Can anyone who is anti-gay marriage give me a real reason for your position?

[SpicyBrownRapper]

The whole sanctity of marriage statement is a joke, since not all religions are against it, and since we have pluralism of religions the argument is moot. All the debates I have on this issue, the only responses I got were ones laced with bigotry and statements like "it would ruin America" or that "its icky."

There are people like Britney and K-Fed who can have x amount of kids, but for two responsible homosexuals to adopt, its considered wrong. Responsible parenting isn't based on orientation, it's based on responsibility and love, two things that aren't exclusive to orientation. I also don't see how it's really going to have a huge affect on society since homosexuality does exist, and keeping them "in check" doesn't do anything to change this.

[bhav_editor]

I agree with youuu

[SpicyBrownRapper]

Show me your bewbies then.

[Echelon]

The whole sanctity of marriage statement is a joke, since not all religions are against it, and since we have pluralism of religions the argument is moot. All the debates I have on this issue, the only responses I got were ones laced with bigotry and statements like "it would ruin America" or that "its icky."

There are people like Britney and K-Fed who can have x amount of kids, but for two responsible homosexuals to adopt, its considered wrong. Responsible parenting isn't based on orientation, it's based on responsibility and love, two things that aren't exclusive to orientation. I also don't see how it's really going to have a huge affect on society since homosexuality does exist, and keeping them "in check" doesn't do anything to change this.I have a counter question: Why cant a brother and sister marry?

[bhav_editor]

Show me your bewbies then.

Ask nicely :)

[di vinci]

The whole sanctity of marriage statement is a joke, since not all religions are against it, and since we have pluralism of religions the argument is moot. All the debates I have on this issue, the only responses I got were ones laced with bigotry and statements like "it would ruin America" or that "its icky."

There are people like Britney and K-Fed who can have x amount of kids, but for two responsible homosexuals to adopt, its considered wrong. Responsible parenting isn't based on orientation, it's based on responsibility and love, two things that aren't exclusive to orientation. I also don't see how it's really going to have a huge affect on society since homosexuality does exist, and keeping them "in check" doesn't do anything to change this.


its not normal! how many gay dudes are peados, do u know how much a kid will get bullied if ppl found out. seriously if nature wanted gay ppl then gay by themselves would have been able to produce. its not normal and its and evry single religion dosnt want gay marriage. its just the politicians who think they know better

[SpicyBrownRapper]

Ask nicely :)

Ma'am, would you be kind enough to shower me with pictures of your perfect bosoms?

[bhav_editor]

Ma'am, would you be kind enough to shower me with pictures of your perfect bosoms?

:rofl: MAYBE!

[SpicyBrownRapper]

its not normal! how many gay dudes are peados, do u know how much a kid will get bullied if ppl found out. seriously if nature wanted gay ppl then gay by themselves would have been able to produce. its not normal and its and evry single religion dosnt want gay marriage. its just the politicians who think they know better

There is a reason why Homosexuality is not called Pedophilia, they are two DIFFERENT things.

Many kids are teased a lot when they are children but as they grow up and become more mature the problem goes away. I don't find being teased as a kid so damaging, I doubt it would be anything worse than a fat kid has to endure. Also, the more people are exposed to it the more comfortable they will become with it.

Also, why should nature be used as a model for morality? Have you seen nature documentaries? Nature is a dirty, cruel, brutal, violent, disease ridden, amoral harsh place. Why the hell would we want to look at nature for advice on how we should live our lives? Marriage is a term that was derived from culture, not from nature.

[stillsedated]

TITS! (i'll record you a soundclip one day) how you doing spicy? COCK!

[subwoffa]

The whole sanctity of marriage statement is a joke, since not all religions are against it, and since we have pluralism of religions the argument is moot. All the debates I have on this issue, the only responses I got were ones laced with bigotry and statements like "it would ruin America" or that "its icky."

There are people like Britney and K-Fed who can have x amount of kids, but for two responsible homosexuals to adopt, its considered wrong. Responsible parenting isn't based on orientation, it's based on responsibility and love, two things that aren't exclusive to orientation. I also don't see how it's really going to have a huge affect on society since homosexuality does exist, and keeping them "in check" doesn't do anything to change this.



Allah said no but i don't really care

[Echelon]

You know its funny you ask this question because a year ago in International Law my professor who happened to be a lesbian asked us the same question, and i asked her the counter-question: "Do you think brother and sister/father and daughter incest based relationships should be granted marriage privileges too, since they are considered as unnatural bonds in the same respects, and she was stumped"

[SpicyBrownRapper]

:rofl: MAYBE!

Sweet, emptying my inbox as we speak.

[SpicyBrownRapper]

TITS! (i'll record you a soundclip one day) how you doing spicy? COCK!

Now here's a lady who wouldn't be scared to send me nudies.

[di vinci]

There is a reason why Homosexuality is not called Pedophilia, they are two DIFFERENT things.

Many kids are teased a lot when they are children but as they grow up and become more mature the problem goes away. I don't find being teased as a kid so damaging, I doubt it would be anything worse than a fat kid has to endure. Also, the more people are exposed to it the more comfortable they will become with it.

Also, why should nature be used as a model for morality? Have you seen nature documentaries? Nature is a dirty, cruel, brutal, violent, disease ridden, amoral harsh place. Why the hell would we want to look at nature for advice on how we should live our lives? Marriage is a term that was derived from culture, not from nature.


most of the time when u read the papaers and find out adude been caught for pedo behaviour he has had pass gay relationships or has been victimised himself! its the same thing im narrow minded! for an instance would u marry another dude or a chick? or would u allow ur kids too? and dont say u be happy with what ever decision u make cus u will be pissed! what will the neighbours say what will everyone think

[SpicyBrownRapper]

You know its funny you ask this question because a year ago in International Law my professor who happened to be a lesbian asked us the same question, and i asked her the counter-question: "Do you think brother and sister/father and daughter incest based relationships should be granted marriage privileges too, since they are considered as unnatural bonds in the same respects, and she was stumped"

Yes, sure. If both parties are consenting, then sure. Let them the fuck get married if they so please.

[Echelon]

Quit answerin' the dude who has petty old arguments about paedophilia and homosexuals.
That's a trivial argument =]

[TheVanityAffair]

I agree with you.
It's just so hard for people to accept since it's an anomaly.

We're no one to tell them that it's wrong, or that they shouldn't when they share Love. It's love, it's not singled out to only men and women, and God definitely does NOT single others out. So why should we? Bleh, that's how things are.

[stillsedated]

I guess a lot of it depends on whether you believe sexual gratification is our right for pleasure or is just for the purpose of procreation?

In which case, culture/religion binds us to love = marriage = sex = babies (unless you're desi in which case you can leave out the love part :) )

Instead of homosexuals where love = marriage = sex

Surely it's a NICE thing, whether you believe homosexuality is natural/moral or NOT, that homosexual people want to get married ie commit to each other. How can you say 'nono! Perverts! don't follow through with a ceremony of commitment!'

[stillsedated]

Now here's a lady who wouldn't be scared to send me nudies.
you've been keeping them to yourself yeah? or at least only for the pleasure of you and your girlfriend during lovemaking, right?

[jus_me]

its not normal! how many gay dudes are peados, do u know how much a kid will get bullied if ppl found out. seriously if nature wanted gay ppl then gay by themselves would have been able to produce. its not normal and its and evry single religion dosnt want gay marriage. its just the politicians who think they know better

how is being gay predetermining you to be a kiddy fiddler?

there are plenty of hetrosexual people who molest kids.

i dont see why being gay should be taken into consideration when you want to raise kids, youre not being judged on your sexuality, youre being judged on your suitability to raise kids.

thats the same as saying those with brown hair cant eat chicken because they dont have blonde hair..how are the two things connected.

and id rather a kid had two same sex parents who can provide a stable family life rather than a kid who has hetrosexual parents who provide the crappiest home life.

[SpicyBrownRapper]

most of the time when u read the papaers and find out adude been caught for pedo behaviour he has had pass gay relationships or has been victimised himself! its the same thing im narrow minded! for an instance would u marry another dude or a chick? or would u allow ur kids too? and dont say u be happy with what ever decision u make cus u will be pissed! what will the neighbours say what will everyone think

You're being ridiculous connecting pedophilia and homosexuality, no such connections exist. Look at that show on NBC, to catch a predator. How many of those sick fucks are married to women? Thats right.

If my kids end up being homosexuals, then so be it. What is there that I can do? I'm not gonna try to encourage them to like vagina, if they like the cock, let 'em like the cock. I'm not going to disown my kid for that, speaking the truth here.

[SpicyBrownRapper]

I guess a lot of it depends on whether you believe sexual gratification is our right for pleasure or is just for the purpose of procreation?

In which case, culture/religion binds us to love = marriage = sex = babies (unless you're desi in which case you can leave out the love part :) )

Instead of homosexuals where love = marriage = sex

Surely it's a NICE thing, whether you believe homosexuality is natural/moral or NOT, that homosexual people want to get married ie commit to each other. How can you say 'nono! Perverts! don't follow through with a ceremony of commitment!'

Your words arouse me

[stillsedated]

Your words arouse me
aww c'mon you fag I only used the word 'homosexual' 3 times :grouphug:

[di vinci]

well saying it know but when u have kids u changed ur tune

[Echelon]

Yes, sure. If both parties are consenting, then
sure. Let them the fuck get married if they so please.So naturally speaking, if this occured frequently, then our society as a whole would have aligned its normality axis to a different set of views where incestial relationships are within standard living.

Eventually once this view has been normalized where new generations are nurtured under the belief that such feelings are 'ok', isn't it probable then that our current sense of what makes human relationship and marriage jaded from being a standard 'mutual relationship between a man and a woman' to something manifesting a loopy-shaped donut?

Isn't morality there to protect us from such a pathetic demise.

[Echelon]

im not gonna take a stance on this one, cuz i dont care either way.

this is what gets me though. for the people that say gay marriages should not be legal, what's your justification for not banning gay relationships/sex? if you're not gonna prohibit two men or two women from having sex, why are you gonna stop them from getting married? how does that even make sense? if you're gonna stop it, stop it altogether, or let them be. jackasses.This is more of a question of the hague conventions governing universal marriage. I don't think they should or make exceptions for anomaly cases such as homosexuality because it is not universally accepted across all significant belief systems/systems of order/systems morality. If they do then it wouldn't exactly be universal now would it.

[ewwwww]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[di vinci]

This is more of a question of the hague conventions governing universal marriage. I don't think they should or make exceptions for anomaly cases such as homosexuality because it is not universally accepted across all significant belief systems/systems of order/systems morality. If they do then it wouldn't exactly be universal now would it.

i tell u the mussy n catholics will be pissed

[_true_definition]

You know its funny you ask this question because a year ago in International Law my professor who happened to be a lesbian asked us the same question, and i asked her the counter-question: "Do you think brother and sister/father and daughter incest based relationships should be granted marriage privileges too, since they are considered as unnatural bonds in the same respects, and she was stumped"


i disagree! whats wrong with letting ppl what they would like to do? we live in a so called "democracy" but is it really? if 2 men want to marry or 2 women wanna marry then why the fuck not? who the hell are we to say no?

[**bambina**]

you know. i admit, it took me awhile to understand homosexuality. i have even admitted that to my friends who are gay. now thou, its doesnt bother me weather gay/straight/weird ppl want to get married or not. marriage has no meaning these days. ppl get married now to show on paper what his or hers.. its got nothing to do with love or commitment. if ppl do want to get married to make an commitment of love and a promise to spend their lives together, shouldnt really matter who they get married to.

one thing i still dont understand is ppl marrying animals.

[di vinci]

i disagree! whats wrong with letting ppl what they would like to do? we live in a so called "democracy" but is it really? if 2 men want to marry or 2 women wanna marry then why the fuck not? who the hell are we to say no?


then either they make up a religion or they get amrid a differant way. if god put down laws fro man and women to be marid, then let it be who are we to disagree with gods law. man made laws have always cause to many problems.

[jus_me]

you know. i admit, it took me awhile to understand homosexuality. i have even admitted that to my friends who are gay. now thou, its doesnt bother me weather gay/straight/weird ppl want to get married or not. marriage has no meaning these days. ppl get married now to show on paper what his or hers.. its got nothing to do with love or commitment. if ppl do want to get married to make an commitment of love and a promise to spend their lives together, shouldnt really matter who they get married to.

one thing i still dont understand is ppl marrying animals.

same here.

and desi girls get married so they can have sex and not be called sluts :anxious:

that and so that half the money their husbands earn is theirs automatically, with reasons like that, who the hell cares about love :lol:

[Echelon]

See the rules governing marriage is rather simple, i mean there are some cases where marriage certificates cant be excepted but generally the concept is simple: "man and woman in union".
If you put exceptions into the clause, well then you're going to get down on your knees for further exceptions like incest based relationships, animals, entities etc.

[di vinci]

same here.

and desi girls get married so they can have sex and not be called sluts :anxious:

that and so that half the money their husbands earn is theirs automatically, with reasons like that, who the hell cares about love :lol:

u live in a fuk up materialistic world if u think marriage is like that. sit down ans ask ur grandad n grandma wat marriaged is

[stillsedated]

This is more of a question of the hague conventions governing universal marriage. I don't think they should or make exceptions for anomaly cases such as homosexuality because it is not universally accepted across all significant belief systems/systems of order/systems morality. If they do then it wouldn't exactly be universal now would it.
but then belief systems/systems of order/morality can swing the other way to dictatorship and rigidity. I'd rather gay people were married than Hitler or Saddam or Bin Laden had had their ethnic cleansing, money making, politically corrupt playing fields while everyone made way for their 'anomaly beliefs'. By saying no to gay marriage etc couldn't you sort of gradually coax people to believe the other extreme?

[jus_me]

u live in a fuk up materialistic world if u think marriage is like that. sit down ans ask ur grandad n grandma wat marriaged is

english?

[Irreligious Left]

You know its funny you ask this question because a year ago in International Law my professor who happened to be a lesbian asked us the same question, and i asked her the counter-question: "Do you think brother and sister/father and daughter incest based relationships should be granted marriage privileges too, since they are considered as unnatural bonds in the same respects, and she was stumped"

In the U.S., there, at a minimum, needs to a be a "rational basis" for a law in order for it to be valid constitutionally. If a state (regulating marriage in the U.S. is in the purview of the state government, not the federal government) wants to ban incestuous marriages, the rational basis proffered is usually to prevent birth defects that are more likely to result when there is a close propinquity between marital partners.

The "unnatrualness" of the relationship doesn't really have a place in the constitutional analysis, at least not in the U.S.

[Echelon]

who cares about hague? and i didnt know there was a hague convention that governs universal marriage. the fuck? when did this happen?

im talking about america, and in america, we have a pretty uniform moral standard. so, for those who oppose gay marriage and think it shouldn't be legal, why isnt banning gay relationships/sex more important? if you ban gay sex/relationships, then gay marriages wouldn't even be an issue.

the reason gay marriages is an issue is because thats how the republicans get a lot of the conservative votes. plain and simple.It has always been in my view that if you create too many exceptions within rules for anamolys then you have a pretty fucked up system.
The Hague convention is just a universal guideline for states to implement marriage laws. But in my view apart from subjective changes which have occured due to differences in culture, it is a good foundation to govern what people consider the ceremony of "marriage". It promotes unification marriage of different cultures into a reasonable set of rules/exceptions for states to follow.

In my view laws should cater for religious and cultural aspects of the state whilst maintaing some sort of settlement with minority anomaly groups like homosexuals.
The flexibility of the law should not be tainted by the needs of an anomaly.

Hence, they should be given rights to gain certificates of unionism rather than certificates of marriage. Because marriage implies both legal titles and a religious ceremony. Most people marry for one reason rather than two.
If homosexuals want the legal rights which come with marriage, then unionism certificates should be granted.

[Echelon]

animals can't give consent, neither can children. for any other kinda marriage... :dunno:Yeah, but as i said, if you wanted to ratify laws on what makes marriage and create exceptions, it just opens doors for future exceptions such as what is considered 'consent'.

[Irreligious Left]

It has always been in my view that if you create too many exceptions within rules for anamolys then you have a pretty fucked up system.
The Hague convention is just a universal guideline for states to implement marriage laws But in my view apart from subjective changes which have occured due to differences in culture, it is a good foundation to govern what people consider the ceremony of "marriage". It promotes unification marriage of different cultures into a reasonable set of rules/exceptions for states to follow.

In my view laws should cater for religious and cultural aspects of the state whilst maintaing some sort of settlement with minority anomaly groups like homosexuals.
The flexibility of the law should not be tainted by the needs of an anomaly.

Hence, they should be given rights to gain certificates of unionism rather than certificates of marriage. Because marriage implies both legal titles and a religious ceremony. Most people marry for one reason rather than two.
If homosexuals want the legal rights which come with marriage, then unionism certificates should be granted.

Are you sure about this? I always thought that Hague law dealt with weapons used in warfare.

[WildWolfdog]

who cares about hague? and i didnt know there was a hague convention that governs universal marriage. the fuck? when did this happen?

im talking about america, and in america, we have a pretty uniform moral standard. so, for those who oppose gay marriage and think it shouldn't be legal, why isnt banning gay relationships/sex more important? if you ban gay sex/relationships, then gay marriages wouldn't even be an issue.

the reason gay marriages is an issue is because thats how the republicans get a lot of the conservative votes. plain and simple.

because you can't possibly monitor each and every human being and what they do in their private lives. It's just not a rational possibility. Marraige on the other hand, is an official thing and something you CAN put a halt to. Stopping marraige is a bigger step because if you take a desi mentality, for many gay people, they might try to become straight because they know "in the end, there's no point, because there will be no future - no official future anyway". Although this might have the opposite effect because a lot of people want to go against the norm and bend the rules because it's "cool" - either way I think if there's no marraige, a lot of gay couples will be absolved, on the other hand, if marraige is allowed, it's a "step towards the betterment and equality of all" in the eyes of the gay people, and it will only encourage it.

That being said, I haven't yet come to a conclusion personally, as to whether or not it should be banned or not.

[Echelon]

In the U.S., there, at a minimum, needs to a be a "rational basis" for a law in order for it to be valid constitutionally. If a state (regulating marriage in the U.S. is in the purview of the state government, not the federal government) wants to ban incestuous marriages, the rational basis proffered is usually to prevent birth defects that are more likely to result when there is a close propinquity between marital partners.

The "unnatrualness" of the relationship doesn't really have a place in the constitutional analysis, at least not in the U.S.That appears rather wierd to me considering the act of marriage itself shouldn't imply children as a definite product of the relationship. It is only probable, not certain. But then again it does 'promote' it in the sense and such laws shouldn't advocate any damages suffered by a 3rd party as a result of the marriage.

[stillsedated]

because you can't possibly monitor each and every human being and what they do in their private lives. It's just not a rational possibility. Marraige on the other hand, is an official thing and something you CAN put a halt to. Stopping marraige is a bigger step because if you take a desi mentality, for many gay people, they might try to become straight because they know "in the end, there's no point, because there will be no future - no official future anyway". Although this might have the opposite effect because a lot of people want to go against the norm and bend the rules because it's "cool" - either way I think if there's no marraige, a lot of gay couples will be absolved, on the other hand, if marraige is allowed, it's a "step towards the betterment and equality of all" in the eyes of the gay people, and it will only encourage it.

That being said, I haven't yet come to a conclusion personally, as to whether or not it should be banned or not.
but there have been gay couples for centuries before they were allowed to get married... :neutral: granted it was probably more subversive but of course homosexuality's always been a part of society!

[Echelon]

Are you sure about this? I always thought that Hague law dealt with weapons used in warfare.Hague deals with both public and private international law.
They deal with marriage also:
http://www.legallanguage.com/hague/haguetx26e.html

[WildWolfdog]

but there have been gay couples for centuries before they were allowed to get married... :neutral: granted it was probably more subversive but of course homosexuality's always been a part of society!

true, but I'm sure along the lines, many decided to follow the societal norms instead of indulging in what they "desired" because it would be better in the long run, and because nothing would come of it later.

I'm going out on a whim here, but aren't most reported cases of open homosexuality from history mainly from the Greek, Roman and Egyptian times.

[stillsedated]

there are gay people in pakistan, india and bangladesh. yeah, they keep their homosexuality to themselves but does that stop them from having sex with some one of their own sex? not really. they just have to do it on the dl, just like straight men and women have to have sex outside of marriage on the dl. :dunno:
absolutely, what he said ^

[WildWolfdog]

there are gay people in pakistan, india and bangladesh. yeah, they keep their homosexuality to themselves but does that stop them from having sex with some one of their own sex? not really. they just have to do it on the dl, just like straight men and women have to have sex outside of marriage on the dl. :dunno:

I know, now (half a century) it's rampant all over the world, I was talking about ancient history.

[Echelon]

Out of curiosity TheDude, do you find incestial relationships wrong?

[Infamous_Punjabi]

God made Adam n Eve not Adam n Steve!

[Echelon]

hmm. im surprised. well, the things you learn. :)

btw, that says nothing about gay marriages, at least from what i read.

Article 11

A Contracting State may refuse to recognize the validity of a marriage only where, at the time of the marriage, under the law of that State -

(1) one of the spouses was already married; or

(2) the spouses were related to one another, by blood or by adoption, in the direct line or as brother and sister; or

(3) one of the spouses had not attained the minimum age required for marriage, nor had obtained the necessary dispensation; or

(4) one of the spouses did not have the mental capacity to consent; or

(5) one of the spouses did not freely consent to the marriage.

However, recognition may not be refused where, in the case mentioned in sub-paragraph 1 of the preceding paragraph, the marriage has subsequently become valid by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the prior marriage. Thats a highly summarised version of it.

[Echelon]

and 'lol' at USA being the land of the free:

Degrees of criminality

The laws of many U.S. states recognize two separate degrees of incest, the more serious degree covering the closest blood relationships such as father-daughter, mother-son and brother-sister, with the less-serious charge being pressed against more distantly-related individuals who engage in sexual intercourse, usually down to and including first cousins and sometimes half cousins. In New York State, close-blood-relation incest is a felony with a maximum penalty of four years in prison, while the less serious charge is usually only a misdemeanor. Curiously, many incest laws do not expressly proscribe sexual conduct other than vaginal intercourse — such as oral sex — or, for that matter, any sexual activity between relatives of the same gender, so long as neither party is a minor. This legal position is in stark contrast with that in Australia, where incest is punishable by a maximum of 25 years imprisonment for the more serious form of penetrating a child, even if that child is over 18, and 5 years for the less serious charge of sexual penetration of a sibling or half-sibling.

For many years, Andrew Vachss has written about the incest loophole in the laws of most U.S. states that "gives privileged treatment to child rapists who grow their own victims".

Wikipedia

[WildWolfdog]

what's the problem with gay marriages, according to the anti-gay marriage people? the problem is that if you legalize gay marriages, you're saying homosexuality is ok. well, umm... homosexuality isn't illegal now. pot is illegal. drinking underage is illegal. yeah, its still done, but its illegal. so, if homosexuality isn't illegal, if the practice of a man having sex with another man or a woman having sex with another woman isn't illegal, why is something that's faaaaaaaar down the line illegal?

If you legalize any of those things, the prospects of stopping it from occurring will dramatically decrease. By legalizing underaged drinking, you won't be "not tempting" underaged teens to be rebellious, you'll just give them all the opportunity to do something stupid. Same goes with pot (although the fact that it will pretty much extinctify the drug trade is a good argument) - anyway what I'm saying is, if you legalize gay marraige, chances are people who are "experimenting" or just "having a fling" will become more serious about it. Not many people think about brother-sisters having sex and getting married. Because the option is just not there. If you apply the same principle to gay marraige, if the option was just not there and from the beginning it was something that was "just not even an option to consider because it's so ludacris" then I'm sure there would be less known and unknown cases of homosexuality.

think of it like this. not every guy marries every girl that he goes out with or has sex with. what makes any one think that gay guys or girls would wanna marry the first person they have sex with? so, you won't make it illegal for them to perform these "immoral" acts on a regular basis, but when and only when they wanna get married is it a big deal. to me, thats hypocrisy.

True, it's hypocrisy to a degree. It's more along the lines of it being conveniant for parents to say "you're too young" to something you want to do and "you're old enough now, take responsibility" to something you don't want to do (at the same age). Like I said earlier, I think if you eliminate the option of there being a future, the number of cases will decrease.

btw, gay marriages aren't legal in most states. that hasn't stopped people from coming out of the closet. also, throughout history, many many people have been gay, and none of them needed state-mandated marriages to continue their practices of rugmuching and buttsexors.

Because people are in the whole "gay liberation!" stance these days. It's been legalized in a few countries and states so they think (know) if they "struggle" it will eventually become legalized nationwide and worldwide. Hope gives birth to hope (I know I messed up the phrase but hope gives something to hope, I can't remember).

[WildWolfdog]

meg's my cuz. do i need to say anything else? :ashamed:

Atta boy :cheers:

[BENGALI4EVA1]

I have a counter question: Why cant a brother and sister marry?
:rofl:

[_true_definition]

then either they make up a religion or they get amrid a differant way. if god put down laws fro man and women to be marid, then let it be who are we to disagree with gods law. man made laws have always cause to many problems.


haha you know what...i've heard alot of ignorant remarks but thats the most stupidest thing i've heard for want of a better word! why would homosexuals need to make a religion separate from straight people? because "god" said only man and woman fucky haha? what god? the one that lets innocent ppl die hungry or get bombed? well you know what? Fuck your so called "god" ! the laws that you talk of are made by man!!! i say we're all here to follow our own path...religion and this so called "god" of yours disturbs truth and hides it! live and let live!!!! aint nothing realer than that...

[_true_definition]

God made Adam n Eve not Adam n Steve!


how do you know? did you meet god? or you believe everything your mummy n daddy says?

[bedouindreamer]

ok, let's take it one step at a time.

what's the problem with gay marriages, according to the anti-gay marriage people? the problem is that if you legalize gay marriages, you're saying homosexuality is ok. well, umm... homosexuality isn't illegal now. pot is illegal. drinking underage is illegal. yeah, its still done, but its illegal. so, if homosexuality isn't illegal, if the practice of a man having sex with another man or a woman having sex with another woman isn't illegal, why is something that's faaaaaaaar down the line illegal?

think of it like this. not every guy marries every girl that he goes out with or has sex with. what makes any one think that gay guys or girls would wanna marry the first person they have sex with? so, you won't make it illegal for them to perform these "immoral" acts on a regular basis, but when and only when they wanna get married is it a big deal. to me, thats hypocrisy.

btw, gay marriages aren't legal in most states. that hasn't stopped people from coming out of the closet. also, throughout history, many many people have been gay, and none of them needed state-mandated marriages to continue their practices of rugmuching and buttsexors.

It is precisely the gist of your argument that makes people fearful of gay-marriage. You point out to the free mixing of the sexes, and that how you are not required to marry everyone you sleep with and then go on to show that we can't homosexuals from doing the same things. Thats the whole reason for conservatives all over the world from becoming 'in your face' moral police.

Thus people fear that if we allow gay-marriage then the next step would probably be acceptance of incestuous relationships and perhaps even bestiality.

And consider that with parental consent in many states girls as young as 15 can marry men over 18. So if homsexual marriage becomes legal, and a boys or girls parents are liberal(sic) enough, do you think ot would be right for them to enter into a same sex relationship?

This brings into question how a person would determine that he or she is gay in the first place. Sexual experimentation. Which would open them up to all sorts of std possibilities. Basically, homosexuality is the ultimate manifestation of a hedonistic society. In the history of humanity, has any society survived which has allowed itself to be so overtaken with its own pleasures, that they can only think of "me", "me", "me".

You can talk about divine retribution. Or even going by logic, a society which becomes too consumed with it's own excess, spending more time gorging, drinking, tripping and screwing around than educating, governing and carrying out it's responsibilities towrds each other, will always leave itself open to co-option and eventual destruction.

[Infamous_Punjabi]

what about apu singh?
that was evolution

[Infamous_Punjabi]

how do you know? did you meet god? or you believe everything your mummy n daddy says?
no! its called a Bible

[_true_definition]

no! its called a Bible


i don't mean to offend anyone but that book and all religious books do have alot of hocus pocus in them mixed in with the good stuff! these books were obviously man made so we can't say these books are our true path.

[the_dark_drag0n]

Honestly, Desi people who are anti-gay marriages is kind of funny. It's like when back in the day a White woman couldn't marry a non-White man and people tried to justify it using religious books. Some people might find that ridiculous, correct? Maybe 50 years from now, people will find you ridiculous for using the bible as an excuse to take RIGHTS away from PEOPLE (not white/non-white/hetero/homo...simple people).

And the religious argument is stupid. Not all of us believe in organized religion. So what now, you're going to force your religious beliefs onto the rest of us?

[Irreligious Left]

and 'lol' at USA being the land of the free:

Wikipedia

My home state allows first cousins to legally marry. :/

[bedouindreamer]

Honestly, Desi people who are anti-gay marriages is kind of funny. It's like when back in the day a White woman couldn't marry a non-White man and people tried to justify it using religious books. Some people might find that ridiculous, correct? Maybe 50 years from now, people will find you ridiculous for using the bible as an excuse to take RIGHTS away from PEOPLE (not white/non-white/hetero/homo...simple people).

And the religious argument is stupid. Not all of us believe in organized religion. So what now, you're going to force your religious beliefs onto the rest of us?

You making laws in violation of my beliefs are forcing your liberal views on me......care to think and comment on that.........

[MC_Punjab]

God Made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve :p

enough said.

[SpicyBrownRapper]

So naturally speaking, if this occured frequently, then our society as a whole would have aligned its normality axis to a different set of views where incestial relationships are within standard living.

Eventually once this view has been normalized where new generations are nurtured under the belief that such feelings are 'ok', isn't it probable then that our current sense of what makes human relationship and marriage jaded from being a standard 'mutual relationship between a man and a woman' to something manifesting a loopy-shaped donut?

Isn't morality there to protect us from such a pathetic demise.

You're running under the assumption that IF incestuous marriage was legalized there would suddenly be a rise in siblings loving siblings. This is the same assumption people press on with when talking about effects of gay marriage - suggesting that kids are more susceptible to turning gay around gay couples when there have been studies that have proved otherwise.

[Irreligious Left]

You making laws in violation of my beliefs are forcing your liberal views on me......care to think and comment on that.........

1) Vote in like-minded reactionaries who will make conservative laws you argree with. OR,

2) Move to a reactionary country with conservative laws.

[the_dark_drag0n]

You making laws in violation of my beliefs are forcing your liberal views on me......care to think and comment on that.........How am I forcing my liberal views on you? I am NOT directly affecting your life, just as I can't stop people from making out in front of me if I mind it because it's their FREEDOM to do so.

You impeding on my freedom to pursue a relationship with someone of the same sex however is wrong. Laws were made to protect freedom, not personal beliefs. Otherwise the KKK would still go around killing people.

[SpicyBrownRapper]

God Made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve :p

enough said.

If you can give me an exact quote in the Bible or the Quaran or any other Holy Book where it says "Gays are bad" I'll respect this viewpoint.

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring thing, and so it can't be "against nature" outside of a biased idea of what it means to be "against nature." People used to think interracial marriages were "against nature." Two people in love and in union don't need to be able to naturally conceive a child for that love or union to be considered morally acceptable.

[bedouindreamer]

1) Vote in like-minded reactionaries who will make conservative laws you argree with. OR,

2) Move to a reactionary country with conservative laws.

And you don't see that happening around the world? And still you would shout that its someone else forcing their beliefs on you? What do you think all those state-constitutional bans on gay-marriages was about?

Sorry, dude. You live in a country with 77million evangelicals, and where over 85% of the people believe that there is a God. And atleast 70% plus of the people believe in biblical truth.

Basically what I am trying to say is, in a given society when a critical mass of a followers is achieved in a given ideology, the followers of said ideology have the right to ask for their views to be made into laws benefitting them.

[Echelon]

You're running under the assumption that IF incestuous marriage was legalized there would suddenly be a rise in siblings loving siblings. This is the same assumption people press on with when talking about effects of gay marriage - suggesting that kids are more susceptible to turning gay around gay couples when there have been studies that have proved otherwise.Can I see these studies, i'd be interested in seeing them.

I'm of the view homosexuality is a direct product of society itself, and also to an extent are hetrosexual fetishes -- it is not exactly derived biologically.
There have been a number of papers publicating homosexual genes but have failed. The authors have retracted their comments.

So isn't it fair to say, granted the scientific position on homosexuality being a psychologically induced 'orientation' (euphemisms) that society is somewhat responsible for the image it projects of social homosexuality?

It is also a failure to not realise that despite the orientations humble nature which pertains exclusively to attraction it has turned into fad that appeals.

[SpicyBrownRapper]

You making laws in violation of my beliefs are forcing your liberal views on me......care to think and comment on that.........

Your belief tells YOU to do something or the other, I don't think it stops someone else from carrying out these things.

[bedouindreamer]

How am I forcing my liberal views on you? I am NOT directly affecting your life, just as I can't stop people from making out in front of me if I mind it because it's their FREEDOM to do so.

You impeding on my freedom to pursue a relationship with someone of the same sex however is wrong. Laws were made to protect freedom, not personal beliefs. Otherwise the KKK would still go around killing people.

Everytime you pass a law, you are forcing your views on me. When you allow homosexual marriages and I see two guys making out infornt of me, you have forced your view onto me. When you allow gay people to marry, you have forced your views onto me.

Its, either your views or mine.

[bedouindreamer]

Your belief tells YOU to do something or the other, I don't think it stops someone else from carrying out these things.

What about your beliefs which tell you to stop people from spreading mischief anf harm in society? I am sure your beliefs tell you to stop people from committing rape, and pedophilia?

[Irreligious Left]

And you don't see that happening around the world? And still you would shout that its someone else forcing their beliefs on you? What do you think all those state-constitutional bans on gay-marriages was about?

Sorry, dude. You live in a country with 77million evangelicals, and where over 85% of the people believe that there is a God. And atleast 70% plus of the people believe in biblical truth.

Basically what I am trying to say is, in a given society when a critical mass of a followers is achieved in a given ideology, the followers of said ideology have the right to ask for their views to be made into laws benefitting them.

of course, that's democracy. I'm not against states voting to ban gay marriages, or passing any law that is constitutional.

At the same time, if an elected legistature (see e.g., Massachusettes, New Jersey, etc.) sees fit to pass a law that allows gays to marry, that legislature is presumably carrying out the will of its people. (If not, they'll be voted out the next election cycle.)

There is no substantive difference between direct and representative democracy in either case. I'm not sure whether we disagree here.

[bedouindreamer]

of course, that's democracy. I'm not against states voting to ban gay marriages, or passing any law that is constitutional.

At the same time, if an elected legistature (see e.g., Massachusettes, New Jersey, etc.) sees fit to pass a law that allows gays to marry, that legislature is presumably carry out the will of its people. (If not, they'll be voted out the next election cycle.)

I'm not sure whether we disagree here.

No we don't bro.........

[SpicyBrownRapper]

Can I see these studies, i'd be interested in seeing them.

I'm of the view homosexuality is a direct product of society itself, and also to an extent are hetrosexual fetishes -- it is not exactly derived biologically.
There have been a number of papers publicating homosexual genes but have failed. The authors have retracted their comments.

So isn't it fair to say, granted the scientific position on homosexuality being a psychologically induced 'orientation' (euphemisms) that society is somewhat responsible for the image it projects of social homosexuality?

It is also a failure to not realise that despite the orientations humble nature which pertains exclusively to attraction it has turned into fad that appeals.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#goodparents

Look around the website, I think you can find more information there.

I'm not going to delve into science, not going to argue if it is genes or its a product of something else. I know a couple of gay guys, and from what I can tell, they genuinely like guys over girls. Be it genes, choice or whatever causes general attraction to guys, I don't care. Nor does it have any bearing on legalization of gay marriages, IMO.

[SpicyBrownRapper]

What about your beliefs which tell you to stop people from spreading mischief anf harm in society? I am sure your beliefs tell you to stop people from committing rape, and pedophilia?

Pedophilia, rape, crime - all hurt people, and rightfully have laws against them.

Tell me, does seeing two gay people married hurt you in any way, does it give you dissatisfaction to the point where you are writhing in pain?

I love it how a bunch of you choose to answer my initial question with nothing but questions as well. Now we've gotten to the point where we're comparing homosexuality to rape and pedophilia.

[Echelon]

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#goodparents

Look around the website, I think you can find more information there.

I'm not going to delve into science, not going to argue if it is genes or its a product of something else. I know a couple of gay guys, and from what I can tell, they genuinely like guys over girls. Be it genes, choice or whatever causes general attraction to guys, I don't care. Nor does it have any bearing on legalization of gay marriages, IMO.
I'm not saying its mere pretence and that their lives are a fabrication of lies or that they aren't normal human beings that aren't able to carry out normal lives. I'm just questioning what contributes to homosexuality and whether it is the proliferation of homosexuality whether it be in morality/media/society that contributes to them being gay in the first place.

Whether homosexuality is biological or psychologically influenced by culture has everything to do with whether gay marriage should be legalised. The very act of legislating gay marriage laws has an impact on society, thus whether this impact influences homosexuality within family/society is questionable.

[bad_cheque]

Marriage is to have a family. If two people want to live together and enjoy the legal safeguards of a marriage, they can always create a robust legal contract between each other.

Why do people who support homosexual marriages oppose polygamy?

Do we know what is the effect of having homosexual parents on the children?

[the_dark_drag0n]

Marriage is to have a family. If two people want to live together and enjoy the legal safeguards of a marriage, they can always create a robust legal contract between each other.

Why do people who support homosexual marriages oppose polygamy?

Do we know what is the effect of having homosexual parents on the children?I'm sure the old people that get married do it to have families.

[Space-Cowboy]

You know its funny you ask this question because a year ago in International Law my professor who happened to be a lesbian asked us the same question, and i asked her the counter-question: "Do you think brother and sister/father and daughter incest based relationships should be granted marriage privileges too, since they are considered as unnatural bonds in the same respects, and she was stumped"


The only counter I can really think of is that incest [if they choose to have intercourse], will most suredly create a child with severe mental and physical problems.. [harmful recessive genes now showing up], as such, not only would it be cruel to bring a child into the world where he/she is hampered with such a disease, but, pragmatically speaking, it would be a severe drain on our system to have all these 'incest babies', who would, essentially be socially dysfunctional.

[bad_cheque]

I'm sure the old people that get married do it to have families.
That's a recent phenomenon.

[Echelon]

The only counter I can really think of is that incest [if they choose to have intercourse], will most suredly create a child with severe mental and physical problems.. [harmful recessive genes now showing up], as such, not only would it be cruel to bring a child into the world where he/she is hampered with such a disease, but, pragmatically speaking, it would be a severe drain on our system to have all these 'incest babies', who would, essentially be socially dysfunctional.
Well im talking exclusively from kids.
Perhaps polygamy isn't as good example because intercourse is poly-hetro.
Where as incest has an amoral side to it.

I think the main reason why amorality towards incest has arisen is due to reasons of the way it blurr what is considered familial love and sexual love into something which morphs the two into something irrational.

I also think the reasons why many find homosexual love irrational is same sexes had mateship bonds which don't involve sex or attraction, once the borderline has been crossed it confuses individuals and creates a moral dillema as to how one should treat a homosexual. The other view is that homosexuals may have acquired male friends, but subconsciously, if the other male were to be attractive, would always be attracted to them. It's like a straight person being sub consciously attracted to an opposite sex, but is only considered as a friend. Granted the above, a male whom is friends with a homosexuality either finds himself in a moral dillema or has accepted the attraction as a compromise for the friendship.

The comparison between the two is it blurs clearly defined borders of relationships and sexual relationships. The children product, in my view, are a secondary cause to why homosexuals/incest is viewed amorally. They have however become over-used arguments because damages can be incurred by an innocent 3rd party.

[Echelon]

Well im talking exclusively from kids.
Perhaps polygamy isn't as good example because intercourse is poly-hetro.
Where as incest has an amoral side to it.

I think the main reason why amorality towards incest has arisen is due to reasons of the way it blurr what is considered familial love and sexual love into something which morphs the two into something irrational.

I also think the reasons why many find homosexual love irrational is same sexes had mateship bonds which don't involve sex or attraction, once the borderline has been crossed it confuses individuals and creates a moral dillema as to how one should treat a homosexual. The other view is that homosexuals may have acquired male friends, but subconsciously, if the other male were to be attractive, would always be attracted to them. It's like a straight person being sub consciously attracted to an opposite sex, but is only considered as a friend. Granted the above, a male whom is friends with a homosexuality either finds himself in a moral dillema or has accepted the attraction as a compromise for the friendship.

The comparison between the two is it blurs clearly defined borders of relationships and sexual relationships. The children product, in my view, are a secondary cause to why homosexuals/incest is viewed amorally. They have however become over-used arguments because damages can be incurred by an innocent 3rd party.I am bad at teh writing sentences when high on drugs. hopefully you understand what im sayin' yo.

[MC_Punjab]

If you can give me an exact quote in the Bible or the Quaran or any other Holy Book where it says "Gays are bad" I'll respect this viewpoint.

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring thing, and so it can't be "against nature" outside of a biased idea of what it means to be "against nature." People used to think interracial marriages were "against nature." Two people in love and in union don't need to be able to naturally conceive a child for that love or union to be considered morally acceptable.
if you are looking for actual information from the holy books then yes there's something about those people and also listed what was the punishment for them.

"Homosexuality is unlawful in Islam. It is neither accepted by the state nor by the Islamic Society.

Quran clearly states that it is unjust, un-natural, transgression, ignorant,criminal and corrupt.

The people living in the time of prophet LOT (Nephew Of Abraham) near the Dead Sea were involved in this Act and Allah punished them severely and the whole nation was destroyed.

Muslim Jurists agree that, if proven of guilt, both of them should be killed. However jurists differ on the methadology of capital Punishment.

Infact it is a great injustice with women. You must know that in Islam pre-marital hetrosexuality (Dating) is also unlawful.

We advise you to go through the following verses of the Quran:

Verses:
VI --- 86 ; VII -- 80-84 ; XI -- 77-83 ; XV --57-77 ; XXI--74-75 ; XXVI--160-175 ; XXVII--54-58 : XXIX--26-35 ; XXXVII--133-138 ; LI--31-37 ; LIV--33-39 ; XI--81 ; XV--60 ; LXVI--10

In the present time, we are witnessing the wrath of God on these homosexuals in the form of AIDS, which is affecting innocents also. "
http://www.jamaat.org/qa/homo.html

[the_dark_drag0n]

That's a recent phenomenon.I don't see people making a big deal out of their marriage and how it's not making babies :p

Why can't people just live and let live. I mean, you don't need to look into other people's business, who they marry, who they fuck, etc. And yeah, I agree, we don't know how it would affect children if they grew up with gay parents, but we're talking about marriage for the moment, not raising kids.

[Space-Cowboy]

Well im talking exclusively from kids.
Perhaps polygamy isn't as good example because intercourse is poly-hetro.
Where as incest has an amoral side to it.

I think the main reason why amorality towards incest has arisen is due to reasons of the way it blurr what is considered familial love and sexual love into something which morphs the two into something irrational.

You mean get married and then not have kids? I suppose they could do it..... it'd be pretty pointless..... But the moral issue comes in the minute kids are involved.. because now it becomes a physical tangible issue...

As far as sexual intercourse is concerned [safe sex, with precautions to not have kids], I suppose that could be done...... but even then, the risk of conceiving, even with condoms and pills are never reduced to 0%... there's always a chance.. Whatever two consentual adults do in the comfort of their own bedroom is their business, as long as they don't drag the rest of society into it. Which is why sex between brother and sister is such a threat, and so dangerous.... Homosexuality on the otherhand has NO chance of producing any offspring... it's basically the safest sex you could possibly have...

Morality is subjective, actions and the consequences of those actions, are not.

[bad_cheque]

I don't see people making a big deal out of their marriage and how it's not making babies :p

Why can't people just live and let live. I mean, you don't need to look into other people's business, who they marry, who they fuck, etc. And yeah, I agree, we don't know how it would affect children if they grew up with gay parents, but we're talking about marriage for the moment, not raising kids.
It would have been scandalous once. Today homosexuals are more or less accepted. I don't know if they should be pushing for marriage. Homosexuality is not on par with heterosexuality. Marriage and partnership are different.

Anyway I will leave the issue to a general referendum. I would probably vote against it because I think sexual licentiousness has bad effects on the society. I have no evidence to offer and I wonder how such a social experiment can be done.

[bedouindreamer]

Pedophilia, rape, crime - all hurt people, and rightfully have laws against them.

Tell me, does seeing two gay people married hurt you in any way, does it give you dissatisfaction to the point where you are writhing in pain?

I love it how a bunch of you choose to answer my initial question with nothing but questions as well. Now we've gotten to the point where we're comparing homosexuality to rape and pedophilia.

My reply to you was not concerned with making any kind of direct comparison between homosexuality and rape or pedophilia. It was to make a point against your comment, which was

"Your belief tells YOU to do something or the other, I don't think it stops someone else from carrying out these things."

Ergo, you definitely may have beliefs which may compel you to stop other people from doing something which yu find wrong and abhorent.

Please follow the specific arguments and don't make people go over ground which has already been tread.

[Echelon]

You mean get married and then not have kids? I suppose they could do it..... it'd be pretty pointless..... But the moral issue comes in the minute kids are involved.. because now it becomes a physical tangible issue...

As far as sexual intercourse is concerned [safe sex, with precautions to not have kids], I suppose that could be done...... but even then, the risk of conceiving, even with condoms and pills are never reduced to 0%... there's always a chance.. Whatever two consentual adults do in the comfort of their own bedroom is their business, as long as they don't drag the rest of society into it. Which is why sex between brother and sister is such a threat, and so dangerous.... Homosexuality on the otherhand has NO chance of producing any offspring... it's basically the safest sex you could possibly have...

Morality is subjective, actions and the consequences of those actions, are not.
Except for the AIDS part, LoL.
As I pointed out before, the children argument is not the most compelling reason why people find incest amoral. These are just compassionate arguments to persuade people to accept a different contention because they are more universally compelling to human suffering.

As per reply to IrreligiousLeft's post, marriage does not imply potential children within law. It is a certification of unionism.

The funny thing to this argument is, people are constantly going on about the sanctity of marriage and why its hardly important and how old men can marry etc. The sanctity of marriage is the reason why people want to be married, its exclusivity creates a sense of worth and value of a unionism much more than any mere dating couple.
It is only available to those who agree to certify their bond in commitment for a lifetime. This is why marriage is such a tough decision to make for most individuals because its exclusivity carries the burden of 'truth' and 'responsibility'.

It is also a ceremony which is carried out by most religions and generally speaking most of these religions have placed rules which permit only moral unions. Because the ceremony has been held in high esteem by most religions, it is expected that the laws will reflect the general rules reflected.

I think homosexuals imo, should face up to the fact that marriage is an exclusive ritual with a universal meaning. They cannot become an anomaly exemption for their own cause.

I do however support them obtaining certificates of unionism for financial purposes.

[PakiRican]

homosexuality is a sexual perversion
someone told me this

[bad_cheque]

homosexuality is a sexual perversion
someone told me this
So what is your opinion about it?

[PakiRican]

So what is your opinion about it?
there is no such thing as a gay gene

[Echelon]

homosexuality is a sexual perversion
someone told me this
Your skin is paler, your so-called 'ass-pic' =]
Been tanning?

[bad_cheque]

there is no such thing as a gay gene
Again you are avoiding the issue.

[PakiRican]

Your skin is paler, your so-called 'ass-pic' =]
Been tanning?
ur giving me a headache
shut up with the sig already

[PakiRican]

Again you are avoiding the issue.
that was my anwser

[the_dark_drag0n]

that was my anwserI dunno who that is in your sig, but DAYUM!

[PakiRican]

I dunno who that is in your sig, but DAYUM!
i can hook u up
with bare shots

[Echelon]

ur giving me a headache
shut up with the sig alreadyHaha cut

[PakiRican]

Haha cut
haha lame

[Space-Cowboy]

Except for the AIDS part, LoL.

AIDS is not exclusive to Homosexuality.

As I pointed out before, the children argument is not the most compelling reason why people find incest amoral. These are just compassionate arguments to persuade people to accept a different contention because they are more universally compelling to human suffering.

As per reply to IrreligiousLeft's post, marriage does not imply potential children within law. It is a certification of unionism.

Well as I said, I'm presenting my personal view on the matter... I don't have a problem with brother and sister marrying..... as I find the 'universal sanctity' of marriage a mere illusion of subjectivity. Some people for example find mixed race marriage a mockery of this institution....... it really comes down to how 'sacred', religiously, or otherwise, one finds this institution.

INCEST is a whole different ball game...... and by incest I mean the actual act of intercourse between kin. This, in my view, actually does possess a real threat to nature. People talk about homosexuality being 'unnatural' whereas there have been MANY cases of homosexual behaviour observed amongst animals. Incest too is often observed....... but they are observed wtih the dire consequences in mind.... offspring arise with horrible defects, barely capable of surviving their first year, let alone their life.


The funny thing to this argument is, people are constantly going on about the sanctity of marriage and why its hardly important and how old men can marry etc. The sanctity of marriage is the reason why people want to be married, its exclusivity creates a sense of worth and value of a unionism much more than any mere dating couple.

The sanctity of marriage IS A universal concept, creating this sacred bond of unionism. But as I said, while the idea of the sanctity is universal, the particular grounds upon which the marriage is sanctified is not; it is very much subjective and lies on the values of the individual as well as the value structure of the moral position [religious or otherwise] that said individuals cater to.

It is only available to those who agree to certify their bond in commitment for a lifetime. This is why marriage is such a tough decision to make for most individuals because its exclusivity carries the burden of 'truth' and 'responsibility'. It is also a ceremony which is carried out by most religions and generally speaking most of these religions have placed rules which permit only moral unions. Because the ceremony has been held in high esteem by most religions, it is expected that the laws will reflect the general rules reflected.

And because moral relativism still exists today, so does the fundamental value of what is permitted in marriage as per what the individuals believe. The average homosexual couple probably wouldn't want a Christian wedding anyway... but to them, marriage isn't exclusive to a religion. It's still a sacred bond and a committment of love, just not under the banner of a religion.

I think homosexuals imo, should face up to the fact that marriage is an exclusive ritual with a universal meaning. They cannot become an anomaly exemption for their own cause.

This is solely dependant on the value structure of the 'group(s)' which they cater to. They could just as easily convert to some religion X which condones homosexual marriage and get marriage under the banner of religion X.


I do however support them obtaining certificates of unionism for financial purposes.

Once they receive the certificates, they would most readily just say, if asked, 'for all intents and purposes, yes we are Married'.

[Irreligious Left]

uh-oh! all the pakis in america are gonna move there now. dont tell them what your home state is :Ohno:

I purposely omitted mentioning my state for that very reason.

[bedouindreamer]

AIDS is not exclusive to Homosexuality.





Well as I said, I'm presenting my personal view on the matter... I don't have a problem with brother and sister marrying..... as I find the 'universal sanctity' of marriage a mere illusion of subjectivity. Some people for example find mixed race marriage a mockery of this institution....... it really comes down to how 'sacred', religiously, or otherwise, one finds this institution.

INCEST is a whole different ball game...... and by incest I mean the actual act of intercourse between kin. This, in my view, actually does possess a real threat to nature. People talk about homosexuality being 'unnatural' whereas there have been MANY cases of homosexual behaviour observed amongst animals. .

The idea of homosexual behavior among animals is a popular fallacy. There is eveidence of random sexuality among animals, i.e, anytime animals are in heat they will hump the living daylights out of whatever they can find infront of them. Thus, we see the indelible images of dogs humping legs anytime they get horny. This phenomenon is only observed among the males in the animal kingdom and not among the females. Therefore you do not hear about lioness-lesbians(though the words have been used to describe many an aggressive butch-dykes)

It is genrally asumed that humans are more civilized and thus can control their sexual urges. Thus homosexuality and its acceptance demotes humans to the level of wild animals and this I present as argument in favor of my previous statement "homosexuality is the ultimate manifestation of a hedonistic lifestyle."

[bedouindreamer]

I purposely omitted mentioning my state for that very reason.

Marrying cousins is not illegal in any state in the US or anywhere else in the world, as far as I know. Marrying cousins is not considered incestuous in any religion or social moral code. It's just considered bad form because the more you inbreed genes, the greater the possibility of genetic defects.

[Irreligious Left]

Marrying cousins is not illegal in any state in the US or anywhere else in the world, as far as I know. Marrying cousins is not considered incestuous in any religion or social moral code. It's just considered bad form because the more you inbreed genes, the greater the possibility of genetic defects.

That's false. Several states ban first cousin marriage.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm

[the_dark_drag0n]

That's false. Several states ban first cousin marriage.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htmlol but from a purely satirical point of view, wouldn't you WANT people who are incestuous to breed amongst each other and potentially diminish the chances of their genes being spread?

[Mjfan23]

the kids will be ridiculed growing up if they adopt. Growing up in a normal family is hard enough, so why add the extra burden.

[Space-Cowboy]

The idea of homosexual behavior among animals is a popular fallacy. There is eveidence of random sexuality among animals, i.e, anytime animals are in heat they will hump the living daylights out of whatever they can find infront of them. Thus, we see the indelible images of dogs humping legs anytime they get horny. This phenomenon is only observed among the males in the animal kingdom and not among the females. Therefore you do not hear about lioness-lesbians(though the words have been used to describe many an aggressive butch-dykes)

Actually yes there have been cases, especially of female giraffes. Evidence in the specific mating patterns of animals do indicate homosexual behaviour amongst certain groups.


It is genrally asumed that humans are more civilized and thus can control their sexual urges.


Then this assumption itself needs changing..... There's more evidence of humanity completely being overcome by their sexual urges more than any other animal on earth....


Thus homosexuality and its acceptance demotes humans to the level of wild animals and this I present as argument in favor of my previous statement "homosexuality is the ultimate manifestation of a hedonistic lifestyle."

no... rampant sexuality is the ultimate manifestation of a hedonistic lifestyle...... wether it is homo or hetero is of no consequence. It's even more self indulgent to think humans are somehow 'above' animals...... we're not..... and our dismal performance, in our short, 150,000 year span as homo-sapiens should be a testament to that fact...

[bedouindreamer]

That's false. Several states ban first cousin marriage.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm

Hmmmmm......didn't know that. My bad..........
:sarb:

[Space-Cowboy]

Marrying cousins is not illegal in any state in the US or anywhere else in the world, as far as I know. Marrying cousins is not considered incestuous in any religion or social moral code. It's just considered bad form because the more you inbreed genes, the greater the possibility of genetic defects.

Marrying cousins is illegal here in Canada.

[bedouindreamer]

Actually yes there have been cases, especially of female giraffes. Evidence in the specific mating patterns of animals do indicate homosexual behaviour amongst certain groups.



Then this assumption itself needs changing..... There's more evidence of humanity completely being overcome by their sexual urges more than any other animal on earth....

I guess you are talking about rapes and pedophilia. And those are rightly considered to be crimes, not acceptable norms of behavior. Thus, we are civilized.



no... rampant sexuality is the ultimate manifestation of a hedonistic lifestyle...... wether it is homo or hetero is of no consequence. It's even more self indulgent to think humans are somehow 'above' animals...... we're not..... and our dismal performance, in our short, 150,000 year span as homo-sapiens should be a testament to that fact...

Rampant sexual experimentation is what leads to homosexuality. It is only through sexual experimentation that a person arrives at the conclusion of wether they are attracted to a particualr sex. Thus, the ultimate manifestation being homsexuality.

And why would you think considering oneself above animals is self-indulgent? If you think you are better than a rapist or a murderer and this makes you behave in a better and honorable manner, thus this make it self-indulgent? While bringing oneself down to the level of animals, thus absolving ones responsibility is supposed to make one enlightened?

[Space-Cowboy]

Rampant sexual experimentation is what leads to homosexuality. It is only through sexual experimentation that a person arrives at the conclusion of wether they are attracted to a particualr sex. Thus, the ultimate manifestation being homsexuality.

No, no it doesn't. As an example, Da Vinci was gay....... he never 'experimented' once, in such a matter.


And why would you think considering oneself above animals is self-indulgent?


Because it does...... it gives you the self entitled authority to run rampant through the environment, with little to no regard for other species...

All the while knowing full well that, as 'advanced' as we may think we are, in the grand scheme of things, we are just as much at the mercy of the forces of nature as they are. So we are animals, no better...... the only adaptations we have are larger brains, opposable thumbs, and an upright posture..


If you think you are better than a rapist or a murderer and this makes you behave in a better and honorable manner, thus this make it self-indulgent?


You're comparing homosexuality to rape and murder? One causes suffering, the other doesn't. Don't bother bringing actual crimes into this mix.


While bringing oneself down to the level of animals, thus absolving ones responsibility is supposed to make one enlightened?


Animals don't 'rape', humans do...... or at least cases aren't as rampant as on the scale of humans. As far as I'm concerned, most animals are more 'enlightened' and more at peace with their surroundings.. As it stands, believe I'm brining myself UP to the level of animals..... humans are just another species..... that is all.

[BlackCadillacs]

Rampant sexual experimentation is what leads to homosexuality. It is only through sexual experimentation that a person arrives at the conclusion of wether they are attracted to a particualr sex. Thus, the ultimate manifestation being homsexuality.

And why would you think considering oneself above animals is self-indulgent? If you think you are better than a rapist or a murderer and this makes you behave in a better and honorable manner, thus this make it self-indulgent? While bringing oneself down to the level of animals, thus absolving ones responsibility is supposed to make one enlightened?

Rampan sexual experimentation leads to homosexuality eh? :rofl:

[bedouindreamer]

No, no it doesn't. As an example, Da Vinci was gay....... he never 'experimented' once, in such a matter.



Because it does...... it gives you the self entitled authority to run rampant through the environment, with little to no regard for other species...

All the while knowing full well that, as 'advanced' as we may think we are, in the grand scheme of things, we are just as much at the mercy of the forces of nature as they are. So we are animals, no better...... the only adaptations we have are larger brains, opposable thumbs, and an upright posture..



You're comparing homosexuality to rape and murder? One causes suffering, the other doesn't. Don't bother bringing actual crimes into this mix.




Animals don't 'rape', humans do...... or at least cases aren't as rampant as on the scale of humans. As far as I'm concerned, most animals are more 'enlightened' and more at peace with their surroundings.. As it stands, believe I'm brining myself UP to the level of animals..... humans are just another species..... that is all.

"No, no it doesn't. As an example, Da Vinci was gay....... he never 'experimented' once, in such a matter.'[/QUOTE]

Then how do we know he is gay?

"Because it does...... it gives you the self entitled authority to run rampant through the environment, with little to no regard for other species...

All the while knowing full well that, as 'advanced' as we may think we are, in the grand scheme of things, we are just as much at the mercy of the forces of nature as they are. So we are animals, no better...... the only adaptations we have are larger brains, opposable thumbs, and an upright posture.."[/QUOTE]

The first part of the statement is a categorical one. Is it so because you say so?
The second part of your statement contradicts the first part. Are we running rampant through nature or are we at its mercy? And if we are at its mercy, than we could'nt have gone into space, or built machines which defy nature. Now man can fly higher than any bird and go faster than any animal, or hunt with more efficiency.

"You're comparing homosexuality to rape and murder? One causes suffering, the other doesn't. Don't bother bringing actual crimes into this mix"[/QUOTE]

You guys are again under the mistaken assumption that I compared homosexuality to murder and rape. My statement was made to prove my point about responsibilty.

Animals don't 'rape', humans do...... or at least cases aren't as rampant as on the scale of humans. As far as I'm concerned, most animals are more 'enlightened' and more at peace with their surroundings.. As it stands, believe I'm brining myself UP to the level of animals..... humans are just another species..... that is all.[/QUOTE]

Animals don't rape because we do not refer to it as such. you ever see a dog hump another dog by force? The only reason the other dog does not protest is precisel;y because they are animals. Once the pleasure takes over, they don't care. They are only dictated by their desires and instincts. And only humans can overcome such. Or have you ever seen the mating rituals of bull sharks. There is a lot of biting and blood there.

As for "bringing yourself up to the level of the animals", dude, whatever floats your boat. I just believe I am human and thus live by those principles. I cook my food, live in a nice apartment and can take a bath instead of just rolling around in the mud. Which begs the question? If you are such an animal, what are you doing typing on the computer? The forest beckons brother. Respond to the call of the wild.

[Menelik_II]

to put it very simply. Homosexuality is unnatural. It is against the Will of God. It is against the way nature has designed the human body to work. Marriage was created to facilitate reproduction in a stable social structure. Gay marriage is not compatible with the purporse or the spirit in which God ordained marriage.

[chunky]

to put it very simply. Homosexuality is unnatural. It is against the Will of God. It is against the way nature has designed the human body to work. Marriage was created to facilitate reproduction in a stable social structure. Gay marriage is not compatible with the purporse or the spirit in which God ordained marriage.

This highlights the main distinction I like to make on this issue.

Let whatever religious bureaucracy you submit yourself to define your moral limits. The political system, at least in the US, should not define your moral limits except in cases where damage to society as a whole is concerned. Rape, murder, etc have been proven to be detrimental to society. Homosexuality has not.

[Space-Cowboy]

Then how do we know he is gay?


From what they gathered from his personal journals... one doesn't become a homosexual through 'experimentation'...... One is born with it.




The first part of the statement is a categorical one. Is it so because you say so?

It is 'so' because there's empirical data to back it up.

The second part of your statement contradicts the first part. Are we running rampant through nature or are we at its mercy? And if we are at its mercy, than we could'nt have gone into space, or built machines which defy nature. Now man can fly higher than any bird and go faster than any animal, or hunt with more efficiency.

Firstly, no it doesn't contradict, you need to read it again. I said 'environment'..... We don't conquer nature, we conquer our surroundings and throw things out of balance..... nature is ever present, whether here or on the moon.

You guys are again under the mistaken assumption that I compared homosexuality to murder and rape. My statement was made to prove my point about responsibilty.

Responsible to whom? Rapists and murderers are libel to the society.... as they are causing external suffering...... homosexuals are not.

Animals don't rape because we do not refer to it as such. you ever see a dog hump another dog by force? The only reason the other dog does not protest is precisel;y because they are animals.


I have also seen female dogs reject male dogs when sexual attention is not wanted..... so yes, I have seen them 'protest'. Secondly, this point only goes to validate homosexuality in all forms. Both parties are consenting and there is no third party that is suffering from this................ as is the case with homosexuality, thus taking any shred of 'moral context' out of the act. Which in fact goes to prove that it is an 'ammoral' act.... i.e. morality has no bearing on homosexuality..... therefore, there's no valid grounds to deny them their union.


Once the pleasure takes over, they don't care. They are only dictated by their desires and instincts. And only humans can overcome such. Or have you ever seen the mating rituals of bull sharks. There is a lot of biting and blood there.

See my point above.
And the biting and blood of sharks is still 'acceptable' by hoth parties..... no suffering is involved.

And actually humans CAN'T overcome such...... because the 'pleasure' is after the fact..... like animals, if humans find pleasure, they'll continue to indulge in the sexual act. And like animals, as per my dog example, if they are 'not in the mood', then they too, like dogs, will refuse. It's as simple as that.




As for "bringing yourself up to the level of the animals", dude, whatever floats your boat. I just believe I am human and thus live by those principles. I cook my food, live in a nice apartment and can take a bath instead of just rolling around in the mud. Which begs the question? If you are such an animal, what are you doing typing on the computer? The forest beckons brother. Respond to the call of the wild.


Technology and standard of living =/= 'higher principles'. You're an animal living in your own tribe..... which we now call a city....
Same with me........ by running off to the wild.... I'd be going against the my animal nature..... which is to stick to these tribes, to better my survival and prosperity.... which is what it comes down to. So bathing and cooking your food won't make you any less of an animal........ just a cleaner, healthier.... and possibly, happier one.

You are still a slave to nature. At some point, disease will take you, and you'll be powerless to stop it, and you'll die, just like every other animal. Your flesh will decompose, and be renewed into the circle of life. You are a part of this circle whether you choose to live in your city, or in a mudhut... Nothing has changed. Living in civilization just makes you a happier animal..... it doesn't make you any less of an animal.

[bedouindreamer]

From what they gathered from his personal journals... one doesn't become a homosexual through 'experimentation'...... One is born with it.






It is 'so' because there's empirical data to back it up.



Firstly, no it doesn't contradict, you need to read it again. I said 'environment'..... We don't conquer nature, we conquer our surroundings and throw things out of balance..... nature is ever present, whether here or on the moon.



Responsible to whom? Rapists and murderers are libel to the society.... as they are causing external suffering...... homosexuals are not.



I have also seen female dogs reject male dogs when sexual attention is not wanted..... so yes, I have seen them 'protest'. Secondly, this point only goes to validate homosexuality in all forms. Both parties are consenting and there is no third party that is suffering from this................ as is the case with homosexuality, thus taking any shred of 'moral context' out of the act. Which in fact goes to prove that it is an 'ammoral' act.... i.e. morality has no bearing on homosexuality..... therefore, there's no valid grounds to deny them their union.



See my point above.
And the biting and blood of sharks is still 'acceptable' by hoth parties..... no suffering is involved.

And actually humans CAN'T overcome such...... because the 'pleasure' is after the fact..... like animals, if humans find pleasure, they'll continue to indulge in the sexual act. And like animals, as per my dog example, if they are 'not in the mood', then they too, like dogs, will refuse. It's as simple as that.






Technology and standard of living =/= 'higher principles'. You're an animal living in your own tribe..... which we now call a city....
Same with me........ by running off to the wild.... I'd be going against the my animal nature..... which is to stick to these tribes, to better my survival and prosperity.... which is what it comes down to. So bathing and cooking your food won't make you any less of an animal........ just a cleaner, healthier.... and possibly, happier one.

You are still a slave to nature. At some point, disease will take you, and you'll be powerless to stop it, and you'll die, just like every other animal. Your flesh will decompose, and be renewed into the circle of life. You are a part of this circle whether you choose to live in your city, or in a mudhut... Nothing has changed. Living in civilization just makes you a happier animal..... it doesn't make you any less of an animal.



"And why would you think considering oneself above animals is self-indulgent? If you think you are better than a rapist or a murderer and this makes you behave in a better and honorable manner, thus this make it self-indulgent?"

That was my exact quote about rape and murder. I did not compare to homosexuality. Rather I compared it to mans animal instincts. And from that I concluded that to have the responsibility of rejecting them makes us more civilized.

As for Da vinci being gay. If one does not engage in the act than it does not make them gay. And if he did engage in the act than he "experimented".

Your last statement is compelling and I will concur with it. Except the last line.

I would say by living up to the standards of civilization, and thus having the capacity to reject certain actions does make us less of an animal. It atleast does not make us wild-animals. And besides we are only one of three animals who can recognize symbols(including dolphins and chimps) And yeah we have conciousness of self, i.e, we are sentient. When we are dying, we know we are dying.

[kinshu]

Well here in NJ, gay marriages will cause problems with the taxes and benefits that come with male-female legalized marriages.

[pachaas Paisa]

You guys dont understand the consequences of having a gay marriage. Sure they will adopt a child but growing up around a normal straight neighborhood the child will develop complexes. If gay marriages are allowed, then the gay couple has to live in a primarily gay community. Not that segregation is a great idea but for obvious reasons it's better off that way.

its true that there are no Gay genes, if anything it's an ongoing debate. i willc all it anything but natural, more like an ambiguous label, that's what it is. Just like goths, punks, thugs etc, it's a category.

[PaiN infLictioN]

hmm...i actually just wrote paper about this shit last week.

[bedouindreamer]

Um, where exactly do you live? In the United States, cousin marriage is a taboo and not "widely-accepted," Modern christians depromote cousin marriage as defective. infact, in most of the western countries, cousin marriage is frowned upon, the only place where it is accepted...is in the muslim world.

Taboo, yes. But even in main line Christianity it is not considered incestuous. I already ate crow over this. There are about 21 states which have no laws against them and 25 which do.

[bedouindreamer]

LOL. sexual experimentation determines attraction? If anything, this site, (filled with people who have never engaged in any sexual acts, yet still possess a desire for a particular sex) proves your "theory" debunk. The onset of sexual attraction stems from an influx of hormones rather then then the literal engagment in sexual acts. Plenty of people are aware of thier own sexual desires for a particular gender without being intimate or "experimenting" as you call it.

10% of any given population is supposedly gay. I would venture the number of gays on this site are wayyyyyy lower than that. Less experimentation=lower rates of homosexuality.....

[bedouindreamer]

By comparing homosexuality to frivilious sex, you are stating that homosexuals are incapable of loving each other, and devaluing thier relationship purely for sexual gratification. If you believe, that sexual gratification itself is hedonistic and wrong, (without the purpose to produce a child) then you must admit, that straight people who are promiscous, without the promise of having children, but have sex purely for recreation, are at fault as well, therefore, what makes salacious straight people any different from homosexuals? (under your assumption that all homosexuals, cannot control thier urges and are incapable of being faithful..of course)

I do not say sexual gratification itself is hedonistic and wrong. Homosexual sex is. Because there is no end result of the relationship. A relationship has many pillars in it. Sex is just one of them. What makes a salacious straight couple different from a gay one is the logical product of their relationship, i.e, children.

And BTW, I do not consider frivolous sex wrong. I consider sexual experimentation wrong. There is a difference.

[bedouindreamer]

How would you know the number of gays on this site, it would be a pure guess without any statistical data, and also most of the people on this site come from conservative backrounds which frown upon liberal ideology such as homosexuality, therefore, there may be plenty of gay people who are afraid of repurcussions, you must remember society's conditioning as well, that play's upon people's perceptions. If you believe that only "experimentation" determines sexual attraction, then what you are saying is that, given the chance to experiment, then a lot more RD'ers will become big fat fags.

Exactly............

[harvey_mayway]

intrestin subject, but thats too much to read this erly in the mornin

[BlackCadillacs]

10% of any given population is supposedly gay. I would venture the number of gays on this site are wayyyyyy lower than that. Less experimentation=lower rates of homosexuality.....


You seem to have a skewed definition of homosexuality. Being homosexual does not exclusively mean you have had sexual relations with someone of the same sex, it also incorporates attraction. If you are sexually attracted to men but never had any sexual relations with a man, you're still homosexual.

[BlackCadillacs]

You guys dont understand the consequences of having a gay marriage. Sure they will adopt a child but growing up around a normal straight neighborhood the child will develop complexes. If gay marriages are allowed, then the gay couple has to live in a primarily gay community. Not that segregation is a great idea but for obvious reasons it's better off that way.

its true that there are no Gay genes, if anything it's an ongoing debate. i willc all it anything but natural, more like an ambiguous label, that's what it is. Just like goths, punks, thugs etc, it's a category.
Are you attempting to label homosexuality as a trendy subculture? :ugh:

If a gay marriages are allowed, then the gay couple has to live in a primarily gay community. Not that segregation is a great idea but for obvious reasons it's better off that way.

What reasons? So seperate, but equal, right?

[waybackwhen]

The whole sanctity of marriage statement is a joke, since not all religions are against it, and since we have pluralism of religions the argument is moot. All the debates I have on this issue, the only responses I got were ones laced with bigotry and statements like "it would ruin America" or that "its icky."

There are people like Britney and K-Fed who can have x amount of kids, but for two responsible homosexuals to adopt, its considered wrong. Responsible parenting isn't based on orientation, it's based on responsibility and love, two things that aren't exclusive to orientation. I also don't see how it's really going to have a huge affect on society since homosexuality does exist, and keeping them "in check" doesn't do anything to change this.

ADAM AND EVE. NOT ADAM AND STEVE

[_true_definition]

ADAM AND EVE. NOT ADAM AND STEVE


how do we even know adam and eve even existed? there is no scientific evidence!

[jat_jatt_sardar]

Well people have partnerships, and if they are going to have partnerships then I don;t think it matters if they are gay or straight, and I don;t believe in partnerships before marriage, so people who do believe in partnerships before marriage can do what they want.

And then what you call "gay marriages" are usually just civil partnerships and not marriages. Basically just having your partnershuip recognised under law, whcih has nothing to do with a marriage of religion. So civil partnerships, gay or striaght, can;t see nothing wrong with them to be honest.

[JamesBitch]

ADAM AND EVE ROCK!!! :dance3:

NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! :mad:

[mistake]

im anti desi :-S

[mistake]

ADAM AND EVE. NOT ADAM AND STEVE



LOL!

[Irreligious Left]

ADAM AND EVE ROCK!!! :dance3:

NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!! :mad:

Do you guys think you are being clever when you trot out this chestnut? It's been posted like 5 times in this thread alone.

[mistake]

Do you guys think you are being clever when you trot out this chestnut? It's been posted like 5 times in this thread alone.


oooo someones mad....

[Irreligious Left]

oooo someones mad....

People think they are being orginal when they post it. It's been around for ages. I just don't like it when dumbasses think they are being more clever than they really are.

[JamesBitch]

True definition:

Scientifica evidence? Stop talking like an athiest.

Do you love your mother? Yes of course you do...prove it with scientific evidence? No, you cant, can you!

[Space-Cowboy]

oooo someones mad....


The whole Adam/Eve v.s. Adam/Steve bullshit is annoying for two reasons..... at least to me anyway:

1) It's the lamest rhyme I've seen in a while

2) It presumes 'Abrahmic Creation'... to try and convince the world why "Adam and Steve" shouldn't be a couple............ which is quite ridiculous

[mistake]

The whole Adam/Eve v.s. Adam/Steve bullshit is annoying for two reasons..... at least to me anyway:

1) It's the lamest rhyme I've seen in a while

2) It presumes 'Abrahmic Creation'... to try and convince the world why "Adam and Steve" shouldn't be a couple............ which is quite ridiculous



ok then ....tell that to the people who said it o_0

damn you always pick on me eh -_-

[Space-Cowboy]

ok then ....tell that to the people who said it o_0

damn you always pick me eh -_-





Me sowwie :ashamed:

[mistake]

Me sowwie :ashamed:



lol! :Pelvic2: thats ok

[Space-Cowboy]

lol! :Pelvic2: thats ok

:slap: No humping in public.... :rolleyes:











:p ................ unless you're in Winnipeg... :cool: :grouphug:

[mistake]

:slap: No humping in public.... :rolleyes:











:p ................ unless you're in Winnipeg... :cool: :grouphug:




o ok then....nvm :tears:

[Space-Cowboy]

o ok then....nvm :tears:


:hug:

[yussi]

i don't see the problem with same sex marriages.. i mean who or what are they harming? nothing..