*coughs* allow me to clear my throat.

M

medievald00d

Guest
Smith said:
Maybe I should say this: What do u benefit after 3 pages of argument in the thread? Izzit worth the time and the effort of typing so much? ::)

You learn stuff. Why else?
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
or maybe, YOU LEARN TO FUCKING SPELL.


anyway, as to demonx, I will say this.


At your age I was very similar, well, no, I was younger probably 13, until I met this girl, in a game chat room for a game I was involved with until i last year, anyway, I was a little pervert and I heard she was bi, now, I'm not a sick pervert who cybers and shit like that, I'm just curious, anyway, I messaged her, somehow, she didn't block me and tell me to fuck off, After about a year, I dont know how she and I became friends, but she turned out to be gay, i was like "WTF" and that shit, but she was the best friend I had online, we were very close and she was one of the coolest people i've known, i realized "hey...What the fuck do I have to be worried about? she's my friend, she's gay, no differnt from a straight girl". After that I kind of became indiffernt to ones sexual prefernce, people are people, you really are WAY to young to decide these things, hell I'm to young, I'm an ignorant, cocky, arrogant, rude, self righteous, judgemental and that's AFTER i've made a lot of self improvement, before you judge someones life style, know atleast one person who has that life style.
 
Still dont know why they have to parade themselves around sydney using the tax payers money, straight people dont have straight pride parades or anything.
Wanna fuck the same sex, fine but its not that important that you have to tell everyone by parading down the street in weird outifts when that money could go towards tax returns or something.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
true, but in america we have "affirmitive action" basically, a medicore student thats a minorty, gets in over a great student thats white, it works in jobs, schools, in alot of things, it's really not fair anymore because minortys arn't discriminated againist anymore..or atleast very widely.
 
M

medievald00d

Guest
Kart said:
true, but in america we have "affirmitive action" basically, a medicore student thats a minorty, gets in over a great student thats white, it works in jobs, schools, in alot of things, it's really not fair anymore because minortys arn't discriminated againist anymore..or atleast very widely.

Whites and Asians...Trust me, I know.

For example, I am currently a Junior in HS and i am taking AP bio and AP Calc BC.

If i were a minority, i would have no doubt I could get into any Ivy league i wanted, and i could probably get a full scholarship for a few. As an Asian, I need more extra curriculars, and more AP/H classes to get into an Ivy league...without the scholarship...
 

Pyotr

It is my destiny to lead
Ok, I know it was calming down, but I am a late joiner to the topic and wanna join in so I will.

I have a very good friend who is gay. He, myself, and a couple other guys usually play video games together. I still do not agree with Gay marriage and the funny thing is, neither does he. He is perfectly happy with where he is in life.

The way I see it, today, marriage is a legal document that says that it is the law that everyone must recognize a union of two people. It has many other meanings but that is a big one of them. Because many people are very religious and do not agree with the Gay lifestyle, they should not be forced to recognize such things.

Furthermore, homosexuality is a lifestyle, but that does not mean everyone must respect it. It is a matter of morals for many people. I can understand that many people find homosexuality to be perfectly moral, but many people do not and I think calling those people "bigots" is very discriminating in itself. A person can have sex with a dog and say, "He humps my leg so he wants me too." Thats an immoral lifestyle right there so why am I not a "bigot" for saying that? Or am I? As long as the guy and the dog are happy, they are not hurting anyone else, so perhaps they should be allowed to be married too. One bark for "I do" and two barks for "I don't." BTW, thats a thing called humor, so dont start telling me, "Dogs cant comprehend the question of marriage" or crap like that.

I think that Gay people can be Gay, but to force everyone to acknowledge and respect the union of two people of the same sex is not right. Being religious and believing in the Bible does not make a person close-minded. It simply means that they were taught morals that do not agree with certain things. It also does not make a person a redneck or a KKK member.

conservatives tend to regurgitate what people tell them. Thats why they're so hypocritical.

There are so many things about this statement that bother me I dont know where to start.

First, you are blatantly using conservative as a derogatory term. You have obviously stereotyped most conservatives to be this way and I am sure you have quite a few other stereotypes about them.

Second, your entire argument is about accepting someone else's lifestyle. If someone believes in a conservative lifestyle, that would mean you think less of them by the way you are talking. Wouldn't that make yourself a little bit of a hypocrit as well?

You know what? I'm a conservative who has not been to church since he was four years old. I have tried drinking, smoking cigarettes, smoking pot, etc. Does that mean I am a hypocrit? I do not think so, because I discovered my values from a variety of places and I am proud of who it has led me to become. But, since I am a conservative, does that mean I am below you and you should talk down to me? Sounds like you are the one who would have owned the slaves back in the day.
 
M

medievald00d

Guest
con·ser·va·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change

even people we consider "liberals" could go under this term. Yes, i use it fairly derogatively (if thats even a word). Why do people oppose change? Because they dont understand it. Why dont they understand it? Often its because they dont want to think about it, or dont bother to think about it.

Granted, there are conservatives that dont regurgitate what they've been told. They are a rarity, and not extremely conservative.

Now i'll get more in depth with your response...

I have a very good friend who is gay. He, myself, and a couple other guys usually play video games together. I still do not agree with Gay marriage and the funny thing is, neither does he. He is perfectly happy with where he is in life.

In Fredrick Douglass' "What the Black Man Wants", Fredrick says:
It may be asked, "Why do you want it? Some men have got along very well without it. Women have not this right."...I will tell you why we want it. We want it because it is our right, first of all. No class of men can, without insulting their own nature, be content with any deprivations of their rights...

This speech was given in 1865, regarding the Black man's right to vote.
in essence, it means that although they dont have the right, although they dont need the right, they should still have it, otherwise they will be forever regarded as a lesser kind of person. Although some may not even want it, They should still have the right to choose.



I think that Gay people can be Gay, but to force everyone to acknowledge and respect the union of two people of the same sex is not right. Being religious and believing in the Bible does not make a person close-minded. It simply means that they were taught morals that do not agree with certain things. It also does not make a person a redneck or a KKK member

True. But, believing in the bible blindly without questioning it does make you close minded. Why do you think 9-11 happened? Because extremists took a few verses of the Koran too literally. Granted, the bible teaches morality, but it is also contradictory. After all, we should all love our neighbors, and never take an eye for an eye right?

Granted calling DemonX a redneck and a KKK member was a low blow. I am sorry for insulting you like that DemonX.

Second, your entire argument is about accepting someone else's lifestyle. If someone believes in a conservative lifestyle, that would mean you think less of them by the way you are talking. Wouldn't that make yourself a little bit of a hypocrit as well?
I accept a conservative's lifestyle. I never said i didnt. However, i do disagree with a few conservative views. For instance, when conservatives infringe on other's rights in a self righteous manner. Its not like im making laws to stop your way of life right? Why make laws to stop other people's way of life?
One more thing. I called myself a hypocrite a few posts ago. This is nothing new.

You know what? I'm a conservative who has not been to church since he was four years old. I have tried drinking, smoking cigarettes, smoking pot, etc. Does that mean I am a hypocrit? I do not think so, because I discovered my values from a variety of places and I am proud of who it has led me to become. But, since I am a conservative, does that mean I am below you and you should talk down to me? Sounds like you are the one who would have owned the slaves back in the day.
I dunno, do you blindly follow your beliefs without ever questioning them? If you do, what makes you think that you wouldnt own slaves if you were raised in believing blacks were an inferior race?

Also, I believe people are "below" me if they are uneducated. Does this mean i am prejudiced against uneducated people? Perhaps. But the uneducated generally make the worst decisions, as you could tell in 9-11 and the war on Iraq.

Now, I was insulting DemonX's education because the "gays transmitt AIDS" crap was a myth that started 20-30 years ago when AIDS was first discovered. It was dispelled LONG ago, and I assumed that no one still believed this horseshit. But guess what?
 
pheonixfenix said:
Now, I was insulting DemonX's education because the "gays transmitt AIDS" crap was a myth that started 20-30 years ago when AIDS was first discovered. It was dispelled LONG ago, and I assumed that no one still believed this horseshit. But guess what?

Wait then why do I keep hearing on the news that Gay people usually males have a higher chance of getting aids. So what their saying on the news is false. :-\
 
M

medievald00d

Guest
ZODDGUTS said:
Wait then why do I keep hearing on the news that Gay people usually males have a higher chance of getting aids. So what their saying on the news is false. :-\
I dont know what news source you listen to. I've never heard this on the news. Secondly, DemonX was inferring that only gays had AIDS, and that they were responsible for transmitting it to the straight population. Of course, this makes no sense of course, by simple logic. But the myth was prevalant a few decades ago, along with the myth that AIDS could by transfered by toilet seat.
 
Z

Zortham

Guest
First off,hi all :)

Well as you say marriage is only a legal document, so why gay people wouldn’t have the same right as the others ones? Because religious ones do not agree with ? isn’t it giving religious people a lot of rights?

Gays people must have to be gay from birth ... or being scatophil or they wouldn’t manage to take the crap out of someone and being take (for men) ... and ... women are so much beautifull :D, more seriously would you love a men if you aren’t gay ? that felling, you don’t have any control over it (or tell me how ... it can make the world happier in some way, if, when a woman fall in love with a guy, the guy can make him love the girl in return and the opposite) .

how to have some gay friend could make you love the same sex. Well you can hate them, love them (i personnaly don’t like them i’m blunt, misanthropist and misogynist) but that don’t give you / me the right to treat them as plague carrier or prevent them for any right.

IMO that part of my though was objective.




I think, the fact that you guy think gays are immoral, is that you didn’t think or don’t wan’t to think guay people LOVE the member of the same sex, they don’t have control over it, so why should they fuck the opposite one?

If being gay isn’t natural? I think so, it must be a brain deases, but schyzophrene are so and they can married, human with less than 60 IQ too.

You can insult them injury them kill them as long as you assume responsibilities. Just acknowlege your homophobe/xenophobe/violent and mentally sick

about kids :

Well i’m only 21 and don’t have any child ... but about my education i can say that :

My parent didn’t have much time ti spend to raise me

at about 5 i studdied catechism ... and i was horrified ... we
were the lamb of god and jesus was our shepherd ... huh?
is he going to make sausage and meat of us? Well i was a bit
disorientated by the dogma. And my parent took me off the
catechism thanks to them :p

Then i did about all i wanted even if they told me that were
wrong and i learn life that way, i learn from my mistakes.

Actualy i don’t think you can raise someone just by telling him what to do or not (or you’r going to make a lamb without brain of him :p or going to make him frustrated and he will probably do the opposite) you have give him the reasons, to talk to him argue why this is this way even if he is young, provided him your experience and let him do the mistakes if he won’t listen to you, being here when he fall to put him on his feet, teach him how to take responsability, and how to speak of his problems and dilemmas, cause most of young people fear their parents, hide them their problems instead of being confident with them and letting them give help and advices.

About medias :

Well TV show can influence people ... if i watch a documentary on how the octopus is living, i am surely going to trust it. So when people watch a TV-show about something unknow. They are probably going to trust it without rushing at any other source of information to verify if it's true, so with that much shitty TV-show with shitty morals you probably have to take care of your children commun sens. If he kill and entier school’s room ... well he must have been mentally sick.

gay people have the reputation to fuck and drug with multiple parteners without protection condoms/syringe, and if anyone straigh/gay act like that he have a lot more probabilities of being sick with any STD or any others deases


i’ve been reading this forum from age but hadn’t felt the necessity of posting ‘cause i allways found my point of wiew in the different posts plus i have a poor english :s but this time i was “forced” hehe

so sorry for that long and maybe not comprehensible poste (for those who read it)
 

Pyotr

It is my destiny to lead
I dont know what news source you listen to. I've never heard this on the news.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/At-a-Glance.pdf

That sheet has a lot of information on the facts. I am not being hateful towards gay people with this, I just wanted to show you the sheet with the facts. Read the chart pertaining to Annual New Infections in Men.

in essence, it means that although they dont have the right, although they dont need the right, they should still have it, otherwise they will be forever regarded as a lesser kind of person. Although some may not even want it, They should still have the right to choose.

The right to vote and the right to be married are very different things. Voting is much more important than being married. But, let's just go along with your analogy. "If a couple cannot be married, then they are not regarded as equal." I very much disagree with that statement. If people do not agree with homosexual people wanting to be married, then it is most likely that they still will not agree with those people after they are married. Furthermore, forcing a person to recognize such a union will only cause more oppostion to the idea. But I still say that this is a very poor analogy based on the importance voting holds compared to the importance marriage holds.

Why do people oppose change? Because they dont understand it. Why dont they understand it? Often its because they dont want to think about it, or dont bother to think about it.

Perhaps it is not that people do not understand the change. Many people, believe it or not, do question their beliefs. You need to realize, though, that a person can question their beliefs and explore other lifestyles and still find that they agree with their original beliefs the most. That does not make them close-minded. It just means that they have decided that a change is not needed. I know that change is often necessary, but that does not mean that everything should be changed. Because many people feel a change is needed does not mean everyone does. Just as many people feel Gay marriage is acceptable, but that does not mean everyone must accept it.

the uneducated generally make the worst decisions, as you could tell in 9-11 and the war on Iraq.

Do you have to turn this into a shot at the president, because it is obvious that is what the end of that sentence was meant to do.

Granted, there are conservatives that dont regurgitate what they've been told. They are a rarity, and not extremely conservative.

How do you know they are a rarity? How do you know that these conservatives have not taken the time to decide what they feel is right or not. I think you are showing that it is not just unedjucated people that you are prejudice, but conservatives as well.

But, believing in the bible blindly without questioning it does make you close minded.

Again, who is to say that a person who believes in the Bible has never questioned it? Many people question their faith, but because they decide they still have that faith, you think they are blind followers? I really don't want to get into a religion debate, I just want to let you know that many believers have, in fact, questioned their faith at one point or another. Because they decided to keep their faith, does not mean that they are nothing more than blind followers. It is simply a matter of preference.

You can insult them injury them kill them as long as you assume responsibilities. Just acknowlege your homophobe/xenophobe/violent and mentally sick

Um, no offense, but I think you have some serious issues that you need to work through. Noone has said anything even close to what you are implying anti-gay marriage people feel.




Semi-Off-topic: Man, I love dabates ;D
As heated as these discussions may become, I do respect your opinion, pheonixfenix (and everyone else's too, I just have not been adressing everyone else's posts). I don't want you to think I am taking anything personally and I hope you do not do so either. BTW, Zortham, you really need to calm down, there is no hate being spread here, only differing opinions.
 
M

medievald00d

Guest
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/At-a-Glance.pdf

That sheet has a lot of information on the facts. I am not being hateful towards gay people with this, I just wanted to show you the sheet with the facts. Read the chart pertaining to Annual New Infections in Men.
see? you do learn things when you get into debates like this. I actually did not know this statistic. Interesting to know. However, I do maintain that Gays are not the only ones trasmitting this disease, as the pie charts show. DemonX however, implied that gays were the only ones that transmitted AIDS.

The right to vote and the right to be married are very different things. Voting is much more important than being married. But, let's just go along with your analogy. "If a couple cannot be married, then they are not regarded as equal." I very much disagree with that statement. If people do not agree with homosexual people wanting to be married, then it is most likely that they still will not agree with those people after they are married. Furthermore, forcing a person to recognize such a union will only cause more oppostion to the idea. But I still say that this is a very poor analogy based on the importance voting holds compared to the importance marriage holds.

Now, i dont know the statistics here, but i do believe that few people in this country vote anymore. It seems as though less than half of this country's population ever votes, although i would say a larger percentage marries. So i would say that getting married is more important than voting in some respects

Now, after you go along with my analogy, you claim that people will not accept two homosexuals as married. This is true. Just as right after slaves were freed, people didnt really accept them as free men. There were still restrictions, many which became laws. However, its the mentality. Change doesnt occur over night, it happens over time. Start the change now, and in a few generations, we will be equal. Thats why Martin Luther King Jr. said that one day our children would be equals. He knew change wasnt going to happen over night.


Perhaps it is not that people do not understand the change. Many people, believe it or not, do question their beliefs. You need to realize, though, that a person can question their beliefs and explore other lifestyles and still find that they agree with their original beliefs the most. That does not make them close-minded. It just means that they have decided that a change is not needed. I know that change is often necessary, but that does not mean that everything should be changed. Because many people feel a change is needed does not mean everyone does. Just as many people feel Gay marriage is acceptable, but that does not mean everyone must accept it.
I agree.


Do you have to turn this into a shot at the president, because it is obvious that is what the end of that sentence was meant to do.
Dont get me wrong, this was not a shot at the president. That being said, i do not like our president at all....but that is for another debate. What i meant was that our intelligence was skewed, and that we attacked Iraq for things that did not really exist. And now people are dying in that sand trap. It was a big mistake, and even you have to agree.

Again, who is to say that a person who believes in the Bible has never questioned it? Many people question their faith, but because they decide they still have that faith, you think they are blind followers? I really don't want to get into a religion debate, I just want to let you know that many believers have, in fact, questioned their faith at one point or another. Because they decided to keep their faith, does not mean that they are nothing more than blind followers. It is simply a matter of preference.
Tickets to heaven, taxes being paid directly to the church, religous wars, pedophilic priests. Thats what happens when you dont question your values. Granted, thats changed now, but only because they have been brought to light. Its not just the bible, but the church, and the government as well. When these things happen, then yes, we are blind followers. Just like people who rally behind the president simply because he is president. Once you start questioning the president, you realize all the mistakes he has made.


How do you know they are a rarity? How do you know that these conservatives have not taken the time to decide what they feel is right or not. I think you are showing that it is not just unedjucated people that you are prejudice, but conservatives as well.
Fair enough, its just that i meet too many hypocritical conservatives, so i assume they have no idea what they are talking about. I met a conservative that stated "conservatives are not against abortion." So yes, i apoligize if i come across that way.

Semi-Off-topic: Man, I love dabates
As heated as these discussions may become, I do respect your opinion, pheonixfenix (and everyone else's too, I just have not been adressing everyone else's posts). I don't want you to think I am taking anything personally and I hope you do not do so either. BTW, Zortham, you really need to calm down, there is no hate being spread here, only differing opinions
Right back at you. Although I often clash with conservatives; you guys are needed in our society. Conservatives generally keep society anchored somewhere, and the liberals just have to work all that much harder to change society. And if it is worth the effort, then you know that it cant be that bad.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
Anti homosexual hate crimes were incredibly violent, and as I recall there were some religious organisations that back them (don't quote me) but I think I heard of something on that line.


Conserivitves often share the same view because most of them are christian, and christians tend to develope a hive like mantality "I heard judy said gays spread aids!" and then "did you hear that gays spread aids?" and then someone says "god said that they were an abomination" then you get onto "god condems gays to hell" (note i've heard things like this, my mom is christian and i've heard things from her that made me very upset). and in my opinion we have no right to judge who goes to hell, anyone who believes the bible and all it's contradictions deserves to be destroyed.
 
Kart said:
or maybe, YOU LEARN TO FUCKING SPELL.


Yeah thanks... but in the process i have another thing: THERE IS FUCKING MORON WHO CARE NOTHING BUT FUCKING SPELLING RIGHT HERE, RIGHT ON THIS BOARD!...
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
I don't care about that, I just would like to, you know, BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND YOU...and i've posted fairly intelligently.
 

TheSkyTraveller

Monster adventures on the high seas!
Damn, I thought I was done with this thread, but...I'm baaaack! I can't resist a good debate either.


Starscream said:
The way I see it, today, marriage is a legal document that says that it is the law that everyone must recognize a union of two people. It has many other meanings but that is a big one of them. Because many people are very religious and do not agree with the Gay lifestyle, they should not be forced to recognize such things.

Here is a real life example of why I don't think you can cite other people's objection to a marriage as a reason that marriage should be illegal: I'll be getting married shortly down the road. I'm white, my fiance is Indian. There are plenty of people out there that would refuse to recognize an interracial/interfaith marriage. Does that mean that I shouldn't be allowed to marry him? That our marriage should be illegal? People's personal objections are just not a good enough reason for gay marriage to be illegal. Lots of people would also object to a 70 year old man marrying a 21 year old woman, even if they're both consenting adults. Does that mean because of those people, it should be illegal for them to marry, too? Where do you draw the line?

Other people's beliefs--and specifically their religious beliefs--should not have any bearing on an individual's rights when it comes to something like marriage, which is personal, between two individuals, and doesn't do anything to harm anybody else. They shouldn't, but often, they unfortunately do. Most of the controversy we're talking about here that stems from religious belief stems from militant Christian belief. Making laws based on Christian religious belief goes against separation of church and state, and also assumes that there's no reason to consider others' religious beliefs when it comes to an issue such as this.

Starscream said:
The right to vote and the right to be married are very different things. Voting is much more important than being married.




If this were the case, I doubt so many people would be up in arms about gay marriage.

There's another problem with gay marriage being illegal. And it's one of those annoying government technicality type problems. Being married allows people tax deductions. It also allows people joint health care plans and other things of that nature. That might not seem like it matters as much as the moral issues we're discussing, but in and of itself it's a moral issue. Denying gay people the ability to share healthcare plans or tax deductions like any straight married couple is, in effect, making them second class citizens. I think phoenixfenix referred to this earlier as the government treating a live-in gay couple like roommates. I know the feeling; I've lived with my boyfriend for 3 years, we're planning on getting married, but we don't get any breaks from the government. We love each other just as much as a married couple, but we don't count as a loving couple in the government's eyes until we have that damn license. It just ain't right.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
let me bring up a point.


I believe marriage, in the concept we have today, may have been a christian thing, ergo they say they want it defended, although I'm probably wrong.


but basically, right now it feels to me as if it they are just saying "we want marriage, we want the benefits" if so they're claiming it for the wrong reasons, they could have avoided it by saying "We want the same benefits" not "We want marriage" it would have allowed christians to keep it sacred and the benefits, but its just one of the ways it may have been avoided, but that's just a thought, probably flawed.
 
TheSkyTraveller said:
Does that mean that I shouldn't be allowed to marry him? That our marriage should be illegal? People's personal objections are just not a good enough reason for gay marriage to be illegal. Lots of people would also object to a 70 year old man marrying a 21 year old woman, even if they're both consenting adults. Does that mean because of those people, it should be illegal for them to marry, too? Where do you draw the line?

I say when a 13 year old girl is getting married with a 50 year old man. I was watching the spanish news and they showed a 13 year old girl and a 50 year old man in Mexico that got married. They said "that love transcends age so age it's not a matter". Even if their in "love" don't you feel that it's just not right. I guess people will have different views about that.
 

TheSkyTraveller

Monster adventures on the high seas!
ZODDGUTS said:
I say when a 13 year old girl is getting married with a 50 year old man. I was watching the spanish news and they showed a 13 year old girl and a 50 year old man in Mexico that got married. They said "that love transcends age so age it's not a matter". Even if their in "love" don't you feel that it's just not right. I guess people will have different views about that.

In my example, I made it a point to say the woman was 21 for a reason. A 13 year old doesn't have enough life experience to really know if marriage is the right thing for them. And what, emotionally, could a 13 year old offer a 50 year old? There are probably some alterior motives involved. However, a person in their early twenties usually does have the presence of mind to decide who and when to marry.
 
TheSkyTraveller said:
In my example, I made it a point to say the woman was 21 for a reason. A 13 year old doesn't have enough life experience to really know if marriage is the right thing for them. And what, emotionally, could a 13 year old offer a 50 year old? There are probably some alterior motives involved. However, a person in their early twenties usually does have the presence of mind to decide who and when to marry.

Yeah your right I re-read your post you did mention consenting adults.
 
Z

Zortham

Guest
Hehe i was calm this quote was linked to the DemonX one :

a)
Act gay like everyone else?
b)
Not act gay, but be discriminated on?
c)
Shoot the gays and go to jail?

Picking A would make you just another victim of society. Folding under pressure until you actully turn homosexual yourself.

Picking B is not a wise choice either. You would be picked on as the oddball in school, and even jumped at times.

Picking C is... well... in my eyes a right choice, but say goodbye to your life right then and there.

So whats my point?




What i wanted to mean is : if you hate them, want to injury or kill them, don’t pretend this is for any good / god reason (this is a berserk board hehe you should anderstand that :p)

/agree with TheSkyTraveller
 
M

medievald00d

Guest
Kart said:
let me bring up a point.


I believe marriage, in the concept we have today, may have been a christian thing, ergo they say they want it defended, although I'm probably wrong.


but basically, right now it feels to me as if it they are just saying "we want marriage, we want the benefits" if so they're claiming it for the wrong reasons, they could have avoided it by saying "We want the same benefits" not "We want marriage" it would have allowed christians to keep it sacred and the benefits, but its just one of the ways it may have been avoided, but that's just a thought, probably flawed.
Technically, the Marriage Document is a legal form. Since there is an amendment (i think, i oughtta check up on this one) that seperates church from state, the marriage liscence is something non-religous. Marriage ceremonies are religious, and people dont have to have a marriage ceremony to be married.
 

DarkBlademaster

Jesus cries when he looks at me.
Hehe, sorry, i cant resist
Granted calling DemonX a redneck and a KKK member was a low blow. I am sorry for insulting you like that DemonX.

Hehe i was calm this quote was linked to the DemonX one :

DemonX however, implied that gays were the only ones that transmitted AIDS.

DemonX was inferring that only gays had AIDS, and that they were responsible for transmitting it to the straight population

I was insulting DemonX's education

It seems even when i quit im still a big part of the convorsation

Now to wrap it up

And why do you hate gays? I feel humans are free to live their lives the way they want. If that's what they choose, then so be it. To each his own, right?

Well I guess it was the way I was raised. I always saw homosexual as an unnatural thing.
 
Top Bottom