Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well, there are those really strange people who think that even though they have nothing to do with something, and it does not concern them whatsoever, they still have a right to demand that something go away

And by the way, it is a fact that humans are animals. Also, it would be interesting for you to tell me exactly how you derive your 'proof' that humans have souls. And by the way, other animals can love as well. It is scientifically proven.

How do you know? Were you there to watch God create the world or something?



And what happens if that love is for a relation? Are you saying that we should love only our female relations, or does that not count as love?

What's there to see? You tell me what im supposed to be seeing that is wrong. They're just words, you know.

And who are you to say 'it' is not supposed to be that way?

The government only censors information that is 'delicate', or is deemed threatening to the Communist party. They don't censor information about, say, telephones, because there would be no point.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

that is just sick and WRONG... no offense to anyone but god created adam and eve.. not adam and steve ;)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

EDIT: Sorry for double post, but there was a post jump.


lol yeah.. I'd give you rep but it would be gray.. :p

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

And so i suppose that you were at God's creation of the earth? right? is that how you know all these things about God?

And I dont know what the hell you are talking about, if you think the words 'female & female' are supposed to ring this huge f**king alarm bell in my head saying wrong, then i suppose you're not much better, are you?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Males have these things, that you know, do the thing. (incase there's kiddies)

Females don't

Can't you see we are made with the write parts and are so complex with brains, blood vessels and whatnot that a big bang without God couldn't be posible?

A blowup couldn't create the things that were created, unless it was all exactly right and in order in a way to make the world, plants, humans, etc. Because if there is no God, then they wouldn't be perfectly in the right place, and if they weren't perfectly in the right place, we wouldn't be here having this convo, because gasses and crap blowing up can't make what was made by it's self.

As for where I got God from, the Bible. It's not a bunch of made up jibberish. It makes sense if you take a look at the world around you while you read it. There's also proof throughout the world..

1 example is they found the huge footbal field long ark boat that noah used during the flood > on top of a mountain in turkey but the gov. won't let anyone go right up to it. The bible that was written thousands of years ago clearly states that the ark landed on a mountain. Also the begining of the world was around the middle east, which is where everyone lived at the time. They didn't pattle the boat so it stayed in the general area, which is why it's in turkey. On a mountain. Like the bible says. Whicih was written thousands of years ago.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The evolution thread is over there ------------>

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

they most likly may not have been a adam and eve it may be that humans are humans here to make there own dissions not other peoples' dissions

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I don't believe God exists, so the crux of your argument boils down to this: Homosexuality is wrong.

To this, I say: Why is Homosexuality wrong?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

It's wrong because god didn't "intend" it, supposedly. I couldn’t care less though, I don't believe in god, and even if he did come down from the heavens I’d tell him to go fuck himself with his arbitrary rules in the most respectful way possible.

I mean.. seriously, my parents "created" me, but even they cant get away with setting rules without having a reason for them, god telling people they cant fuck someone of the same sex is like your parents telling you cant have relations with a blond haired girl.

"But why cant I?"
"Because we didn’t INTEND for our son to date blond haired girls, so we wont allow it"
"But I really love her!"
"Well tough luck, find someone else and be unhappy, or we will torture you forever."

Make sense? I didn't think so, but that's basically what the "gay haters/bashers" bend over for, and defend like their lives depended on it.

So you don't believe in god? Even better then, because while you may disapprove and find gay people disgusting for what they do in their bedrooms, behind lock doors where you cant see or hear it. Whatever you think is just your opinion. The "It's not natural" kite doesn’t fly anymore, because it IS natural for animals to have homosexual relations.

“But its not the norm, so it’s abnormal!”

Sorry, but the frequency at which something happens is not a measure of how “normal” it is. And even if it was “abnormal”, so the fuck what? Since when does “normal” equal “good”? It never did, so stop being a moron.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

This isn't directed at you, as you don't believe in God. But if God didn't "intend" it, why on earth did He create bonobos? They have recreational sex frequently, and it doesn't generally matter which gender the participants are.

And I say again - what, exactly, is the problem with homosexuals?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I think that God didn't intend a lot of things, including people who dont believe in God, but they happened anyway.

I think after all this, the prolem with homosexuals is that they are different - just like black people, or pygmies, were different to people in Europe. Differences always makes arguments like this spring up.

Not to be impolite or anything, but how the fuck would you know? I thought you were a Christian. I didnt know it was common practise for Christians to presume they know the thoughts of God. If He exists, let him come down here and defend Himself against all the people who say that God doesnt exist.

Really? And who made the bible? A load of people spouting jibberish?

Actually, the mountain was supposed to be in Southern Russia, but nobody has found it yet. And I dont suppose you'll say that when God created the Earth, he created a copy of the Bible as well? And if so, how would Adam and eve read the bible? Did god give them the gift of literacy as well? Fine gift it would make, when they're the only two people on the whole planet.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yes, that's what I'm basing my argument around.

Without a reason, you're wrong by default.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The bible also says the world was created in 4004 bc (if you follow the generations back), but carbon dating, half lives and whatnot prove this is not the case.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

how so....
you've peaked my intrest
what documents, bones, or other materials are you speaking of.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Basic geology for one.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yes, and I dont think that if God created the world, he would actually be stupid enough to waste time and energy placing bones in the ground, and making them look hundreds of millions o fyears old, just to fool us. I mean, what is the point? If you were a God, wouldnt you be most eager to make sure your followers know you exist, not just through circumstantial evidence?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

ahh this is a agrment that i know heaps...people say what about the bones of animals millons of years old....then some one says the test are all wrong...then it goes down hill....but this isnt about that this is about homosexuals so...BACK IN THE PILE BOYS! ;)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

There is nothing wrong with it in the legal sense. But it shouldn't give them a free lunch either.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

As Machiavelli's Apprentice says, it is not wrong, but they should not take advantage of or abuse that right either.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What do you mean free lunch?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

From here it sounds less like 'free lunch' more like 'lunch that everyone else is allowed to have, just not them'.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

There's a difference between "getting a free lunch" and "getting shot in the head" y'know.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well, they're arguing about absolutely nothing at all. They are using their right in an unfair way to impose their right upon the rest of us.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Im somewhat against gay marriage but jeeze alot of you are sounding really unreasonable... especially slamming captwill...
GO 14 YR OLDS!

and please u dont have to go that specific with the whole manmeat... and... whatever

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I'm not even going to post in here anymore because you're all so ignorant and stupid. You don't have simple common sense, it's like your not even thinking at all.


But before I go:

You can't compare homosexuality to being black, or having blonde hair, that's totally different. I mean how freakin stupid can you be? There's women, there's men, men and women have to go together to make a new human. You can't make a new one through 2 males, or 2 females. So it's not meant to be, it's wrong, there's not supposed to be 2 men together like that... It seems like no matter how many times I try to get this in your head, your like

"Well its like being black or blonde, Why cant I be with a man, while I'm a man? It's not different"

Yes it is! I cannot even believe you say crap like this, it's like you have the mind of a 2 month old.

:cort: I'm litterally shaking my head right now...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

So you deny that humans have recreational sex every once in a while?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The purpose of sex is no longer mainly for procreation, it’s recreational, emotional, not the primal urge it once was, we have evolved beyond this, as have some animals. We are in the unique position to be able to decide for ourselves what our purpose will be in life, where most animals are slaves to the “live to procreate” cycle, we can make up our own future. If two men can fall in love and be happy, then so be it. THEY don’t need to be able to procreate in order to feel “complete” together, as can some straight couples. You are simply bound to old fashioned beliefs, probably thanks to your parents… good luck with that.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

So by your logic, it's "Wrong" somehow to use contraception? Protected sex doesn't make a new human.

So by your logic, it's "Wrong" somehow to be infertile? Sex with an infertile partner doesn't make a new human.

Looks like you need to address some issues before you bring your bigotry back into this thread.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

If I look back over the many pages of this thread, how many times do you think I'll see somebody use words like "common sense" or "experience" when what they actually mean is "prejudice"? You all must be aware of what you're doing on some level, if you're not just being deliberately disingenuous. I don't like to play the intolerance card but think about it, to say that an argument is lacking in common sense is to suggest that, intuitively, the person making that argument should know it is wrong, without the need to put much thought into it. But funnily enough, people who think that homosexuality is not unnatural, or better yet that such considerations are irrelevent to its place in society, have generally put a great deal of thought into their arguments, rational, objective, self-questioning thought, and come to their conclusions through this reasoning process, which in all cases completely trumps any other understanding of the issue which will invariably be based on personal hangups.

The crux of your argument is that God does not intend something, which is totally meaningless to (probably) the majority of the people you are arguing with as they do not believe God exists in the first place, so if you're wondering why people don't seem to be taking your arguments in, that's why. Also the point that what you believe God intends regarding marriage has no bearing on the laws of a secular society is one you might want to address.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well, to be fair, quite a lot of the population believes in god in some manifestation or another. But the argument of the 'wants' or 'intentions' of God have no bearing on this thread, even if God exists, since God is obviously above the average joe, so he would have no way of knowing what God wants or intends.

And Captain Blade, just because somebody will not accept your arguments as valid does not mean they are dumb, it just means they are thinking for themselves, and have found a better answer to their questions than some insulting bigot who has nothing better to do than sit in front of a computer all day putting down gays.

I think you should start thinking yourself before you start spouting religious 'conventions' invented to protect the Vatican from disbelievers and 'heretics' a thousand years ago.

And btw, going by the general consensus on this thread, you are the one not getting the picture here:
Yes, how stupid can you be, Captain Blade?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

That statement made me chuckle.

Simply put: Make an argument other than "It wasn't meant to be; it's wrong!" and maybe you'll be taken seriously. And don't make hypocritical statements like the one above.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

You're right but that's been the case for thousands of years. People will have sex...It's sort of a foregone conclussion.

The question is, is the beavior right?" The answer is No. Neither hetrosexuallity or homosexualy, its not right. That being outside of marriage and gay anal sex.

I don't think there's anything wrong with loving another man...If I had a father that cared I'm sure I'd love him in the same way.

but two men just aren't the basis for a family. Tradition aside. Two men are not a family they're partners.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

well, two men and an adopted child might think they are...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

As long as you'll specify that a man and a woman are equally not a family, I'll be inclined to agree. However, I'm pretty sure that there are studies out there (that a less apathetic member than I could bring out) that point out that children are brought up better by two parents of the same gender. If anyone would like to procure this evidence, it would be most appreciated. Likewise, if anyone has refutory evidence I shall accept my incorrectness.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Hmmm, I would have thought that one parent of each gender was better, but thats beside the point. I think I get what Saquist is saying, two guys and a child is not really the type of relationship we normally associate with family.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Indeed, it isn't the traditional arrangement, but traditionally we executed homosexuals. :uhoh: Times are changing, and I don't really think these would be much of a difference.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What's wrong with that? Just because we don't normally associate it with the family, doesn't mean it isn't one. It also doesn't mean that that may not be equally good, or maybe even better than the traditional family.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yes, it may be, but that is not the point. the point is that it is not a 'conventional', stereotypical family in the 'father, mother, child(ren)' sense.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

True, it's not conventional. But what does that matter? In 1942 it was "Conventional" for the secret police to round up all the Jews in Germany and send them off to a gassy death.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

It used to be "conventional" in the US to persecute blacks.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yes, but its not conventional anymore, is it? So, with time, the gay family may not necessarily become more conventional, but the 'normal' family may become less conventional.

And dont bitch at me, because im just trying to see both sides of the argument, okay?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

gay family?

oh my, that is very bad and is not right

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

whats not right?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

homosexuals being like parents to children, it is so awful i think

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

whats so bad about it? you hate them just because their gay? what would you do if someone just came up to you and said i hate you because your chinese

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

being chinese is normal, racial grouping is not the same as same sex love, which is mental health problem

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

mental health?:lol: being chinese is normal? er ya in china i bet but not where i live. if a guy wants to do a guy let them but why hate it and think they "have a mental health problem". i could easly say being chinese is having a mental health problem.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

how is chinese a mental health problem, mental is brain, not how somebody looks, and it is brain that makes people attracted to same sex, so it is mental health problem!

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

stop being vile get a open mind

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

but the making of the body starts at the brain.
but is it a problem?

who me?