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

Both you and fez are wrong, because it's called "an opinion". You may think homosexuality is a disease, however several others may disagree with you. I'm assuming you think every animal on this planet has a mental disease if they display homosexual traits, no?

What is normal (as some may have asked earlier in this thread)? A guy having sex with another man may be considered common practice to some. I don't buy the "evil gay slippery slope conspiracy". The notion that once gays are able to marry, they will want more and more until our country is ran by a bunch of ninnies. Why are you so afraid of homosexual marriage and why are you disgusted by it? Hell, are you even affected by it? Normal is such a broad and subjective term and means things to different people.

What is your version of normal, beef?

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

I would hope that normal is described as some characteristic shared by the majority of some faction of a population. So yes, i suppose that if in a homosexual commuity, a straight guy is an aberration.

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

Not only you. ;) :)As far as I know only humans and dolphins practice sex for pleasure. However, I can confirm that the masturbation thing.

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

Normal is the way nateure made us. Homo Sapians, heck all animals are primarily created purely to keep their breed alive. It is our primary instinct. How people can be Gay, I don't know; but bieng gay is far from normal and natural.

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

My personal oppinion I think Marrage should be between man and woman. If gay people want something like marrage with the same benifits call it something els like coupling. Marrage is something special shared between man and woman. And western civilization has embraced that for many years. Why would gay people want to change that? Its a straight custom. I don't want to change any of their customs. Why not let us have our own thing and keep it special??

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

Everybody is special in their own special way (if that doesn't contradict itself).
However, i don't think the term 'marriage' should be extended to homosexuals.

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

But gay people are humans as well. They developed this way, therefore it is normal and natural. Beat that argument. :naughty:Why keep it "special"? Same benefits and we are arguing about a freakin' NAME??? There must be more behind this request.

Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Tradition

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

Believe it or not some people do find it a special thing.

I was just trying to find an alternative that some people might agree on.

If you think different from traditional people you probably won't stop complaining until you get what you want anyways right?

This is bullsh*t straight people created marrage and gays want it. We don't want to give it up because many hold it sacred. You know what? We are real pricks I hate us straight people... How dare we want something of our own. All the nerve...


Im done with this thread.

P.S. oh yes you said there must be more behind this request. Im planning on taking over the world just so you know...

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

Everything is in the name here. Marriage is a RELIGOUS practice, and tuhs RELIGON should have the sole say on who can and can't be married. Can you imagine how angry you would get if you created a pagan or atheist holiday and called it Christmas or Easter or some other religous name?

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

Interesting.Is that a generalization?...

And actually, I'm not gay, but thanks for asking. :banana:

Although I fail to see how my sexual preference is important to this debate.Who are you talking to? To us or to yourself? Simply stop posting. ;)

You're pretty good at sarcastically avoiding an argument.

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

Another homosexuality debate. Couldn't we keep this to one thread?



There's no difference, save sexual orientation.


As opposed to...what? Teaching hatred and intolerance? Let’s let our children grow up to be close-minded and apathetic.

That's funny because it's so hypocritical. What society needs less of are bigots and ignorant punks who preach their unfounded opinions. If I had to choose between people like that and "the homos and freaks”, I'd take the latter.

Discrimination.

I could agree there; a lot of sex is nasty, with no exception to the gay variant. It's the intolerance that would make you a bigot, not your personal opinion.

Doesn’t mean much, considering how many conventional marriages result in divorce as well.

Prove that using something other than your personal opinions and assertions, and maybe you'll have an actual argument to present.
Except, of course, the testimony of countless homosexuals.

Why not?

The "hate the sinner not the sin" attitude is a lot of shit. If you hate the defining attribute of a person, you hate that person.

Right. On a social scale, homosexuality is only slightly less normal than, say, being Jewish. It's not "normal", because it isn't the social norm, but that does not make it in any way negative.

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

Beef is playing with you guys. He's keeping you under the impression you can win this argument. He's not going to concede no matter how moronic his argument gets.

All hes been doing for the last 3 pages is dance around your disagreements by continuously refering to the act (man love) and not facing the issue homosexual marriage.

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

What issue?
I'm too busy to quote all your babble so here it goes:
I stated my issues and views and you stated yours.
You think mine are moronic and I think yours are moronic.
Nobody is going to win here.
In the end I do believe I will get my way and this will all be moot anyway.
The matter stands.
*Homosexuality is far from normal
*Manlove is a nasty act shared by two abnormal males.
*Gay "marriage" will and should be called a Civil Union (hopefully) where I live
* I don't hate gay people I just do not approve of their sick lifestyle.
* I'm against homos having kids
* Did I mention homosexuality is far from normal?

Quote away and call me a biggot, I absolutly am loving it, but you will not change my views on the matter.
Now go hug a homo or watch some gay porn and support it for all i care.
:beer:

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

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo


:naughty:

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

Adam and eve not adam and steve.

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

*Who defines what is normal?
*Why should gay marriage not be included in the definition of marriage? (Just "because" and "its not normal" isn't good enough.
*All anyone reads here is that you hate "homos" just because they're homos. Its obvious you hate them. When you deny it you loose what little credibility you have.
*As long as the kids are loved and aren't abused what does it matter?


You are a bigot and I’m glade you proudly love being identified as one. Is everyone who disagrees with you automatically labeled homo? If yes, you have social issues you need to see someone about.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/106/tostfugs0.jpg

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

Almost every species of fauna on the planet has occasionally been spawned with an extra limb.

That means being born with an extra limb is normal!

So basically, your entire argument is based on comparing apples and oranges. Trying to say that gay marriage is exactly like interracial marriage. And we should ignore practicality "in the name of love".

Sorry, but idealism doesn't trump common sense.

Yes, this attitude is responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions, of people - when the Red Cross refused to screen gays from blood donations (Before they developed means of accurately screening blood for aids).

It was very idealistic for gay rights activists to insist that gays not be screened in blood donations. But from a perspective of common sense - it was moronic.

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

Well, you can't have a gay couple having children becuase you need both an egg and sperm to create an embryo, and there just isnt the egg. Im talking about natural means, so AI, cloning, and stuff don;t count.

I suppose you could adopt kids, as Bob says, it doesnt really matter as long as your 'children' are well cared for, loved, and not abused.

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

But every previous change to the marriage insitution enacted by the progressives has been a total disaster. The divorce rate is a testimony to this.

What makes you think this will be any different?

There's also suspicion among some that a gay couple is less stable than a straight one, and more likely to separate. Gay unions have only been around for a short period of time in California, and they're already filing "divorces" in droves.

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

Maybe its something about the brain chemistry - maybe people of the same gender have too much alike to live together for that long.

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

Again, there is no argument so you have no defeat, nor will you ever.
Let it go.
Most likely. Definitely something wrong in the brain.
I really don't believe its a choice they just make because of their surroundings or whatever. It doesn't fit.
Having two Dads/Moms? No thanks.
Poor kids.
Nice

Either way as far as this subject is concerned I have not heard any further news. I'll keep you posted.

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

Uh, so there's no argument about gay marriages here? Why is this thread in The Pub then?

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

You're a smart guy, I'll let you figure that out :)

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

Well, it is, from a scientific standpoint. Socially, it isn't normal, as is the case with homosexuality, which is a minority trait. But that doesn't mean it's a negative thing.

Touché. :rolleyes:

You’re right. It’s just you, stating and restating your opinion like it’s the ultimate rebuttal.

What possible evidence could point to two moms/two dads being a thoroughly negative thing? I’m talking statistically accurate evidence, and not some opinion tripe.

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

Only because you types keep trying to tell me my views are wrong, what choice do I have?


Common sense?

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

:Puzzled:

I request a move to Spamming Forums, if not at least a move to General Yib-Yab (Off Topic).

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

Nah. I think male sexuality is something as ideally suited to the pub as anything out there.

This is in the pub, right?

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

It was a rhetorical question. There are no statistics, because it's an untrue generalization.

Re-word your argument using non-offensive and/or open-minded terminology and language, so it appears as though you've conceded while still maintaining your original point? That way everybody wins and we stop going in circles.

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

"Originally Posted by beef flaps http://www.filefront.ft6.com/gamingf...s/viewpost.gif
Common sense?"

Well, apart from the fact that a child growing up close to homosexual parents may have greater homosexual tendencies than other children, there's nothing wrong with it.

And Why is my whole reply in italics? I press Ctrl+I, but it always changes back. See? :(

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

Maybe. I don't think sexual orientation is something that can be influenced by everyday life experiences, though I wouldn't know for sure.

And your italics problem: is your text within your quote?

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

I highly doubt it. Got any sources, Spider149?

Although the children would most likely show tolerance for gays and their fear of coming out (IF their gay) would be low to very low.

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

Guess I'd rather be a carefully planned child of two people of the same sex than an accidental child of a man and a woman. Homosexuals at least doesnt get children out of sheer ignorance.

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

I know of a girl that is starting to get Lesbian tendencies because she now lives with two moms...

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

"And I know a girl that is starting to get lesbian tendencies because she has always had a mom and a dad." :rolleyes:

Get what I mean?

No one ever claimed that people with gay parents would not become gay.

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

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

What. A. Thread. Fallacies, recycled bigotry, and a refusal to read others' posts before replying - all in one read.


That's like saying you don't hate Africans, just the colour of their skin.

OK, I'm tired of this. Time to define "normal":


"Normal" does not equal to "acceptable". It means "common". Just like
"Abnormal" does not equal to "inacceptable" or "wrong". Get your words right.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's define "natural".


"Natural" does not equal to "acceptable". It means "occuring in nature".

Again, get your English straight.

Every point of my analogy holds. And stands:

• You can't help your hair colour, nor your sexual preference.
• Neither should have any bearing on your rights.

Good job restating your point instead of addressing replies.

Your definition of "unnatural" seems to be "undertaken by only humans" By that definition, yes, sex for pleasure is unnatural.

"Reaching"?

Both hot dogs and homosexuals are considered gross by certain people.

That's the point of my analogy, and it stands.Thank you, but I think "bigot" does it.

I assume you mean right, what with the definition of "normal" being what it is (see above). No matter, it's still nonsense. There's more to living than making more people. We've got 6 billions already and many, many, many awaiting adoption. There's no need for more people.

Strawman fallacy: No one here's saying homosexuality is right because we "grew up in a twisted world".

And I assume the word you're looking for is "right", not "normal".

No, you did, or you would've found my reply shooting it the Hell down.

Then what are you doing here? Just letting the people whose suicide is the #1 cause of death know how much you hate them? How nice of you.
Source, please.

And as stated (who's skipping posts here?), just that something's gross (I assume that's the word you mean) doesn't mean it's wrong.

Yup. Not by the anti-gay definition "something undertaken commonly in nature", but yup.

I've only heard of dolphins and humans having sex for pleasure. Source?

OK, so it's the way we do it now, so obviously it's right? Wow, how perfect we are.

What did I write about appeals to tradition, culture and common belief? Hm?

Probably because you don't need to. The Christians back in the old days did it for you by disallowing homosexuals from marrying.

That'd be why so many atheists marry.

Oh, and if it is a religious practice, I feel urged to invoke my birth-right freedom of religion, which allows me to practice my particular branch of mythology any way I want, no matter what your Holy Bible tells you.

As an atheist, I have zero clue, but I'll get some scholar of history to tell me how my ancestors felt when the Christians hijacked their solstice celebration on December the 25th. Or for that matter, how angry the homosexuals were when some bigotted Christian decided it was suddenly for straight people only.

I'll get back to you.

Oh, so we have to do it like Adam and Eve now? No inter-racial marriages, then, eh?

As opposed to not teaching it at all and letting the kids grow up to become homophobes and/or gay-bashers.

I believe the word you're looking for is "natural". And yes, genetic mutations are perfectly natural. Ask any biologist.

As for whether or not that makes it desireable to be born with an extra limb, no, it doesn't. Just that something occurs in nature does not by definition mean it should be pursued. Heck, rape occurs in nature. Should we pursue that? Likewise, as a side note, I didn't get the computer I'm typing this on from a tree in the woods. It's a most unnatural gizzmo. Yet I don't see you trying to ban it.

There's that strawman again. At least it keeps off the ravens.

I never said it was "exactly like" inter-racial marriage. I said it's been prosecuted the same way, for the same intolerant and tradionalistic reasons. And that point stands.

I'm not utilitarian enough to ban gay marriage just because of some person's problems with it being less "practical".

As a side note, however, I don't find it very practical to bring more kids into play either, nor do I find it practical to ban gay adoption when hundreds of thousands of kids in the USA alone await parents, when gays have been proven to be just as good parents as any, and when it's been disproven by observation that "kids of gay parents are tortured on the playground".

I guess I'm just not very up-to-date on what's practical these days. Silly me.

That's like saying it's taken 3000 lives to let Muslims fly airplanes.

http://winace.andkon.com/pics/post_hoc.jpg
Post Hoc fallacy.

Good reasoning. Sadly for you, it flies completely in the face of scientific research.

Children of homosexuals are not more likely to become homoseuxals themselves.

Oh, and to "certain people": Strange, that, when homosexuality is such a choice, hm?

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

No one in this damn world becomes gay by observing.

Otherwise please explain how people develop sexual fetishes, as those people will likely not have observed their parents...


Kinda contradicts with the "it's not normal!" argument, doesn't it? As reproductive behavior is in the human dna. Still, a very funny argument, now that I think more deeply about it.

So all the "normal" people observe their parents, so they learn how to have sex? :naughty: :lol: Very funny thought. The world is full of Peeping Toms!! :lol:


Anyway, I find this rather hilarious. On one hand, people are against gay marriages as they cannot give birth to children (unless lesbians), but on the other hand people deny gays to adopt children. :uhm:

Gays are denied marriage, because the possibility of becoming pregnant is inexistent? Well, a man and a woman can and will most likely use a condom to eliminate that possibility. I fail to see a difference.

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

Here's where I stand on this highly controversial issue:

Religious aspect- God's laws may make references saying that homosexuality is wrong. But,he also said that love was more important than anything in the world. Surely, if two men/women love each other, that is just as true a love as any other? Surely thus, isn't a joing between a gay couple just as valid as the joining of a straight couple, and should have all the same rights, and go by the same name.

Normality- Just because something isn't mainstream, or is unconvential, doesn't make it wrong. If someone is different to you, it doesn't make him/her worse than you in any way, and they should have the same oppertunities and rights.

Practicality- Firstly, children growing up with gay parents are not more likely to be gay themselves. Homosexuality is not a disease. That is a myth. Now onto disease. Yes, it is an issue, and a sensitive one, but would you cease all homosexual activity? Would you prevent gay sex? AIDs would not stop, and liberty would be in tatters. Homosexuality barely harms the world at all.

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

You know this how, personal experience or just observation?
Take note that I said it could or is likely, not that it will. I also said that it would probably lead to acceptance and tolerance of the act, not participation. A child who grows up with gay parents will more then likely tolerate such a relationship much more then a child who grew up with a heterosexual parent.
Most fetishes develop out of taboo. Forbidden pleasures so to speak, and other times they can be as harmless as tiny feet, and yes nearly all sexual fetishes are learned characteristics.
I’ve never stated homosexuality isn’t natural or normal, perhaps this is just you being quick to judge and generalize. Besides, normal is subjective to user interpretation. In all truth, what is normal, when the world is so diverse. Perhaps you , and others, are confusing traditional, with normality.
I personally don’t like homosexuals any more or any less then any other person. Heterosexual activities doesnt always equate to intolerance of homosexual behaviour. It's none of my business what other people do in there own bedroom. The only thing I know for certain, is what’s best for me.

Perhaps you missed my statement where I said I was for homosexual marriage, my reasoning just isn’t as popular or common as others.

lol

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

Notice, WhiteShark, that I said may. Do you have any definitive evidence that it is not the case?

And Fire Legion is right, it doesn't do the world much harm, except hog the news once in a while.

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

As you were the one making the first claim, show your sources. :cya:I posted the same in this thread. ;)Next time I'll simply post "straight people". That was just to get a connection to the people who talk about "normal" and "abnormal".I wasn't responding to you, therefore the brake. ;)In the same way, having gay parents may lessen the chance of becoming gay. May this, may that. :lol:
Do you have any definitive evidence against my claim?

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

Ok, but you have no right to be treat special by the government because of a religous ceremony. That is why I'm saying the government shouldn't give out ANY special rights AT ALL to ANYONE who get's married. The government should step back and let the church handle it.
Gee I didn't know the name Christmas was a pagan name. I didn't know the pagans worshiped CHRIST

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

He's half right. They simply placed Christ's birthday on the same week as Winter Solstice celebrations. That way new believers wouldn't be temped to go to pagan orgies, as they would be too busy with Christian celebrations.

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

I know that, but my point was not about the day it happend, but the name itself. Alot of people would be very angry if someone created a second holiday with the name Christmas.

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

What?

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

I don't think that makes her a lesbian, nor is it really negative.

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

That is one of the worst comparisions I have herd of. You can change your hair color very easily. You can hide the true color of you hair. You can change anything on your body or your mind.

Why do gays go about their movement for "equality" like they do? Comming out and making a bunch of noise is not the way to get your group accepted into society.

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

I think the ancient Romans and Greeks were a lot more relaxed and open about homosexuality and things like that, so I think it would be more 'normal' for ancient people to live close to, work with, or do stuff with a homosexual. I dont think they would have minded that the Church sort of denounced homosexuals. I don't think the homosexuals would have been too happy, though.

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

If the civil rights movement didn't "make a bunch of noise", would they be accepted in society today? Rosa Parks wouldn't give up her seat, which made a bunch of noise. Martin Luther King Jr. made a speech in Washington D.C. with tons of supporters and that made a bunch of noise. A bunch of non-violent noise is necessary in order for a movement to make progress. Sitting on your hands and not speaking up does nothing...

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

Maybe there'd be the Gay-Burnings from the Inquisition or something.