[Kazan]

Originally posted by Raa

Every gay man I've known has always proven themselves to be more self controlled and mature than  90% of the straight men I've known. Even the effeminant men have more self control, and decency than that.

i was once hit on by a gay guy - i was like "Dude, im straight"
he was like "oh, sorry"
me: "no prob"

[WMCoolmon]

Here is why I don't won't gays to get married. Lets say you are walking thru the supermarket, a Gay guy slapes you on your back side and says you're hot. Now if you are like me, you would probly beat his butt in, Even if you just tell him to get lost, he can say your a racist or something like that, make a huge deal about it and sue your butt off or send you to jail. If we let it get legal, that will probly happen a lot..

While he might not be able to say you're racist, he could very well say you're sexist or discriminating against homosexuals. Unless you wouldn't be comfortable if a straight man did the same thing, in which case the sexual orientation of the fellow doesn't matter at all and the example is not relevant to the discussion.

Regardless, people just don't conduct themselves like that. At least, not around here they don't. I've yet to see anyone slap, pinch, or otherwise touch anyone's butt in a supermarket. Probably because they could/would get sued for sexual harassment.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Flipside
Edit : It retrospect - You lucky Sod! How can you turn that into a negative aspect of your youth?

It embarrassed me immensely.  I have a problem with initmate physical contact.

[Stealth]

LOL weather, your 'argument' is pretty void  just let the big boys argue, k?  

Originally posted by: Ghostavo
You get the point... I hope...

Ghostavo, mate, you're missing my point  in fact, in your endeavors to refute it, you actually helped me prove it:

You thought i was saying that we should go by what people 150 years thought on homosexuality.  I was saying that 150 years ago, people would never have thought homosexuals would ever be allowed to marry (and you helped me prove my point by adding the part about slavery and civil rights for african americans in the south, 150 years ago... thanks), but it happened today, and could anyone have predicted it 150 yrs ago?  no of course not... so by the same means, for all we know 150 years from now some things that we abhor (beastiality, etc.) in society today, may be perfectly legal.  What i said was in response to Mad Bomber saying "Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER become legitimized by our society", and i was just saying: you never know  Society changes...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, Christian actually take the bible literally? Then it's worse then I imagined it.

well obviously those that don't live by its standards have no excuse, i agree with you there

If they take the bible literally they also shouldn't judge those who are different. that would be God's job, not something mankind itself should be concerned with.

right.  i agree with you there too, that no one should judge... key word.  however, that doesn't mean that if someone's doing/(living?) something that the Bible blatantly states as wrong, that Christians should just accept it and move on because God's going to judge.  of course not.  God will judge the individual performing the act, but Christians can hate what's being done.  For example, if someone murders another person, does that mean Christians should just 'accept' them, because God will judge them?  of course not.  same with beastiality, same with prostitutes, etc...

And if the bible is taken literally, you'll find dozens if not hundreds of horrors you must obey. This isn't a 'pick and choose' thing.

is that from the old or new testament?  the horrors i mean

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also, thought i'd mention, since many people seem to be forgetting:  Just because some people say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed does not mean that they're anti-gay period.  Many feel that gays should get the same rights by all means that the regular citizen should, since they are, still, citizens, regardless how they choose to live their lifestyle.  However, they simply believe that allowing them to officially marry is wrong, to carry the term "married".  Many of them are still all for giving them the same RIGHTS as a married couple, just not tacking the "married" title to them.

That's how i understand it anyway my interpretations of public opinion may be completely wrong though

[JR2000Z]

Marriage and civil unions are completely different. Gays being married depends on the religion.

Civil Unions apply to everybody. It doesn't matter if you are marriatal/non-marriatal engaged to a woman, a man, a cross-dressing transvestite, or even a human donkey. It applies to everyone.

[Stealth]

But what i'm saying is that a lot of people have absolutely no problem with gays getting the same rights that couples with marital status have, they just have a problem with the title:  "marriage" or "married" for couples that are homosexual.

Not arguing with you on this, just clarifying

[JR2000Z]

It's just a word.

[Kazan]

stealth: which makes those people absofraginlutely retarded

[Stealth]

Kazan:  what part of my post are you referring to lol

JR:  that's not what a lot of people think  they think of it as having a definition with a long history backing it, a tradition that they don't want to change.

[Kazan]

those people quibbling over a stupid word


i know it's true - but those people are morons, and in the process they're being bigots

[Stealth]

oh, so part 3 of my post

yeah that seems to be the general consensus around here.  but a very, very large portion of the population obviously feels otherwise, or there wouldn't be all the controversy today.

Also, didn't Kerry state that he was opposed to gay marriage?

[Kazan]

he was opposed to "gay marriage" but in favor of "civil unions" - a little doublespeak that i wanted to put my boot up his ass for

[Stealth]

cause that didn't make sense.  i was watching the debate, and he says "In this area, i believe the same thing that the President does.....*etc.*" and i was like wtf... if Bush thinks something, aren't you supposed to automatically take a stand on the opposite side?  j/k, but still...

[Kamikaze]

I'm always amused by how fundamentalists want to give homosexuals (who may even be Christian) less rights than non-theists who proclaim that Christianity is all lies and dogma...

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Liberator


It embarrassed me immensely.  I have a problem with initmate physical contact.

So all this **** about homosexual marriage being the anti-christ is comming from a guy who is afraid of girls touching him?

[Liberator]

Not just girls,  Anybody.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect


**** the south.

Ditto.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
While he might not be able to say you're racist, he could very well say you're sexist or discriminating against homosexuals. Unless you wouldn't be comfortable if a straight man did the same thing, in which case the sexual orientation of the fellow doesn't matter at all and the example is not relevant to the discussion.

not if he (the gay guy) started it

[WMCoolmon]

Eh?

[Bobboau]

person a gets hit on by person b, person b is not interested, person a cannot call person b sexist for not being interested. or from reacting violently when person a continues to bother person b.