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?