[Despondent]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I figured you knew what I was thinking anyway.

Barend, You wrote "then you don't really classify as straight or gay for all intents and purposes..."

Which I thought was funny, because in a Simpsons episode, I believe it goes like this: Nelson wants to beat up on Martin because he's gay. To which Martin pleads "I'm not gay! I'm NOTHING yet!"

You're usually up on the Simpsons references, so I thought it appropriate. I found the gag as humorous as abyssmal because it reflects the idea that it's as natural to be gay as it is Not, a pervading notion these days.

J m, I see your point. Fair enough, Implication withdrawn.

(Barend) ...guy's who butt rape in prison generally aren't gay, they are making do with what they have...

[James12345]

I don't think Don Burns is gay.  I think he's faking it.  He seems to mention it in every post, makes me wonder if he's just some kid playing around. Why would a gay guy talk about his gayness so much, it would be old news to him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah I agree.

Plus CT is a blue liberal state for the most part...

Anyway, no I don't agree w/ homosexual marriage because its not natural, If you think about it the very foundation of society has started with a family. Man and woman to produce and raise children...

I'm not religious or homophobic and belive that even homosexuals should live as monogamous couples, but its not on the same level as marriage.

[James12345]

Despondent: So some pervert priests molesting young boys reflects badly on homosexuality? Where in the fuck do you get that? If that's how you want to judge people than fine, I feel pretty bad because some other male perverts molest young girls. I guess that makes heterosexual males seem sick to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, many homosexuals choose priesthood because they were confused many years ago w/ society

Their individual tendencies made them molest boys. A priest molesting a young girl would be just as bad, come on...

[J m HofMarN]

Ummm James... James... My point was that homosexuals are not going to molest young boys any more than heterosexuals would molest young girls. When some asshole screws a twelve year old you don't look at him and say "Damned heterosexuals!" You say "wow, that guy's a child molester." Why should it be any different for gays?

[J m HofMarN]

As for the gay marriage question theres people who do far more unatural things than that, as documented in a thread in the lobby, and they can marry happily and talk about inflation porn in their bedrooms together. Moreover, why should anyone have the right to tell two consenting adults that they can't marry? It's not just a spiritual thing. If you're not legally married to someone you cant get survivors benefits, child custody, or visitation rights in hospitals or jails. Is there really a good reason to take that from people aside from general biggotry and insensitivity to their feelings?

And don't go saying that tolerance is equal to promotion. Intolerance never stopped Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, Alcohol, etc. So it's not as though theres even a remote chance that intolerance is going to do anything against homosexuality except annoy people and make their lives difficult.

James - Dude, child molesters are not really to be considered of any sexual orientation, they're just fucked up. The guy who screwed a pig wasnt worried whether it was a boy pig or a girl pig, he just wanted to screw a pig, because he was fucked up. Would it have been any worse if he had been having gay sex with a boy pig? No. Would it have been any better if it was heterosexual sex with a female pig? No. He's still a sick fuck, and you can't go basing theories off his actions such as "all homosexuals like to hump male pigs"

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 10 August 2005 - 09:50 PM

[James12345]

Its not that, your right in that respect.

But many of the homosexual priests are put into positions where they cannot overcome temptation.

How many Cath priests have molested young girls? I'm sure some, but not nearly as many.

[James12345]

If you're  not legally married to someone you cant get survivors benefits, child custody, or visitation rights in hospitals or jails. Is there really a good reason to take that from people aside from general biggotry and insensitivity to their feelings?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And your right, they need these things too as I believe homosexuality occures naturally. (Though it does not fall in line with the natural progression of life, reproduction and the like).

Homosexual couples do not need a tax break or a nod and a wink from the State.

[J m HofMarN]

Actually, despite how many people think it's unatural, I think that homosexuality, childless relationships and celibacy are all actually good for the world.

I know that humans are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but there's too damned many of us. It's natural that there should be a way for us to stop reproducing so fast, and homosexuality is actually helping. In that respect it's both natural and beneficial to the world in general.

I don't know about the states officially endorsing homosexual marriage, but I see no reason why it should be legally different than heterosexual marriage, with all tax breaks included.

[Slade]

I know I'm being a bit trite at this point, but how natural is it for people to fly in airplanes? Who cares how natural it is? Why is "They aren't hurting anybody, let's leave them alone!" such a bloody rotting difficult concept?

James: I think I should chastise you for something you've said, but I can't quite understand any of it enough for me to do so... *is confuzzled*

Homosexual couples do not need a tax break or a nod and a wink from the State.

Neither do heterosexual couples then, but they get it.

MODNESS: For more homosexual discussion, please see the latest of the five zillion "god" threads, currently active in this forum as well!

[barend]

Homosexual couples do not need a tax break or a nod and a wink from the State.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it's a bad enough that they go though life without dealing with womens special mood-swing week...

that puts a strain on a relationship...

not to mention to hell women put us through in the early courtship stages...

yikes!!!

queer guys get enough breaks as it is...

[James12345]

it's a bad enough that they go though life without dealing with womens special mood-swing week...

that puts a strain on a relationship...

not to mention to hell women put us through in the early courtship stages...

yikes!!!

queer guys get enough breaks as it is...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We agree

[civilian_number_two]

"Homosexual marriage is unnatural"

Um ...

Marriage is unnatural. Find me another species that does it. Airplanes, condoms, 12" dildos and Mazda 3s are unnatural. Get over it. Nature has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate.


"Marriage is about family"

Then outlaw divorce. Straight folks are doing more damage to marriage than allowing gay folks to do it ever could. No reason two gay people can't raise kids, or even produce their own, through surogates or borrowed sperm.


"Gays don't need the benefits of marriage"

Apparently you have not thought this one through.


PS: everyone always talks about fags when they talk about gay marriage, but they never talk about dykes. I dare say for all our posing, you really do have a problem with fags, and that for you this is not some simple intellectual debate.

PPS: Don Burns was a troll, but he seems to be gone now.

[barend]

lesbian couples should definatley get tax breaks... they two weeks every month of unpleasantness...

unless they syncronize

[Mnesymone]

There's nothing unnatural about a Mazda 3 damnit!

It seems a pretty pointless thing that people get polarised about.

How would a homosexual couple, with a child facilitated by a surrogate process, in a wholesome marriage, unbroken nuclear family and all the legal rights of a marriage couple be a bad thing for anyone.

Then people go - what about the child - their being raised by homosexuals - the child is being raised immorally and will not be comfortable with thier parents sexuality.
a) no child is comfortable with their parents sexuality. Seriously.
it's not like their parents are gonna teach them a birds and birds - how will they grow up any more immoral, deviant or degenerate than anyone else out there.

Civs marriage is about family thing was a good point.

Also - for people who raise a spiritual or natural thing about it.
Homosexuality occurs in nature. It is, though not common, an acceptably normal behaviour amongst a number of wild species, particularly amongst non-dominant males. Every single bonobo, an advanced primate sometimes called a 'pygmy chimp', is bisexual - so don't say that it doesn't happen in nature. Juvenile male elephants typically have sex with other juvenile male elephants as part of their development - effectively practice.

Then, if you want a spiritual thing, you count a religious assumption as a legal assumption. People who say 'God says homos are sinful' before pointing to Leviticus, Sodom and some of the other stuff, rule out the people who do not use the Bible as a sacred text or are atheistic.

Edit - oh and Barend, they do synchronise. Lots of women living together gradually undergo hormonal synchronisation, particularly if one of them doesn't shave their armpits. Freaky eh?

This post has been edited by Mnesymone: 11 August 2005 - 12:51 AM

[Kirby]

a) no child is comfortable with their parents sexuality. Seriously.

You go out and catch your mum and dad doing the nasty and tell me differant. Usualy a kid thinks that any sexuallity done by their parents is uncomfortable.

This post has been edited by Kirby: 11 August 2005 - 02:35 AM