god.

Gay marriage hurts NOBODY but those involved with it.

Finally, YOU, yourself, said that being gay was not normal but due to some 'short circuit'. When I called you on it not being a choice anymore, you twisted the two together to CYA.

consider it null and void all you want, its a dead even heat you have no chance of winning. Unfortunately neither do I.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

And fortunately for those who want to get married, they can always move to Mass. now and say their vows. As well as Hawaii, anywhere else?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

No twisting on my part. You just caught me not making my full argument. My argument is that its a mental short circuit which allows someone to make such an obvious wrong choice just like the person who knows that hitting that rock is wrong but still puts the pipe to their lips the first time. But in the end its still a choice.

Now can someone give me an effective argument as to homosexuality being normal? If you can do that I will stand corrected, if not I will stay with the position that vile and abnormal behavior should be treated and not rewarded.

Am I asking too much?


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *No twisting on my part. You just caught me not making my full argument. My argument is that its a mental short circuit which allows someone to make such an obvious wrong choice just like the person who knows that hitting that rock is wrong but still puts the pipe to their lips the first time. But in the end its still a choice.
> 
> Now can someone give me an effective argument as to homosexuality being normal? If you can do that I will stand corrected, if not I will stay with the position that vile and abnormal behavior should be treated and not rewarded.
> ...



Ha-ha-ha-ha....normal?
Who gives a shit about normal?
You mean the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws?


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

*sigh* anything goes in America today. Like I said yesterday, i'd like to drop trow and take a dump when the urge hits me rather than go through the discomfort of holding it till I find a john. Who's to say that thats not normal if we are unwilling to set limits or I want to marry my sister, where does this stop?


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> **sigh* anything goes in America today. Like I said yesterday, i'd like to drop trow and take a dump when the urge hits me rather than go through the discomfort of holding it till I find a john. Who's to say that thats not normal if we are unwilling to set limits or I want to marry my sister, where does this stop? *



It stops at laws preventing you from shitting in certain places for public health reasons.

Just like it stops at someone dropping trow and molesting your ass whenever the urge strikes them.

It stops at what people do in their bedroom being your business, pretty much.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Hmmm, I am thinking Connecticut maybe?  Nah just messing with ya Flasher! *



Nope, but there was a march at the capital on SUnday here in Hartford. It appears that many are happy with the Mass. decision, being our neighbor and all.


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Lol Bully I think that the fact that your moral compass is effectively whatever brings pleasure to an individual is good to go sort of disqualifies your opinion, don't ya think? *



No.  People should be free to do AS THEY PLEASE as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others.  See my comments on page 18.  I clearly explained why just because a behavior is not "normal" does not necessarily mean that it should be illegal.

Is that a picture of you smoking?  Gee.  That sure isn't normal. There are not many smokers and it is not a "normal" behavior.  God never intended for people to put burning grass so close to their lips.  We better totally outlaw such activity.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *No.  People should be free to do AS THEY PLEASE as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others.  See my comments on page 18.  I clearly explained why just because a behavior is not "normal" does not necessarily mean that it should be illegal.
> 
> Is that a picture of you smoking?  Gee.  That sure isn't normal. There are not many smokers and it is not a "normal" behavior.  God never intended for people to put burning grass so close to their lips.  We better totally outlaw such activity. *



I think he got you OCA.:dev1:


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> **sigh* anything goes in America today. Like I said yesterday, i'd like to drop trow and take a dump when the urge hits me rather than go through the discomfort of holding it till I find a john. Who's to say that thats not normal if we are unwilling to set limits or I want to marry my sister, where does this stop? *



Go ahead and take a dump but do it on your own property.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *I think he got you OCA.:dev1: *



No getting me at all. I would argue that smoking is as normal as rain. Hell people have been using tobacco products since the beginning of time. Now the next thing you'll say is homosexual behavior has been around since the beginning of time, true, but its a long stretch to equate lighting a marlboro to licking your buddy's scrotum, don't ya think?

Hey hows about y'all quit dancing around the subject and explain to me how two men boning each other in the ass is normal and right as rain, are you up to the challenge?

Matts, you gotta have limits in society or society breaks down. Can't have everybody running around half cocked doing whatever pleases them just because pantywaists are afraid to hurt their feelings out of PC. The truth is tough to take sometimes, I know.


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *No getting me at all. I would argue that smoking is as normal as rain. Hell people have been using tobacco products since the beginning of time. Now the next thing you'll say is homosexual behavior has been around since the beginning of time, true, but its a long stretch to equate lighting a marlboro to licking your buddy's scrotum, don't ya think?
> 
> Hey hows about y'all quit dancing around the subject and explain to me how two men boning each other in the ass is normal and right as rain, are you up to the challenge?
> ...



Smoking, biting your fingernails, women wearing crewcut hair styles, men wearing earrings, dressing in plaid shirt with striped pants - Whether it is due to genetic predisposition and/or trauma and/or choice -- it just doesn't matter.  As long as you are not committing force or fraud against an unwilling individual, I just don't care.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

Holy Moly!

Can someone just summarize what the hell has happened here?  What is going on on this thread? I don't have three lifetimes to find out by reading this crap.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

Ok obviously Matts isn't up to the task, anybody else wanna give er a go?


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Ok obviously Matts isn't up to the task, anybody else wanna give er a go? *



LOL - Up to what task?  I already explained it to you.  People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others.  You apparently disagree.

"Undisputed USMB debate and trash talking champ!?!?" 

Undisputed by whom - You? I think that it would be best for you to return the title to the judges.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Holy Moly!
> 
> Can someone just summarize what the hell has happened here?  What is going on on this thread? I don't have three lifetimes to find out by reading this crap. *



If you're having a hard time keeping up, slugger, we'll just put you back down in the triple AAA club for awhile, say?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I would argue that smoking is as normal as rain. Hell people have been using tobacco products since the beginning of time. Now the next thing you'll say is homosexual behavior has been around since the beginning of time, true, but its a long stretch to equate lighting a marlboro to licking your buddy's scrotum, don't ya think? *



I would say that sticking a cigarette in your mouth is about as normal as sticking someones willy up your ass. They are both foreign objects put in places that weren't made to go together......by your own admission that is.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *"We pay $20 billion dollars a year for people who have been careless with their sexual life and gotten some STD."
> 
> Same can be said for heterosexual sex.  It sure sounds like a cry for abstinence regardless of your sexual preference.  I am still a moderate libertarian with an individualist mindset.  I believe that individuals should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. To knowingly infect someone with an STD should be a crime (if it is not).  I would also caution people to "know your partner" before having sex. *



Exactly why i advocate abstinance regardless of sexual preference. but if you look at the studies homosexual sex is more of a risk then hetro sex.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *LOL - Up to what task?  I already explained it to you.  People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others.  You apparently disagree. *



Matts what you are advocating is a form of social anarchy. How long do you think without laws limiting certain immoral behaviors, such as blowjobs in public, that society would remain civil? Now i'm going off of the no harm no foul philosophy of yours because as far as I know a public bj doesn't hurt anybody unless you catch a stray wad which might be a little sticky and groce but not harmful.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Hey hows about y'all quit dancing around the subject and explain to me how two men boning each other in the ass is normal and right as rain, are you up to the challenge?
> *



If I gave a shit. What interest should I have in two other guys, a dick and an ass? I haven't gotten laid in a while but, nope, still not interested.

I mean you, purportedly straight, just said something like "lick his buddy's scrotum." I like how the words just rolled of your tongue.:
Why is this so important to you?

Normal? Right as rain?
There are alot of things that aren't right in my book.

You can add "Life isn't fair" to your list of complaints.
But nobody ever promised you life was going to be fair.
And nobody promised you that as long as you lived two guys wouldn't "bone" eachother.

Geez, all the problems in the world and you can't get your mind off of dick.

What is the challenge?
I don't get it?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts what you are advocating is a form of social anarchy. How long do you think without laws limiting certain immoral behaviors, such as blowjobs in public, that society would remain civil? Now i'm going off of the no harm no foul philosophy of yours because as far as I know a public bj doesn't hurt anybody unless you catch a stray wad which might be a little sticky and groce but not harmful. *



If I'm not mistaken, he referred to this line of thought in another post as STRICTLY one being behind closed doors.......


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I would say that sticking a cigarette in your mouth is about as normal as sticking someones willy up your ass. They are both foreign objects put in places that weren't made to go together......by your own admission that is. *



Come on now DK, you know that comparing a cigarette to a schlong is a far stretch. Both are harmful, yes, but equitable in immorality? No.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts what you are advocating is a form of social anarchy. How long do you think without laws limiting certain immoral behaviors, such as blowjobs in public, that society would remain civil? Now i'm going off of the no harm no foul philosophy of yours because as far as I know a public bj doesn't hurt anybody unless you catch a stray wad which might be a little sticky and groce but not harmful. *



Do you really think gross is spelled g-r-o-c-e? Now THAT is funny.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *are you daft? I've countered every single argument that you've brought up.
> 
> Gay marriage won't do any more damage to the institution of marriage than straight marriage already does.
> ...



LoL you dont really believe that do you? Homosexuality not a sin to people who dont believe in God? Sin is sin regardless whether you believe in God or not. I could deny that the sky is blue all i want but its not going to change the color of the sky. 

I am always surprised how careless some people can be with the gift of creating life. I mean walk up  to someone with a gun, pull the trigger and when an empty chamber clicks say to ourself "wow im glad i didnt go all the way" do we?  its amazing how careless we are with the sanctity of life.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *It stops at laws preventing you from shitting in certain places for public health reasons.
> *



Not in San fransisco.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Do you really think gross is spelled g-r-o-c-e? Now THAT is funny. *



I know I just caught that myself, fucked up there.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I know I just caught that myself, fucked up there. *



happens, just hadn't seen that one before...


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Holy Moly!
> 
> Can someone just summarize what the hell has happened here?  What is going on on this thread? I don't have three lifetimes to find out by reading this crap. *



people post in favor of gay marriage. People post against. arguments of substance 0


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *If I'm not mistaken, he referred to this line of thought in another post as STRICTLY one being behind closed doors....... *



And if it was behind closed doors i'd agree with ya. But tell me, how is pushing for gay marriage keeping it behind closed doors?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *LoL you dont really believe that do you? Homosexuality not a sin to people who dont believe in God? Sin is sin regardless whether you believe in God or not. I could deny that the sky is blue all i want but its not going to change the color of the sky.
> 
> I am always surprised how careless some people can be with the gift of creating life. I mean walk up  to someone with a gun, pull the trigger and when an empty chamber clicks say to ourself "wow im glad i didnt go all the way" do we?  its amazing how careless we are with the sanctity of life. *



thats assuming quite alot. To you, someone who believes in god, yes sin is sin regardless. But to someone who is atheist, sin is only defined by what they percieve it as, not 'gods' law, since they believe in no god. 

All that means is that you're trying to push off your religious views and laws on to someone else who doesn't believe the way you do.


Your comparison of the bullet thing...........useless as it didn't even come close to being the same thing.


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *LoL you dont really believe that do you? Homosexuality not a sin to people who dont believe in God? Sin is sin regardless whether you believe in God or not. I could deny that the sky is blue all i want but its not going to change the color of the sky.
> 
> I am always surprised how careless some people can be with the gift of creating life. I mean walk up  to someone with a gun, pull the trigger and when an empty chamber clicks say to ourself "wow im glad i didnt go all the way" do we?  its amazing how careless we are with the sanctity of life. *



What you consider a sin isn't neccesarily a sin to someone else.
And if you believe in the freedom to practice one's own religion...

As for the rest of your post, I dunno what the hell you're rambling about...


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *LOL - Up to what task?  I already explained it to you.  People should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others.  You apparently disagree.
> 
> "Undisputed USMB debate and trash talking champ!?!?"
> ...



They are free to do what they want to do. They arent free to force society to change their standards for marriage against societies will. The fact is this decision in Massachusetts came only because the people were ordered they had no choice to allow "gay marriage" by the courts. The peoples rights have been overthrown and its about time we take them back.


----------



## Sandy73 (May 18, 2004)

I feel the need to break the cycle !!!


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *They are free to do what they want to do. They arent free to force society to change their standards for marriage against societies will. The fact is this decision in Massachusetts came only because the people were ordered they had no choice to allow "gay marriage" by the courts. The peoples rights have been overthrown and its about time we take them back. *



My rights haven't been overthrown:ali:


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts what you are advocating is a form of social anarchy. How long do you think without laws limiting certain immoral behaviors, such as blowjobs in public, that society would remain civil? Now i'm going off of the no harm no foul philosophy of yours because as far as I know a public bj doesn't hurt anybody unless you catch a stray wad which might be a little sticky and groce but not harmful. *



I believe in there being reasonable limits particularly when activities are in public.  I remember when a bus driver "kicked" 2 women off a bus when he saw them French-kissing each other.  I don't know if he would have treated the couple in the same manner if the two adults were of the opposite sex.  The issue is consistency.  I don't think that public displays of sexual activity (such as those that might be done on the sidewalk) should be allowed (whether it is between heterosexuals or homosexuals).  Again, the issue is consistency.  I suppose that there should be reasonable limits.  The issue becomes "where to draw the line".  I don't think that the line should be drawn at not allowing gay marriage.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *What you consider a sin isn't neccesarily a sin to someone else.
> And if you believe in the freedom to practice one's own religion...
> 
> As for the rest of your post, I dunno what the hell you're rambling about... *



You are not this stupid. Please tell me you arent. Ill make this easy *Sin is sin regardless* It doesnt change. Truth does not change. if it changes by deffinition its not truth. What the heck is so freakin difficult to understand about this concept?!?!?!

Im sorry you seem to think life is meaningless and you take it for granted. But most of society does not. If you continue to try to force this issue on the people there is going to be backlash, major backlash and you are not going to be happy.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *If I gave a shit. What interest should I have in two other guys, a dick and an ass? I haven't gotten laid in a while but, nope, still not interested.
> 
> I mean you, purportedly straight, just said something like "lick his buddy's scrotum." I like how the words just rolled of your tongue.:
> ...



Whats the challenge of proving to me that two men are supposed to have sex with each other and be in a relationship the type which marriage denotes?

I've asked 1 simple question all day and nobody can answer me. Please provide some evidence or explain to me how homosexuality and consequentially gay marriage is normal? Thats all I ask.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sandy73 _
> *I feel the need to break the cycle !!!
> 
> 
> ...


 :wank:  :wank: :wank: :wank:


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *My rights haven't been overthrown:ali: *



Sure have. You have you just lost your right to legislation by the majority. We now have small minority political groups dictating law a majority of the people against their wishes. this is tyranny.


----------



## Sandy73 (May 18, 2004)

I knew you would love her RWA !!!


----------



## Sandy73 (May 18, 2004)

SE I could give you another lovely !! Care to see her??
hahahahaha


----------



## nycflasher (May 18, 2004)




----------



## Sandy73 (May 18, 2004)

Here is Flasher's sexy devil !!


----------



## Sandy73 (May 18, 2004)

THONG SONG !!


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Whats the challenge of proving to me that two men are supposed to have sex with each other and be in a relationship the type which marriage denotes?
> 
> I've asked 1 simple question all day and nobody can answer me. Please provide some evidence or explain to me how homosexuality and consequentially gay marriage is normal? Thats all I ask. *



"Please provide some evidence or explain to me how homosexuality and consequentially gay marriage is normal?" 

Your question makes an assumption that homosexuality leads to gay marriage.  If you want to ask a straight question, please ask a straight question.  I will be happy to answer any straight question you ask provided that it does not make assumptions.  For example, if you were to simply ask me for evidence that homosexuality is normal, I would say that I have no such evidence. (No assumptions and no implications.)  If you were to ask if gay marriage is normal, I would say that it is not normal. (No assumptions and no implications).  Did you ask (and did I answer) whether or not we should outlaw homosexuality or homosexual marriage since they are not normal?  No.

"Whats the challenge of proving to me that two men are supposed to have sex with each other and be in a relationship the type which marriage denotes?"

What is the challenge of proving to me that adults of the opposite sex are SUPPOSED to have sex with each other and be in a relationship the type which marriage denotes?  To the degree that you can answer that, I can answer your question.


----------



## OCA (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *"Please provide some evidence or explain to me how homosexuality and consequentially gay marriage is normal?"
> 
> Your question makes an assumption that homosexuality leads to gay marriage.  If you want to ask a straight question, please ask a straight question.  I will be happy to answer any straight question you ask provided that it does not make assumptions.  For example, if you were to simply ask me for evidence that homosexuality is normal, I would say that I have no such evidence. (No assumptions and no implications.)  If you were to ask if gay marriage is normal, I would say that it is not normal. (No assumptions and no implications).  Did you ask (and did I answer) whether or not we should outlaw homosexuality or homosexual marriage since they are not normal?  No. *



How in the hell can you have gay marriage without being homosexual? You think two guys are gonna go get married after they split a case of Budweiser without being homosexual? WTF? I'm shaking my head at that one.

Anyway I do not advocate making homosexuality in and of itself illegal just that we recognize that it is abnormal and should not be given the legal status that marriage would give it. But if you think its not normal then why all the fuss? Just say hey, y'all ain't right in the head so no marriage, comprende?


----------



## mattskramer (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *How in the hell can you have gay marriage without being homosexual? You think two guys are gonna go get married after they split a case of Budweiser without being homosexual? WTF? I'm shaking my head at that one.
> 
> Anyway I do not advocate making homosexuality in and of itself illegal just that we recognize that it is abnormal and should not be given the legal status that marriage would give it. But if you think its not normal then why all the fuss? Just say hey, y'all ain't right in the head so no marriage, comprende? *



At issue is the term "consequently".  You can have homosexuality without having gay marriage follow.  I consider homosexuality about as abnormal as being left handed, or wearing plaid pants with a striped shirt, or having a peanut butter and catsup sandwich.  You may think it is yucky but it just doesn't matter.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *LoL you dont really believe that do you? Homosexuality not a sin to people who dont believe in God? Sin is sin regardless whether you believe in God or not. I could deny that the sky is blue all i want but its not going to change the color of the sky.
> 
> I am always surprised how careless some people can be with the gift of creating life. I mean walk up  to someone with a gun, pull the trigger and when an empty chamber clicks say to ourself "wow im glad i didnt go all the way" do we?  its amazing how careless we are with the sanctity of life. *



and where the hell, pray tell, did you figure that DK was careless with the gift of creating life?  Please show me.  This, Id like to see.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 18, 2004)

Also, I keep seeing things stated such as '2 guys going at it' or 'one guy licking another's scrotum'.  Guess what people......homosexuality includes lesbians as well....or is that not as 'wrong'.   oh wait wait wait.....its not AS wrong while youre whacking off to the twat lickers paradise porn online but it IS ok when its NOT done for your viewing pleasure?


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *At issue is the term "consequently".  You can have homosexuality without having gay marriage follow.  I consider homosexuality about as abnormal as being left handed, or wearing plaid pants with a striped shirt, or having a peanut butter and catsup sandwich.  You may think it is yucky but it just doesn't matter. *



That sure is a bunch of bunk comparisons matts. That's like saying, well I compare being queer to like a fire cracker and a thermo nuclear warhead. C'mooooon.

So if someone walked past you with a plaid shirt and striped pants on, you wouldn't be any more offended by that than if you walked by two guys naked, groping and grunting, locked in a butt fuck? You don't think one is any worse than the other? Unbelievable.....

Homosexuality is "abnormal". That arguement has been *WON* by OCA and the rest of us on that side of the issue. Which I might add is shared by the VAST majority of Americans.

Now, should queers be allowed to marry? I've asked twice now, why the hell does it have to be "marriage" when they were offered all the same "LEGAL" advantages with a Civil Union? NO ONE has answered that either! And to top it off, you pro queers have argued that hell, "IT'S NOT A SIN BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD ANYWAY". So that BEGS the question, IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, THEN WHY IN THE HELL DO THEY NEED TO BED *MARRIED*, WHEN MARRIAGE IS A *HOLY MATROMY?!*

There's not a GOOD answer at all for any of those questions. After 30+ pages here, I've heard NOTHING to show me queers are normal or NEED to get "married".


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

nawwww - not angry....just annnoyed lol.  if I was angry, you would have heard me all the way from Tx LOL


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> Homosexuality is "abnormal". That arguement has been WON by OCA and the rest of us on that side of the issue. Which I might add is shared by the VAST majority of Americans.



Cool you win.

What do you win, anyway? (this is ummmm kinda a message board, pal)

Wanna cookie?  You win a cookie!


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *That arguement has been WON by OCA and the rest of us on that side of the issue. Which I might add is shared by the VAST majority of Americans.*



And I could say FRANCE won the argument about WMD's in the security council and you'd be as right as they were.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *
> What is the challenge of proving to me that adults of the opposite sex are SUPPOSED to have sex with each other and be in a relationship the type which marriage denotes?  To the degree that you can answer that, I can answer your question. *



Duh.......Homosexuality will cause the entire human race's extinction if carried out to its logical conclusion.

Heterosexuality creates repopulation.

Guess which one gives and the other taketh away?

How is this supposed to be a challenge?

Answer the questions posed by OCA.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

SE: 

LOL  nope  

What annoys me in the double standard.  Maybe Ive imagined it, maybe I havent....who knows? :huh: 

Truth to be told, I know Im right as usual (LMAO - even I cant keep a straight face when saying that  : ) so I give a big
ppppffffftttttt to everyone that doesnt agree.


PPPFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT!


:cof:


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> Heterosexuality creates repopulation.



Mine doesnt.  I had a hysterectomy when I was 24 - even though I dont procreate, I still recreate as often as possible (hence the reason that DK is always sleeping, poor guy).

Yes, I did procreate at one time.  There are many women and men who choose to not have children for one reason or another, or simply cant because of some quirk in nature or otherwise.
Am I outside the laws of nature?  Are they?

New Guy - I know Im taking this to an extreme - I guess my point (that Ive gone all the way around lol),  is ....shit....I forgot my point damnit.   

If you happen to come across it, Id appreciate your letting me know :


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *And I could say FRANCE won the argument about WMD's in the security council and you'd be as right as they were. *



Ummm, news flash DK, the troops just found a shell in Iraq that was laced with Sarin.... you know.... WMD.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Cool you win.
> 
> What do you win, anyway? (this is ummmm kinda a message board, pal)
> ...



What did we win? "The arguement". Is that all the harder the questions are going to be?

And we're "pals" now aye? Ok...... "sister".


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

he just went to bed, Pale Rider.  He has an early meeting tomorrow I think, so more than likely he wont see this for a while.

Just lettin ya know


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *What did we win? "The arguement". Is that all the harder the questions are going to be?
> 
> And we're "pals" now aye? Ok...... "sister". *



Oh lets not get pissy - Im not being mean to you....you know that.  We've been there done that.....and I told you then that Im not reallllly a bitch....I only play one on the USMB. lol

smile!  I'll have a cooky with you


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Oh lets not get pissy - Im not being mean to you....you know that.  We've been there done that.....and I told you then that Im not reallllly a bitch....I only play one on the USMB. lol
> 
> smile!  I'll have a cooky with you *



I know your playing around KL. I'm just goofing with you a little...  

I welcome your humor. It was actually time for some in this thread.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *I agree!  not too much was mentioned about two women engaged in the act!  Although it would be an interesting topic of debate I am sure! *



Aaaaah, I'm kind of ignorant about what you're talking about...... aaaaah, could I see some pictures? :teeth:


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

here is some humor for you......lol

My exhusband has been being a real dick lately (his specialty) and he actually had the unmitigated GALL to complain that I never do anything for him anymore (as if?????)

So I said ok, I'll bake ya something...hows that?  Would you like a nice shit pie, a go to hell pastry or hows about a nice slice of shut the fuck up?

That didnt go over too well......but I had fun!:


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Aaaaah, I'm kind of ignorant about what you're talking about...... aaaaah, could I see some pictures? :teeth: *



This is what I mean!  Please Pale Rider....explain this to me....why is it ok for lesbians (especially if you can watch and theyre hot)

Seriously though - Im truly curious.  And pls dont tell me Im not a guy and cant understand.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *here is some humor for you......lol
> 
> My exhusband has been being a real dick lately (his specialty) and he actually had the unmitigated GALL to complain that I never do anything for him anymore (as if?????)
> ...



What the hell does he expect?! "Service" AFTER divorce?! He's fucked up. He's got his shit backwards....


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *This is what I mean!  Please Pale Rider....explain this to me....why is it ok for lesbians (especially if you can watch and theyre hot)
> 
> Seriously though - Im truly curious.  And pls dont tell me Im not a guy and cant understand.
> ...



Because "men" are _naturally_ attracted to WOMEN. And if one woman is good, then TWO HAVE TO BE BETTER. 

It's not the thought that the two women are going to "DO" each other that's a turn on. It's the thought of "HAVING THEM BOTH".

Does that make sense? It should. That's as straight as I can tell it.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

he's an inverted rectum
and a big PPPPPFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTT to him.

Actually, only a little pppppffffftttttt - he never gave me anything 'sizable', why should I give him anything thats more than....ummmmm TINY.    ha ha

(damn, I AM just a mean, spiteful little bitch!)  Quick, SE ya better ban me....Im turning into a shit right before everyone's eyes!

:


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *he's an inverted rectum
> and a big PPPPPFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTT to him.
> 
> ...



No offense intended, but you sound like a normal woman to me...


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

Fair enough Pale - that makes sense.

But let me ask you this.....having two women ok - I can see the allure from a male point of view (or at least I can as best as I can since Im female lol)  But its not a turn on to see 2 hot women go at it?

I have a point and will get aaround to it soon without forgetting it - promise lol


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *No offense intended, but you sound like a normal woman to me...  *



asshole!  :


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Fair enough Pale - that makes sense.
> 
> But let me ask you this.....having two women ok - I can see the allure from a male point of view (or at least I can as best as I can since Im female lol)  But its not a turn on to see 2 hot women go at it?
> ...



I don't know if I'm different from most men but no, seeing two women go at it doesn't do anything for me. I see it as a waste of good coochy. It makes me mad that "I'M" not in there instead.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

LMAO!!!!

Well thank you for the honest reply - Im laughing over here too!  

Ok, here is my issue (obviously not with you - but an issue nonetheless)  

*before I begin, ATTN READERS:  I am directing this at the male gender....NOT because I think that women are not to blame also in this, but because I am simply trying to understand something for myself.  Call it my 'need to know'.  Thank you...read on*

There are so many men who openly bash homosexuality...some maybe because it truly sickens them, some perhaps for religious reasons, some because maybe theyre homophobes....or none or even all of those reasons...I dont pretend to know why.  However, many of these same men will get off hardcore (no pun intended again) on seeing 2 women go at it on a porn - sure they have the fantasy of being there, but some really get into watching lesbian sex between 2 very attractive women.

To me, this seems like hypocrisy....does it not?

What is your opinion


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *LMAO!!!!
> 
> Well thank you for the honest reply - Im laughing over here too!
> ...



Yes it is. Flat out. Yes it is.

Just for record, like I need to clear this up at this point, I am against homosexuality. Now this has nothing to do with the "person" that is homosexual. I DO NOT HATE homo's. That's GOD's job. Not mine. As people, I give them all the same respect as anyone else. I am just absolutely against homosexuality. I think it's disgusting and perverted behavior. I can't put it any simpler than that. Some think like me, some don't. More do than don't.

But I'd like to point something out about the difference between men and women. I've been aware of this for a long time. You see this everywhere. When men and women go out together, couples, whatever, when first greeting each other, the women will hug and kiss each other, and the men will just shake hands, if that. Women are much more....... "affectionate" with each other than men are. It's the old story... "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". So not to put your question into a place where no one answer will be right KL, I do think there will be many varied answers, and they ALL may be right. Or wrong.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

LMAO SE !!!!

(you do realize that I was speaking of my ex - not  my current hubby)


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

Pale Rider - 

that was a way fair answer....I thank you for it! 

Its my hope that tomorrow as others are reading this, that they too will respond with their opinions...preferably as honest and non-aggressive as you just did.

This is something that has always perplexed me.

And btw, good point about women in general being more affectionate than men towards friends of the same sex.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

Let's hope they DO read back before they just jump to here and start posting again.

I've been finding six or seven new pages in between times when I've posted in this thread, but by God I read all of it from where I'd left off.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Lol Bully I think that the fact that your moral compass is effectively whatever brings pleasure to an individual is good to go sort of disqualifies your opinion, don't ya think? *



Sorry, but I think you've got me confused with someone else regarding the moral compass issue. As for the "well documented arguments" about why same gender marriage should be prohibited, all I've seen here is opinion rooted in religious dogma with the occaisional mutant variant of psychobabble thrown in for good measure. 

If the standard of right and wrong is rooted in the consequences of an action to this life, in this world, than same gender marriage is not wrong. There is no evidence showing that any harm will come to society or individuals as a result of allowing same gender couples to marry. Unless you're afraid you're going to turn queer overnight, divorce your wife, abandon your kids, and take up residence in a gay leather bar for the rest of your life. I don't hink that's something you need to worry yourself over.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Sorry, but I think you've got me confused with someone else regarding the moral compass issue. As for the "well documented arguments" about why same gender marriage should be prohibited, all I've seen here is opinion rooted in religious dogma with the occaisional mutant variant of psychobabble thrown in for good measure.
> 
> If the standard of right and wrong is rooted in the consequences of an action to this life, in this world, than same gender marriage is not wrong. There is no evidence showing that any harm will come to society or individuals as a result of allowing same gender couples to marry. Unless you're afraid you're going to turn queer overnight, divorce your wife, abandon your kids, and take up residence in a gay leather bar for the rest of your life. I don't hink that's something you need to worry yourself over. *



You believe in God don't you bully?


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *You believe in God don't you bully? *



No.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

Why does this matter at all to so many people?  Who cares if it is a choice?  (I can't see how it would be, if gay teens had a choice why not change back rather than blow brains out the back of their heads?)  Even if it is, it is _their_ choice, not yours.  The Republican Party is supposed to stand for individual rights but in many cases is lacking.

If a person sins, it is their right, it is called free will.  If these people want to sin you cannot stop them.  These civil marriages cannot hurt or violate any other marriages only those in those marriages can do that.

In a country where the wife swapping show called "Swap" is coming to town soon, where Britney Spears gets married and annulled in the time it takes most people to make their morning coffee.  Do we really have room to care about this?

Where is Musgrave when Marriage is attacked by wife-swapping TV shows?  Why is there no Constitutional Amendment proposed against TV shows where two idiots that have never met get married just because the guy is a Millionaire?  Where is the outrage at the violation of the "sanctity" of marriage when it is attacked by stupidity as well as made a joke of?

I can never understand all this outrage over this.


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Why does this matter at all to so many people?  Who cares if it is a choice?  (I can't see how it would be, if gay teens had a choice why not change back rather than blow brains out the back of their heads?)  Even if it is, it is their choice, not yours.  The Republican Party is supposed to stand for individual rights but in many cases is lacking.
> 
> If a person sins, it is their right, it is called free will.  If these people want to sin you cannot stop them.  These civil marriages cannot hurt or violate any other marriages only those in those marriages can do that.
> ...



What he said.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> And that will be next. Old men wanting to marry little boys, (micheal jackson), and old women wanting to marry little girls. And I mean "LITTLE". Like 10 or 12 years old.



10 or 12 year olds cannot give consent and neither can dogs, horses or planets as I have seen some people suggest in this thread.  You are going far out of your way to prove the idiocy and illogical nature of your own arguments.

Two adults that are not related and can give consent can be civily joined and it leads to people marrying _planets_?  *Give it a rest*, that kind of imaginary enemy will only lead to paranoia and people laughing at you and children saying things like, "Look at the crazy man, Mommy!" just before they get slapped.  A little jousting with windmills can only make you look insane, and never will be a good vehicle for presenting a good argument (to mix metaphors.)


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *10 or 12 year olds cannot give consent and neither can dogs, horses or planets as I have seen some people suggest in this thread.  You are going far out of your way to prove the idiocy and illogical nature of your own arguments.
> 
> Two adults that are not related and can give consent can be civily joined and it leads to people marrying planets?  Give it a rest, that kind of imaginary enemy will only lead to paranoia and people laughing at you and children saying things like, "Look at the crazy man, Mommy!" just before they get slapped.  A little jousting with windmills can only make you look insane, and never will be a good vehicle for presenting a good argument (to mix metaphors.) *



its when they have a house full of cats that you REALLY have to watch out for them.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *LMAO!!!!
> 
> Well thank you for the honest reply - Im laughing over here too!
> ...



Ok KL this is the 2nd time i've answred this question, can't remember if you asked the first time or not so here goes 

I do not find it attractive to watch two hotties going at it. I find if i'm watching a skin flick(internet porn is boring to me) that usually I watch about 5 minutes of the lesbos than i'm hitting ff. I need to see some pounding that eventually will come to a visual finality, catch my drift? Other than that I haven't minded being with a couple gals the couple of rare occasions its happened in my life, all their attention was on me, who wouldn't love that?

Now can somebody prove to me that homosexuality is natural and normal please?


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> There are so many men who openly bash homosexuality...some maybe because it truly sickens them, some perhaps for religious reasons, some because maybe theyre homophobes....or none or even all of those reasons...I dont pretend to know why. However, many of these same men will get off hardcore (no pun intended again) on seeing 2 women go at it on a porn - sure they have the fantasy of being there, but some really get into watching lesbian sex between 2 very attractive women.



Is this hypocrisy?  Of course it is.  If the Femmes were not attractive to them, or if it was guys they would be ready to start burning dildos on their lawns.

Interesting that kinksters that tie people up aren't on their screens, only gays.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Ok KL this is the 2nd time i've answred this question, can't remember if you asked the first time or not so here goes
> 
> I do not find it attractive to watch two hotties going at it. I find if i'm watching a skin flick(internet porn is boring to me) that usually I watch about 5 minutes of the lesbos than i'm hitting ff. I need to see some pounding that eventually will come to a visual finality, catch my drift? Other than that I haven't minded being with a couple gals the couple of rare occasions its happened in my life, all their attention was on me, who wouldn't love that?
> ...



you're still confusing normalcy with morality.  Left handed people are a minority, that doesn't automatically make it wrong.   It's really none of your business.

And as far as equal protection, gays do not have the same rights, they cannot marry the individuals they love.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Why does this matter at all to so many people?  Who cares if it is a choice?  (I can't see how it would be, if gay teens had a choice why not change back rather than blow brains out the back of their heads?)  Even if it is, it is their choice, not yours.  The Republican Party is supposed to stand for individual rights but in many cases is lacking.
> 
> If a person sins, it is their right, it is called free will.  If these people want to sin you cannot stop them.  These civil marriages cannot hurt or violate any other marriages only those in those marriages can do that.
> ...



Well put----the sanctity of marriage has been attacked constantly by silly ass TV shows etc. This present outrage may be a result of some homophobia but I think a majority are angry at the constant attempt to make every one equal . This always results in an attack on the majority and I think the majority has is pissed because of their attempts to respond are met with cries of "racists" or "bigots". It is interesting to me how difficult it is for the majority  to be heard. Freedom to resond is part of free speech also and that has been taken away from the majorities (plural). Thier are a number of majorities and they all are not white


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Fantastic!  15 posts and 35 pages to this thread and you are telling people what to do!  I bow to your superiority!:hail:
> 
> Now you can "Give it a Rest" and allow the moderators to take care of that job! *



Wow, what cogent argument.  I haven't been on the site as long as you so obviously my opinion must mean less than yours!  Good job!


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *you're still confusing normalcy with morality.  Left handed people are a minority, that doesn't automatically make it wrong.   It's really none of your business.
> 
> And as far as equal protection, gays do not have the same rights, they cannot marry the individuals they love. *



*sigh* *shrug* Can someone please prove to me how homosexuality is natural and normal? No more silly comparisons to left hands, plaid clothing or glasses on the bridge of the nose. As if they are in any way comparable to two people of the same sex having sex or entering into a relationship of which marriage denotes.

Is there anybody who can handle the question or are all you people going to continue to blow smoke up my ass?

BTW all you pro gay marriage people need to reign RWA in, he's doing serious damage to your side just by his presence.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Well as the phrase goes Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!  yours is no less important at all. However there is no need to act like your opinion either!
> 
> Not being on this site very long is very apparent as you felt the need to tell all to "Give it a Rest" as if your opinion was all that mattered.
> ...



So this site moderates opinion based on a turn of phrase, not on flaming?  Wow.  Opinions that differ from Moderator's are cancelled.  DKSuddeth didn't seem to think my post was out of line, I will look at the rules again and see if I really did go past any decorum or just differed from your own opinion.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *So this site moderates opinion based on a turn of phrase, not on flaming?  Wow.  Opinions that differ from Moderator's are cancelled.  DKSuddeth didn't seem to think my post was out of line, I will look at the rules again and see if I really did go past any decorum or just differed from your own opinion. *



You're still here aren't you?  STFU.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *You're still here aren't you?  STFU. *



Looks like that is good advice.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> **sigh* *shrug* Can someone please prove to me how homosexuality is natural and normal? No more silly comparisons to left hands, plaid clothing or glasses on the bridge of the nose. As if they are in any way comparable to two people of the same sex having sex or entering into a relationship of which marriage denotes.
> 
> Is there anybody who can handle the question or are all you people going to continue to blow smoke up my ass?
> ...



You're confusing two issues, occurence of a trait in a population and morality.

It is natural, as it occurs naturally in individuals and has throughout history.  It may not be "normal" but being abnormal  alone (or in pairs) carries no moral value.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

OC-------you think an albino is immoral?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *You're confusing two issues, occurence of a trait in a population and morality.
> 
> It is natural, as it occurs naturally in individuals and has throughout history.  It may not be "normal" but being abnormal  alone (or in pairs) carries no moral value. *



Once again, prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prove it same as science has proven how thunder and lightning is produced. I'll be waiting. This should be good for a few laughs.

Wow was that some smoke going up my ass?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *OC-------you think an albino is immoral? *



Ife he fucks his buddy in the ass you're damn right I do!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Once again, prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prove it same as science has proven how thunder and lightning is produced. I'll be waiting. This should be good for a few laughs.
> 
> Wow was that some smoke going up my ass? *



Prove it's natural?  I admit it's not normal.  But abnormality is not necessarily wrong or evil.  Like lefthandedness.  Your "reducto ad bigotry" arguments are tiring and idiotic.


----------



## Aquarian (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> **sigh* *shrug* Can someone please prove to me how homosexuality is natural and normal? *



there is no need to, but there has been evidence presented that indicates it is 'natural' as well as evidence to the contrary leaving that portion of the matter undecided.  'Normal' has been shown not to be a deciding factor in all legal matters.  

life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.  I believe the latter two apply particularly well to this situation.  also equality under the law.  If you have a particular group (say hetero couples) set out for special treatment, that is supposedly not allowable.  that's the argument anyway.  I'm not personally too interested in institutionalized marriage anyway, tho civil unions would be nice to make legal issues easier.  individual rights are under attack in this country by those that would make everyone 'normal' living in their little subdivisions with cutesy names, not daring to think for themselves (it seems) and this is but one example where folks are trying to reverse that trend.  

"what we have here... is a failure to communicate"

I'm not likely to change your mind, and you're not likely to change mine, but at least we can discuss it like adults (mostly)


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

I will not back you on your suburbanite hatred issues, Aquarian.  Are you concerned with land usage, or do you just have unfocused hatred?  Suburbanites wanted cheaper homes with bigger yards.  WHat's wrong with that?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Aquarian for the most part you seem like a levelheaded and mature person but obviously you and I differ on this subject. I believe that homosexuality is a choice and a perversion along the same lines as the people who like to pee on each other. 

As for the evidence there was an article posted, jeez this thread is so big now I don't know which page its on, but basically it said that these little so called evidences of homosexuality being natural etc. etc. are put out their without much in the way of proof because the homosexual leadership in America exerts an extreme amount of presure on the scientific research community.

Anyway i'm not going to bash you as I don't hate the homosexual but rather the homosexual agenda. I've listened to talk shows on the subject where a homosexual lawyer, well anykind of professional, will call in and say he could care less about marriage or whatever he just wants to be left alone and he's pissed at the flaming and radical leadership that has taken over the gay community. Whats your thoughts on that? Is the current over the top leadership damaging or helpful?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Prove it's natural?  I admit it's not normal.  But abnormality is not necessarily wrong or evil.  Like lefthandedness.  Your "reducto ad bigotry" arguments are tiring and idiotic. *



Translation: I don't have an argument to refute you OCA so i'll throw bigot out there because I don't want to go away emptyhanded.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

People of other religions than yours may often take part in things that you might consider immoral, such as witchcraft for Wiccans, however people are are not arguing that they should be banned from normal discourse in society or from marriage.  Why is it that since the religion most followed in this country says Gays are immoral, that we must define marriage by your religion?

Since religion is not the only institution that can marry people shouldn't rights matter for civil marriages?  A person has a right not to follow this religion, not to do whatever another wants them to do so long as they cause no harm to others.  There is no victim when two consenting adults get married regardless of what sex they are, so where is there any justification for removing their right to do so?

Regardless if this is normal, or natural it is the right of the individual to make the choice for themselves.


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *People of other religions than yours may often take part in things that you might consider immoral, such as witchcraft for Wiccans, however people are are not arguing that they should be banned from normal discourse in society or from marriage.  Why is it that since the religion most followed in this country says Gays are immoral, that we must define marriage by your religion?
> 
> Since religion is not the only institution that can marry people shouldn't rights matter for civil marriages?  A person has a right not to follow this religion, not to do whatever another wants them to do so long as they cause no harm to others.  There is no victim when two consenting adults get married regardless of what sex they are, so where is there any justification for removing their right to do so?
> ...



I agree.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *People of other religions than yours may often take part in things that you might consider immoral, such as witchcraft for Wiccans, however people are are not arguing that they should be banned from normal discourse in society or from marriage.  Why is it that since the religion most followed in this country says Gays are immoral, that we must define marriage by your religion?
> 
> Since religion is not the only institution that can marry people shouldn't rights matter for civil marriages?  A person has a right not to follow this religion, not to do whatever another wants them to do so long as they cause no harm to others.  There is no victim when two consenting adults get married regardless of what sex they are, so where is there any justification for removing their right to do so?
> ...



Hey buddy you go quote me where i've based any of my arguments on religion. I've for the most part deliberately left religion out of this argument because it is easy to attack. 

Now you got any proof that homosexuality is normal and not a perversion? Don't bullshit me and put some crap about left hands or some other stupid shit, hit me with facts.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Hey buddy you go quote me where i've based any of my arguments on religion. I've for the most part deliberately left religion out of this argument because it is easy to attack.
> 
> Now you got any proof that homosexuality is normal and not a perversion? Don't bullshit me and put some crap about left hands or some other stupid shit, hit me with facts. *



You're right.  Your arguments are not religious; they're mostly along the lines of "This just ain't normal".  A religious argument would have at least been worthy of a modicum of respect.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Translation: I don't have an argument to refute you OCA so i'll throw bigot out there because I don't want to go away emptyhanded. *



Wrong.  There's much evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.  Saying the gay community has corrupted science is not a good refutation.  Post a link proving it's a choice and we'll let you be, ostrich-bigot.


----------



## Aquarian (May 19, 2004)

rwa- I probably used a bad example, referencing the Monkey's song 'pleasant valley sunday' where the suburbs are full of cookie cutter houses and cookie cutter people.  I know it's not all like that, but like any stereotype it developed for a reason (that reason being that a good number of folks do fit the stereotype).  also feel like I 'escaped' the burbs when I moved to an area on the edge of atlanta and eventually into the city itself <shrug>

oca- 

hmm.  over the top folks leading the charge.  yes, sometimes I think they are more radical and pushy than necessary.  other times I can see the use of their tactics.  when they push the envelope as far as they can and it snaps back, it's usually ahead of the place they started from.  that's the way the moral pendulum seems to work in this country on any issue.  I try to stand up for any group, individual, act or practice that doesn't directly impact any other.  I'm not always the best as I tend to be a quiet observer around folks not in my circle of friends, but I try.  back in my pride marching days I'd have to defend the weirder ones to my more 'normal' friends.  my friends would say 'why can't they dress/act normal, they're giving us a bad name' and I'd have to point out that's the exact same argument the majority is trying to force on us.  granted, you have to draw the line somewhere.  I'm not going to stand up for nambla, I'm not going to speak out for bestiality.  but I do think the lines of liberty need to be pushed out a bit farther than they are now in several arenas including the gay issue, firearms, drug legalization (not sure on the heavier ones, but mj for sure), free speech and such.

to swing back around to the original start of that paragraph for a moment, I see negative reactions in the news to the efforts of gay activists that I often think could have been avoided if the activists acted more diplomatically, but I haven't been personally affected by the issue in so long I barely remember what it was like.  my friends, relatives, co-workers and fellow atlantans really don't seem to care for the most part (talking in town, outside the perimiter is another story).  they called us at one time the city too busy to hate.  do your job, pay your bills and have as much fun as you can without hurting anyone seems to be the motto...


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> Hey buddy you go quote me where i've based any of my arguments on religion. I've for the most part deliberately left religion out of this argument because it is easy to attack.



I did not quote you at all.  I was making a general argument about religion not being the basis of law.  

However since I hit you while aiming at a general target I will ask you a question.  Without religion, give me a reason that this is immoral.  Where is the victim in other words?


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Wrong.  There's much evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.  Saying the gay community has corrupted science is not a good refutation.  Post a link proving it's a choice and we'll let you be, ostrich-bigot. *



Celebacy is a choice.

So is smoking....even though it is addictive.

How the heck can you argue homosexual marriage or activity as being necessary?

You can't.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Celebacy is a choice.
> 
> So is smoking....even though it is addictive.
> ...



That's like saying your heterosexuality is a choice because you chose to act on it by having sex with women.  It's an assinine argument, just like most of your arguments.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *You're right.  Your arguments are not religious; they're mostly along the lines of "This just ain't normal".  A religious argument would have at least been worthy of a modicum of respect. *



Actually anybody intelligent want to answer the normal and natural question?

RWA you cannot be serious, in the past 6 months it has been proven that homosexuality is not normal and natural by at least a dozen members on this board in dozens of ways. WTF are you blind? Regardless the burden of proof doesn't lay with us it lays with your side. At this point since you've offered very little evidence the defense has really no reason to call any witnesses.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *That's like saying your heterosexuality is a choice because you chose to act on it by having sex with women.  It's an assinine argument, just like most of your arguments. *



-Except my "choice" allows generational population amongst the species.

The "other" alternative does not.

If I DONT act upon my urge, I CHOOSE celebacy.

It is still a choice.

You are still spewing hot air.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Actually anybody intelligent want to answer the normal and natural question?
> 
> RWA you cannot be serious, in the past 6 months it has been proven that homosexuality is not normal and natural by at least a dozen members on this board in dozens of ways. WTF are you blind? Regardless the burden of proof doesn't lay with us it lays with your side. At this point since you've offered very little evidence the defense has really no reason to call any witnesses. *



Not normal.  Is natural.  Is morally neutral.

I am serious.

Nothing has been proven.

There is more proof it's biological than that it's not.  You  ignore the evidence.

Judge Wapner has more game than you, give it up.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> Actually anybody intelligent want to answer the normal and natural question?



Why would it need to be answered?  It is unnatural to fly in planes at speeds over the speed of sound, and not normal as well, however nobody would say it is immoral.  (Most planes travel well under the speed of sound.)  It is not natural to remove organs in order to save people's lives, and not normal either, few say that is immoral (some religions do believe that this is immoral, however we do not use their ruler to make law).


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Why would it need to be answered?  It is unnatural to fly in planes at speeds over the speed of sound, and not normal as well, however nobody would say it is immoral.  (Most planes travel well under the speed of sound.)  It is not natural to remove organs in order to save people's lives, and not normal either, few say that is immoral (some religions do believe that this is immoral, however we do not use their ruler to make law). *



Boy that was a flawed logic.

The argument clarified is:

If we can do it, we SHOULD do it.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *I did not quote you at all.  I was making a general argument about religion not being the basis of law.
> 
> However since I hit you while aiming at a general target I will ask you a question.  Without religion, give me a reason that this is immoral.  Where is the victim in other words? *



My harddrive is down right now and i'm on an old pos that doesn't allow me to search real well but somewhere in this thread posted by a guy named Big D are some stats on a little disease called AIDS. Before the big explosion of AIDS in the homosexual community were there any cases of AIDS among heterosexuals? How did AIDS get into the blood supply? Check out the rates of AIDS among the homosexual community as compared to others. They are their own victims.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Boy that was a dumb logic.
> 
> The argument clarified is:
> ...



no.  You misunderstood.  The point is this, minority behavior is not automatically "wrong" behavior.  Get grip, locktite.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Boy that was a flawed logic.
> 
> The argument clarified is:
> ...



No, what you should search for is the victim, if there is a victim it is immoral and can be argued without religion.  The argument clarified is:

Just because it is not natural, does not mean it is immoral.

You miss the mark and the point and attempt to invalidate my response with illogic and sporadic reasoning at best.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Why would it need to be answered?  It is unnatural to fly in planes at speeds over the speed of sound, and not normal as well, however nobody would say it is immoral.  (Most planes travel well under the speed of sound.)  It is not natural to remove organs in order to save people's lives, and not normal either, few say that is immoral (some religions do believe that this is immoral, however we do not use their ruler to make law). *



Again irrelevant and completely unequal in terms of depravity actions. 

Dammit, somebody tell vote that this line of argument he's using has been losing for 3 days now.

Somebody please answer the simple question of is homosexual natural and normal and please provide irrefuteable proof. I'm begginning to think no one is up to that task. Could it be it doesn't exist? Hmmmmm


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *when they push the envelope as far as they can and it snaps back, it's usually ahead of the place they started from.  that's the way the moral pendulum seems to work in this country on any issue. *


This is very true.  This is also the process that is slowly and methodically destroying the moral fiber of our country, in my opinion.  

Each day, a little more of our moral integrity is relinquished, until one day we'll awake to a world where anyone is allowed to do anything.  I know that this is fatalistic, and probably even extremish, but it is where I see us heading, and it bothers me.

My beliefs and politics are seated in my religion.  It is where I get my moral beliefs and conscience.  I make no apologies for it.  I will not attempt to force anyone to accept my religion and adopt it as their own, but I will stand up till the end for what I believe is "right and wrong" based upon my Christian beliefs!


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *no.  You misunderstood.  The point is this, minority behavior is not automatically "wrong" behavior.  Get grip, locktite. *



People this guy is killing your side, my suggestion is have a talk with him or sedation might be a good choice.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *My harddrive is down right now and i'm on an old pos that doesn't allow me to search real well but somewhere in this thread posted by a guy named Big D are some stats on a little disease called AIDS. Before the big explosion of AIDS in the homosexual community were there any cases of AIDS among heterosexuals? How did AIDS get into the blood supply? Check out the rates of AIDS among the homosexual community as compared to others. They are their own victims. *



We pass disease by shaking hands, is this immoral?  Should we outlaw the sneeze?  Coughing?  There are many ways to pass disease, to say that all actions that pass disease are immoral would outlaw many normal activities in our society including heterosexual sexual acts.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *My harddrive is down right now and i'm on an old pos that doesn't allow me to search real well but somewhere in this thread posted by a guy named Big D are some stats on a little disease called AIDS. Before the big explosion of AIDS in the homosexual community were there any cases of AIDS among heterosexuals? How did AIDS get into the blood supply? Check out the rates of AIDS among the homosexual community as compared to others. They are their own victims. *



Don't blame the spread of AIDS on homosexuality alone. Its a blood borne pathogen. now, wouldn't you think that IV drug abuse had alot to do with is also?


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *
> 
> Just because it is not natural, does not mean it is immoral.
> ...



The funny part is, I don't recall anyone saying it was one, therefore the other.

It has been said that it is simply BOTH.

If we want to be stupid about symantics, we can say arsenic is natural, but we shouldn't involve that in our lifestyle, should we?

How about cannibalism of raw flesh?

Not right.

All of this is natural. -The point is it is not CORRECT. 

By a simple standard of ethics mandated by rules required to allow man to live, and by generational survivability, not to mention all logic and Biblical reference,

IT AINT THE THING TO DO. PERIOD.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

seems like definitions are needed here-----

natural-----occurs in nature

normal------what occurs most often


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Again irrelevant and completely unequal in terms of depravity actions.
> 
> Dammit, somebody tell vote that this line of argument he's using has been losing for 3 days now.
> ...



OCA, again, normality really has nothing todo with the issue at hand...IMO.

Smoking is not really "normal" but millions of us do it and have been for years. And it is legal. 

Picking your nose and eating it is not reallynormal, but I've sen people do it. Again, it is legal.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *We pass disease by shaking hands, is this immoral?*


*

We transport GERMS which are then subject to layers of immune system functionallity starting with layers of skin and mucous which protect as barriers before the bloodstream is even introduced.

This is not the same as transporting VIRUSES by blood to blood contact.




Should we outlaw the sneeze?  Coughing?  There are many ways to pass disease, to say that all actions that pass disease are immoral would outlaw many normal activities in our society including heterosexual sexual acts. 

Click to expand...


As stated above, the immune system is being bypassed with homosexual activity. It is unsafe.*


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

-The point is it is not CORRECT. 

By a simple standard of ethics mandated by rules required to allow man to live, and by generational survivability, not to mention all logic and Biblical reference.


WTF does that mean??


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *-The point is it is not CORRECT.
> 
> By a simple standard of ethics mandated by rules required to allow man to live, and by generational survivability, not to mention all logic and Biblical reference.
> ...


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *We transport GERMS which are then subject to layers of immune system functionallity starting with layers of skin and mucous which protect as barriers before the bloodstream is even introduced.
> 
> This is not the same as transporting VIRUSES by blood to blood contact.
> ...



The system is bypassed in heterosex too.  Unless your saying heterosexual sex does not transmit venereal diseases.  Haven't you said enough foolish things for one day?


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

explain it please


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *-The point is it is not CORRECT.
> 
> By a simple standard of ethics mandated by rules required to allow man to live, and by generational survivability, not to mention all logic and Biblical reference.
> ...



He-he-he.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.rif.org


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *The system is bypassed in heterosex too.  Unless your saying heterosexual sex does not transmit venereal diseases.  Haven't you said enough foolish things for one day? *



I know what heterosexual sex does.

Thanks to this quote of yours, you just advocated heterosexual monogamy.

Thanks for making my point again!
:


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

newguy thinks he has made another point---what a wacko


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *I know what heterosexual sex does.
> 
> Thanks to this quote of yours, you just advocated heterosexual monogamy.
> ...



Yep.  It transmits disease, just like gay sex.

Your point is bad.  Saying gay sex transmits disease and then saying it's immoral due to that fact is inconsistently applied if you don't apply that line of reasoning within your own sexual community.  You're a mess, Saul.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *Don't blame the spread of AIDS on homosexuality alone. Its a blood borne pathogen. now, wouldn't you think that IV drug abuse had alot to do with is also? *



I'm saying it was introduced into this country through homosexual sex for the most part and whether it would have gotten here some other way is another argument. Anyway homosexuals were warned back in the early days of what was happening yet they continued to act as if nothing was wrong until it was too late. IV drug users only got it one of two ways, either a homosexual who was already infected shared his needles or an IV drug user was infected through a blood transfusion in which blood was used from an HIV infected homosexual. In any case I think you can directly attribute the spread of AIDS in America at least to homosexuality. There are your victims.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Yep.  It transmits disease, just like gay sex.
> 
> Your point is bad.  Saying gay sex transmits disease and then saying it's immoral due to that fact is inconsistently applied if you don't apply that line of reasoning within your own sexual community.  You're a mess, Saul. *




Do you even know what you said here?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Do you even know what you said here?  *



Yes.  But let's hear your interpretation, wackjob.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Yes.  But let's hear your interpretation, wackjob. *



There would be no point. You have no argument and you even make my points for me. I would say we are through here.

The level of success by any opponent of yours is generally indicated by the level of insults you hurl.

I would say you have acknowledged defeat.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *There would be no point. You have no argument and you even make my points for me. I would say we are through here.
> 
> The level of success by any opponent of yours is generally indicated by the level of insults you hurl.
> ...



Whatever you say, Maude.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

typical loser----says he wins and runs away  LOL

The level of success by any opponent of yours is generally indicated by the level of insults you hurl.


Damn he has lost a lot of em by this def


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

Yeah.  Really.  Newguy, please get a clue.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Can somebody please prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is natural and normal please?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Can somebody please prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is natural and normal please? *



Even if it were unnatural and abnormal, that STILL wouldn't make it immoral.  SO your question, which you think is so great, is moot.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

Been tryin but newguy can't get his head out his books


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Been tryin but newguy can't get his head out his books *



You and newguy together are going to prove homosexuality is natural and normal?   WIll this be in the adult section?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Even if it were unnatural and abnormal, that STILL wouldn't make it immoral.  SO your question, which you think is so great, is moot. *



Oh it most certainly is immoral, that is unless you think its cool to fuck another guy in the ass or fisting him is your thing. Maybe you don't take it in the ass, maybe you just like to polish the helmet.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

So your not asking any question here----you are trying to justify your reason for calling it immoral.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Oh it most certainly is immoral, that is unless you think its cool to fuck another guy in the ass or fisting him is your thing. Maybe you don't take it in the ass, maybe you just like to polish the helmet. *



now we have many axis pairs to construct our 4 d gay space.

right vs wrong, normal vs abnormal, natural vs unnatural, cool vs uncool.  Have fun with your protractor and compass, gayologist.


----------



## Big D (May 19, 2004)

What is nice is the fact that as homo's start to feel that what they do is normal, the amount of aids cases increase.

Hopefully now that they can marry, this will bring many more aids cases to the homosexual community.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *now we have many axis pairs to construct our 4 d gay space.
> 
> right vs wrong, normal vs abnormal, natural vs unnatural, cool vs uncool.  Have fun with your protractor and compass, gayologist. *



 

That was funny.

Stupid and irrelevant, but funny.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Pardner, logical and right thinking people don't even debate that immoral subject, its a given. Hey if you don't think so thank god you don't make the decisions in this country, WHEEEW!


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *now we have many axis pairs to construct our 4 d gay space.
> 
> right vs wrong, normal vs abnormal, natural vs unnatural, cool vs uncool.  Have fun with your protractor and compass, gayologist. *



I take it you give up?


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *
> 
> That was funny.
> ...



He-he.

Almost as funny as how much time "straight" guys spend discussing gay sex, or "homo sex" as you refer to it in your vernacular.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

and you and newguy are the right and logical people here.?   

 who decided that?


----------



## Big D (May 19, 2004)

Over 75 percent of AIDS infections result from homosexual activity or drug use and only two percent result from blood transfusions.

 All over American society people are working to discourage smoking, alcohol, toxic pollution and high fat diets for the simple reason that they reduce human life expectancy. Yet none of these threats reduces life expectancy as much as homosexual conduct. 
Why would we do anything to promote such a lifestyle? There are kids watching us.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Even if it were unnatural and abnormal, that STILL wouldn't make it immoral.  SO your question, which you think is so great, is moot. *


How is the morality of any issue determined?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *He-he.
> 
> Almost as funny as how much time "staight" guys spend discussing gay sex, or "homo sex" as you refer to it in your vernacular. *



The argument, the one in which you are inferring that we are repressing homosexual feelings is just thrown out there when your side has hit an intellectual brick wall. In other words its ridiculous.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

It is funny how this thread has frazzled------the topic here is gay marriage.    Us straight guys sometimes have a problem with bigots


----------



## Big D (May 19, 2004)

I like all the homo's that have died from aids, and I hope for more.


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *The argument, the one in which you are inferring that we are repressing homosexual feelings is just thrown out there when your side has hit an intellectual brick wall. In other words its ridiculous. *



Um, I think you hit the brick wall when you turned a discussion on gay marriage into a discussion of gay sex and the normality of it.

It's irrelevant.
Can't you think of an abnormal married couple? 
Maybe one of 50% that end in divorce, for example?

Off to lunch.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *and you and newguy are the right and logical people here.?
> 
> who decided that? *



Pardner, you can attack the messenger and not the message all you want it does you no good. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is normal and natural then you will at the same time prove that it is a moral act or behavior, until then....................


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Pardner, logical and right thinking people don't even debate that immoral subject, its a given. Hey if you don't think so thank god you don't make the decisions in this country, WHEEEW! *



in what way would homosexuality be labeled as 'immoral'.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Pardner, you can attack the messenger and not the message all you want it does you no good. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is normal and natural then you will at the same time prove that it is a moral act or behavior, until then.................... *



you define normal and natural Mr. Logic !


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Pardner, you can attack the messenger and not the message all you want it does you no good. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is normal and natural then you will at the same time prove that it is a moral act or behavior, until then.................... *



now THAT was absolutely ridiculous.

morality and normality can only apply to homosexuality? You've already argued several instances where it isn't YET ridicule other points made to you, effective points, where we've already proven that something can be abnormal yet not immoral.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Um, I think you hit the brick wall when you turned a discussion on gay marriage into a discussion of gay sex and the normality of it.
> 
> It's irrelevant.
> ...



Man and woman, doesn't get any more normal than that. Whether there are no divorces in the gay community or 100's of thousands makes no difference, two people of the same sex don't belong together in that manner.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Man and woman, doesn't get any more normal than that. Whether there are no divorces in the gay community or 100's of thousands makes no difference, two people of the same sex don't belong together in that manner. *



and again, who cares if thats normal and something different is not normal? abnormality does NOT define immorality


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

OCA--you have no interest in learning anything here----you set up parameters and then change them or redefine----you have made up your mind that no one will prove you wrong. Quit asking that question when you dont want answers


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *now THAT was absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> morality and normality can only apply to homosexuality? You've already argued several instances where it isn't YET ridicule other points made to you, effective points, where we've already proven that something can be abnormal yet not immoral. *



BULLSHIT! Comparing homosexuality to an albino or lefthanded people or wearing glasses on the bridge of your nose is absolutely and utterly ridiculous and doesn't do your argument one damn bit of good.

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is natural and normal?


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *and again, who cares if thats normal and something different is not normal? abnormality does NOT define immorality *



This is the point I have been trying to make with him for a long time, he keeps asking me to prove whether it is normal.  I say it doesn't matter and ask him why it would matter, he again says it ins't normal.

Circular argument, recognizing no points from anybody.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *BULLSHIT! Comparing homosexuality to an albino or lefthanded people or wearing glasses on the bridge of your nose is absolutely and utterly ridiculous and doesn't do your argument one damn bit of good.
> 
> Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is natural and normal? *



Can you prove that all things that are not normal are immoral?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *you define normal and natural Mr. Logic ! *



Well we sure as fuck know it ain't banging your best buddy then going to the JOP and getting hitched!


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *BULLSHIT! Comparing homosexuality to an albino or lefthanded people or wearing glasses on the bridge of your nose is absolutely and utterly ridiculous and doesn't do your argument one damn bit of good.
> 
> Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is natural and normal? *



several instances of homosexuality have occured in numerous species throughout the animal kingdom. There, I've just proven its natural.


Normal is a useless argument, to you as well as anyone else, because 'normal' is defined as that which is assumed by a majority.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

I resign--OCA--you are wasting my time-----keep your mind closed--you will go far---gl to anyone whose gonna hang in there on this one


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Can you prove that all things that are not normal are immoral? *



I never said that all things that are not normal are immoral. The comparisons of left hands and albinos is ridiculous. You will never be able to prove that those things are depravity on the par with homosexuality and by the way those things are hereditary, homosexuality has never been proven to be hereditary or anything else, therefore it is a choice until proven otherwise.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *several instances of homosexuality have occured in numerous species throughout the animal kingdom. There, I've just proven its natural.
> 
> 
> Normal is a useless argument, to you as well as anyone else, because 'normal' is defined as that which is assumed by a majority. *



Lets see, where are the instances of two animals of the same sex becoming mates for life? I've said all along, if you want to screw your buddy fine, just don't expect government to legalize your depravity.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I never said that all things that are not normal are immoral. The comparisons of left hands and albinos is ridiculous. You will never be able to prove that those things are depravity on the par with homosexuality and by the way those things are hereditary, homosexuality has never been proven to be hereditary or anything else, therefore it is a choice until proven otherwise. *



But yet, you attempt to use abnormality as proof of immorality.  Ignoring scientific proof is not COOL.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *I resign--OCA--you are wasting my time-----keep your mind closed--you will go far---gl to anyone whose gonna hang in there on this one *



Nah the fact that you didn't add one constructive thing to this argument was a waste of your time. You just ran up against a pitcher who is mowing them down. It happens.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Lets see, where are the instances of two animals of the same sex becoming mates for life? I've said all along, if you want to screw your buddy fine, just don't expect government to legalize your depravity. *



you didn't ask for instances of homosexual marriage being normal. You asked for homosexuality being normal. Now that I provided the statement you want to change the question?

depravity exists only in the religious sense, I thought you weren't making a religious argument?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *But yet, you attempt to use abnormality as proof of immorality.  Ignoring scientific proof is not COOL. *



Where is the scientific proof? And remember theory and supposition is not allowed in this courtroom.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Where is the scientific proof? And remember theory and supposition is not allowed in this courtroom. *



All over the net.  Go look some up.  I've posted enough for you to get a start.  You obviously just want to ignore it.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Where is the scientific proof? And remember theory and supposition is not allowed in this courtroom. *



well, since we're not allowing theory and supposition in the courtroom, you're 'proof' of homosexuality as a choice just got dismissed.

causes of homosexuality 

What causes homosexuality? 
Answer:
To pose the question of what causes homosexuality is actually a judgment about homosexuals. If you ask for the causes of homosexuality you assume that this is a disorder and needs to be explained. It is better to find out what influences and processes determine sexual preferences, whether this is homosexuality, heterosexuality or something else. Physical causes for the development of a sexual preference could be certain brain structures or hormones and research is now being done on a certain homo gene. However, there hasn't been enough research to say anything reliable about this. Psychological causes for the development of a sexual preference could be certain thoughts or feelings that exist after a harmful event or in daily life. Finally, social factors could play a role, e.g education, nagging, and being unable to make contacts. However, not enough is known about these causes for sexual preferences.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *you didn't ask for instances of homosexual marriage being normal. You asked for homosexuality being normal. Now that I provided the statement you want to change the question?
> 
> depravity exists only in the religious sense, I thought you weren't making a religious argument? *



BULLSHIT! But if you think you are doing homosexuals a favor by comparing them to animals who lack the critical thinking and reasoning processes that we do then by all means stick with it. I for one think that is extremely disrespectful and does them no good.

Homosexual sex, marriage its all the same shit basically so again I will ask are there any instances of two male gorillas for example becoming lifelong mates? Not that this helps the human homosexuals argument but just a thought.

Depravity can exist both religiously and secularly, in this case its the latter.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *BULLSHIT! But if you think you are doing homosexuals a favor by comparing them to animals who lack the critical thinking and reasoning processes that we do then by all means stick with it. I for one think that is extremely disrespectful and does them no good.
> 
> Homosexual sex, marriage its all the same shit basically so again I will ask are there any instances of two male gorillas for example becoming lifelong mates? Not that this helps the human homosexuals argument but just a thought.
> ...



useless to argue with you. I proved you wrong on numerous counts and everytime you change the requirements. 

I win, I'm done, you're dismissed.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *well, since we're not allowing theory and supposition in the courtroom, you're 'proof' of homosexuality as a choice just got dismissed.
> 
> causes of homosexuality
> ...



Could be? Could play? I've given you way too much credit in the past.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *useless to argue with you. I proved you wrong on numerous counts and everytime you change the requirements.
> 
> I win, I'm done, you're dismissed. *



Nah thats your selfrighteousness talking. Have you ever lost an argument here in your mind?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *All over the net.  Go look some up.  I've posted enough for you to get a start.  You obviously just want to ignore it. *



Go look definitive and solid up in the dictionary, while you are at it look theory and supposition up.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

In nature it is common for a lion who has assumed the role of dominant male in a pride to kill the offspring of a formerly dominant male.  However, we do not advocate the killing of children when a new male is in the life of a female among humans because there is an obvious victim, hence it would be immoral.  Therefore natural and morality are not equal concepts.

Animals also do not get married at all, so the argument that it is unnatural and therefore immoral would also be apparently false.  

There have been instances where animals that mate for life have been homosexual, a good example would be the penguin.  This does not make homosexuality immoral or moral it simply makes it natural (as in found in nature).  I would post examples of this, but they have been posted before so it would be redundant.

We have already proven that normal in and of itself does not make something immoral, and therefore cannot be used either as an argument for immorality.

The only argument against depravity you have would be religious and therefore since you say you are not arguing religion then you have no argument left.

Simply repeating the same question over and over does not make you right, it only makes you repetitive.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Go look definitive and solid up in the dictionary, while you are at it look theory and supposition up. *



Just keep on going, regardless of rhyme, reason, and sense.  You're really tearing the place up with your convincing points.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Lets see thats 3 or 4 down today and one of them is actually using that penguin article from months ago that got torn to shreds. Like I said if y'all want to compare homosexuals to animals who lack the cognitive processes of critical thinking and reasoning, well right or wrong too, then by all means do it, but i'm willing to give them a little more respect than that.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *useless to argue with you. I proved you wrong on numerous counts and everytime you change the requirements.
> 
> I win, I'm done, you're dismissed. *



What did you win DK? Or in the words of KL(whom I respect) would you like a cookie?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Just keep on going, regardless of rhyme, reason, and sense.  You're really tearing the place up with your convincing points. *



How about it RWA, you want some today? Just look at your compatriots on this issue, they are in tatters. Think hard about it.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Lets see thats 3 or 4 down today and one of them is actually using that penguin article from months ago that got torn to shreds. Like I said if y'all want to compare homosexuals to animals who lack the cognitive processes of critical thinking and reasoning, well right or wrong too, then by all means do it, but i'm willing to give them a little more respect than that. *




Right, you didn't pose cogent arguments, you simply dismiss to ask the same question.

I am not trying to prove to you that it is natural or normal, simply that they are not valid arguments to make your point that it is immoral.  What is your argument that homosexuality is immoral?  You keep saying depravity, but that is according to religion which you have stated before is not your argument.  Therefore when you have no argument left you resort to saying things like the above.  Which addresses none of our arguments just continues with the same repetition with nothing to back you up.

Prove that it is depraved.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Lets see thats 3 or 4 down today and one of them is actually using that penguin article from months ago that got torn to shreds. Like I said if y'all want to compare homosexuals to animals who lack the cognitive processes of critical thinking and reasoning, well right or wrong too, then by all means do it, but i'm willing to give them a little more respect than that. *



Yeah.  You're such a respectful and delightful person.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

Rules (laws, if you must) are set down for varied reasons.  One of the reasons is morality.  What is moral or not is always open to debate - but there are laws based on morality nonetheless.

Options?  Basically there are two, as I see it .....

(1) We make no laws based on morality.

-or-

(2) We use acceptable (according to the views of the populus) moral guidelines to set acceptable limits.

I see very little leeway here... and therin lies the problem, I suppose.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Right, you didn't pose cogent arguments, you simply dismiss to ask the same question.
> 
> I am not trying to prove to you that it is natural or normal, simply that they are not valid arguments to make your point that it is immoral.  What is your argument that homosexuality is immoral?  You keep saying depravity, but that is according to religion which you have stated before is not your argument.  Therefore when you have no argument left you resort to saying things like the above.  Which addresses none of our arguments just continues with the same repetition with nothing to back you up.
> ...



Well lets see, sticking your dick in your buddy's ass, getting shit on said dick, giving your buddy a bj.....need I go on? And we are supposed to grant these people the right to marry? COME THE FUCK ON!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well lets see, sticking your dick in your buddy's ass, getting shit on said dick, giving your buddy a bj.....need I go on? And we are supposed to grant these people the right to marry? COME THE FUCK ON! *



This is just naked senseless bigotry.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *Rules (laws, if you must) are set down for varied reasons.  One of the reasons is morality.  What is moral or not is always open to debate - but there are laws based on morality nonetheless.
> 
> Options?  Basically there are two, as I see it .....
> ...



Tennessee that is exactly it. Society must have limits and guidelines or basically we have anarchy and I don't think we want that.

I say we put the gay marriage thing up to a vote state by state instead of it being decided by activist judges. No way that will happen though because the homosexual leadership knows they will lose everywhere.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nah thats your selfrighteousness talking. Have you ever lost an argument here in your mind? *



I've lost several, not ashamed to admit that I can't learn something new everyday. It's a shame that there are others so narrow minded in their thinking that they know it all.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well lets see, sticking your dick in your buddy's ass, getting shit on said dick, giving your buddy a bj.....need I go on? And we are supposed to grant these people the right to marry? COME THE FUCK ON! *



That doesn't prove depravity, it simply describes what you think is gross.

Here is the definition of depravity:
\De*prav"i*ty\, n. [From Deprave: cf. L. pravitas crookedness, perverseness.] The state of being depraved or corrupted; a vitiated state of moral character; general badness of character; wickedness of mind or heart; absence of religious feeling and principle.

Not once does it mention gross.  Getting mucous on your penis from the mucuous membranes in a vagina could also be considered gross, but obviously not depraved.  What about heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, are they depraved?  Should we deny them marriage too?  Getting a BJ obviously is not depraved.  I know I won't stop a girl from going there.  You still have not proved your point.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *This is just naked senseless bigotry. *



I see that you are on the side of depravity as well as being a racist. Excellent! Good to know.


----------



## acludem (May 19, 2004)

We aren't granting them some new and special right.  Massachussetts has become the first state to stop denying gay and lesbian couples the right to legal marriage.

I have asked the heterosexual anal sex question before also, and none of you anti-gay types out there want to answer it.  I assume it's because it proves you wrong.

acludem


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *That doesn't prove depravity, it simply describes what you think is gross.
> 
> Here is the definition of depravity:
> ...



Little do you know that by providing that definition of depravity you have proved every point i've been trying to make on this issue in regards to mental states and capacities of homosexuals.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *How about it RWA, you want some today? Just look at your compatriots on this issue, they are in tatters. Think hard about it. *



the only thing thats in tatters is my opinion of your intelligence. I thought you had some. You want to talk about cognitive thought? try keeping your own phobias and fears to yourself or work them out, not try to make everyone else live by them.


----------



## acludem (May 19, 2004)

My state is voting on gay marriage in November it appears.  You all know what my vote will be.  There are already groups both for and opposed to the ballot issue, which would put a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Missouri Constitution.  I will be joining one of the groups opposed to the ballot issue.  We shouldn't constitutionalize bigotry.

acludem


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I see that you are on the side of depravity as well as being a racist. Excellent! Good to know. *



Blow it our your b-hole, Betty.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I've lost several, not ashamed to admit that I can't learn something new everyday. It's a shame that there are others so narrow minded in their thinking that they know it all. *



I myself have lost arguments here and been proven wrong but on this issue, i'm sorry, its too important I won't back down from what I believe is right until i'm proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. That does not make me narrowminded.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Little do you know that by providing that definition of depravity you have proved every point i've been trying to make on this issue in regards to mental states and capacities of homosexuals. *




In what way?  Using the definition above describe how homosexuals are depraved in a way that I cannot also describe how heterosexual sex is depraved.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *the only thing thats in tatters is my opinion of your intelligence. I thought you had some. You want to talk about cognitive thought? try keeping your own phobias and fears to yourself or work them out, not try to make everyone else live by them. *



I see, now we are back to fears and phobias. As if everyone in America opposed to this is just doing it out of fear instead of standing up for what is right.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I myself have lost arguments here and been proven wrong but on this issue, i'm sorry, its too important I won't back down from what I believe is right until i'm proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. That does not make me narrowminded. *



then tell us, what is it, exactly, that makes this issue that important to you? be definitive about your antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I see, now we are back to fears and phobias. As if everyone in America opposed to this is just doing it out of fear instead of standing up for what is right. *



So you're saying being gay is morally wrong.  Why is it morally wrong? Who does it hurt?  Who does it deceive?  From whom does it steal? Which consenting adult is the victim?


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by acludem _
> *I have asked the heterosexual anal sex question before also, and none of you anti-gay types out there want to answer it.  I assume it's because it proves you wrong.
> 
> acludem *



Actually, up until a few years ago, in many states it was actually illegal for a man and woman to have sex in any position other that missionary.  I don't know if that has changed over the past several years, and can't actually remember how I came to possess that knowledge in the first place, but it was the law of the land at that time and may still be today in some places.

Don't assume that I think that the law was appropriate, just that it existed (and maybe still does in some states).


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *In what way?  Using the definition above describe how homosexuals are depraved in a way that I cannot also describe how heterosexual sex is depraved. *



Man and woman vs man and man and woman and woman. Need pictures?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I see, now we are back to fears and phobias. As if everyone in America opposed to this is just doing it out of fear instead of standing up for what is right. *



let see, theres THIS

*Originally posted by OCA 
Well lets see, sticking your dick in your buddy's ass, getting shit on said dick, giving your buddy a bj.....need I go on? And we are supposed to grant these people the right to marry? COME THE FUCK ON!*

Now, tell me what isn't a phobia or fear about this response?


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *So you're saying being gay is morally wrong.  Why is it morally wrong? Who does it hurt?  Who does it deceive?  From whom does it steal? Which consenting adult is the victim? *


So, rtwng, you are opposed to any law that is based only on morality?  Not flaming, just curious.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Man and woman vs man and man and woman and woman. Need pictures? *




Still you do not describe what makes that depraved.

He thrusts his fists against the posts, but still insists he sees the ghosts.

There is nothing in your post to tell me what is depraved about it, it just repeats something.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Man and woman vs man and man and woman and woman. Need pictures? *



You've described the combinations of genders possible in a two person relationship.  Please illustrate how the gay pairs you mentioned are depraved, in your view.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *No. *



Then if you don't believe in God, why do have the mark of the beast in that picture on the Presidents forhead? 

*You can't believe in the Devil without believing in the Lord. One does not exist without the other. Now which is it? Do you believe in the Lord or not? If not, then that 666 on the Presidents forhead means nothing.

Why do it?*


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *So, rtwng, you are opposed to any law that is based only on morality?  Not flaming, just curious. *



I think laws should be designed to protect us from each other and from government.  Prohibitions on consensual adult sexual behavior fall into neither category.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *10 or 12 year olds cannot give consent and neither can dogs, horses or planets as I have seen some people suggest in this thread.  You are going far out of your way to prove the idiocy and illogical nature of your own arguments.
> 
> Two adults that are not related and can give consent can be civily joined and it leads to people marrying planets?  Give it a rest, that kind of imaginary enemy will only lead to paranoia and people laughing at you and children saying things like, "Look at the crazy man, Mommy!" just before they get slapped.  A little jousting with windmills can only make you look insane, and never will be a good vehicle for presenting a good argument (to mix metaphors.) *



You're showing your ignorance now. They want "children", and they want them NOW!

Wise up!

http://www.angelfire.com/tx/reachme/NAMBLA.html


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *So you're saying being gay is morally wrong.  Why is it morally wrong? Who does it hurt?  Who does it deceive?  From whom does it steal? Which consenting adult is the victim? *



Dumbass I don't know how to explain it to you so you'll understand since you are obviously shortcircuiting somewhere. Man and woman belong together in order to procreate, i'm talking biologically not religiously. Man cannot procreate with man and woman with woman. Its as simple as 9th grade biology. Homosexuals when they malke that lifestyle choice are simply doing what is against nature and should not be rewarded for it. Plain and simple.

Neither is a victim(well until 1 contracts AIDS) and they should be allowed to have all the sex they want but the overwhelming majority of the populace does not agree with their lifestyle and should not have the will of a tiny minority shoved down its throat by a few judges destroying one of the basic tenements of our civilized society.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *You're showing your ignorance now. They want "children", and they want them NOW!
> 
> Wise up!
> ...



That's NAMBLA, not homosexuals, pedophiles.

Different animal, Pale Rider.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *I think laws should be designed to protect us from each other and from government.  Prohibitions on consensual adult sexual behavior fall into neither category. *


With all due respect, that is not really the issue here.  The issue is marriage.... and I guess it is all so much bally-hoo, really.  Sexual preference is not being made illegal by the marriage legislation.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *let see, theres THIS
> 
> Originally posted by OCA
> ...



Well lets see I was describing depravity in vivid detail. Again I don't fear, I stand up for what is OBVIOUSLY right.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Dumbass I don't know how to explain it to you so you'll understand since you are obviously shortcircuiting somewhere. Man and woman belong together in order to procreate, i'm talking biologically not religiously. Man cannot procreate with man and woman with woman. Its as simple as 9th grade biology. Homosexuals when they malke that lifestyle choice are simply doing what is against nature and should not be rewarded for it. Plain and simple.
> 
> Neither is a victim(well until 1 contracts AIDS) and they should be allowed to have all the sex they want but the overwhelming majority of the populace does not agree with their lifestyle and should not have the will of a tiny minority shoved down its throat by a few judges destroying one of the basic tenements of our civilized society. *




No New Tale to Tell


     You cannot go against nature
     Because when you do
     Go against nature
     It's part of nature too

     Our little lives get complicated
     It's a simple thing
     Simple as a flower
     And that's a complicated thing

     No new tale to tell
     No new tale to tell
     No new tale to tell

     AHHHH

     My world is your world
     People like to hear their names
     I'm no exception
     Please call my name
     Call my name

     No new tale to tell
     No new tale to tell
     No new tale to tell

     AHHHH

     When you're down
     It's a long way up
     When you're up
     It's a long way down

     It's all the same thing
     No new tale to tell

     No new tale to tell


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *With all due respect, that is not really the issue here.  The issue is marriage.... and I guess it is all so much bally-hoo, really.  Sexual preference is not being made illegal by the marriage legislation. *



With all due respect.  You asked a general question about what laws should be based on.  So when I answered it plainly, it was the issue, due to you asking the f#cking question regarding it.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Dumbass I don't know how to explain it to you so you'll understand since you are obviously shortcircuiting somewhere. Man and woman belong together in order to procreate, i'm talking biologically not religiously. Man cannot procreate with man and woman with woman. Its as simple as 9th grade biology. Homosexuals when they malke that lifestyle choice are simply doing what is against nature and should not be rewarded for it. Plain and simple.
> 
> Neither is a victim(well until 1 contracts AIDS) and they should be allowed to have all the sex they want but the overwhelming majority of the populace does not agree with their lifestyle and should not have the will of a tiny minority shoved down its throat by a few judges destroying one of the basic tenements of our civilized society. *



If marriage was only to procreate, we would have to have laws about seniors getting married, about sterile couples getting married and many others.  There are many other reasons other than procreating that people get married. 

And as we have already proven that something against nature does not mean it is immoral.

The majority of people thought interracial marriage was bad, and if votes were cast we probably would still be racially separate.  Just because a majority think something does not mean it should be the law, and sometimes it is obvious that it shouldn't.

Nobody is going to forcibly marry you to some homosexual, you are not a victim.  

You cannot describe it to me, because you removed the Bible from your argument long ago, and by any definition other than that of religion this is not immoral.  Since there is no victim, as you stated above, there is no morality issue.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well lets see I was describing depravity in vivid detail. Again I don't fear, I stand up for what is OBVIOUSLY right. *




so the ONLY reason man and woman belong together is pro-creation, right? thats what all your 'natural order' arguments point to.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *If marriage was only to procreate, we would have to have laws about seniors getting married, about sterile couples getting married and many others.  There are many other reasons other than procreating that people get married.
> 
> Nobody is going to forcibly marry you to some homosexual, you are not a victim.
> ...



and their other argument about homosexual marriage will extinct the human race is ridiculous as well. Like everyone's going to find a same sex partner to marry once its legal.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Well y'all know exactly where I stand on this issue so i'll wait to hear if someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, no could be's or might play's, that homosexuality is natural and normal. I've got things to do, see y'all a little later on.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *With all due respect.  You asked a general question about what laws should be based on.  So when I answered it plainly, it was the issue, due to you asking the f#cking question regarding it. *


Well, isn't that nice.

To be precise, you avoided the first question.  You danced around it in true political style.

You'll excuse me if I don't use vulgarity to emphasize the point, I presume.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *With all due respect.  You asked a general question about what laws should be based on.  So when I answered it plainly, it was the issue, due to you asking the f#cking question regarding it. *



Also, the question was not general at all.  It was specific.  Should I repeat it for you?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well y'all know exactly where I stand on this issue so i'll wait to hear if someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, no could be's or might play's, that homosexuality is natural and normal. I've got things to do, see y'all a little later on. *



We've answered a million times.  It IS natural.  It's NOT normal.  Neither of these facts have any bearing on whether it's immoral.


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *We've answered a million times.  It IS natural.  It's NOT normal.  Neither of these facts have any bearing on whether it's immoral. *



Normal is SUCH a relative term isn't it.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *so the ONLY reason man and woman belong together is pro-creation, right? thats what all your 'natural order' arguments point to. *



Wait a sec before I leave I ran across this.

That is not the only reason, there are a myriad of reasons but that is one of the main ones. You know lets cut the bullshit, how do two men and two women together, how do those two couples go with the flow of nature and not against it?


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *Over 75 percent of AIDS infections result from homosexual activity or drug use and only two percent result from blood transfusions.
> 
> All over American society people are working to discourage smoking, alcohol, toxic pollution and high fat diets for the simple reason that they reduce human life expectancy. Yet none of these threats reduces life expectancy as much as homosexual conduct.
> Why would we do anything to promote such a lifestyle? There are kids watching us. *



It's amazing how these factual posts that should shut a lot of people up are simply IGNORED!


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *Well, isn't that nice.
> 
> To be precise, you avoided the first question.  You danced around it in true political style.
> ...



He is a know-it-all who dances around may issues.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Wait a sec before I leave I ran across this.
> 
> That is not the only reason, there are a myriad of reasons but that is one of the main ones. You know lets cut the bullshit, how do two men and two women together, how do those two couples go with the flow of nature and not against it? *



They exist, don't they?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *We've answered a million times.  It IS natural.  It's NOT normal.  Neither of these facts have any bearing on whether it's immoral. *



So RWA do you have a natural attraction toward males for sexual purposes?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *They exist, don't they? *



They exist by choice not by nature.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Wait a sec before I leave I ran across this.
> 
> That is not the only reason, there are a myriad of reasons but that is one of the main ones. You know lets cut the bullshit, how do two men and two women together, how do those two couples go with the flow of nature and not against it? *



well lets see. In my 38 years of life I've had numerous relationships, SEVERAL of which I had no intention of 'pro-creating'. I guess that would mean that two people (note I'm leaving gender out of this for the moment) can get together and have a consensual, sexual relationship. Now, there are also thousands of hetero couples that are married that don't have children and don't intend to have children. Being that is the case, 'pro-creation' is a useless argument for marriage..ESPECIALLY since you don't have to be married to pro-create.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

Saw the " facts".  Ignored them because they are not true


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *OCA--you have no interest in learning anything here----you set up parameters and then change them or redefine----you have made up your mind that no one will prove you wrong. Quit asking that question when you dont want answers *



OCA isn't the one "changing parameters" here skippy, it's you and your queer backing crowd.

It's the queers who want to "REDIFINE" marriage. Not OCA, me or the man in the moon. It's the queers and the people that let them do it..... "you".


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *Also, the question was not general at all.  It was specific.  Should I repeat it for you? *



Yes.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Wait a sec before I leave I ran across this.
> 
> That is not the only reason, there are a myriad of reasons but that is one of the main ones. You know lets cut the bullshit, how do two men and two women together, how do those two couples go with the flow of nature and not against it? *




We keep asking what nature has to do with it and you never answer.  Animals don't get married, so it isn't found in nature.  Using nature in an attempt to define something that is also unnatural is deliberate ignorance at best.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *It's amazing how these factual posts that should shut a lot of people up are simply IGNORED! *



I try to teach my step children ONE lifestyle. Guess what that lifestyle is?  SAFETY. That means that WHATEVER they choose to do in their lives or how they wish to live it, that they live it as safely as possible.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *OCA isn't the one "changing parameters" here skippy, it's you and your queer backing crowd.
> 
> It's the queers who want to "REDIFINE" marriage. Not OCA, me or the man in the moon. It's the queers and the people that let them do it..... "you". *



OCA has redefined the parameters of answers he asks for numerous times every time an answer is given that blows his argument or point to shreds


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *OCA isn't the one "changing parameters" here skippy, it's you and your queer backing crowd.
> 
> It's the queers who want to "REDIFINE" marriage. Not OCA, me or the man in the moon. It's the queers and the people that let them do it..... "you". *



 Gays don't hurt anyone who's not consenting, unless their a pedophile or a rapist, and we have laws that will still apply in those instances.

Let them get married. If gays getting married affects your marriage, you have other problems.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Right, you didn't pose cogent arguments, you simply dismiss to ask the same question.
> 
> I am not trying to prove to you that it is natural or normal, simply that they are not valid arguments to make your point that it is immoral.  What is your argument that homosexuality is immoral?  You keep saying depravity, but that is according to religion which you have stated before is not your argument.  Therefore when you have no argument left you resort to saying things like the above.  Which addresses none of our arguments just continues with the same repetition with nothing to back you up.
> ...



If you don't have any more idea of what the moral fabric of this country is made up of than that, then it's no wonder to me why you can't see why it's immoral.

It's people like you with no moral compass that are leading this country down the toilet.

Get a clue.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *rtwng, are you opposed to any law that is based only on morality?  Not flaming, just curious. *


There she blows!!!!!!!

No pun intended.....   :


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *well lets see. In my 38 years of life I've had numerous relationships, SEVERAL of which I had no intention of 'pro-creating'. I guess that would mean that two people (note I'm leaving gender out of this for the moment) can get together and have a consensual, sexual relationship. Now, there are also thousands of hetero couples that are married that don't have children and don't intend to have children. Being that is the case, 'pro-creation' is a useless argument for marriage..ESPECIALLY since you don't have to be married to pro-create. *



That brings in our critical thinking and reasoning processes. We can make that decision to not procreate and yes we can procreate outside of marriage but that does not lessen our urge to find a mate(of the opposite sex). Humans I believe have an inate attraction to the opposite sex no matter the age, sometimes its to procreate sometimes its just for sex without procreation(birth control because all sex is for procreation unless you take steps to limit it) and sometimes its for companionship in your older years which is why seniors sometimes get hitched after a mate passes away.

These are all things as to why I believe homosexuality is not normal and is a choice.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by acludem _
> *My state is voting on gay marriage in November it appears.  You all know what my vote will be.  There are already groups both for and opposed to the ballot issue, which would put a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Missouri Constitution.  I will be joining one of the groups opposed to the ballot issue.  We shouldn't constitutionalize bigotry.
> 
> acludem *



Bigotry. You love that word don't you. It makes you sound like somehow you're special, and know what you're talking about. Well....... maybe to an idiot.

No, you're right about one thing. We shouldn't constitutionalize bigotry. But it looks like you WOULD constitutionalize IDIOCY.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *If you don't have any more idea of what the moral fabric of this country is made up of than that, then it's no wonder to me why you can't see why it's immoral.
> 
> It's people like you with no moral compass that are leading this country down the toilet.
> ...



whats the only allowable moral compass then?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *We keep asking what nature has to do with it and you never answer.  Animals don't get married, so it isn't found in nature.  Using nature in an attempt to define something that is also unnatural is deliberate ignorance at best. *



Human males are born with an innate and NATURAL attraction to females and vice-versa. Good enough for ya? Tell me i'm wrong.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

guess the lefts got what they wanted---a fracture in the right wing party. I will continue to support Bush but not those who fear homosexuals or their behavior. Glad to have you guys behind Bush. You should be glad to have US too.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

rtwng, are you opposed to any law that is based only on morality? Not flaming, just curious. 


I answered the question without using the word morality, because morality itself can come from different places.

So do you want to know about how I think laws should be made, or where I think morality comes from?

My morality is based on putting a premium on individual rights and outlawing any activity on the part of any individual that denies another individual life, liberty or property through force or fraud.  I am also a christian, but most of my morality comes from this admittedly secular formula.  It just so happens that I find christainity supports this outlook most of the time.

Where would you like me to elaborate?  Why the 'tude the first time around?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *OCA has redefined the parameters of answers he asks for numerous times every time an answer is given that blows his argument or point to shreds *



Nope. I guess my fault is I don't completely define my position enough in one post. You can however go back through this thread and get a complete picture of my position on this topic. Its quite clear and concise.

I believe that you don't like to be challenged on your beliefs like i'm challenging you today. My responses and arguments have been as clear as a blue sky. Maybe the answers refute your position so you want to slaughter the messenger now?


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *That's NAMBLA, not homosexuals, pedophiles.
> 
> Different animal, Pale Rider. *



MY GOD VOTE.... FUCKING READ IT.....

 NORTH AMERICAN **MAN**BOY**LOVE** ASSOCIATION

What part of that are you missing!!!!!!

MAN + BOY = HOMOSEXUAL!!

And the VAST majority of pedaphiles are QUEERS!!

You need to educate yourself if you're going to come here debate vote. So far you've just made a fool of yourself.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *rtwng, are you opposed to any law that is based only on morality? Not flaming, just curious.
> 
> 
> ...


'tude?  I in no way intended to express an 'attitude'.  In fact, I expressly said that I wasn't flaming.  Anyway, no big deal.

As for an answer, I'll take your post to mean that if a law is made simply because a certain part of the populus feels it is wrong to allow the action/behavior (and it doesn't directly affect, harm, disrespect any other person), then you think the law is not justified.  If that is incorrect, then you'll have to correct me... otherwise, that is what I was asking.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *guess the lefts got what they wanted---a fracture in the right wing party. I will continue to support Bush but not those who fear homosexuals or their behavior. Glad to have you guys behind Bush. You should be glad to have US too. *



I too am behind Bush, but not this.  Individual rights is something that the Republican Party is supposed to stand for not against.  To simply say it is immoral, then give no evidence to back it up is ridiculous.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Saw the " facts".  Ignored them because they are not true *



Well at least we've identified YOUR problem. You're ignoring FACTS, and that explains a SHIT LOAD about where your warped thinking comes from.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Oh Christ Psycho is on the board now, i'm gone I need a break.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *'tude?  I in no way intended to express an 'attitude'.  In fact, I expressly said that I wasn't flaming.  Anyway, no big deal.
> 
> As for an answer, I'll take your post to mean that if a law is made simply because a certain part of the populus feels it is wrong to allow the action/behavior (and it doesn't directly affect, harm, disrespect any other person), then you think the law is not justified.  If that is incorrect, then you'll have to correct me... otherwise, that is what I was asking. *



That seems correct.  An action which can show no real victim should not be illegal because the religion of some deem it a sin.

Sorry I reacted badly to being told I was dancing around the issue when in fact I answered it as honestly as I knew how.  I'll try to work on my sensitivity problem, ok Linda?   

Anyway, jabs aside,  What's your basis for right and wrong?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Human males are born with an innate and NATURAL attraction to females and vice-versa. Good enough for ya? Tell me i'm wrong. *



lets see.

elton john.
george michael.
liz cheney.
martina navritilova.
rosie O donnell
ellen degeneres
chastity bono
jodie foster
tori amos
the queer eye for the straight guy crew
the queer as folk crew
melissa etheridge


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I try to teach my step children ONE lifestyle. Guess what that lifestyle is?  SAFETY. That means that WHATEVER they choose to do in their lives or how they wish to live it, that they live it as safely as possible. *



Thank God for that. I think that's wonderful.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *OCA has redefined the parameters of answers he asks for numerous times every time an answer is given that blows his argument or point to shreds *



Funny.... I haven't seen any of his arguments blown or shredded. Only the pro gay arguments are inane.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *MY GOD VOTE.... FUCKING READ IT.....
> 
> NORTH AMERICAN **MAN**BOY**LOVE** ASSOCIATION
> ...



The boy part gives you the clue.  This is pedophilia, not homosexuality.  If it was the same thing there would not be a different word for it.  Pedophilia is found in both sexes and can be either, but it is it's own immorality and not one found only in homosexuals.

You really need to educate yourself.  Talk to a Psychologist, they can explain the difference to you if it isn't already obvious.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *lets see.
> 
> elton john.
> ...



DK choices man, they all made choices.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Gays don't hurt anyone who's not consenting, unless their a pedophile or a rapist, and we have laws that will still apply in those instances.
> 
> Let them get married. If gays getting married affects your marriage, you have other problems. *



I'm not married. But when I do get married, I don't "marriage" to mean nothing more than a lisence for fags to butt fuck. Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. Anything else is just pissing on marriage as an institution.


----------



## dilloduck (May 19, 2004)

Chill Rider!     you know full well that just because someone presents something as " fact" does not mean it IS a fact


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Funny.... I haven't seen any of his arguments blown or shredded. Only the pro gay arguments are inane. *



Agreed.

Seems when my points are brught up, people don't even TRY.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *whats the only allowable moral compass then? *



You mean you don't know what morality is either DK?

Are you telling me you have no idea what so ever what is "moral"?

I'm surprized.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *If you don't have any more idea of what the moral fabric of this country is made up of than that, then it's no wonder to me why you can't see why it's immoral.
> 
> It's people like you with no moral compass that are leading this country down the toilet.
> ...



Please tell me, which compass should I use?  Yours only?  You have not proven a point, you just started repeating the same things the other guy did.  Since you have no justification for your POV you attempt to ridicule mine.

Tell me what makes this immoral?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nope. I guess my fault is I don't completely define my position enough in one post. You can however go back through this thread and get a complete picture of my position on this topic. Its quite clear and concise.
> 
> I believe that you don't like to be challenged on your beliefs like i'm challenging you today. My responses and arguments have been as clear as a blue sky. Maybe the answers refute your position so you want to slaughter the messenger now? *



and I believe that you like to live in a fantasy world where you're never proven wrong.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *rtwng, are you opposed to any law that is based only on morality? Not flaming, just curious.
> 
> 
> ...



Except when it comes to homosexuals and marriage.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *DK choices man, they all made choices. *



I've already given you medical statements that choice is a THEORY.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *That seems correct.  An action which can show no real victim should not be illegal because the religion of some deem it a sin.
> 
> Sorry I reacted badly to being told I was dancing around the issue when in fact I answered it as honestly as I knew how.  I'll try to work on my sensitivity problem, ok Linda?
> ...


Much the same as yours, except that I feel that when we don't stand up against things that we see as morally wrong, we are doing wrong.   I refer to an earlier post I made in this thread:


> _*
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by Aquarian *_*
> when they push the envelope as far as they can and it snaps back, it's usually ahead of the place they started from. that's the way the moral pendulum seems to work in this country on any issue.
> ...



So, I guess you could say that I'm torn on the moral-based laws issue.  I see both sides, and don't like having to choose one or the other.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *and I believe that you like to live in a fantasy world where you're never proven wrong. *



Well we all got our points of view, right? Have a good day


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *and I believe that you like to live in a fantasy world where you're never proven wrong. *



Plus, he's an undisputed, trash-talking champ.


----------



## Aquarian (May 19, 2004)

rider- not all homos are pedophiles just as not all hetero's are.  even using big d's data the most you can say is that the homo pedophiles account for a disproportionate amount of the cases of child molestation given the relative numbers of homo/heteros in society.  numerically, 65% of child molestation cases are hetero in nature.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *You mean you don't know what morality is either DK?
> 
> Are you telling me you have no idea what so ever what is "moral"?
> ...



is that how you read that?

I asked you what the only allowable moral compass is, since you seem to think that some people have none.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Chill Rider!     you know full well that just because someone presents something as " fact" does not mean it IS a fact *



It's hard to "chill", when someone like you comes in here and IGNORES the very thing everyone seems to be asking for...... FACTS and PROOF!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

Tn_indy,
     I feel the same as you sorta.  And I have my problems with some of the gay activists who ARE out to destroy the institution of marriage.  I have problems when the activists want to control sex education and teach kids to consider whether or not they may be gay before they choose their orienation.  They sound like oca on that point.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I've already given you medical statements that choice is a THEORY. *



Dk if it cannot be proven scientifically that homosexuality is genetic, biological etc. etc. and basic biology says that we as humans are attracted to the opposite sex what other option is there for one to believe than free will or choice? I mean am I fucking missing something here? Seriously if i'm missing something you'd let me know, right?


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *basic biology says that we as humans are attracted to the opposite sex  *



Basic biology says that SOME of us are attracted to the opposite sex.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Plus, he's an undisputed, trash-talking champ. *



Flasher you are getting dangerously close to dropping into RWA's category. I know you, you don't want that equivalency.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Basic biology says that SOME of us are attracted to the opposite sex. *



BULLSHIT! Go retake biology 101 then tell me what it says.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *The boy part gives you the clue.  This is pedophilia, not homosexuality.  If it was the same thing there would not be a different word for it.  Pedophilia is found in both sexes and can be either, but it is it's own immorality and not one found only in homosexuals.
> 
> You really need to educate yourself.  Talk to a Psychologist, they can explain the difference to you if it isn't already obvious. *



Vote..... I'm shaking my head here in disbelief..... _JUST HOW DENSE ARE YOU?!_

Lets see if I can make this clear for your seemily thick head!

*IF  ONE  *MALE*, age is irrelevant, IS  SEXUALY  ATTRACKED  TO  ANOTHER,  IT'S  *HOMOSEXUALITY*.*

My GOD man.... what part about that is so hard to understand?! You can be BOTH a homosexual AND a pedophile, and it just so happens that 70% of all pedophiles are HOMOSEXUALS!!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *BULLSHIT! Go retake biology 101 then tell me what it says. *



Dude.  Some people are BORN liking the same sex.  Get a grip.


----------



## Aquarian (May 19, 2004)

oca- what you may be missing on the scientific question is that science is a work in progress.  this issue is currently in the data collection stage.  it may be best to weight for the evidence to accumulate significantly more on one side than the other before making unequivocal statements towards either side.  tho I personally expect it to be a mesh of nature and environment when all is said and done.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Flasher you are getting dangerously close to dropping into RWA's category. I know you, you don't want that equivalency. *



I'm a better mentor than you, Shitfer.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1tovote4 _
> *Please tell me, which compass should I use?  Yours only?  You have not proven a point, you just started repeating the same things the other guy did.  Since you have no justification for your POV you attempt to ridicule mine.
> 
> Tell me what makes this immoral? *



Here's a better one vote... "YOU" tell "ME" why you think it's "MORAL".

Tell me why you think I should think two men ramming each others brown eye is "MORAL".


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Except when it comes to homosexuals and marriage. *



Yes.  I discard the parts which are ignorant and backward.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Dude.  Some people are BORN liking the same sex.  Get a grip. *



This is actually quite true.

I have known many people who wanted to have sex with their same gender well before they were 5.


You idiot.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Here's a better one vote... "YOU" tell "ME" why you think it's "MORAL".
> 
> Tell me why you think I should think two men ramming each others brown eye is "MORAL". *



Modern notions of crime require a victim.  Get hip, Moses.


----------



## nycflasher (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *BULLSHIT! Go retake biology 101 then tell me what it says. *



I'll read up on it at the library tonight.
I started working ata law library a few weeks ago. So, M-W 7-midnight I get paid to be here, essentially.

I suppose perhaps we are born a certain way, and a variety of factors could lead one to switch their preference.

Is that what you mean?


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Modern notions of crime require a victim.  Get hip, Moses. *



Right and wrong do not change with time.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *rider- not all homos are pedophiles just as not all hetero's are.  even using big d's data the most you can say is that the homo pedophiles account for a disproportionate amount of the cases of child molestation given the relative numbers of homo/heteros in society.  numerically, 65% of child molestation cases are hetero in nature. *



That's a twist on the numbers Aquaian. If you look at the hetero community as opposed to the homosexual community, there is a very disproportionately large percentage of pedophiles among the homosexual community.... and you know it.

I'll dig those "facts" up if you like.... again.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *This is actually quite true.
> 
> I have known many people who wanted to have sex with their same gender well before they were 5.
> ...



So my true statements make me an idiot?  I guess that explains why you think your lies and nonsense make you brilliant.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *So my true statements make me an idiot? *



If you think 5 year olds want to have sex with their same gender, you have proven YOURSELF an idiot. Since you said that, and you think it is true, there you go.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Right and wrong do not change with time. *



Me either.  It's just that my version of right and wrong is more modern than yours.  You're a throwback to medieval times, just like alquaeda.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *is that how you read that?
> 
> I asked you what the only allowable moral compass is, since you seem to think that some people have none. *



My most sincere answer to that would have to be, "the morals this country was founded on".

Why is it that the liberals are always the ones that find flaw in them?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Modern notions of crime require a victim.  Get hip, Moses. *



a phrase comes to mind.....if a tree falls in the woods, does it still make a sound? and if it does, will anyone hear it anyway?


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *a phrase comes to mind.....if a tree falls in the woods, does it still make a sound? and if it does, will anyone hear it anyway? *



Since we know it DOES regardless of the spectator or "victim" , the sound wave is independent.

As such right and wrong are still constants regardless of opinion or victim.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *My most sincere answer to that would have to be, "the morals this country was founded on".
> 
> Why is it that the liberals are always the ones that find flaw in them? *




ah, ok. now that we're going to say "the morals this country was founded on", where does it say in the bill of rights these amendments were made based on the laws of god? or the laws of the state of illinois are based on scripture?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Since we know it DOES regardless of the spectator or "victim" , the sound wave is independent.
> 
> As such right and wrong are still constants regardless of opinion or victim. *



but if noone is around to hear it, it doesn't affect anyone right?


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Yes.  I discard the parts which are ignorant and backward. *



That would make you the minority....


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Yes.  I discard the parts which are ignorant and backward. *


What?  Do you mean the parts of the _Bible_ that you feel are ignorant and backward?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *That would make you the minority.... *



but not immoral


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Modern notions of crime require a victim.  Get hip, Moses. *



Who said anything about crime Ienstien? We're talking about "morality" here.

Take a time out and see if you can refocus.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *but if noone is around to hear it, it doesn't affect anyone right? *



That does NOT change the noise. It merely eliminates a *direct* observation.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *If you think 5 year olds want to have sex with their same gender, you have proven YOURSELF an idiot. Since you said that, and you think it is true, there you go. *



People have an inborn gender preference.  I had crushes on girls at five.  I remember it.  Gay people recall similar feelings toward the same sex at that age.  Why are you in such denial over this?


----------



## Aquarian (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *That's a twist on the numbers Aquaian. If you look at the hetero community as opposed to the homosexual community, there is a very disproportionately large percentage of pedophiles among the homosexual community.... and you know it.
> 
> I'll dig those "facts" up if you like.... again. *



yes.  that's exactly what I said, but your original statement said that *most* instances of child molestation involved homosexuals and numerically, that is not true.  to restate: proportionate to their numbers in society at large, homosexuals account for more than their share of child molestation cases.  however, heterosexuals account for the actual majority of child molestation cases.

remember too tho, that vast numbers of child molestation cases go unreported due to the stigma associated with it and the emotional issues involved.  the missing data could fall into either category.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Who said anything about crime Ienstien? We're talking about "morality" here.
> 
> Take a time out and see if you can refocus. *



Take a step back and get off your inverted throne of idiocy, ok Cynthia?


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *People have an inborn gender preference.  I had crushes on girls at five.  I remember it.  Gay people recall similar feelings toward the same sex at that age.  Why are you in such denial over this? *



Simple bodilly chemistry proves you flat out wrong. It is impossible for the hormones to do that at that age.

The only reason you could have been in that situation was by environmental conditioning.... -In other words: BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION. -And that becomes: *CHOICE*


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Simple bodilly chemistry proves you flat out wrong. It is impossible for the hormones to do that at that age.
> 
> The only reason you could have been in that situation was by environmental conditioning.... -In other words: BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION. -And that becomes: CHOICE *



Prove it.  Prove gender preference is a choice.  Otherwise I win.  Thanks for playing.  You're dismissed.

When did you decide you were straight?  Hold on.  Firstly, was that your decision?


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *ah, ok. now that we're going to say "the morals this country was founded on", where does it say in the bill of rights these amendments were made based on the laws of god? or the laws of the state of illinois are based on scripture? *



It's got nothing to do with the bill of rights DK. Morals are in and of themselves seperate, and I would have to say that yes, most morals are probably religon based.

I guess that's why you godless people have such a hard time seeing our point, and vice versa.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Simple bodilly chemistry proves you flat out wrong. It is impossible for the hormones to do that at that age.
> 
> The only reason you could have been in that situation was by environmental conditioning.... -In other words: BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION. -And that becomes: CHOICE *



so patty hearst made a choice to rob a bank? vietnam POW's made a choice to give in to their tormenters?

behavior modification from outside forces does not a choice make.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *It's got nothing to do with the bill of rights DK. Morals are in and of themselves seperate, and I would have to say that yes, most morals are probably religon based.
> 
> I guess that's why you godless people have such a hard time seeing our point, and vice versa. *



so a 'godless' person can't have morals based on something other than religion?


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *but not immoral  *



That, like the topic of this thread, is a matter of opinion.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *yes.  that's exactly what I said, but your original statement said that most instances of child molestation involved homosexuals and numerically, that is not true.  to restate: proportionate to their numbers in society at large, homosexuals account for more than their share of child molestation cases.  however, heterosexuals account for the actual majority of child molestation cases.
> 
> remember too tho, that vast numbers of child molestation cases go unreported due to the stigma associated with it and the emotional issues involved.  the missing data could fall into either category. *



I guess we're clear on that. I wish everything else was easily cleared up here.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *a phrase comes to mind.....if a tree falls in the woods, does it still make a sound? and if it does, will anyone hear it anyway? *


Actually, this is a philosophical question.  There can never be a right/wrong answer.  It can never be proven one way or the other, only debated as such.  I guess that's why it might be appropriate for this discussion.

As for my answer to the sound question:  If a tree falls and there is nothing there capable of hearing or recording it, it does NOT make a sound.  It makes a sound wave, but not a sound.

Definition:
sound - noise; something that is, or can be heard

Since there is nothing there capable of recording or hearing the sound, it is neither heard nor capable of being heard.  Hence, no sound.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Prove it.  Prove gender preference is a choice.  Otherwise I win.  Thanks for playing.  You're dismissed.*


*

I have generations of POPULATION on my side.

I have body chemistry and hormone development PROVEN on my side.

I have COMMON SENSE on my side.

If you want to argue stupid points, YOU prove it. Everyone here knows hormones are not going at age 5.




When did you decide you were straight?  Hold on.  Firstly, was that your decision? 

Click to expand...


Don't know when, and don't care. The decision to override natural biological factors or NOT override is not happening until the hormone levels are appropriate for the task. Anything other than that is based off of environmental conditioning only.

Your question is irrelevant.*


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Take a step back and get off your inverted throne of idiocy, ok Cynthia? *



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! 

Let 'er rip RWA!

You're funny.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *so a 'godless' person can't have morals based on something other than religion? *



That may be. But I did say "most" morals. Not all.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *so patty hearst made a choice to rob a bank? vietnam POW's made a choice to give in to their tormenters?
> 
> behavior modification from outside forces does not a choice make. *



That was less than a smart answer.

Hormones do not dictate criminal activity. -Merely sexual and aressiveness/passiveness.

You are setting me up. I know you know the role hormones play.
 

And your arguement here would also invalidate pavlov.

Wrong answer.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

Shit.... I gotta get going or I'll be late for school... later.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *Actually, this is a philosophical question.  There can never be a right/wrong answer.  It can never be proven one way or the other, only debated as such.  I guess that's why it might be appropriate for this discussion.
> 
> As for my answer to the sound question:  If a tree falls and there is nothing there capable of hearing or recording it, it does NOT make a sound.  It makes a sound wave, but not a sound.
> ...



Learn your science. The instant the wave hits an object, sound is created. Air, trees, rocks, soil.

Wrong again.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *That may be. But I did say "most" morals. Not all. *



so you accept that there are exceptions to every rule?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *It's got nothing to do with the bill of rights DK. Morals are in and of themselves seperate, and I would have to say that yes, most morals are probably religon based.
> 
> I guess that's why you godless people have such a hard time seeing our point, and vice versa. *



I guess that's why you talibanlike god freaks are so rigid in your condemnations of others.


----------



## no1tovote4 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Vote..... I'm shaking my head here in disbelief..... JUST HOW DENSE ARE YOU?!
> 
> Lets see if I can make this clear for your seemily thick head!
> ...



Equating all homosexuals to pedophilia would be like equating all heterosexuals to criminals.  While I understand your argument that these people are homosexuals, what they propose is a crime and has an obvious victim.  Most criminals are heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that all heterosexuals are criminals.

Pedophilia is a different discussion than marriage for two consenting adults, hence my argument that it is a different animal, not because it wasn't a homosexual act, but that it is not salient to this argument.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *That was less than a smart answer.
> 
> Hormones do not dictate criminal activity. -Merely sexual and aressiveness/passiveness.
> ...



well, I wasn't going to attempt to validate sexual hormones at age 5, however, I do profess that there are currently no scientific facts or evidence that homosexuality is either choice OR hormones but that both are theories at this point


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Learn your science. The instant the wave hits an object, sound is created. Air, trees, rocks, soil.
> 
> Wrong again. *




You're unsound.


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *You're unsound. *



Scientific, and yet TRUE. 

Wanna guess HOW unsound?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

It's hormones guys.  read the research.  No one wants to say it definitely because no one want to take the heat.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Scientific, and yet TRUE.
> 
> Wanna guess HOW unsound?  *



Paranoic narcissism with delusions of godness?


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Paranoic narcissism with delusions of godness? *



How about paranoic antisocialism with a savior complex?


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *It's hormones guys.  read the research.  No one wants to say it definitely because no one want to take the heat. *



AGAIN. The hormones are not working at that age. How wrong do you have to be?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *AGAIN. The hormones are not working at that age. How wrong do you have to be? *



Prove it.  Can't ?  Guess I won.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *How about paranoic antisocialism with a savior complex? *



I think I might understand that disorder.


----------



## Gop guy (May 19, 2004)

Good lord people!

Almost 800 posts on this thread!?

Is this a record or have you guys done worse to other threads, lol.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Learn your science. The instant the wave hits an object, sound is created. Air, trees, rocks, soil.
> 
> Wrong again. *


Look up the definition for sound.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *Sure do KL!  Just have to wonder about you tonight though, seems you are in rare form! *



lol


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

Now we're to the Medical Science of hormones?

DK, should I interject my pearls of wisdom here or not and hope this godzilla of a thread finally dies?


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Now we're to the Medical Science of hormones?
> 
> DK, should I interject my pearls of wisdom here or not and hope this godzilla of a thread finally dies? *



i've bowed out of it, beneath me anymore


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

Lets just all agree that I am right.

Then we can move on a happier, more content group of people.:cof:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Lets just all agree that I am right.
> 
> Then we can move on a happier, more content group of people.:cof: *



KL is RIGHT!


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

thank you!


----------



## Gop guy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *thank you! *



Hail KL!


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

thank you thank you....

I have enough flowers....now please just throw money!

:


----------



## NewGuy (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *Look up the definition for sound. *



I don't care what the definition is, I know how it WORKS.


----------



## mattskramer (May 19, 2004)

"...70% of all pedophiles are HOMOSEXUALS"

The relevancy of your claim is questionable but what is your source for the statistic?

------------------------------------

If preference for excessive beer consumption due to genetics, trauma, or choice?  Is your favorite ice cream flavor genetically based?  Is being left-handed genetic? (If it is genetic, it can be changed through behavior modification.)  I don't really care.  It doesn't matter if homosexuality is based on genetics or not.

---------------------------------------

A male friend and I assisted each other in doing handstands at the same time.  We might have been genetically predisposed to doing simultaneous handstands on this day.  Perhaps it was purely based on choice.  In any case, I don't think that this is normal behavior.  We better outlaw such activity.


----------



## mattskramer (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *That sure is a bunch of bunk comparisons matts. That's like saying, well I compare being queer to like a fire cracker and a thermo nuclear warhead. C'mooooon.
> 
> So if someone walked past you with a plaid shirt and striped pants on, you wouldn't be any more offended by that than if you walked by two guys naked, groping and grunting, locked in a butt fuck? You don't think one is any worse than the other? Unbelievable.....
> ...



"So if someone walked past you with a plaid shirt and striped pants on, you wouldn't be any more offended by that than if you walked by two guys naked, groping and grunting, locked in a butt fuck? You don't think one is any worse than the other?"

I already explained that when it comes to public displays of sexual behavior, there should be consistency in the law.  To the extent that heterosexual sex in public should not be allowed, homosexual sex in public should not be allowed. 

"Homosexuality is "abnormal". That argument has been WON by OCA and the rest of us on that side of the issue. Which I might add is shared by the VAST majority of Americans."

I already explained that behavior should not be outlawed merely because it is abnormal.  I was not in the contest concerning whether or hot homosexuality is abnormal.

"Now, should queers be allowed to marry? I've asked twice now, why the hell does it have to be "marriage" when they were offered all the same "LEGAL" advantages with a Civil Union?  NO ONE has answered that either!"

That argument reminds me of the "separate but equal" fight concerning racial segregation.  By a different name, it would not be the same.  

"And to top it off, you pro queers have argued that hell, "IT'S NOT A SIN BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD ANYWAY". So that BEGS the question, IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, THEN WHY IN THE HELL DO THEY NEED TO BED *MARRIED*, WHEN MARRIAGE IS A HOLY MATROMY?!"

Many marriages are done my Justices of the Peace.  They are not always done in a church or by a church leader.  Heterosexual atheists get married too.   

There's not a GOOD answer at all for any of those questions. After 30+ pages here, I've heard NOTHING to show me queers are normal or NEED to get "married".


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Your a day late and a dollar short Matts. All that stuff was blown out of the water pages ago.


----------



## mattskramer (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Duh.......Homosexuality will cause the entire human race's extinction if carried out to its logical conclusion.
> 
> Heterosexuality creates repopulation.
> ...



Just because there may be homosexuals and even homosexual marriage, it does not mean that there will be no heterosexuals and heterosexual marriage.  Get with the times.  You need not be a heterosexual to create repopulation.  Have you heard of sperm banks (for Lesbians who want children)?  Consider surrogate mothers for Gays who want children.


----------



## mattskramer (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Your a day late and a dollar short Matts. All that stuff was blown out of the water pages ago. *



Awww, Shucks.  Would you be so kind as to at least direct me to the page where this was "blown out of the water" or summarize the rebuttals?  I have too many obligations.  I don't have time to keep track of everything.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Just because there may be homosexuals and even homosexual marriage, it does not mean that there will be no heterosexuals and heterosexual marriage.  Get with the times.  You need not be a heterosexual to create repopulation.  Have you heard of sperm banks (for Lesbians who want children)?  Consider surrogate mothers for Gays who want children. *



Matts why are you a supporter of every strange and alternative thing going? Do you also believe that a mother/father is no better than mother/mother or father/father?

Matts we are trying to save America here socially, are you with us?


----------



## Chippewa (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts why are you a supporter of every strange and alternative thing going? Do you also believe that a mother/father is no better than mother/mother or father/father?
> 
> Matts we are trying to save America here socially, are you with us? *



Oh now I get it, you're my guardian angel.:


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Chippewa _
> *Oh now I get it, you're my guardian angel.: *



Homosexuality is a perverse and vile lifestyle choice that is unnatural. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is natural and normal and i'll stand corrected.


----------



## Chippewa (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Homosexuality is a perverse and vile lifestyle choice that is unnatural.  *



Do you mean smoking? (not talking about pole) 

Dude, whatever. I see you haven't adapted to modern times like the rest of us. Homosexuals are here to stay so you're going to be one miserable fuck for a long time. Are you sure you live in DC and not a cave?


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Chippewa _
> *Do you mean smoking? (not talking about pole)
> 
> Dude, whatever. I see you haven't adapted to modern times like the rest of us. Homosexuals are here to stay so you're going to be one miserable fuck for a long time. Are you sure you live in DC and not a cave? *



No doubt there are going to be mentally fucked up pole smokers but the marriage thing....well lets just say constitutional amendment. Better yet lets put it to a vote of the citizenry, think queers have a chance in hell of winning? Thats why they go through the courts, because they know that most everybody thinks they are degenerate fucks.


----------



## mattskramer (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts why are you a supporter of every strange and alternative thing going? *
> 
> In general, I think that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. I might think that smoking cigars is strange and alternative (alternative to smoking cigarettes or not smoking).  The same goes for hand-standing or eating catsup and peanut-butter sandwiches. That does not necessarily make it wrong or mean that it should be outlawed.  Would you want your behaviors outlawed merely because many people may consider them to be merely strange and alternative?
> ...


----------



## Chippewa (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *It depends on your definition of "save America here socially" and on what you consider to be the things that endanger America.   Some people think that some things are good for America.  Other people think that those things are bad for America.  I think that we both want what is good.  We disagree on what the good things are. *



Yeah, I can't believe this guy thinks that he is the answer to America's social problems.


----------



## Chippewa (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *No doubt there are going to be mentally fucked up pole smokers but the marriage thing....well lets just say constitutional amendment. Better yet lets put it to a vote of the citizenry, think queers have a chance in hell of winning? Thats why they go through the courts, because they know that most everybody thinks they are degenerate fucks. *



Oh right, gays are the only ones who use the court system.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *so you accept that there are exceptions to every rule? *



Obviously.... yes.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *I guess that's why you talibanlike god freaks are so rigid in your condemnations of others. *



Hey, I'm not the one wanting shove dick down people's throat here. YOU are.

That would make YOU the _freak_... boy.


----------



## OCA (May 19, 2004)

Matts and Pale, Chippewa is Flasher. Can you believe that crap? Double identities? WTF!


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *Lets just all agree that I am right.
> 
> Then we can move on a happier, more content group of people.:cof: *



No........... "I'm right"...........:teeth:


----------



## Chippewa (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sir Evil _
> *And I can't believe that you are having such a identity crisis that you feel the need to post under a new one! *



That's what this is about?
Well, not sure you why u think that. I don't have a problem standing up for my views.
Apparently non of you do either.:cof:


----------



## TN_Independent (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *It depends on your definition of "save America here socially" and on what you consider to be the things that endanger America.   Some people think that some things are good for America.  Other people think that those things are bad for America.  I think that we both want what is good.  We disagree on what the good things are. *


I would agree with that, for the most part.

As for this thread, I'd have to say that I'm against same-sex marriage.  I am against it because I think that marriage is a union of husband and wife.  I realize that this view is based on my religious and moral beliefs, and make no apology for it.

As for same-sex unions, it is their choice.  I am not opposed to allowing for "civil-unions", or any other name that would apply.  Give them tax breaks equal to married couples who file joint returns.  Give them every financial and social standing afforded to married couples.  It just shouldn't be termed marriage, in my opinion.  No matter how trivial that may seem to some, that's the way I see it.

Now, do I think that the gay community would find this acceptable?  No, I do not.  I think that their goal is not only that we accept them and allow them to legally become couples.  I feel that they want to force 'total acceptance', for lack of a better term (and that may be inappropriate), even though true total acceptance will never be possible.  They will not be happy, imo, until they are allowed to 'marry'.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *No........... "I'm right"...........:teeth: *




No.......

I AM RIGHT!


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 19, 2004)

well, since everyone is has subscribed to this thread (or so it would seem), I figured this would be a good place to say good nite and know that everyone sees it.

Nite all!


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> I feel that they want to force 'total acceptance', for lack of a better term (and that may be inappropriate), even though true total acceptance will never be possible.



TN..... you may have just very well surmized everything in these fifty some pages in one post.

My hats off to ya. Good job.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *well, since everyone is has subscribed to this thread (or so it would seem), I figured this would be a good place to say good nite and know that everyone sees it.
> 
> Nite all! *



Later.


----------



## mattskramer (May 19, 2004)

"Force total acceptance" - hmmmm. I guess that McDonalds is trying to force total acceptance for its cheeseburgers.  We allow McDonalds to exist.  We even allow it to sell burgers.  Yet, it will never be able to force me to accept its food as being good.


----------



## 007 (May 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *"Force total acceptance" - hmmmm. I guess that McDonalds is trying to force total acceptance for its cheeseburgers.  We allow McDonalds to exist.  We even allow it to sell burgers.  Yet, it will never be able to force me to accept its food as being good. *



What's it like being a "middle of the roader" matts, with no true convictions about anything? Just live and let live.... 

Isn't it boring?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *"Force total acceptance" - hmmmm. I guess that McDonalds is trying to force total acceptance for its cheeseburgers.  We allow McDonalds to exist.  We even allow it to sell burgers.  Yet, it will never be able to force me to accept its food as being good. *



Problem is we arent keeping them from existing. We are trying to prevent them from destroying the family and legitimize their illicit behavior. 

I cant imagine what you are thinking if you think burgers taste bad though.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *"Force total acceptance" - hmmmm. I guess that McDonalds is trying to force total acceptance for its cheeseburgers.  We allow McDonalds to exist.  We even allow it to sell burgers.  Yet, it will never be able to force me to accept its food as being good. *


You have a different viewpoint?  Fine.  I respect that.

To associate McD's cheeseburgers with this issue trivializes it beyond compare, though.  Wouldn't you agree?

Of course I am accepting of other people's opinions, even when they differ with my own.  Not that you aren't, of course, seeing as how I don't know you.  It's just that your post seems to suggest that you don't.  After a little thought, though, even that is OK by me.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Just because there may be homosexuals and even homosexual marriage, it does not mean that there will be no heterosexuals and heterosexual marriage.  *



Are you that morally desolate that you cannot see a wrong with this behavior when it is genocide as carried out to its natural conclusion? Advocating this behavior creates DEATH.



> Get with the times.  You need not be a heterosexual to create repopulation.  Have you heard of sperm banks (for Lesbians who want children)?  Consider surrogate mothers for Gays who want children.



CONSIDER IT?

You MUST be smoking. Just because you CAN, you *SHOULD?!?!*

Only someone so bent on pleasing ego could forstall a right and wrong issue in place of their own pleasure and sacrifice future generations in its advocacy.

How is this any different than Hitler?

IT ISN'T.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *"Force total acceptance" - hmmmm. I guess that McDonalds is trying to force total acceptance for its cheeseburgers.  We allow McDonalds to exist.  We even allow it to sell burgers.  Yet, it will never be able to force me to accept its food as being good. *



I sure hope you aren't the type to want to waste millions to save a type of moth from extinction by making an entire city block set up a no-build zone.

It would be quite contradictory to be all in favor of saving the environment on one hand while advocating genocide and extinction of the human race on the other.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *I would agree with that, for the most part.
> 
> As for this thread, I'd have to say that I'm against same-sex marriage.  I am against it because I think that marriage is a union of husband and wife.  I realize that this view is based on my religious and moral beliefs, and make no apology for it.
> ...




Mmmm...Civil unions...Separate but equal...Haven't we been down that road before? Didn't work then either.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 20, 2004)

There is a quote (I dont remember who said it or what the exact wording is) that goes something like this.

There are 3 steps to acceptance of new ideas:

1.  violent opposition
2. mockery
3.  quiet acceptance

*edit  - I have been informed by my encyclopedia/dictionary.....errrrr, I mean husband that I have the order bassackwards   

flip #'s 1 and 2

HAPPY NOW DEAR??!!!??!?!?!

*edit by DKSuddeth:*

not yet, I have some more things for you to do. :


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *What's it like being a "middle of the roader" matts, with no true convictions about anything? Just live and let live....
> 
> Isn't it boring? *



sort of peaceful maybe? little to argue about, little to persecute over. overall general harmony for once in our lifetime? just a thought


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *There is a quote (I dont remember who said it or what the exact wording is) that goes something like this.
> 
> There are 3 steps to acceptance of new ideas:
> ...



ATTN ADMIN STAFF - PLEASE REIGN IN YOUR TOKEN LIBERAL MOD WHO CONSTANTLY ABUSES HIS POWER TO ANNOY ME.

THANK YOU

(take THAT, DK)     :cof:


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Mmmm...Civil unions...Separate but equal...Haven't we been down that road before? Didn't work then either. *


Assuming that the gay couples were afforded every advantage offered to married couples, what possible benefit could there be in their being "married" rather than "united"?  Other than the fact that they would have succeeded in tearing down the traditional defintion of the term marriage, I just don't see it.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Yes.  I discard the parts which are ignorant and backward. *


rtwng,

I'm still trying very hard to find a meaning in this earlier post other than the obvious one that jumps out at me.

Are you saying that parts of the Bible you discard as ignorant and backward?  If so, that must make it very easy when you have to ask forgiveness for sins (you wouldn't have very many in that case, would you?).

Surely you don't think you can pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you believe.

Tell me it ain't so!   

TN


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

won't speak for rwa, but I do think I can choose which parts of any document, idea, ideology I believe in.  I actually think that's my duty, to figure things out for myself.  The bible says we are all god's children.  In that light, the bible was written for an audience that was extremely childlike in terms of knowledge and advancement (assuming here that it is the exact word of god and not in any way altered by being written through the hand of man).  We have different rules for children than we do for adults, is there any reason to assume god wouldn't also?  In my personal philosophy of life, human society has advanced out of the 'child' years and into the teenage era, full of rebellion and questioning, fits of anger, internal conflict etc.  will be interesting (if I live that long) to see what young adulthood will be like on a world cultural level...

on civil unions, would there be any issue with having couples hetero or homo use civil union status in regards to government treatment and leaving marriage in the eyes of god strictly to churches?


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *won't speak for rwa, but I do think I can choose which parts of any document, idea, ideology I believe in.  I actually think that's my duty, to figure things out for myself.  The bible says we are all god's children.  In that light, the bible was written for an audience that was extremely childlike in terms of knowledge and advancement (assuming here that it is the exact word of god and not in any way altered by being written through the hand of man).  We have different rules for children than we do for adults, is there any reason to assume god wouldn't also?  In my personal philosophy of life, human society has advanced out of the 'child' years and into the teenage era, full of rebellion and questioning, fits of anger, internal conflict etc.  will be interesting (if I live that long) to see what young adulthood will be like on a world cultural level...*


Aquarian,

Are you a Christian?  That is not evident from your answer, and it would be very pertinent, at least to my thinking.  It is obvious, I suppose, that I feel that the Bible must be taken literally and that we are not given the freedom to choose which part we are to respect and which we aren't.  I will admit that there is the possibility that some of the text may have been altered in translation, but not in significant amounts and not enough to make contextual differences.*



			on civil unions, would there be any issue with having couples hetero or homo use civil union status in regards to government treatment and leaving marriage in the eyes of god strictly to churches?
		
Click to expand...

*I personally would have no problem with this and feel that it would be an adequate solution to the problem.

TN


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

I was raised catholic up thru first communion but not confirmation.  Currently I am either agnostic or atheist, been doing some soul searching and reading of various sources to help determine which but so far I'm still undecided and likely will be till the end of my time here.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *won't speak for rwa, but I do think I can choose which parts of any document, idea, ideology I believe in.  I actually think that's my duty, to figure things out for myself.  *



When you recall the penalty for adding to or taking away from God's word, and the fact that the Bible proves its self entirely devine in origin, your changes to its wordings are not allowed.

As a side effect, your beliefs then show in your propigation through politics and social interactions and begin to sway others as well.

How many believers can be sabotaged?

How many unbelievers will be pushed into what they THINK is Chirstian behavior, but NOT?

The ramifications on Earth are large, and the ramifications after death are larger.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *I was raised catholic up thru first communion but not confirmation.  Currently I am either agnostic or atheist, been doing some soul searching and reading of various sources to help determine which but so far I'm still undecided and likely will be till the end of my time here. *



Maybe that is because of your pick and choose instead of pick and PROVE.


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

You may very well be right newguy.  So might I.  Your reasoning is why I generally shy away from discussing religion with anyone who is likely to be swayed by my arguments.  I'm taking my afterlife into my own hands by disagreeing with the bible and I'm ok with that, less so with the idea of being responsible for changing someone else's mind *if* I turn out to be wrong.  none of us will know for sure until we die, and then it will be too late (most likely).  My older sister, who is very religious, and I had a long conversation the other night.  she wanted to know my reasoning for my atheist leanings.  I did my best to explain them while emphasizing the parts of my belief system that left the possibility of a supreme being open.  I for one admit I don't *know*, but many others present what they *think* as indisputable fact.


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *I for one admit I don't know, but many others present what they think as indisputable fact. *



That's pretty much where I stand. For all I know I'll be reincarnated as a bluefish, which is sort of a humbling fact.


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

Flasher/Chippewa have been posting from the same exact computer, this much has been confirmed people. 

Flasher how long do you intend to keep your charade going?


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Flasher/Chippewa have been posting from the same exact computer, this much has been confirmed people.
> 
> Flasher how long do you intend to keep your charade going? *



I can pretty much verify that no one is accessing the board from my computer besides me. I am in class at New Horizons. Check the IP address. It would be a HUGE coincidence if someone was.

And I only have one screenname. So layoff, OCA. Geez.


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

Flasher the proof is irrefuteable. What do you say you tell us why you let RWA push you over the edge. Hell man i've seen the proof with my own eyes. I ask again how long do you want the charade to go on?


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Flasher the proof is irrefuteable. What do you say you tell us why you let RWA push you over the edge. Hell man i've seen the proof with my own eyes. I ask again how long do you want the charade to go on? *



RWA thinks he pushed meover the edge?
Puh-lease.
Go back to talkingabout something interesting, OCA. This is a witch hunt as best I can tell.


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

This thread is monsterous.  I've only read the last page, and it seems full of invective and silly nonsense.  Is there any substance to it?  Can someone give me a brief synopsis?


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *This thread is monsterous.  I've only read the last page, and it seems full of invective and silly nonsense.  Is there any substance to it?  Can someone give me a brief synopsis? *



This is a discussion on gay marriage gone tragicly wrong.

For example, one poster here thinks that whether being gay is normal is relevant. Seems to me that's a topic for another post.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 20, 2004)

IP's can be used by multiple people. Case in point, Mine and my spouses. Machines behind the same proxy or firewall can end up being the same exact IP so until there is definitive proof, other than an exact IP address, lets ease up on the dual identity accusations.

So far I've seen nothing to indicate that flasher would have any need to use a second identity.


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

I've asked at least a dozen times for someone to prove that homosexuality is natural and normal and no one as of yet has answered that. So at this point we are at the point that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle choice and therefore underserving of the sanctity of marriage which is meant for man and woman only. Clear it up for ya?


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

Yep, is it worth reading though?


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *IP's can be used by multiple people. Case in point, Mine and my spouses. Machines behind the same proxy or firewall can end up being the same exact IP so until there is definitive proof, other than an exact IP address, lets ease up on the dual identity accusations.
> 
> So far I've seen nothing to indicate that flasher would have any need to use a second identity. *



What are the chances given the population of America that two people with the same exact ip address not related to each other or roommates, as Flasher as indicated he has no idea who it could be, could be using the same IP address? I would think astronomical.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *This thread is monsterous.  I've only read the last page, and it seems full of invective and silly nonsense.  Is there any substance to it?  Can someone give me a brief synopsis? *



That is rather insulting to those of us who DID post valid discussion and you want the cliff notes.


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

No offense man.  It's just that I've read so many posts on social issues on this board that just degenerate into nonsense and bullshit instead of real ideas and issues with real consequences.  I wasn't dissing anyone in particular, I'm just tired of threads that end with meaningless personal attacks and garbage in place of genuine debate.


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I've asked at least a dozen times for someone to prove that homosexuality is natural and normal and no one as of yet has answered that. So at this point we are at the point that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle choice and therefore underserving of the sanctity of marriage which is meant for man and woman only. Clear it up for ya? *



Why is homosexuality dangerous? 
Gay sex may not be appealing to us, but it is not risky unless those practicing it are irresponsible.

THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT HETERO SEX.

Can't get dick off the brain, eh OCA?


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Why is homosexuality dangerous?
> Gay sex may not be appealing to us, but it is not risky unless those practicing it are irresponsible.
> 
> ...



Go look at AIDS stats Chippewa then come back and talk to me.


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *No offense man.  It's just that I've read so many posts on social issues on this board that just degenerate into nonsense and bullshit instead of real ideas and issues with real consequences.  I wasn't dissing anyone in particular, I'm just tired of threads that end with meaningless personal attacks and garbage in place of genuine debate. *



Well Syntax here is a real question for ya: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice?


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

Of course not.  This isn't some geometric postulate with a series of finite, logical proofs.  This is a social issue, and as such, one's perception of it is colored by their social and cultural conditioning.  Give me a break dude.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *Of course not.  This isn't some geometric postulate with a series of finite, logical proofs. *



It is if you consider the ability to tell the future proof of divinity in relation to the Bible.


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

I don't.  Your post has nothing to do with what I just said.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *I don't.  Your post has nothing to do with what I just said. *



Actually, you THINK it had nothing to do with what you just said.


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

Right.  That is kind of implied in everything I say that is not of a factual nature.  This is a message board.  You editorialize on it.  Just like you think that passages contained in Revelation prove the factual and moral validity of the bible.  Get real man.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *Right.  That is kind of implied in everything I say that is not of a factual nature.  This is a message board.  You editorialize on it.*



Not everything is merely an editorial. Some FACTS exist in proof format.



> *  Just like you think that passages contained in Revelation prove the factual and moral validity of the bible.  Get real man. *



That isn't what I said, nor meant.

You are not sounding very intelligent.


----------



## Joz (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Well Syntax here is a real question for ya: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice? *




I have to agree with you here OCA.  But, too, when you subtract the Bible from the equation  ANYTHING can be believed.

The Bible states that sin is wrong ( murder, adultry, homosexuality, too much wine, gossip)  not hormonal or genetic tendencies.  And whether we want to admit it or not.....sinning is a choice.


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

I said everything NOT OF A FACTUAL NATURE is what I thought.  Christ, can you read??  Secondly, were you not talking about the book of Revelation when you were talking about predicting the future?  If not, I guess I misread you.  Sorry.  But jeez, I didn't say everything posted was editorializing.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *rtwng,
> 
> I'm still trying very hard to find a meaning in this earlier post other than the obvious one that jumps out at me.
> ...



People have been doing for years.  catholics, protestants, orthodoxs of various regions, jews for jesus; christianity is really a religion kit.  You can join my sect once I decide on everything.  Or you can join newguy's; he's got it all figured out, and he's actively prostelytizing.


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

syntax, as you have surmised there is mostly opinion on this thread as it's almost entirely a  matter of opinion.  some of the posts prior on both sides are worth reading, just skip the jabs and the repetetive posts.

oca really likes to repeat over and over his question re natural and normal despite the fact that numerous times it has been shown that 'normal' is not a prerequisite for allowable and that the question of homosexuality being natural has persuasive arguments on both sides.  he discounts the hormone level during pregnancy arguments that rwa has supplied tho to be fair I think the link to the research was in another thread...  he also hasn't made the realization that anything mankind does, being part of nature, is therefor natural.  the better question is whether it is beneficial, harmful, or neutral impact.  I'd have to say neutral as there is nothing being forced on others except for knowledge of it's existence.  but that's just me


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *Right.  That is kind of implied in everything I say that is not of a factual nature.  This is a message board.  You editorialize on it.  Just like you think that passages contained in Revelation prove the factual and moral validity of the bible.  Get real man. *


Don't be too hard on him, Syntax.  He also thinks that air, trees, rocks, and soil are capable of transforming a sound wave into an auditory response.

<b><i>Originally posted by NewGuy </i>
Learn your science. The instant the wave hits an object, sound is created. Air, trees, rocks, soil.</b>


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

I didn't know RWA could be funny....


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> * Christ, can you read??   I didn't say everything posted was editorializing. *






> This is a message board. You editorialize on it. Just like you think that passages contained in Revelation prove the factual and moral validity of the bible. Get real man.


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

New Guy, by the way that is scientifically inaccurate.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *Don't be too hard on him, Syntax.  He also thinks that air, trees, rocks, and soil are capable of transforming a sound wave into an auditory response.
> 
> <b><i>Originally posted by NewGuy </i>
> Learn your science. The instant the wave hits an object, sound is created. Air, trees, rocks, soil.</b> *



Your ability to DETECT sound does not CREATE sound Einstien.

If you want to learn science and come back, I am sure the IQ around here will slow its descent.


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

My God.  You must be breathtakingly stupid.  I said, right at the beginning, that everything I said NOT. OF. A. FACTUAL. NATURE. is what I thought.  THOUGHT.  (not of a factual nature.)  Do you understand.  This is extremely simple.


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *New Guy, by the way that is scientifically inaccurate. *



What is?


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *My God.  You must be breathtakingly stupid.  I said, right at the beginning, that everything I said NOT. OF. A. FACTUAL. NATURE. is what I thought.  THOUGHT.  (not of a factual nature.)  Do you understand.  This is extremely simple. *



-Your words, not mine.

Do you realize you are mad at your own lack of clarity?

:


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *People have been doing for years.  catholics, protestants, orthodoxs of various regions, jews for jesus; christianity is really a religion kit.  You can join my sect once I decide on everything.  Or you can join newguy's; he's got it all figured out, and he's actively prostelytizing. *


So you say..... not preaching to you, just amazed that you feel you can pick and choose....

As I said in an earlier post, that must make it very easy when it comes to asking for forgiveness - hell, anything you did that went against scriptures you could say was "ignorant and backward".

By the way, the Baptist church that I attend does not pick and choose.  Neither have any of the other protestant churches where I've been a regular member.  So, in that sense, you are wrong about protestants (at least the ones I've been associated with).

TN


----------



## Syntax_Divinity (May 20, 2004)

Hmmmm.  Good point.  I'm also annoyed at your inability or unwillingness to understand what I said in spite of its lack of clarity.  I could have understood the implicit meaning of that post.  But Whateva, I gotta go.  Job interview.  No offense New Guy.  YOu're one of the few intelligent people on the board.  You're not really stupid.  I'm just annoyed.  My bad.


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Go look at AIDS stats Chippewa then come back and talk to me. *



Alright, if I'm Cheppewa you're shit for brains.
So, Shit for Brains, listen here.
If a person contracts AIDS and has sex with 20,000 people, that is irresponsible and could even be murder depending on if the person knows they have it.

So, smarty pants, don't try to say that homosexuality is dangerous... dangerous sexual practices are dangerous.


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

scientifically, a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it makes a sound as defined by science so newguy is right on that point.  Philosophically, it is a thought problem same as what is the sound of one hand clapping (which bart succintly answered in a simpson's episode, but it can't be expressed on a messageboard).


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *So you say..... not preaching to you, just amazed that you feel you can pick and choose....
> 
> As I said in an earlier post, that must make it very easy when it comes to asking for forgiveness - hell, anything you did that went against scriptures you could say was "ignorant and backward".
> ...



People do pick and choose.  You can try to act like I'm unique in the world for such a blasphemous suggestion.  History shows otherwise.

Do baptists take communion with real wine?

I was brought up anglican, We don't cotton to popery, or calvinism for that matter.
We know how to party.


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Your ability to DETECT sound does not CREATE sound Einstien.
> 
> If you want to learn science and come back, I am sure the IQ around here will slow its descent. *


It is sound when the brain processes the information from the auditory nerve.....

As it is moving through the air, it is a sound wave, a vibration, which is something entirely different.....

And thanks for the Einstein comment.....


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *It is sound when the brain processes the information from the auditory nerve.....
> 
> As it is moving through the air, it is a sound wave, a vibration, which is something entirely different.....
> ...



It is DETECTED BY A HUMAN when that occurs.

It is sound in a wave form determined by frequency, hence vibration also being classified as sound and vice versa.

You are welcome. You deserve it.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Alright, if I'm Cheppewa you're shit for brains.
> So, Shit for Brains, listen here.
> If a person contracts AIDS and has sex with 20,000 people, that is irresponsible and could even be murder depending on if the person knows they have it.
> ...



I'm not really defending OCA here, but you're a busted-ass, ignorant fool with no game.


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *It is sound when the brain processes the information from the auditory nerve.....
> 
> As it is moving through the air, it is a sound wave, a vibration, which is something entirely different.....
> ...



actually, the dictionary definition of sound from dictionary.com:



> a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
> b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.



the first definition does reference humans, but only in ascertaining the range of hertz that make a sound detectable to a human.  it says capable of being detected and nothing about the necessity of the sound being detected in order to differentiate it from the soundwaves it comprises.


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *I'm not really defending OCA here, but you're a busted-ass, ignorant fool with no game. *



Stop hurting my feelings


----------



## 007 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> The bible says we are all god's children.  In that light, the bible was written for an audience that was extremely childlike in terms of knowledge and advancement (assuming here that it is the exact word of god and not in any way altered by being written through the hand of man).



You're missing the point here Aquarian, which not being a Christian is probably easy to do. The point is, God "created" us. In his eye's, we ARE his children. It's a term. Just like to my parents, no matter how OLD I get, I will always be their "child".

And another thing, any entity that has the power to create the heavens and the earth, can transend time and knows not death, *YOU AND I ARE CHILD LIKE TO THAT POWER.*


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *
> So, smarty pants, don't try to say that homosexuality is dangerous... dangerous sexual practices are dangerous. *



Homosexuality IS a dangerous sexual practice.

Are you trying to be a wannabe lawyer, or do you just play one on TV?


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *You're missing the point here Aquarian, which not being a Christian is probably easy to do. The point is, God "created" us. In his eye's, we ARE his children. Just like to my parents, no matter how OLD I get, I will always be their "child".
> 
> And another thing, any being that has the power to create the heavens and the earth, can transend time and knows not death, YOU AND I ARE CHILD LIKE TO THAT POWER. *



no, i get the point.  I just don't believe it.  tho maybe I just don't believe it yet.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Stop hurting my feelings *



Say uncle in 24 pt type with a "bowing to me" emoticon underneath and the pain will end.


----------



## 007 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity _
> *No offense man.  It's just that I've read so many posts on social issues on this board that just degenerate into nonsense and bullshit instead of real ideas and issues with real consequences.  I wasn't dissing anyone in particular, I'm just tired of threads that end with meaningless personal attacks and garbage in place of genuine debate. *



For Christ sake then don't read it!


----------



## 007 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *no, i get the point.  I just don't believe it.  tho maybe I just don't believe it yet. *



There's hope for you Aquarian....


----------



## dilloduck (May 20, 2004)

If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound.

   This statement is ,as alluded to earlier, is in the form of a zen koan. It is a type of riddle if you will so when you think about it, it takes you beyond your present plane of consciousness and hopefully outside your "self". In this way you are able to see further and are not blinded by your own thoughts. 

  Make it a science argument if you wish but you have missed the point


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Say uncle in 24 pt type with a "bowing to me" emoticon underneath and the pain will end. *



 :wank: :wank: :wank: :wank:


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

hope springs eternal.  reminds of something my mother told or passed along to me:

"it's all ok in the end.  if it's not ok, it's not the end"


----------



## 007 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound.
> 
> This statement is ,as alluded to earlier, is in the form of a zen koan. It is a type of riddle if you will so when you think about it, it takes you beyond your present plane of consciousness and hopefully outside your "self". In this way you are able to see further and are not blinded by your own thoughts.
> ...



Whether you're there to hear it or not is irrelevant. The damn tree makes a huge thud! We all know it. There's no question about it. Now it seems there are those who want to debate the issue philosophically....

...START A NEW THREAD WITH IT THEN! 

It's hard enough to keep up with this one ON TOPIC!


----------



## 007 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *hope springs eternal.  reminds of something my mother told or passed along to me:
> 
> "it's all ok in the end.  if it's not ok, it's not the end" *



Hmmm. Nice thought. But I'm not inclined to go along with it. If there's no conciquences to ones actions in life, then what's the point?

And therein lies the major reason for the different positions on gay marriage and homosexuality.


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *If there's no conciquences to ones actions in life, then what's the point?*



Not sure what you mean here, all of our lives and actions have consequences.


----------



## Aquarian (May 20, 2004)

there are direct, earthly consequences to every action in life.  There may or may not be consequences after death, of any of several varieties from heaven/hell, reincarnation etc.  as to what's the point?  maybe, just maybe, there is no point.  It is a natural reaction for man to look around the universe and wonder why it is here, why he is here but just because we wonder doesn't mean there's a reason for any of it.  Douglas adam's had a really good passage in one of his speeches quoted in 'the salmon of doubt' on this but I don't have it handy to transcribe currently...


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *there are direct, earthly consequences to every action in life.  There may or may not be consequences after death, of any of several varieties from heaven/hell, reincarnation etc.  as to what's the point?  maybe, just maybe, there is no point.  It is a natural reaction for man to look around the universe and wonder why it is here, why he is here but just because we wonder doesn't mean there's a reason for any of it.  Douglas adam's had a really good passage in one of his speeches quoted in 'the salmon of doubt' on this but I don't have it handy to transcribe currently... *



Shouldn't this be a new topic? I just looked at the title of this thread and... we're talking about the meaning of the universe?

edit: interesting nonetheless


----------



## 007 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Not sure what you mean here, all of our lives and actions have consequences. *



.... in death.


----------



## dilloduck (May 20, 2004)

somebody call the medical examiner-------I see a dead thread

Get your ass in here Quincy !


----------



## 007 (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Shouldn't this be a new topic? I just looked at the title of this thread and... we're talking about the meaning of the universe?
> 
> edit: interesting nonetheless *



However it does tie in with the topic of this thread.

Will gays ever pay for their life style after they die? That's the current thought. And we've reasoned, it depends on if you believe it will or not, religon playing into that or not.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *However it does tie in with the topic of this thread.
> 
> Will gays ever pay for their life style after they die? That's the current thought. And we've reasoned, it depends on if you believe it will or not, religon playing into that or not. *



wouldn't that be their fate? their decision? therefore their fault?


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *However it does tie in with the topic of this thread.
> 
> Will gays ever pay for their life style after they die? That's the current thought. And we've reasoned, it depends on if you believe it will or not, religon playing into that or not. *



IMO, this would be about as relevant to gay marriage as OCA's claim that gays are abnormal. Not at all.

What is relevant, are reasons why they should or should not be allowed to marry... according to the LAW.


----------



## nycflasher (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *somebody call the medical examiner-------I see a dead thread
> 
> Get your ass in here Quincy ! *



He-he. I use to dig that show.

Can you dig it?


----------



## TN_Independent (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *actually, the dictionary definition of sound from dictionary.com:
> 
> 
> ...


Therein lies the barb in the discussion:  <i>capable of being detected</i>.  It cannot be detected if there is nothing there capable of detecting it.  Or, you could argue that it could, but you could never prove it.

Granted, this discussion depends on the definition used to define sound... there are definitions that are not dependent upon the capability issue and using those definitions there would be sound due to the vibrations.

TN


----------



## NewGuy (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TN_Independent _
> *Therein lies the barb in the discussion:  <i>capable of being detected</i>.  It cannot be detected if there is nothing there capable of detecting it.  Or, you could argue that it could, but you could never prove it.
> 
> Granted, this discussion depends on the definition used to define sound... there are definitions that are not dependent upon the capability issue and using those definitions there would be sound due to the vibrations.
> ...



What are you talking about?

You have moral relativism type thinking mixed with "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist."

Anything that happens in life has consequences.
Just because you do not observe it, it doesn't mean it doesn't affect you.
Just because you don't observe it, it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Life exists outside your fishbowl.

All things are not perspective only.

That is the issue here, you think there are no such things as absolutes. -Except absolute paradox of absolute subjectiveness determining reality.

COMPLETELY FALSE, ILLOGICAL AND DISPROVEN.


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *He-he. I use to dig that show.
> 
> Can you dig it? *



Flasher/Chippewa the fact that you felt you had to use two nics on a political messageboard to bolster your points makes all your input irrelevant to any topic here. You my friend have a serious credibility problem here that you need to deal with before going forward. 

But again the question, how long will you go on denying and making a fool out of yourself before you fess up? You are caught dead to rights.


----------



## mattskramer (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *What are you talking about?
> 
> You have moral relativism type thinking mixed with "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist."
> ...



I just did 10 push-ups.  In what way did it affect you?


----------



## OCA (May 20, 2004)

Matts the guy living on the streets shooting heroin doesn't affect me either but we make laws and judgements against him because what he's doing to himself is personally wrong. Same deal with homosexuality.

Your constant equating of homosexuality to silly mundane activities such as pushups reveals that you have really very little understanding of this issue.


----------



## mattskramer (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts the guy living on the streets shooting heroin doesn't affect me either but we make laws and judgements against him because what he's doing to himself is personally wrong. Same deal with homosexuality.
> 
> Your constant equating of homosexuality to silly mundane activities such as pushups reveals that you have really very little understanding of this issue. *



I don't think that it should be the role of government to be the individuals' baby-sitter.  As I said before, I support the legalization of drugs.  In general, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others.


----------



## 007 (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *I don't think that it should be the role of government to be the individuals' baby-sitter.  As I said before, I support the legalization of drugs.  In general, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. *



Matts, if people were left completely alone to do whatever it is that tickles their fancy, it wouldn't take long before the WORLD would spin out of control into oblivion. MAN NEEDS RULES AND PARAMETERS TO LIVE. There is no other way.

Gays wanting to marry are just pushing closer to that dimise. They are tearing down what stability the world knows. We are closer to the "end" than we are any "beginning" if gays are let to marry.


----------



## 007 (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *However it does tie in with the topic of this thread.
> 
> Will gays ever pay for their life style after they die? That's the current thought. And we've reasoned, it depends on if you believe it will or not, religon playing into that or not. *





> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth_
> 
> *wouldn't that be their fate? their decision? therefore their fault?*



Exactly.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *no, i get the point.  I just don't believe it.  tho maybe I just don't believe it yet. *



You my dear man, are someone that I want to know better.


----------



## Aquarian (May 21, 2004)

Thank you KL, I suspect we have much in common regarding outlook on life.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

I suspect your probably right  
If you have AIM or AOL, IM me sometime.
Would love to talk to you


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Matts, if people were left completely alone to do whatever it is that tickles their fancy, it wouldn't take long before the WORLD would spin out of control into oblivion. MAN NEEDS RULES AND PARAMETERS TO LIVE. There is no other way.
> 
> Gays wanting to marry are just pushing closer to that dimise. They are tearing down what stability the world knows. We are closer to the "end" than we are any "beginning" if gays are let to marry. *



Attention, may I have your attention please. Gay Marriage is the beginning of the end of the world. Everyone who thought aliens would take us over or nuclear war would end the world were wrong.


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *Attention, may I have your attention please. Gay Marriage is the beginning of the end of the world. Everyone who thought aliens would take us over or nuclear war would end the world were wrong.  *



LMAO.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

I am a lisensed, registered minister.  I would marry any couple who came to me if it were legal to do so that would be willing to go through the mandatory pre-wedding counseling that I require.  Its just something to make the couple think - something that not many couples do before marriage, IMO.

You all may hate me now - I dont care....
if it bothers you so badly, then Id say you need to have a little conversation with yourself rather than with me.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

This is not something I ever said.

FIX IT!

Originally posted by KLSuddeth

wouldn't that be their fate? their decision? therefore their fault?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im not saying whether I agree or disagree - I dont care for being misquoted, damnit


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

ooops
tahnks DK


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *ooops
> tahnks DK *



welcome


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *I just did 10 push-ups.  In what way did it affect you? *



Did I say it affected ME?

IT affected:

1. The potential future generations you may have by slightly altering your body chemistry and behavior patterns.

2. Anyone who may have seen you.

3. Any company which you may choose to now visit to ENHANCE or REDUCE your experience through suppliments or products which you would not have purchased BEFORE those push ups.

4. Your outlook on excercise as you may dictate verbally to others and affect them.

You see, your actions, our actions, ALL have consequences. Not just on us, but others. Your pushups also -even minutely- affected the structural integrity of your body and your floor.

Since I am 100% positive you DIDN'T do those push ups since you would consider it rediculous to do so for this board, I know you will discard this post as not seriously relevant.

But it IS true. You cannot justify moral relativism.


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *Attention, may I have your attention please. Gay Marriage is the beginning of the end of the world. Everyone who thought aliens would take us over or nuclear war would end the world were wrong.  *



We still have a shot at nuclear war.

:


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *We still have a shot at nuclear war.
> 
> :   *



Damn, and the only gun I have is a Colt 45 with the firing pin removed which I inherited from my great-great grandfather who was a doctor in New Mexico in the late 1800's. Yep, docs packed heat back then... in the Wild Wild West anyway. 

I guess guns would be pretty useless in case of nuclear war though.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *But it IS true. You cannot justify moral relativism. *



Moral relativism is a red herring


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *We still have a shot at nuclear war.
> 
> :   *



I think you're right, lets use nuclear war to stop gay marriage. two birds with one stone. :


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *I think you're right, lets use nuclear war to stop gay marriage. two birds with one stone. : *



-Are the birds doves?


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *-Are the birds doves?  *



ha-ha-ha


----------



## 007 (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *Attention, may I have your attention please. Gay Marriage is the beginning of the end of the world. Everyone who thought aliens would take us over or nuclear war would end the world were wrong.  *



I wouldn't say it was "the beginning" DK. Maybe somewhere in the "middle". And it won't be the end of the world, just the end of our country.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

Just the beginning of social anarchy. This country will eventually become a country where if something brings pleasure to you no matter how vile or dispicable it is then it will be permissible because god forbid you don't want to judge anybody


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Just the beginning of social anarchy. This country will eventually become a country where if something brings pleasure to you no matter how vile or dispicable it is then it will be permissible because god forbid you don't want to judge anybody *



I disagree, many of us feel it is a victimless act, and therefore should not be illegal.   Governments should not even attempt to protect people from themselves; that precedent is asking for all our choices to be taken away by government.


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *I disagree, many of us feel it is a victimless act, and therefore should not be illegal.   Governments should not even attempt to protect people from themselves; that precedent is asking for all our choices to be taken away by government. *



Agreed.

Again, the government's only recognition of marriage at all ought to be the understanding that the arraingement exist. Tax breaks and all else should be abolished since they exclude singles who are not in relationships.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

RWA its the first step on the road to social anarchy. If a guy wants to bone his dog is he affecting anybody? He's reaping personal pleasure and I guess he's getting a nut out of it but the basic argument out of the other side is he's not hurting anybody. You see what precedent this is setting right? Prostitution is considered a victimless crime yet the government for the most part says its illegal, so there really is already precedent on my side to prohibit gay marriage. Its not like anybody is saying that the sex will be illegal just that you cannot get married.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *I wouldn't say it was "the beginning" DK. Maybe somewhere in the "middle". And it won't be the end of the world, just the end of our country. *



well, so far theres two countries in the northern europe part of the world and they haven't died out yet.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Just the beginning of social anarchy. This country will eventually become a country where if something brings pleasure to you no matter how vile or dispicable it is then it will be permissible because god forbid you don't want to judge anybody *



is hedonism a bad thing when between consenting adults?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *RWA its the first step on the road to social anarchy. If a guy wants to bone his dog is he affecting anybody? He's reaping personal pleasure and I guess he's getting a nut out of it but the basic argument out of the other side is he's not hurting anybody. You see what precedent this is setting right? Prostitution is considered a victimless crime yet the government for the most part says its illegal, so there really is already precedent on my side to prohibit gay marriage. Its not like anybody is saying that the sex will be illegal just that you cannot get married. *



Prostitution should be legal in my view, so that argument is a no go on me.

Even though I've defended the biological argument that it's not a choice, I still don't see why they're not happy with civil unions.  It's a ridiculous symbolic argument on both sides.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *RWA its the first step on the road to social anarchy. If a guy wants to bone his dog is he affecting anybody? He's reaping personal pleasure and I guess he's getting a nut out of it but the basic argument out of the other side is he's not hurting anybody. You see what precedent this is setting right? Prostitution is considered a victimless crime yet the government for the most part says its illegal, so there really is already precedent on my side to prohibit gay marriage. Its not like anybody is saying that the sex will be illegal just that you cannot get married. *



you want to compare gay marriage and someone committing bestiality?


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *you want to compare gay marriage and someone committing bestiality? *



Why the hell not? I got people here comparing homosexuality to pushups and wearing glasses on the bridge of your nose. My comparison although far is a hell of a lot closer than those.


----------



## Aquarian (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Why the hell not? I got people here comparing homosexuality to pushups and wearing glasses on the bridge of your nose. My comparison although far is a hell of a lot closer than those. *



i like to have homosexual sex while doing pushups and wearing glasses on the bridge of my nose.

(just joking, I don't wear glasses...)

/feeble attempt at humor


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Aquarian _
> *i like to have homosexual sex while doing pushups and wearing glasses on the bridge of my nose.
> 
> (just joking, I don't wear glasses...)
> ...



Aquarian the visual was not good but the humor part was excellent


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *Attention, may I have your attention please. Gay Marriage is the beginning of the end of the world. Everyone who thought aliens would take us over or nuclear war would end the world were wrong.  *


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

am I correct in saying that the basis to the view point that equates homosexual marriage as 'bad' is because its morally wrong?  Im curious if Ive understood this to be right or not.


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> *you want to compare gay marriage and someone committing bestiality? *



You better call your friends at PETA concerning it. 

I don't see how bestiality is a fair comparison to homosexuality.  I don't think that human-to-animal relationships can ever reach the level mutual understanding and true intimacy that comes from human-to-human relationships.  Also, an animal is not in a position to give informed consent.  Yet, it is not in a position to give informed consent about becoming shoe leather either. 

If you have no qualms about letting people taunt bulls by waving red capes at them and torturing them with knives and spears for quite a long time, before killing them and cutting off their ears for souvenirs, I have no qualms about allowing people to have sex with animals.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)




----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *You better call your friends at PETA concerning it.
> 
> I don't see how bestiality is a fair comparison to homosexuality.  I don't think that human-to-animal relationships can ever reach the level mutual understanding and true intimacy that comes from human-to-human relationships.  Also, an animal is not in a position to give informed consent.  Yet, it is not in a position to give informed consent about becoming shoe leather either.
> ...



Why do you keep making it appear right and wrong are to be determined only by the parties performing the actions?

You just invalidated the entire legal system and Bible.

Get over it. Moral Relativism is not logical, and it doesn't work.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Just the beginning of social anarchy. This country will eventually become a country where if something brings pleasure to you no matter how vile or dispicable it is then it will be permissible because god forbid you don't want to judge anybody *



Indeed, you do want to judge others. They are to be judged by the consequences of their actions upon themselves and others. 

You equate objective morality rooted in the consequences to <b><i>this</i></b> life and in <b><i>this</i></b> world with the mindless nihilism of moral relativism. And it is just not so. If one's actions lead to the harm of oneself, or to the harm of others, or to the harm of both, that action may be proscribed by law. Such a proscrition is based upon the real consequences of that action here...now...and not in some mythical, airy-fairy, metaphysical dreamworld of an afterlife.

Based upon that premise, there is no rational basis for denying the institution of marriage to same gender couples.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *You better call your friends at PETA concerning it.
> 
> I don't see how bestiality is a fair comparison to homosexuality.  I don't think that human-to-animal relationships can ever reach the level mutual understanding and true intimacy that comes from human-to-human relationships.  Also, an animal is not in a position to give informed consent.  Yet, it is not in a position to give informed consent about becoming shoe leather either.
> ...



Matt why do you continue to make assinine comparisons? Your moral relativism is a joke and is one of the major factors contributing to the social ills in America today. 

Why do you want to be a fence rider(jellyfish)? Are you afraid of offending someone? The fact is and you will never ever to be able to prove otherwise is that two people of the same sex should not copulate and therefore logically have no valid reason to be married. I'm not going to reiterate my or anybody else's reasons as they are all over this board and proven in various ways. But please continue to make assinine comparisons to bullfighting, pushups and lefthanders, its doing you a world of good.

BTW the homosexuality to beastiality was showing that once you let homosexual marriage go on the grounds of moral relativism you're gonna have to let everything go like it or not.


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

* The potential future generations you may have by slightly altering your body chemistry and behavior patterns. *

Okay.  Point taken.  For anyone who might have a child, what he does to his health may affect the child to be.

* Anyone who may have seen you. *

Unless I did it where no one would see me.

* Any company which you may choose to now visit to ENHANCE or REDUCE your experience through supplements or products which you would not have purchased BEFORE those push ups. *

Unless I choose to not let my pushups influence the choice I make in what company to visit (if I were to even visit a company)

* Your outlook on exercise as you may dictate verbally to others and affect them. *

If and when you communicate with people you influence them.  
Okay.  Actions have consequences but only if you have children and/or associate with others. I guess that the issue becomes: In what way does a specific action influence others and is it our responsibility to take care of those who may be influenced by our behavior.  So people might see me work out?!?  So what?  It won't stop them from being couch potatoes or contending for the Olympics.

Finally, I am very conscious of fitness, exercise and nutrition.  Some people may call me a nut.  I keep myself healthy and I did the pushups.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Indeed, you do want to judge others. They are to be judged by the consequences of their actions upon themselves and others.
> 
> You equate objective morality rooted in the consequences to <b><i>this</i></b> life and in <b><i>this</i></b> world with the mindless nihilism of moral relativism. And it is just not so. If one's actions lead to the harm of oneself, or to the harm of others, or to the harm of both, that action may be proscribed by law. Such a proscrition is based upon the real consequences of that action here...now...and not in some mythical, airy-fairy, metaphysical dreamworld of an afterlife.
> ...



Bully we have laws against bestiality and prostitution off the top of my head and both are victimless crimes and only hurt the participants yet both are illegal because both are immoral. So shall the same be for homosexuality. 

Prove to me that two people of the same sex copulating is normal and natural and not vile and dispicable and I will stand corrected.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Why do you keep making it appear right and wrong are to be determined only by the parties performing the actions?
> 
> You just invalidated the entire legal system and Bible.
> ...



Right and wrong are determined by the consequences of our actions, and not by the parties performing them.


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Bully we have laws against bestiality and prostitution off the top of my head and both are victimless crimes and only hurt the participants yet both are illegal because both are immoral. So shall the same be for homosexuality.
> 
> Prove to me that two people of the same sex copulating is normal and natural and not vile and dispicable and I will stand corrected. *



1) How do commit bestiality and prostitution off the top of your head? Seems like a strange place to do it.

2) Prove to us that you having sex with anyone is not vile and dispicable. I'm curious how a "proof" like that works...


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *1) How do commit bestiality and prostitution off the top of your head? Seems like a strange place to do it.
> 
> 2) Prove to us that you having sex with anyone is not vile and dispicable. I'm curious how a "proof" like that works... *



Did you forget the PMS pills? You just insulted the guy for no reason.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Bully we have laws against bestiality and prostitution off the top of my head and both are victimless crimes and only hurt the participants yet both are illegal because both are immoral. So shall the same be for homosexuality.
> 
> Prove to me that two people of the same sex copulating is normal and natural and not vile and dispicable and I will stand corrected. *



Indeed, and part of the basis of a rational and objective morality lies in the consequences of one's actions upon oneself. You didn't read very closely, so let me spell it out for you again:

<blockquote>If one's actions lead to the <b>harm of oneself</b>, or to the <b>harm of others</b>, or to the <b>harm of both</b>, that action may be proscribed by law.</blockquote>

Your analogies fail.


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

Careful.  Don't let your emotions run away with you. 

* Matt why do you continue to make assinine comparisons? *

Why do you make such asinine excuses? 

* Your moral relativism is a joke and is one of the major factors contributing to the social ills in America today. *

Your repressive self-righteous attitude is a major factor contributing to the social ills of many individuals today.

*Why do you want to be a fence rider(jellyfish)? * 

I am not a fence rider.  I have specific views on specific issues.  

* Are you afraid of offending someone? *

I don't think so.  Have I offended you yet?  If I did, I'm not afraid.

* ...two people of the same sex should not copulate and therefore logically have no valid reason to be married.*

Who is to say that two people of the same sex should not copulate?  Even if they are not to copulate, who is to say that those who don't copulate shouldn't get married?  People should be free to copulate or not - get married or not - as they see fit.

* I'm not going to reiterate my or anybody else's reasons as they are all over this board and proven in various ways. *

No, they are not there.  There are some amusing attempts that fall flat when challenged.  They were nice attempts anyway.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

Flasher knws that I know that he's morally bankrupt, thats another story.

Anyway, moral relativism=weakness. Moral relativists are afraid to take a position on any topic out of fear that they would offend somebody which is an unpardonable sin to them so they sit on the fence and crow like a rooster going through life afraid to get off and take a stand. Simple.


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Indeed, and part of the basis of a rational and objective morality lies in the consequences of one's actions upon oneself. You didn't read very closely, so let me spell it out for you again:
> 
> <blockquote>If one's actions lead to the <b>harm of oneself</b>, or to the <b>harm of others</b>, or to the <b>harm of both</b>, that action may be proscribed by law.</blockquote>
> ...



You are incorrect.

Harming another's property also is adressed by law. Even if it is an unforseen side effect, responsibility is required for actions.

Property as a non-living entity, but an EXTENSION of ones self is allowed to have a defense position. This is also seen with income compensation.

So, in essence, actions have immesurable consequence not just on living things directly involved, but living things and non-living things directly and indirectly involved.


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Did you forget the PMS pills? You just insulted the guy for no reason. *



Not an insult.
OCA has been asking people for days to prove things like "gays are normal" and stuff like that.

I'm asking him to prove that he's "normal" is all...lol.


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *
> OCA: I'm not going to reiterate my or anybody else's reasons as they are all over this board and proven in various ways.
> 
> No, they are not there.  There are some amusing attempts that fall flat when challenged.  They were nice attempts anyway. *



Gee. Thats funny, Matt.

You have yet to disprove ANY of my statements.


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Flasher knws that I know that he's morally bankrupt, thats another story.
> 
> Anyway, moral relativism=weakness. Moral relativists are afraid to take a position on any topic out of fear that they would offend somebody which is an unpardonable sin to them so they sit on the fence and crow like a rooster going through life afraid to get off and take a stand. Simple. *



When you have no answer...insult the other guy.
Good job.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Indeed, and part of the basis of a rational and objective morality lies in the consequences of one's actions upon oneself. You didn't read very closely, so let me spell it out for you again:
> 
> <blockquote>If one's actions lead to the <b>harm of oneself</b>, or to the <b>harm of others</b>, or to the <b>harm of both</b>, that action may be proscribed by law.</blockquote>
> ...



Bully you're wrong, well no actually I take that back you are right homosexuality is a harm to oneself, just check out AIDS rates among homosexuals. Is that not a harm to oneself? Don't compare it to heterosexuals either the rates are astronomically higher among homosexuals. The stats are right here on this board, go ahead and look them up and thanks for pointing that out to me. 

BTW what are you gonna do when GWB gets the constitutional ban passed oh about 2006?


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *... both are illegal because both are immoral. *
> [/B]



Just because something is illegal, it does not follow that it is illegal because it is immoral.  Something that is illegal is not necessarily immoral.  Something may have become illegal for a variety of reasons. Congressmen are pressured and/or bribed by lobbyists and special interest groups. 

Keep trying.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *You are incorrect.
> 
> Harming another's property also is adressed by law. Even if it is an unforseen side effect, responsibility is required for actions.
> ...




In doing harm to another's property, harm is done to the owner of said property in terms of financial loss, emotional pain if there was a particular attachment to said property or fear resulting from the possibilities of furhter attacks against said property. 

So, you see, harm comes in many forms, physical, psychological, finanancial...It is not solely limited to physical harm against one's own person.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Not an insult.
> OCA has been asking people for days to prove things like "gays are normal" and stuff like that.
> 
> I'm asking him to prove that he's "normal" is all...lol. *



I have a WIFE and 3 kids and use one nic, how much more normal would you like? 

You on the other hand think homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, need I say more?


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Just because something is illegal, it does not follow that it is illegal because it is immoral.  Something that is illegal is not necessarily immoral.  Something may have become illegal for a variety of reasons. Congressmen are pressured and/or bribed by lobbyists and special interest groups.
> 
> Keep trying. *



I can't really argue with you Matts, you think bestiality and prostitution are moral, obviously your twisted. What am I supposed to do? This is like arguing with the guy downtown who believes he gets daily messages from men on Mars.

You win, I was taught not to upset you people.


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I have a WIFE and 3 kids and use one nic, how much more normal would you like?
> 
> You on the other hand think homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, need I say more? *



I think homosexuals deserve equal rights to heterosexuals both as American citizens and human beings.

And more or less, they have them! So apparently the law and dare I say the majority are on my side.


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I have a WIFE and 3 kids and use one nic, how much more normal would you like?
> 
> You on the other hand think homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, need I say more? *



Not bad.  I think that the average family consists of 2.5 kids so you have half of a kid too many.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *When you have no answer...insult the other guy.
> Good job. *



Nah NYC/Chippewa you just didn't like the look in the mirror is all. The truth is upsetting sometimes, isn't it?


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Not bad.  I think that the average family consists of 2.5 kids so you have half of a kid too many. *



Ha-ha-ha. I almost said the same thing, but thought I'd discuss his outdated views instead.

Man, this thread got so off-topic it's hillarious.


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Nah NYC/Chippewa you just didn't like the look in the mirror is all. The truth is upsetting sometimes, isn't it? *



Keep it up.
The world awaits your "proof" that you are normal and your explanation of why gays don't deserve the same rights that you do.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *I think homosexuals deserve equal rights to heterosexuals both as American citizens and human beings.
> 
> And more or less, they have them! So apparently the law and dare I say the majority are on my side. *



Correct. They are born with the right to marry someone of the opposite sex like all NORMAL Americans, anything more is special rights and they are not a born minority. But the law does not protect them without the help of a few well placed judges. Lets put this issue to a nationwide vote, shall we? Nah you know you'll lose.


----------



## NewGuy (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Keep it up.
> The world awaits your "proof" that you are normal and your explanation of why gays don't deserve the same rights that you do. *



Marriage, just like employment, is not a "right".

I get really agitated when morons like to inject their own rights into the Constitution. It is disgraceful to our nation and its foundations.


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Correct. They are born with the right to marry someone of the opposite sex like all NORMAL Americans, anything more is special rights and they are not a born minority. But the law does not protect them without the help of a few well placed judges. Lets put this issue to a nationwide vote, shall we? Nah you know you'll lose. *



So you don't disagree with what I said in my penultimate post then?


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Not bad.  I think that the average family consists of 2.5 kids so you have half of a kid too many. *



Wow that was almost intelligent. Thanks for insulting all upstanding 3 kid American families. You guys are digging that hole deeper by the minute. 

Anybody care to answer my question i've been posing for the lasr few days? Or will you continur to dodge it like you dodge the truth about homosexuals?


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *So you don't disagree with what I said in my penultimate post then? *



Yes and no. Homosexuals can get married to someone of the OPPOSITE sex and then cheat on them. There I have solved the problem for both sides. 

As for your assertion they are being denied rights that is completely false, they are born with all the same inalienable rights that you and I do.


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Wow that was almost intelligent. Thanks for insulting all upstanding 3 kid American families. You guys are digging that hole deeper by the minute.
> 
> Anybody care to answer my question i've been posing for the lasr few days? Or will you continur to dodge it like you dodge the truth about homosexuals? *



Oh no!! I offended someone.  

Yadda yadda yadda. I think that I answered each of your questions.  I may have missed one.  Which one did you want answered?


----------



## nycflasher (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Wow that was almost intelligent. Thanks for insulting all upstanding 3 kid American families. You guys are digging that hole deeper by the minute.
> 
> Anybody care to answer my question i've been posing for the lasr few days? Or will you continur to dodge it like you dodge the truth about homosexuals? *



It was a joke, silly.
Much like the one you have turned this thread into. This thread was supposed to be about gay marriage: to be or not to be.

If you want to talk about your disdain for homosexuals why not start another thread. I'm sure we could hit 500 posts pretty quick.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Oh no!! I offended someone.
> 
> Yadda yadda yadda. I think that I answered each of your questions.  I may have missed one.  Which one did you want answered? *



Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, in other words rock solid, definitive scientific evidence, that homosexuality is normal and natural and therefore that they are born homosexuals. Also prove to me that homosexuals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong, since no sane person will tell you that homosexuality is the right road to go down, and I will stand corrected. Good luck.


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

Good.  I like challenges.  I hope that you will show the intellectual honesty of not reading information into my reply that does not exist. Please take my reply for what it is and nothing more.  I will treat your challenge in the same manner.

Challenge number 1:


> * Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, in other words rock solid, definitive scientific evidence, that homosexuality is normal and natural and therefore that they are born homosexuals. *
> 
> I prefer straight challenges (challenges without imbedded assumptions) but for the sake of argument, I will agree with your imbedded assumption in challenge number 1.  I will even expand upon my reply to encompass your assumption.
> 
> ...


Challenge number 2:


> * Also prove to me that homosexuals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong, since no sane person will tell you that homosexuality is the right road to go down, and I will stand corrected. *
> 
> This challenge includes an assumption to which I disagree.  Therefore it is an erroneous challenge.  Yet, I will reply to it in sections.
> 
> ...


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

Now.  I answered your specific challenge with specific answers.  Moving beyond that, I think that you have hidden assumptions that you did not post within your challenge.  Is it your opinion that those activities that are not natural should not be allowed?  If so, we can continue to debate that.  I think that I have already demonstrated that just because something is not natural does not mean, in and of itself, that it should be outlawed.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

My opinion is that biologically speaking it has been proven for centuries now that humans are born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex. Therefore since that is a commonly accepted truth my opinion is, and its based on sound logic and common sense that homosexuality is a choice and when an individual makes that choice which is against nature and biology that denotes some sort of malfunction or sickness. Just like we would treat a person who has autism or terrets syndrome so should the person who has demonstrated this lack of understanding between right and wrong be treated.

Listen I know what you are going to say, that who am I or anyone else to say that homosexuality is a wrong choice, its common sense and logic, look at the parts on a man and woman they were made to fit together, there is no denying this. Any doctor will tell you that the rectum was not made to recieve, its simple medical science and biology.

You or nobody else will ever be able to find or prove a genetic, neurologic etc. etc. link to homosexuals being born that way, it just doesn't exist and its not like the homosexual leadership has not poured hundreds of millions of dollars into finding this link because they have and still nothing, doesn't that tell you something?

Now as for it being outlawed, no I don't think gay sex should be outlawed but marriage? Yes I do. If something is so obviously wrong and self destructive ie AIDS which is astronomically more prevalent within the homosexual community and against all commonly held scientific and biological facts why should these people be allowed to be married and raise children? Have we as a nation gone nuts? 

Also why are psychiatrists and psychanalysts who subscribe to the theory that homosexuality is a treatable mental disorder disbarred and shouted down? Could it be the homosexual community knows its little secret and doesn't want it to get out?

Hmm these are my thoughts. I'm glad though you weren't like the rest of these guys and try to b./s. there way around the evidence question.

I forgot the imbedded assumptions deal, as commonly held beliefs by the majority it is up to the minority to disprove them or the commonly held belief will be regarded to be true until such time as it is disproved so no imbedded assumptions by me. There are examples of the majority opinion being disproved for example interracial marriage was once upon a time thought to be immoral and wrong, that is my only point there.


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

Your statements have already been made and soundly refuted but I'll tear it apart and tear it up again.

* My opinion is that biologically speaking it has been proven for centuries now that humans are born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex. Therefore since that is a commonly accepted truth my opinion is, and its based on sound logic and common sense that homosexuality is a choice and when an individual makes that choice which is against nature and biology that denotes some sort of malfunction or sickness. Just like we would treat a person who has autism or terrets syndrome so should the person who has demonstrated this lack of understanding between right and wrong be treated.*

I just made a choice to stand on my hands.  It is a choice against nature and biology.  I must have a malfunction or sickness.

*Listen I know what you are going to say, that who am I or anyone else to say that homosexuality is a wrong choice, its common sense and logic, look at the parts on a man and woman they were made to fit together, there is no denying this. Any doctor will tell you that the rectum was not made to recieve, its simple medical science and biology. *

Hands were not meant to serve as feet or to be stood on.  The bridge of your nose was not meant to hold glasses.  Your fingernails were not meant to be chewed. 

* You or nobody else will ever be able to find or prove a genetic, neurologic etc. etc. link to homosexuals being born that way, it just doesn't exist and its not like the homosexual leadership has not poured hundreds of millions of dollars into finding this link because they have and still nothing, doesn't that tell you something? *

It does not matter whether or not people are born certain way or not.  I'm stronger than I thought that I was.  I just walked across the room on my forearms.  That was quite unusual but I liked it.  Please don't attempt to outlaw it.

* Now as for it being outlawed, no I don't think gay sex should be outlawed but marriage? Yes, I do. If something is so obviously wrong and self destructive ie AIDS which is astronomically more prevalent within the homosexual community and against all commonly held scientific and biological facts why should these people be allowed to be married and raise children? Have we as a nation gone nuts? * 

Wouldn't allowing gay marriage promote monogamy among homosexuals?  Perhaps not.  Look at what it does for heterosexuals.  Abused wives; abused and abandoned children are plentiful.  Assuming that AIDS is more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals, what does it have to do with gay marriage.  If anything, it may reduce promiscuity.  Being gay does not cause AIDS.  It is caused by the transmission of the HIV virus via sexual fluids and blood.

* Also why are psychiatrists and psychanalysts who subscribe to the theory that homosexuality is a treatable mental disorder disbarred and shouted down? Could it be the homosexual community knows its little secret and doesn't want it to get out? *

Where are your statistics on this?  It seems to me that many in the medical and psychological field are screaming that homosexual behavior is a serious disease that is in need of a cure. It seems as though conservatives are trying to silence the gay community.  Anyway, the decibels don't matter.  We live in a nation that, to a strong degree, supports freedom of speech and there are many means by which people may voice their opinion as right or wrong as the opinion may be.


* Hmm these are my thoughts. I'm glad though you weren't like the rest of these guys and try to b./s. there way around the evidence question. *

Thanks

* I forgot the imbedded assumptions deal, as commonly held beliefs by the majority it is up to the minority to disprove them or the commonly held belief will be regarded to be true until such time as it is disproved so no imbedded assumptions by me. There are examples of the majority opinion being disproved for example interracial marriage was once upon a time thought to be immoral and wrong, that is my only point there. *

Grammatically and logically, your challenge "Also prove to me that homosexuals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong, since no sane person will tell you that homosexuality is the right road to go down..."	 includes the assumption that "no sane person will tell you that homosexuality is the right road to go down".  To be a clear and legitimate challenge it would have been sufficient to say "prove to me that homosexuals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong".


----------



## mattskramer (May 21, 2004)

Wow!  This is a long thread.  I don't mind if it gets closed soon.  I just hope that whoever locks it does so without taking a last second cheap shot.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

ok, let me make sure that Im understanding the view point on this:
homosexuality is unnatural
homosexuality is disgusting
homosexuality is offensive
homosexuality is immoral
homosexuality is abnormal
homosexuality is the downfall of the country/world

Well seems to me that most of this is figured from the standpoint of morality. We MUST keep the morals of america at a high level.

With that in mind, Ive decided that pornography offends me.  Its disgusting, how can it be normal and you KNOW its not natural.  same with the porn internet sites.  Milfhunter, teenporn, etc etc etc.  How can these things contribute to the high moral standard that so many of you are saying that allowing gays to marry is tearing down?  Doesnt quite compute......HOWEVER, I bet Im going to get a few responses and/or PMs explaining to me how porn is ok but loving relationships are not.

Bring it on, baby.
You will not win.

I guarantee it.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

Matts you completely amaze us common sense and logic folks by making ridiculous comparisons of homosexuality to things such as handstands, do you realize how ridiculous you sound to all of us? I refuse to argue with somebody so obviously lacking in debating skills. This is done, my points were concise, you had no points. Nothing was soundly refuted as moral relativism soundly defeats itself in its lack of, well anything solid. 

Your refusal to accept facts, such as the AIDS fact(the stats are in this thread) also reveals a lack of serious debating skills. What is it that you want or don't get? The facts have been laid out for you by me and many others, its up to you whether you accept them or refuse them it makes no difference to me which you choose. 

If you want to go ahead and trivialize the subject by using completely ridiculous comparisons then fine be my guest but know that you are suffering a credibility issue at the same time you make ridiculous arguments.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *ok, let me make sure that Im understanding the view point on this:
> homosexuality is unnatural
> homosexuality is disgusting
> ...



Baby you can get rid of all the porn in the U.S., I don't care. My life is a hetero porn flick, I should start filming!  

Yeah i'm not a hypocrite go ahead get rid of the porn thats fine. The overreaching question still is though the natural and normal question. Were two males or two females meant to be together in a relationship the manner in which marriage denotes? I say no and so does the majority of America. Lets put this issue to rest with a national vote, any takers?


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 21, 2004)

lol OCA - why did I know you'd be among the first to respond??
: : : : 

I have no doubt that the majority is not in agreement with me - I dont need a vote and neither do you.....you know its not in agreement with me either.  

It IS how I truly feel though.  In my heart.  I cant stand against it.


----------



## OCA (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by KLSuddeth _
> *lol OCA - why did I know you'd be among the first to respond??
> : : : :
> 
> ...



This I can respect, I know that not everyone is going to agree with me and i'm not out to change everybody's minds(just a few : ) but I do fear that this is a precedent that will be set that will pave the way for things such as polygamy etc. etc. Its been proven hell that lawyers will try anything and they will have gay marriage to point to as the precedent so don't say it won't or can't happen.

Thanks for not using dumbass comparisons such as handstands or glaases on the bridge of the nose grrrrrr that stuff is ridiculous and childish.


----------



## 007 (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> Prostitution should be legal in my view, so that argument is a no go on me.
> 
> *Even though I've defended the biological argument that it's not a choice, I still don't see why they're not happy with civil unions.  It's a ridiculous symbolic argument on both sides. *



It's certainly a "ridiculous argument" on ONE of the sides, and I think we all know which one that is.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

Once gay marraige is legal and recognized, gays will be able to:
visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital; 
inherit from the partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will; 
obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies; 
enter joint rental agreements; 
make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness; 
take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child; 
choose a final resting place for a deceased partner; 
obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; 
get an equitable division of property in a divorce; 
have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care; 
determine child custody and support in a divorce; 
have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare; 
file joint tax returns; 
obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans; 
apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and 
obtain domestic violence protective orders. 

Check out a long list of things gays can't do:

http://www.pflag.org/education/marriage.html


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts you completely amaze us common sense and logic folks by making ridiculous comparisons of homosexuality to things such as handstands, do you realize how ridiculous you sound to all of us? I refuse to argue with somebody so obviously lacking in debating skills. This is done, my points were concise, you had no points. Nothing was soundly refuted as moral relativism soundly defeats itself in its lack of, well anything solid.
> 
> Your refusal to accept facts, such as the AIDS fact(the stats are in this thread) also reveals a lack of serious debating skills. What is it that you want or don't get? The facts have been laid out for you by me and many others, its up to you whether you accept them or refuse them it makes no difference to me which you choose.
> ...



Yeah - And the moon is made of green cheese.  Close your eyes and cover your ears.  Whatever.

I could say "One plus one is two" and you would still claim that I said no such thing.  Anyone thinking rationally and logically could easily tell that I soundly refuted each of your arguments.  At least one of the moderators, weeks ago, finally explained to me what is evidently the real reason why people are opposed to gay marriage.  Face it.  They simply don't want people to have it.  They don't like it.  It is simple discrimination based on taste.

Well...It is unnatural - 
walking on your hands is unnatural.
Well...ummm. I don't like it - 
I don't like Cheeseburgers.
Gee...uhhh. AIDS! I got ya there - 
What does that have to do with marriage?
They can't have children -
Surrogate mothers and sperm donors are available
(What were the other attempts at reasons to outlaw gay marriage?)
Oh yes. According to the Bible, God disapproves -
There are Atheists
What else - Oh - let's just give them civil unions - 
And let's go back to the days of "separate but equal"

Face it.  There is no sound and logical reason why gays should not be allowed to marry.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

Close my eyes and cover my ears? LOL! HAHAHA! Matts why don't you tell me again how pushups equates to homosexuality I think that was relevant.

Listen, to put it simply if you think that homosexuality is not perverse and vile on the same level with bestiality etc. etc. then you've got some serious issues with common sense, logic and right and wrong in your own life. I hope you one day get the help you need and are finally able to deal with it.

He uses pflag as a source LMAO!


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Marriage, just like employment, is not a "right".
> 
> I get really agitated when morons like to inject their own rights into the Constitution. It is disgraceful to our nation and its foundations. *



Yes, but the the legal benefits that come with marriage, such as the tax benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, and a myriad of other attendant benefits ARE rights bestowed by the state upon married couples. 

Now, if same gender couples cannot have fair and equal access to all of those benefits through the institution of marriage, how else are they supposed to get them? They can obtain legal instruments which provide some of these rights and priviledges, but only at a sometimes prohibitively high cost, and these legal instruments are nowhere near as secure as the same rights obtained through marriage.

Again, there is no rational argument for denying the institution of marriage to same gender couples


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Yes, but the the legal benefits that come with marriage, such as the tax benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, and a myriad of other attendant benefits ARE rights bestowed by the state upon married couples.
> 
> Now, if same gender couples cannot have fair and equal access to all of those benefits through the institution of marriage, how else are they supposed to get them? They can obtain legal instruments which provide some of these rights and priviledges, but only at a sometimes prohibitively high cost, and these legal instruments are nowhere near as secure as the same rights obtained through marriage.
> ...



They can access those rights by marrying someone of the opposite sex. Simple solution. They marry a gal friend that they like to hang out with so much and bang their buddy on the side. Everyone is happy.

Homosexuals are not currently being denied access to anything in the United States Of America. You've bought their lie hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Close my eyes and cover my ears? LOL! HAHAHA! Matts why don't you tell me again how pushups equates to homosexuality I think that was relevant.
> 
> Listen, to put it simply if you think that homosexuality is not perverse and vile on the same level with bestiality etc. etc. then you've got some serious issues with common sense, logic and right and wrong in your own life. I hope you one day get the help you need and are finally able to deal with it.
> ...



Pushups equate to homosexuality in the same way your fears of homosexuality equate the the end of the world as we know it.

If you think homosexuality is as perverse and vile as beastiality, necrophilia, ets...You sir are the one having problems with common sense, logic, right and wrong. I submit that it is you who is in dire need of some intensive, long-term psychotherapy.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Yes, but the the legal benefits that come with marriage, such as the tax benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, and a myriad of other attendant benefits ARE rights bestowed by the state upon married couples.
> 
> Now, if same gender couples cannot have fair and equal access to all of those benefits through the institution of marriage, how else are they supposed to get them? They can obtain legal instruments which provide some of these rights and priviledges, but only at a sometimes prohibitively high cost, and these legal instruments are nowhere near as secure as the same rights obtained through marriage.
> ...



Well put!  I don't think that I could have explained it better - And all OCA would do is ignore my list and laugh at the fact that I found the list on PFLAG. Real sound logic on his part. (smirk)


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *They can access those rights by marrying someone of the opposite sex. Simple solution. They marry a gal friend that they like to hang out with so much and bang their buddy on the side. Everyone is happy.
> 
> Homosexuals are not currently being denied access to anything in the United States Of America. You've bought their lie hook, line and sinker. *



So, you would have a gay or lesbian  pretend to be something thery're not (straight), and create one more fucked up, dysfunctional family that produces more fucked-up and dysfunctional kids, and ending in divorce when neither the husband or the wife can stand the sham any longer. Yeah, that's some alternative.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Pushups equate to homosexuality in the same way your fears of homosexuality equate the the end of the world as we know it.
> 
> If you think homosexuality is as perverse and vile as beastiality, necrophilia, ets...You sir are the one having problems with common sense, logic, right and wrong. I submit that it is you who is in dire need of some intensive, long-term psychotherapy. *



Lets see, sticking you willy in another mans anus is not perverse and vile and does not note a mental disorder....ah I get it  Lol continue on gentleman i'm loving watching you guys relegate yourselves to obscurity with every passing post of yours.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *So, you would have a gay or lesbian  pretend to be something thery're not (straight), and create one more fucked up, dysfunctional family that produces more fucked-up and dysfunctional kids, and ending in divorce when neither the husband or the wife can stand the sham any longer. Yeah, that's some alternative.  *



Where did I say anything about kids? If your homosexual you shouldn't be allowed to raise children anyway because of the obvious detriments to the childs well being.

Bully they get married just for the legality, they don't have to spend time together.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Lets see, sticking you willy in another mans anus is not perverse and vile and does not note a mental disorder....ah I get it  Lol continue on gentleman i'm loving watching you guys relegate yourselves to obscurity with every passing post of yours. *



Oral sex.  Now that is vile.  You just are not supposed to put those things in people's mouths.  Yuck. People who engage in such behavior need a shrink. Come on, people!  Let's outlaw it.

See?  When you get right down to it, just about the only excuse anti-gay-marriage people have is that they find it disgusting.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Where did I say anything about kids? If your homosexual you shouldn't be allowed to raise children anyway because of the obvious detriments to the childs well being.
> 
> Bully they get married just for the legality, they don't have to spend time together. *



Sorry, but a sham's a sham. Given the arrangement you've desribed, issues of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decisions on behalf of a partner, etc still cannot be addressed. Again, your argument falls flat on its face. Go take your meds and try again later.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Well put!  I don't think that I could have explained it better - And all OCA would do is ignore my list and laugh at the fact that I found the list on PFLAG. Real sound logic on his part. (smirk) *



Because currently they are not being denied any rights in the U.S., all they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Your list is irrelevant Matts, but please continue on it shouldn't be long before you hit bottom.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Oral sex.  Now that is vile.  You just are not supposed to put those things in people's mouths.  Yuck. People who engage in such behavior need a shrink. Come on, people!  Let's outlaw it.
> 
> See?  When you get right down to it, just about the only excuse anti-gay-marriage people have is that they find it disgusting. *



Oral sex, anal sex whatever, the key words which you can't get past is between MAN AND WOMAN, thats it. The concept is the cornerstone of the civilized world. No matter how you put it you can't get around that 1 little fact.

Matts I suggest you reread this thread and any thread on USMB about gay marriage, we have trashed and retrashed the othersides arguments so many times i've lost count. The fact remains that as of this very moment gay are not being denied any right in America, they must marry someone of the opposite sex in order to access the benes of marriage. NO SPECIAL RIGHTS!


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Where did I say anything about kids? If your homosexual you shouldn't be allowed to raise children anyway because of the obvious detriments to the childs well being.
> 
> Bully they get married just for the legality, they don't have to spend time together. *



Yeah.  Gays should never adopt kids, no matter how good and loving and supportive the gay couple may be.  Gays should just let the overcrowded and impersonal orphanages take care of the little ones.

The main detriment to the child's well being is, to a strong degree, is due to the discriminatory attitudes of those opposed to gays having children.  Half-breeds faced the same problems years ago.

Gays want to get married so that (as a married couple) they can enjoy the long list of rights that heterosexual married couples have.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Oral sex, anal sex whatever, the key words which you can't get past is between MAN AND WOMAN, thats it. The concept is the cornerstone of the civilized world. No matter how you put it you can't get around that 1 little fact.
> 
> Matts I suggest you reread this thread and any thread on USMB about gay marriage, we have trashed and retrashed the othersides arguments so many times i've lost count. The fact remains that as of this very moment gay are not being denied any right in America, they must marry someone of the opposite sex in order to access the benes of marriage. NO SPECIAL RIGHTS! *



I accept the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of a civilized world.  Yet, a building consists of more than just the cornerstone.  There are other stones too. There is no need to "get around it".  Some people even choose not to get married.  Even if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide, you will still have your cornerstones.  There will still be heterosexual marriages.

I agree that in order to have the rights that heterosexual MARRIED couples have the gays must get MARRIED.  Since they prefer to have loving relationships with members of the same sex, they should be allowed to marry people of the same sex and, thereby, have the rights applied to them as homosexually MARRIED couples.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Sorry, but a sham's a sham. Given the arrangement you've desribed, issues of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decisions on behalf of a partner, etc still cannot be addressed. Again, your argument falls flat on its face. Go take your meds and try again later. *



I'm not exactly sure why i'm arguing here given your dubious history on this board and your obvious lack of ability to deal with reality but here goes anyway. Prove to me that by my described arrangement that gays would be denied inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decisions to their MARRIED PARTNER. Of course they would be denied those decisions to their butt buddy just like I can't make those decisions for a lifelong friend unless granted power of attorney. Ahhhh there is the solution, grant their butt buddy power of attorney. 

This really is all mute because oh along about 2006 Bush and congress will pass the constitutional ban and we can all move on.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *I agree that in order to have the rights that heterosexual MARRIED couples have the gays must get MARRIED.  Since they prefer to have loving relationships with members of the same sex, they should be allowed to marry people of the same sex and, thereby, have the rights applied to them as homosexually MARRIED couples. *



Read above message about constitutional ban.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *Yeah.  Gays should never adopt kids, no matter how good and loving and supportive the gay couple may be.  Gays should just let the overcrowded and impersonal orphanages take care of the little ones.
> 
> The main detriment to the child's well being is, to a strong degree, is due to the discriminatory attitudes of those opposed to gays having children.  Half-breeds faced the same problems years ago.
> ...



What about polygamy, pedophiles? Should they be denied the same rights if we are going to officially recognize one perverse behavior?


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I'm not exactly sure why i'm arguing here given your dubious history on this board and your obvious lack of ability to deal with reality but here goes anyway. Prove to me that by my described arrangement that gays would be denied inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decisions to their MARRIED PARTNER. Of course they would be denied those decisions to their butt buddy just like I can't make those decisions for a lifelong friend unless granted power of attorney. Ahhhh there is the solution, grant their butt buddy power of attorney.
> 
> This really is all mute because oh along about 2006 Bush and congress will pass the constitutional ban and we can all move on. *



Heterosexual couples should not have to face the costly and time-consuming hassle of getting "power of attorney".  Allowing homosexual marriage would simplify the matter.  There is the solution.  People doubted that any state would allow gay marriage. I doubt that a constitutional ban will pass.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *What about polygamy, pedophiles? Should they be denied the same rights if we are going to officially recognize one perverse behavior? *



We set age limits for children.  They need protection since we don't consider them old enough to really give informed consent.  They are not old enough to grasp the consequences of their actions.  I have no logical reason to deny polygamy.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

OK OCA----What do you suggest we do with the gays in the United States?


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

Lets say we put this issue to a national or state by state vote by the citizenry. Anybody on your side willing to do that?

Massachusets did it through the legislature, one of the most heavily Democrat and liberal legislatures in the nation. How about they let the citizens of Massachusets vote on the issue in a statewide referendum?

Think it would pass in Texas? LMAO!


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> I have no logical reason to deny polygamy. [/B]



I rest my case.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *OK OCA----What do you suggest we do with the gays in the United States? *



Nobody is saying do anything with them. We are saying keep the sanctity of marriage the wat it was meant to be and has been since the beginning of time, between a man and woman only. Gays need to know when they choose to go down the homosexual road that they will not be able to marry someone of the same sex. They can however still marry someone of the opposite sex.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I rest my case. *



"I rest my case"

Court finds in favor of Matts.  Opposing side rested without providing an argument against polygamy.  Next case.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *"I rest my case"
> 
> Court finds in favor of Matts.  Opposing side rested without providing an argument against polygamy.  Next case. *



Matts you know that with the polygamy comment you've nullified every argument you've ever made on this board in the eyes of most, right? I'm not going to explain ploygamy to you and the reasons its wrong since you obviously are lacking any common sense or logic whatsoever.

Hey you probably think bestiality and necrophilia are cool too. How about pedophilia?


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

So as long as gays don't marry, your ok with them?


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *So as long as gays don't marry, your ok with them? *



As long as they keep it private(same with public heterosexual behavior) I got no problem and as long as they keep their agenda out of the educational system I got no problem. No marriage.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Matts you know that with the polygamy comment you've nullified every argument you've ever made on this board in the eyes of most, right? I'm not going to explain ploygamy to you and the reasons its wrong since you obviously are lacking any common sense or logic whatsoever.
> 
> Hey you probably think bestiality and necrophilia are cool too. How about pedophilia? *



I already answered you question about bestiality and pedophelia.  Open your eyes and read.  Concerning necrophilia, where there can be no informed consent from the partner, there should be no sex. 

Concerning polygamy, those with an opened and thoughtful mind may enjoy reading:

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

So all of this "abnormal" and "unnatural" behavior is just fine with you as long as it's done in private?


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *So all of this "abnormal" and "unnatural" behavior is just fine with you as long as it's done in private? *



Heck.  I don't want heterosexual sex on public display.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

OCA hates and is afraid of homosexuals just like some people are afraid of other things. It doesn't matter if the issue is marriage or walking down the street. You simply do not believe homosexuals belong on the face of the earth. You hatred over shadows your argument


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *So all of this "abnormal" and "unnatural" behavior is just fine with you as long as it's done in private? *



Well homosexual sex is still wrong and denotes a mental disorder but last I heard we weren't outlawing autistic behavior so as long as its in the privacy of your own home or hotel room etc. have at it. I'm opposed to the political agenda of homosexuals based upon their behavior.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

So depression is wrong?


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *OCA hates and is afraid of homosexuals just like some people are afraid of other things. It doesn't matter if the issue is marriage or walking down the street. You simply do not believe homosexuals belong on the face of the earth. You hatred over shadows your argument *



Couldn't be farther from the truth if you had set out to do that. That is a typical response from the left, didn't figure you for a lib but i've been known to be wrong a time or two.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

Is this the "attack the messanger" tactic that you hate so much?


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

* Well homosexual sex is still wrong and denotes a mental disorder *

Not according to the APA.  Only according to you and a set of discriminatory and repressive individuals who think with their hearts instead of with their heads.  

* I'm opposed to the political agenda of homosexuals based upon their behavior. *

I'm opposed to your political agenda based on your opposition to homosexual marriage.  I'm opposed to the political agenda of those who wish to severely limit the individual freedoms of others (including the freedom to marry whatever consenting adult they wish to marry regardless of the person's gender).


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *So depression is wrong? *



Its a disorder same with homosexuality, treatable and controllable. If you are a manic depressive and you commit a crime in your manic state are you not exhibiting wrong behavior? We treat those people why not treat homosexuals for their exhibition of wrong behavior? Listen nobody screwed with gays until they decided to push a political agenda, thats all the opposition is, opposition to their political agenda based on their personal choices and behavior.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> * Well homosexual sex is still wrong and denotes a mental disorder
> 
> Not according to the APA.  Only according to you and a set of discriminatory and repressive individuals who think with their hearts instead of with their heads.
> ...



Hate to tell ya Matts but you are way in the minority on this deal. You can hate my political agenda all you want doesn't change the fact that i'm fighting for whats right and you're fighting for whats wrong.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Couldn't be farther from the truth if you had set out to do that. That is a typical response from the left, didn't figure you for a lib but i've been known to be wrong a time or two. *



Is this the "attack the messanger tactic" that you hate so much?


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Is this the "attack the messanger tactic" that you hate so much? *



Yep, usually I attack the messenger after i've ripped apart what he's said with fact and backup. Apparently you subscribe to the liberal view of that tactic. You gotta fucking problem with that?
You got anything substantial to add to this discussion?


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Its a disorder same with homosexuality, treatable and controllable. If you are a manic depressive and you commit a crime in your manic state are you not exhibiting wrong behavior? We treat those people why not treat homosexuals for their exhibition of wrong behavior? Listen nobody screwed with gays until they decided to push a political agenda, thats all the opposition is, opposition to their political agenda based on their personal choices and behavior. *



Practically everyone has a political agenda based on behavior they want to do or based on behavior they don't want allowed.  Women wanted the right to vote.  They had a political agenda.  Blacks had an agenda.  They wanted to be seen as fully human in the eyes of the law.  Pro-gun groups have an agenda.  They want less restrictive gun laws. Practically everyone interested in government policy and behavior has an agenda.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> * Well homosexual sex is still wrong and denotes a mental disorder
> 
> Not according to the APA.  Only according to you and a set of discriminatory and repressive individuals who think with their hearts instead of with their heads.
> ...



Oh yeah, somewhere else in this thread is some info concerning extreme political pressure upon the APA by the homosexual leadership concerning their declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder and their shouting down of anybody who dares challenge that.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Is this the "attack the messanger tactic" that you hate so much? *



You will often find Ad Hominem attacks.  I find that he often falls to logical fallacies, but he might be improving.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

Logical fallacies? Uh no. Concise an accurate truths and portrayals? Uh yes. 

I use both that and attacks with equal success. Your attempts to discredit me have been tried many times in the past and have fallen to an untimely death upon pointy and sharp rocks. If you would like to get into that sort of battle with me, just let me know but i've never been defeated yet and i'm sizing you up as not even cracking the top 10. Its your decision on which way you want to go, civilized or flamefest.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Oh yeah, somewhere else in this thread is some info concerning extreme political pressure upon the APA by the homosexual leadership concerning their declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder and their shouting down of anybody who dares challenge that. *



There is also pressure by anti-gay groups calling on the APA to classify homosexuality as a severe disorder in need of treatment.  Assuming that they are being "shouted down", if their points were sound and legit, it stands to reason that more people would support their position.  Then they would be in a position to "shout down" the opposition.  Even 1 voice can he heard in a noisy room if one of the listeners is close enough and if the speaker's point is sound.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Logical fallacies? Uh no. Concise an accurate truths and portrayals? Uh yes.
> 
> I use both that and attacks with equal success. Your attempts to discredit me have been tried many times in the past and have fallen to an untimely death upon pointy and sharp rocks. If you would like to get into that sort of battle with me, just let me know but i've never been defeated yet and i'm sizing you up as not even cracking the top 10. Its your decision on which way you want to go, civilized or flamefest. *



LMAO -

You have been soundly defeated by me time and time again.  You just keep dreaming.  I'm sizing you up as net even cracking the top 5 when it comes to logical debate but you keep on with your delusion of debate grandeur. LOL.

--------------------

This should shut you up with your delusional "never defeated".  Do you remember when you said ".. since no sane person will tell you that homosexuality is the right road to go down...".


*  It is obvious that at least 1 sane person would tell you that, at least for him, homosexuality is the right road for him to go down.  *

<<<<<-------- Look at it.  Open your eyes and look at it.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *LMAO -
> 
> You have been soundly defeated my me time and time again.  You just keep dreaming.  I'm sizing you up as net even cracking the top 5 when it comes to logical debate but you keep on with your delusion of debate grandeur. LOL. *



Lets see Matts you have the distinct honor of being in a select group of people who have been booted off in their very first night, you then cried about it and were reinstated after being told how pompous, arrogant and condescending you are and then you now continue on with the same behavior in the face of all evidence and reality. 

Your claim of soundly defeating me time and time again reveals a serious inability to deal with or recognize reality. You can't defeat me on this issue, you can only undermine America a little more, is that victory to you? You are also a supporter of polygamy as if having 5 wives is conducive to a stable family, and we are supposed to take you seriously and not regard you as an absolute joke when you post such ridiculous stuff?

Listen Matts you are an admitted moral relativist, a fence sitter, a moderate in other words a spineless jellyfish. You are unable or afraid to make a stand on anything out of fear you may hurt someones feelings despite all this crap about individual rights and civil liberties, you just don't have the intestinal fortitude. 

One day Matts you will get to my level, it will just take time. Remember this, I was nice to you in this post, consider yourself lucky as you in no way can win a flame war with me, ask around. At this point i'm going to be nice and refrain from slamming you, you owe me.


----------



## nycflasher (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Is this the "attack the messanger" tactic that you hate so much? *



Maybe I'm no the only one who has OCA pegged as a liberal-bashing bigot...


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Maybe I'm no the only one who has OCA pegged as a liberal-bashing bigot... *



Remember you have to have credibility for stuff to stick


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

Oh please.  You really are grasping.  I got booting for breaking the rules. 

There have been families with multiple partners.  They have been as stable as any dual-partner family. 

As I said before, I have specific positions on specific issues.  To that extent, I am not a fence sitter.  Nor am I a spineless jellyfish. 

* You are unable or afraid to make a stand on anything out of fear you may hurt someones feelings...* 

I have taken a stand.  I oppose theft.  I oppose rape.  I also oppose bans on gay marriage.  I am not afraid of offending people or hurting their feelings. Have I offended you yet?  Have I hurt your feelings?  I don't care.  I probably hurt the feelings of many people opposed to homosexual marriage *BANG * As I so often defeat many of your statements, I just defeated your above claim about my fear of hurting people's feelings. 

This is too easy.  I await your next blunder.


----------



## nycflasher (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Remember you have to have credibility for stuff to stick *



Exactly.
And I'll let others decide for themselves how much credibility I have. 

Okay, you can get back to bashing homosexuals now since THEY are still after you...

OCA, run! Hide! The homos are coming!!!!!!!!


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

Well hard to defeat the reality challenged, you have defeated nor contradicted nothing. If you are an all star answer this and just so you know, I don't know is not a valid answer either you can or you can't and if you can't then conventional wisdom will be assumed to be correct.

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexual is a genetic, biologic etc. etc. condition determined at birth and is not a choice.

Notice I left out the normal and natural part as we all know you have the most ridiculous and innane arguments for that. 

Until you can answer this question definitively my position and conventional wisdom on lifestyle choice undeserving of special rights because it is not a minority equal to race etc. will be assumed to be correct.

Also name one polygamist family that was stable, wait how about David Koresh? LMAO! The very nature of polygamy is unstable.

This ought to be good for a laugh or two.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Exactly.
> And I'll let others decide for themselves how much credibility I have.
> 
> ...



Yep, exactly. Not even sure why i'm responding to you. You are insignificant. You love gays, you are going to vote for socialism. what else do we need to know? Oh yes the split .....................


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Yep, usually I attack the messenger after i've ripped apart what he's said with fact and backup. Apparently you subscribe to the liberal view of that tactic. You gotta fucking problem with that?
> You got anything substantial to add to this discussion? *



you flatter yourself !  A hypocrite is hardly worth the challenge. You expect others to listen to you and YOU don't even listen to you!  You've been offficially SMOKED.  Please bring on the insults--It's funny when you have to resort to that.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *you flatter yourself !  A hypocrite is hardly worth the challenge. You expect others to listen to you and YOU don't even listen to you!  You've been offficially SMOKED.  Please bring on the insults--It's funny when you have to resort to that. *



I love it when people who had no bearing on the discussion intelligently or otherwise jump in and especially on the losing side. Dillo do you suck dicks down there in the lone star state? Also why do you have an avatar of somebody who was nothing more than a washed up junkie? 

"you expect others to listen to you and YOU don't even listen to you" Uh yeah ok........ um you have been reading this thread, right? I'm right the rest of you are wrong now move on and deal with it.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

Thank you---gotta good laugh !!!


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

In case the rest of you want to try and discredit me as simply being a flamer, go right ahead and give it a whirl. No doubt I do some flaming and man i'm fucking good at it and its fun but I invite anyone to review my 2200 some odd posts and you will find I back every single fucking flame up. I think the mods and admin., well not think I know for a fact they would back that statement. Anymore newbies wanna challenge me?


----------



## nycflasher (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Yep, exactly. Not even sure why i'm responding to you. You are insignificant. You love gays, you are going to vote for socialism. what else do we need to know? Oh yes the split ..................... *



I love people, OCA. Unlike you, I don't think I am better than anyone else. 

Socialism? There you go pulling more poopy out of your ass...


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *I love people, OCA. Unlike you, I don't think I am better than anyone else.
> 
> Socialism? There you go pulling more poopy out of your ass... *



Ok Chippewa, yes I am better than you. You've already declared you're voting for Kerry the Democratic(socialist) candidate therefore you are voting for socialism. Don't deny it and make me have to find some of your posts and prove you wrong and don't say he's not a socialist because at that point you will have about 30 members jump on you and embarrass you. The choice is yours.


----------



## 007 (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> I have no logical reason to deny polygamy.



This is part and partial where all your opinions come from matts. Somewhere from the land of no convictions.... anything goes.

Society can't live like that matts. We need laws and rules to follow. You push them too far, and you'll upset the balance, and desintigration follows.


----------



## 007 (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *OCA hates and is afraid of homosexuals just like some people are afraid of other things. It doesn't matter if the issue is marriage or walking down the street. You simply do not believe homosexuals belong on the face of the earth. You hatred over shadows your argument *



Hey dildo... er dillo, I've been reading OCA's posts through this WHOLE THREAD, and *NOWHERE* have I read where he stated or even implied he "hated" gays.

What "I" hate, is people that put words in people's mouth's, like you did.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *This is part and partial where all your opinions come from matts. Somewhere from the land of no convictions.... anything goes.
> 
> Society can't live like that matts. We need laws and rules to follow. You push them too far, and you'll upset the balance, and desintigration follows. *



Like i've been saying all along, no convictions, no stands on important issues. He'll say I'm against murder, i'm againt rape and i'm against banning gay marriages. The first two WHOOPDEE FUCKING DOO! Who isn't against murder and rape? Gay marriage your reason is if it doesn't affect anybody else(a falsehood in and of itself) its good to go. No, society needs and demands limits or you have social anarchy.


----------



## mattskramer (May 22, 2004)

* Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexual is a genetic, biologic etc. etc. condition determined at birth and is not a choice. * 

I can't prove it at this time.  I don't know the answer.  It does not matter.

* I back every single fucking flame up. *

This should shut you up with your delusional "never defeated". Do you remember when you said ".. since no sane person will tell you that homosexuality is the right road to go down...".


It is obvious that at least 1 sane person would tell you that, at least for him, homosexuality is the right road for him to go down. 

<<<<<-------- Look at it. Open your eyes and look at it.	  Don't close your eyes to your statement.  Come on.  Be a man.  Have you backed it up yet?  Have you interviewed each and every sane person?  I doubt it.  Where are your statistics?  I have yet to see you back up your statement.  Come on now.  Confession is good for the soul.

------------------------------

Here is a woman's positive perspective on a polygamy:

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC10/Anapol.htm

Here is another woman's perspective:

http://www.polygamy.com/Practical/From-A-Woman-Place.htm

See the families at: http://www.polygamy.com/Families/Index.htm

Now I predict that you will give negative examples and expect me to reply with positive examples.  You may even toss around some statistics from biased web sites. The issue will go back and forth.  I am not going to play that game.  You asked for an example.  I gave you more than one example. You will still blindly hold tight to your opinions even when faced with logical rebuttal.  You will continue to claim that you have never been beaten in debate when you clearly have be beaten.  I have other things to do now.  Bye.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Hey dildo... er dillo, I've been reading OCA's posts through this WHOLE THREAD, and NOWHERE have I read where he stated or even implied he "hated" gays.
> 
> What "I" hate, is people that put words in people's mouth's, like you did. *



Like i've been saying all along, when the left is fresh out of arguments they will run to the hater and bigot lines. Its straight out of their playbook, been in there for decades.

Now if he just wants to get into flaming i'm down with that but if this is part of some logical argument he's trying to form, its a sure loser.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> * Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexual is a genetic, biologic etc. etc. condition determined at birth and is not a choice.
> 
> I can't prove it at this time.  I don't know the answer.  It does not matter.
> ...



Matts who is the sane person you are referring to? Is it you? Are you queer? I mean i've suspected that all along but why the denial on your very first night here if you are queer?

Again if you actually think that polygamy is a, how the hell to put this, rational lifestyle than my friend we have nothing more to talk about has you are truely out of your mind. How about David Koresh, he had many wives and children, was he cool? You can give me all the examples of(in your words) sane homosexuals and happy wives of polygamists and I will and a huge majority, possibly 99%+ of America tell you that you are crazy and it is impossible to argue with a nutcase. I'm not playing your immature game anymore. BTW i'm looking for and not finding that logical rebuttal of yours, can you help me out to find it.

The question of homosexuality at birth or choice is the heart of the matter it does matter. You only dismiss it because it blows all your arguments out of the water. Face it, until you can face the truth and answer that question honestly you have no argument against banning gay marriage.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Hey dildo... er dillo, I've been reading OCA's posts through this WHOLE THREAD, and NOWHERE have I read where he stated or even implied he "hated" gays.
> 
> What "I" hate, is people that put words in people's mouth's, like you did. *



Guess OCA was in so much trouble you had to help.

 I'll take your word for it that he never said "hates" and I apologize.

Any other petty BS you want to try to discredit me with?

 I guess he only thinks that gays are abnormal,unnatural, and mentally ill.  Bet the feel much better with those slurs  

He's been smoked !!  Give up


----------



## Big D (May 22, 2004)

Call me old fashion but,

I don't like how homo's have anal sex with each other,
 and then suck the fecal matter off each other's penis.

I know the people on here who are for homosexual marriage support that sort of thing,
but I just think that it is wrong.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *Call me old fashion but,
> 
> I don't like how homo's have anal sex with each other,
> ...



They are not asking to be liked.


----------



## Big D (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *They are not asking to be liked. *


 I don't think the homosexual group called NAMBLA is asking to be liked either.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Guess OCA was in so much trouble you had to help.
> 
> I'll take your word for it that he never said "hates" and I apologize.
> ...



Dillo is a homosexual apologist, in other words a liberal. Smoked my ass! Obviously you've picked and choosed what you read besides offering nothing of substance to the thread. Fucking newbies


----------



## nycflasher (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Dillo is a homosexual apologist, in other words a liberal. Smoked my ass! Obviously you've picked and choosed what you read besides offering nothing of substance to the thread. Fucking newbies  *



Now if OCA could talk about homosexuality, without calling everyone a homo, that would be interesting...

Gays can't get married because they are abnormal, and anyone who disagrees is a homo right?

Oh, and I'm an imposter too right?

OCA, Greek men have been fucking eachother for hundreds of years. Get a clue...


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Now if OCA could talk about homosexuality, without calling everyone a homo, that would be interesting...
> 
> Gays can't get married because they are abnormal, and anyone who disagrees is a homo right?
> ...



Keep buying into the fallacies Mr. sheep although it could be true to the extent that you probably got fucked in the ass by a Greek queer last night and are making a big racial generalization. Did you take a facial also? Oh the imposter thing hehehe yeah you'll find out soon lol.

OCA has been talking homosexuality without calling people homos for months, just now he's calling a spade a spade. He's using ridiculous shit has thats all he gets from his desperate opponents. Face it y'all got whooped by me. Give up now.


----------



## dilloduck (May 22, 2004)

Better run for more help OCA. I'd hide if a "newbie" smoked my ass like yours got SMOKED.  ( type something quick-if you type last you count it as a "win " ):crutch: 

OCAs' "victory dance


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Better run for more help OCA. I'd hide if a "newbie" smoked my ass like yours got SMOKED.  ( type something quick-if you type last you count it as a "win " ):crutch:
> 
> OCAs' "victory dance    *



Boy Dildo your a dumb motherfucker like the rest of em! Prove to me how I got smoked, or maybe its just that you like licking another guys brown eye and thats why your opinion is so fucked up. Hey you like homo sex thats cool.

As far as I can tell I asked 1 simple question for a week and nobody could prove me wrong so that= me kicking the shit out of about a 1/2 dozen people.

You can't run with me, your fooling yourself Dildo.


----------



## nycflasher (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Boy Dildo your a dumb motherfucker like the rest of em! Prove to me how I got smoked, or maybe its just that you like licking another guys brown eye and thats why your opinion is so fucked up. Hey you like homo sex thats cool.
> 
> As far as I can tell I asked 1 simple question for a week and nobody could prove me wrong so that= me kicking the shit out of about a 1/2 dozen people.
> ...



Man, all the gay bashing OCA but you're the only one using phrases like "licking another guys 'brown-eye"(ew) and the such. Phrases that most of us secure, straight men never find reason to mention really.

OCA, you exemplify to a "T" the gay basher who is likely a repressed homosexual himself. I mean, your very speech demonstrates to what extent you contemplate homosexuality on a daily basis.

But that's okay, I could really give two shits what your sexual preference is and that's the point!

What an angry little man you are. Lighten up.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Man, all the gay bashing OCA but you're the only one using phrases like "licking another guys 'brown-eye"(ew) and the such. Phrases that most of us secure, straight men never find reason to mention really.
> 
> OCA, you exemplify to a "T" the gay basher who is likely a repressed homosexual himself. I mean, your very speech demonstrates to what extent you contemplate homosexuality on a daily basis.
> ...



Fuck you, that psychobabble leftist bullshit don't work on me. I'm not a gay basher but apparently tone of the only people on the board with a sense of decency left. You'll understand when you grow up. I'll outwork you on any given day or time of the year in the picking up women arena, thats a fact.


----------



## OCA (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Better run for more help OCA. I'd hide if a "newbie" smoked my ass like yours got SMOKED.  ( type something quick-if you type last you count it as a "win " ):crutch:
> 
> OCAs' "victory dance    *



Dildo is this going to be your M.O. running around the board and jumping into threads you know jackshit about? Why don't you be a man and add something of substance and then talk shit? Until you can do that fuck off and run away with your tail between your legs bitch! You are a political dumbfuck and intellectual midget best I can tell. 

Whenever you take on a 1/2 dozen people and slaughter them all over the thread like me you let me know until then i'll assume that you will shut the fuck up, right? Yeah thats a good boy, now run along and play with all the other kiddies on nickjr.com they are missing you.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *I don't think the homosexual group called NAMBLA is asking to be liked either. *



Everytime..everytime you bring up those sick fucks. Pedophilia, as espoused by NAMBLA is gross sexual imposition on a minor...it is rape...it is not a consensual act between two adults...It has nothing to do with a loving relationship between two adults...It is a canard thrown up by you, and other sick assholes like you, to arouse the baseless fears of others. 

Now, Dungboy...You are dismissed.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Fuck you, that psychobabble leftist bullshit don't work on me. I'm not a gay basher but apparently tone of the only people on the board with a sense of decency left. You'll understand when you grow up. I'll outwork you on any given day or time of the year in the picking up women arena, thats a fact. *




Sorry old son,  but nycflasher is correct. In study after study, the most virulent homophobes have been show to be repressed homosexuals. It isn't "psychobabble leftist bullshit", it's been verified, repeatedly. Many of your statements reflect the pattern of such repressed individuals to a tee. And given the way Big D talks in the same vein, one can't help but wonder if he isn't a such an individual also.


----------



## nycflasher (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *I'll outwork you on any given day or time of the year in the picking up women arena, thats a fact. *



OMG, lol.
Spoken like someone who really has something to prove. Is that why you're asking what people think about polygamy? You big stud...


----------



## Big D (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Everytime..everytime you bring up those sick fucks. Pedophilia, as espoused by NAMBLA is gross sexual imposition on a minor...it is rape...it is not a consensual act between two adults...It has nothing to do with a loving relationship between two adults...It is a canard thrown up by you, and other sick assholes like you, to arouse the baseless fears of others.
> 
> Now, Dungboy...You are dismissed. *


 What I find most interesting is the fact that although homosexuals are a very small minority, they are the ONLY group of people in the history of the world that have EVER organized together to form a group who's only hope is to be able to change the laws so that they are able to legally have sex with children.

And you never hear about homosexuals fighting groups like NAMBLA.


----------



## Said1 (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *Sorry old son,  but nycflasher is correct. In study after study, the most virulent homophobes have been show to be repressed homosexuals. It isn't "psychobabble leftist bullshit", it's been verified, repeatedly. Many of your statements reflect the pattern of such repressed individuals to a tee. And given the way Big D talks in the same vein, one can't help but wonder if he isn't a such an individual also. *



That's funny, I know a gay man who says the exact same thing   Seriously.


----------



## mattskramer (May 23, 2004)

"since no sane person will tell you that homosexuality is the right road to go down...".

I think that the only bit of proof that would satisfy you would be a medical records of a homosexual declaring that the patient is sane.  But wait.  You may then conclude that the doctor was insane in making such a determination.  Okay.  Technically, I don't have the proof that at least 1 sane person would tell you that, at least for him, homosexuality is the right road for him to go down.  I doubt that anyone would allow me access to his medical records.  Even if I did have some, you would simply dismiss their validity and discount the doctor.  Yet, I am quite confident that, with the many people that exist, at least one same person holds such a view.  Heck.  I don't have proof that you are sane.  

Ah...But wait.  You originally made the claim.  Therefore it is your responsibility to prove it.  I doubt that you can unless you get medical assessments from each and every individual that makes the claim that "homosexuality is the right road to go down".  Until you provide such a proof, you have not backed up all of your flames - something that you claim that you do.  Surrender your medal.

--------------------------------------

The importance of issues is subjective but OCA was wrong when he said that I don't take stands and that I'm afraid of hurting people's feelings. I am against "hate crimes" legislation.  I am against government subsidy.  I am against bans on gay marriage. I support the repeal of laws against marijuana usage, prostitution, and other crimes - even if such positions hurt other people's feelings - Sorry Pat Robertson.  OCA is blatantly wrong in his claim that I don't take a stand because I am supposedly afraid of hurting people's feelings. Did I hurt the feelings of anyone on this board?  If so, I don't care.

Again, he should surrender his medal.


----------



## Bullypulpit (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *What I find most interesting is the fact that although homosexuals are a very small minority, they are the ONLY group of people in the history of the world that have EVER organized together to form a group who's only hope is to be able to change the laws so that they are able to legally have sex with children.
> 
> And you never hear about homosexuals fighting groups like NAMBLA. *



I've yet to meet a gay man who anything but loathing for that bunch of sick fucks. You're dismissed Dungboy.


----------



## Big D (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bullypulpit _
> *I've yet to meet a gay man who anything but loathing for that bunch of sick fucks. You're dismissed Dungboy. *


 Really? You mean homosexuals just don't come out and admit that they are child molesters and proud of it? I'm so shocked!

  Pedophiles have made some headway in politics as well as the world of sexology. NAMBLA is a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which has called on members "to treat all sexual minorities with respect," including pedophiles. Though a great many lesbians and gays detest NAMBLA, the group has been allowed to march in gay parades in New York and San Francisco under its own banner.
http://www.operationlookout.org/lookoutmag/gassy.htm


----------



## mattskramer (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Big D _
> *What I find most interesting is the fact that although homosexuals are a very small minority, they are the ONLY group of people in the history of the world that have EVER organized together to form a group who's only hope is to be able to change the laws so that they are able to legally have sex with children.
> 
> And you never hear about homosexuals fighting groups like NAMBLA. *



As a family organization, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. (PFLAG) strongly condemns the sexual exploitation of children by any individual, group, or organization, in any form and under any circumstance. 


Although the majority of sexual abusers of children are heterosexual men, and the majority of victims are young girls, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile organization whose sole purpose is to facilitate sex between adult men and young boys. PFLAG, therefore, repudiates NAMBLA and its aims. 


PFLAG opposes the inclusion of NAMBLA in any umbrella organization, coalition, event, or activity that is associated with the gay, lesbian, bisexual communities or their families and friends. 

http://www.pflag.org/about/exploit.html

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deplores North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD. 

http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=278&


----------



## nycflasher (May 23, 2004)

Stumbled onto this while exploring the PBS site. Thought you might find it of interest, OCA:

source 
The extent to which the Greeks engaged in and tolerated homosexual relations is open to some debate. For a long time the subject was taboo and remains controversial even today. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that relationships we would call homosexual, especially between men and youths, played an important role in Ancient Greek society. 

Traditionally these relationships involved an older man and a youth and lasted until the youth reached full adulthood. Thereafter this type of relationship was frowned upon because physical love was perceived as always involving one person in a position of submission, something that was unacceptable for a full Greek citizen.

In cities such as Sparta and Thebes, there appeared to be a particularly strong emphasis on relationships between men and youths, and it was considered an important part of their education. On the night of their wedding, Spartan wives were expected to lie in a dark room and dress as a man - presumably to help their husbands make the transition from homosexual to heterosexual love. While in Thebes, the general Epaminondas commanded a regiment composed of 150 pairs of lovers. This 'Band of Lovers' became a formidable fighting force, with lover defending lover until death.


----------



## 007 (May 23, 2004)

And just what in the hell is the relavance between the alledged bean pack'n greeks and queers of today wanting to marry?

For as long as this thread has gone on, we have found out who is for queer marriage and who isn't. But largely, those who feel they should be allowed to marry's arguement has been weak and disoriented. On the other hand there is us who are against queer marriage, and our arguement has been one of facts and long time standing well established thought and reasoning that coincides with nature and God.

Those for gay marriage have lost this arguement here in a pathetic display of liberalism. Anyone wanting to get a feel for what the left is all about could do so reading all the liberal crap here in this thread.

If I was you liberals here ranting that queer marriage is wonderful and should be allowed, I'd give it up before you damage your integrity beyond the point of where no one is going to ever care what you say again, and you're very close to that now.


----------



## Big D (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *As a family organization, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. (PFLAG) strongly condemns the sexual exploitation of children by any individual, group, or organization, in any form and under any circumstance.
> 
> 
> ...



A Trojan Horse.


----------



## mattskramer (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *And just what in the hell is the relavance between the alledged bean pack'n greeks and queers of today wanting to marry?
> 
> For as long as this thread has gone on, we have found out who is for queer marriage and who isn't. But largely, those who feel they should be allowed to marry's arguement has been weak and disoriented. On the other hand there is us who are against queer marriage, and our arguement has been one of facts and long time standing well established thought and reasoning that coincides with nature and God.
> ...



LMAO LMAO - You live in a fantasy world don't you?!? I have never read such a patently wrong post.  Sheesh.  It is even more ludicrous than OCA' s posts.  How delusional can yo be?  As I have pointed out time after time.  There is no sound and logical reason to deny homosexual marriage. Every attempt at making an argument opposing gay marriage has been clearly refuted, primarily by me. Everything from "it is not natural it is abnormal" to "gays molest children" (both arguments being irrelevant) to All that is left is "I don't want it to be allowed".


----------



## 007 (May 23, 2004)

I'm sorry matts, but this is all I can picture when I read your dribble. What you have to say about anything has lost all credibility with me. 

Here's your picture........


----------



## mattskramer (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *I'm sorry matts, but this is all I can picture when I read your dribble. What you have to say about anything has lost all credibility with me.
> 
> Here's your picture........
> ...



Oh now juvenile.  Please don't reply with "I know you are but what am I".


----------



## 007 (May 23, 2004)

You're dismissed. B' Bye now.


----------



## mattskramer (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *You're dismissed. B' Bye now. *



No.  It looks like I'm still here.


----------



## 007 (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *No.  It looks like I'm still here. *



What for?


----------



## sweetbilly (May 23, 2004)

I would like to invite all those that feel that homosexual marriage is an abomination to sign our petition at *link is removed.* i have. Together, we might be able to win this thing and get our country back. If you do sign it, make sure you e-mail it to all your friends/family too.


----------



## KLSuddeth (May 23, 2004)

DISMISSED!  haha


----------



## Bern80 (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *LMAO LMAO - You live in a fantasy world don't you?!? I have never read such a patently wrong post.  Sheesh.  It is even more ludicrous than OCA' s posts.  How delusional can yo be?  As I have pointed out time after time.  There is no sound and logical reason to deny homosexual marriage. Every attempt at making an argument opposing gay marriage has been clearly refuted, primarily by me. Everything from "it is not natural it is abnormal" to "gays molest children" (both arguments being irrelevant) to All that is left is "I don't want it to be allowed". *



You may call my argument against gay marriage one of semantics if you wish, but I'll bring it up again.  For most christians the idea that a gay couple can be married is a real head scratcher.  God says marriage is between man and woman.  Marriage is a religously derived term, therefore HOW IS IT BIOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE FOR A GAY COUPLE TO BE MARRIED? Answer: it isn't.

Someone brought that marriage is defined by states.  It may have been you, matt.  I can't remeber.  Here is where the gov't made a mistake.  The gov't chose to use the word marriage to define a couple not for the sake of the institution, but more likely for tax purposes and record keeping.  When you go to the court house you get a "marriage" license, simply because that is the word the gov't adopted to describe the union of a man and woman in legal terms.  At the time that probably seemed okay because a hundred years ago, or whenever the gov't adopted the term, homosexuality wasn't a part of society(publickly anyway).  Realy a hundred years ago who could imngine that a man could be romantic with another man much less get married to one?

the point is the gov't does not define marriage. They only recognize it as union between a couple.  Marriage is a completely, religously derived term.  Coming from a religion that opposes homosexuality.

My solution is simple.  If you want to be married, get it done in a church.  As far as the gov't goes, fill out a union license or whatever you want to call it, for gay and hetero couples.

or

the gov't recognize various configurations as legal for tax purposes and such. i.e. hetero, gay, polygamy, etc.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mattskramer _
> *LMAO LMAO - You live in a fantasy world don't you?!? I have never read such a patently wrong post.  Sheesh.  It is even more ludicrous than OCA' s posts.  How delusional can yo be?  As I have pointed out time after time.  There is no sound and logical reason to deny homosexual marriage. Every attempt at making an argument opposing gay marriage has been clearly refuted, primarily by me. Everything from "it is not natural it is abnormal" to "gays molest children" (both arguments being irrelevant) to All that is left is "I don't want it to be allowed". *



You have it backwards. there is no logical reason we should accept homosexual marriage any more than we should accept a circular square, a feathered mammal or any other oxymorons. You cant put two words together that contradict and logically expect to find it acceptible to people.


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by nycflasher _
> *Stumbled onto this while exploring the PBS site. Thought you might find it of interest, OCA:
> 
> source
> ...



Before Christ, before a sense of right and wrong, before logic and before science proved our biologic sense to mate with the opposite sex. Back then it was any port in a storm. Nice try.


----------



## NewGuy (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Before Christ, before a sense of right and wrong, before logic and before science proved our biologic sense to mate with the opposite sex. Back then it was any port in a storm. Nice try. *



Today, Christ is ignored, right and wrong are a matter of "interpretation", logic is a matter of what you "feel", and science is something the government dictates.

It is AGAIN any port in a storm.

This hypes me up, because ladies and gentelmen:

Justice is about to be served.


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

Guys, guys just let the sicko leftists on this board make their innane arguments for perversion because people will come on this board and read their arguments and to be honest they are doing more for our side then we ever could. Its a simple matter of right vs wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, there is no evidence available to defeat that premise so let them go they will eventually hang theirselves with their own rope.


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NewGuy _
> *Today, Christ is ignored, right and wrong are a matter of "interpretation", logic is a matter of what you "feel", and science is something the government dictates.
> 
> It is AGAIN any port in a storm.
> ...



Yep we've really come full circle, haven't we? I'm thinking Soddom(sp?) and Gommorah, whadda ya think brother?


----------



## dilloduck (May 24, 2004)

Guess that means the end of those who judge and damn thier fellow man.  Bummer


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Guys, guys just let the sicko leftists on this board make their innane arguments for perversion because people will come on this board and read their arguments and to be honest they are doing more for our side then we ever could. Its a simple matter of right vs wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, there is no evidence available to defeat that premise so let them go they will eventually hang theirselves with their own rope. *



Actually, your mindless bigotry scares away votes of those who otherwise might vote for bush.  I understand your position.  I don't agree with it.  But you have some points.  I can see your reasoning which says since homosexuality is a fruitless union (reproductively speaking)  that it fundamentally cannot be a family; that has a certain old timey sense to it.   I just feel the party would be served better politically if we chose our battles more wisely.


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Guess that means the end of those who judge and damn thier fellow man.  Bummer *



Dildo when you have something intelligent to add to any thread you let the rest of know, ok?


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Actually, your mindless bigotry scares away votes of those who otherwise might vote for bush.  I understand your position.  I don't agree with it.  But you have some points.  I can see your reasoning which says since homosexuality is a fruitless union (reproductively speaking)  that it fundamentally cannot be a family; that has a certain old timey sense to it.   I just feel the party would be served better politically if we chose our battles more wisely. *



And I think this is the most important social issue facing this election season. It is a wisely chosen battle. Would you like us to just let the left run ramshod on this issue because you know this is just the tip of their iceberg.


----------



## dilloduck (May 24, 2004)

What do you suggest we do about homosexuality OCA?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *And I think this is the most important social issue facing this election season. It is a wisely chosen battle. Would you like us to just let the left run ramshod on this issue because you know this is just the tip of their iceberg. *



I don't want them to be able to institute their agenda of "socially normalizing" gayness by teaching our children to "really consider the fact that they may be gay" in sex ed at school. I know that.  What do you think will be after gay marriage?  Gay bowling?  That would enable the terrorist to win fer sure!


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

Gay bowling lol! No too many rednecks in the bowling alley, been to one lately? 

Nah it will be an overt infiltration of the educational system. Homosexual studies, and believe me there will be nothing negative about homos taught, will become as common as algebra.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 24, 2004)

Sex ed is getting all debased anyway.   When they start teaching about technique of sexual acts it's gone too far.  Maybe there shouldn't be sex ed in schools at all.  Whay say you guys?


----------



## dilloduck (May 24, 2004)

What should be done about homosexuals in America OCA? Surely you have an answer for this.


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *What do you suggest we do about homosexuality OCA? *



Amend each state constitution immediately to reflect the fact that homosexuality is officially recognized as a perverse lifestyle and that marriage is solely defined as being between 1 woman and 1 man. If the states refuse that amend the constitution and institute a federal ban. No more tax dollars spent on homosexual activities also such as use of public venues ie streets for their parades and what not.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Gay bowling lol! No too many rednecks in the bowling alley, been to one lately?
> 
> Nah it will be an overt infiltration of the educational system. Homosexual studies, and believe me there will be nothing negative about homos taught, will become as common as algebra. *



See, I'm just worried that the gays will side with the jews, against the white man.  Then we'll be screwed!


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *What should be done about homosexuals in America OCA? Surely you have an answer for this. *



Theres your answer just above fuckwad. Lol you are an absolute joke on this board, you are aware of that right?


----------



## dilloduck (May 24, 2004)

Taking away thier rights-----slippery slope, dude


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Taking away thier rights-----slippery slope, dude *



Rethink that and then reread every gay thread on this board. They have every right that you and I are born with, this is unarguable. You are taking nothing away from them. They can have all the gay sex they want, no marriage.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 24, 2004)

Why can't they be happy with a civil union which carries the same rights under law?  Why? Why?  All this over a godblessed word?


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *See, I'm just worried that the gays will side with the jews, against the white man.  Then we'll be screwed! *



Nah even Jews are sane enough to see it as the sick and twisted act of depraved individuals. Their religion would be against that I would think.


----------



## OCA (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rtwngAvngr _
> *Why can't they be happy with a civil union which carries the same rights under law?  Why? Why?  All this over a godblessed word? *



Because RWA its all about acceptance of their lifestyle without conditions. Its nothing more than a militant movement on the same par with lets say a radical Islam, albeit without the violence. They know that what they are doing is wrong, and they will stop at no lengths to perpetuate the lie that its right.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (May 24, 2004)

Yeah.  Can we get shout from someone with knowledge of the modern Judaic take on homosexuality?  What's the word at the temple, Shlomo?


----------



## MtnBiker (May 24, 2004)

Thread over. Seems as if everything is dismissed anyway, so no point in continuing to poke sticks at the turd.


----------



## DKSuddeth (May 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by OCA _
> *Guys, guys just let the sicko leftists on this board make their innane arguments for perversion because people will come on this board and read their arguments and to be honest they are doing more for our side then we ever could. Its a simple matter of right vs wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, there is no evidence available to defeat that premise so let them go they will eventually hang theirselves with their own rope. *



all hail OCA, master of all thats right and wrong.


----------

