PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree with gay marriage ?



Pages : [1] 2

Lord Zero
03-03-2009, 02:05 PM
Well, i just read about some ppl here which refuses to akwnolenge than
gay ppl deserve the same rights as heterosexual ppl.

I cant see how your personal sexual life (which doesnt harm anyone), must be a reason to discriminate you, stealing you from your civil rights.

Plus, they should be allowed to adopt if they want... current studies, doesnt
show any harm on children which are raised by a gay couple.
So that idea cant be used to support bigotry and ignorance.

Personally im influenced heavily by my culture, so i dont like to see two
men kissing and groping in front of me... but they have the right to do
the same as heterosexual couples do.

Isnt not about you liking it or not, but instead regarding to the value of equality among our societies.

Kamigoroshi
03-03-2009, 02:21 PM
As I already said in the HF-Marriage thread: Nothing wrong or evil with homosexualism or marriages between two guys/women/hermatrophites/aliens/cyborgs/whatever. =3

Call me too open-minded or whatever, but I don't see any differences between homo couples and hetero couples kissing in front of me. If they want to start a family with their chosen partners (be he/she/it of the same gender or not) should have the possibility to do so.

Synel
03-03-2009, 02:39 PM
Hey, not my life. If there's a dude who want's to be be with another dude than that's fine.

I do think your poll questions are a bit baised though :).

Óðinn
03-03-2009, 02:50 PM
^ Agreeably

If it does not hinder my life then why the hell not?

My parents on the other hand; well their stance is against gay marriage/relationships, but don't really care all that much about the issue.

Live and let live I guess.

TSR
03-03-2009, 02:53 PM
Heh heh. We've had this discussion before, though I'm too lazy to hunt up any of the threads at the moment. Anyway, I have no problem with it. I don't see any reason anybody should have a problem with it. However, people love to persecute, oppress and discriminate against their fellows every chance they get and will eagerly grasp any excuse they can find to do so. The vast majority of people don't really care. They just want to make other people miserable and this is an easy way to play the bully while pretending to be the good guys. Just listen to all the stupid rationale people come up with for why other people shouldn't have the right to pursue happiness. Frankly, there are so many more good reasons to let people have this right than there are not to, it's hardly debatable. It's hard, sometimes, to keep one's faith in humanity, the way so many people try to spread misery as if it was their only goal in existence. Whatever happened to trying to be nice to people, anyway?

Now, if we had a population shortage, there might be some arguments to be made about the future of the species. But we don't. Quite the opposite, actually. So what other argument is there? If somebody voluntarily joins a religion that forbids it or enters some sort of legal situation that prevents the option, that's one thing. But trying to force such backward values on people outside those situations is kind of just plain wrong.

Do you really buy your way into heaven by being mean and heartless? Makes me glad I'm not religious.

ja ne

Hayeate
03-03-2009, 02:53 PM
I can't understand why anyone would oppose sweet marital union between two beautiful women.

Lord Zero
03-03-2009, 03:06 PM
I can't understand why anyone would oppose sweet marital union between two beautiful women.

Wahaha... damn i... so true... cant stop... too much... fun... wahaha...

OoiSaru
03-03-2009, 03:13 PM
Nothing wrong with it in my eyes. xP
Simple as that.

Óðinn
03-03-2009, 03:16 PM
Nothing wrong with it in my eyes. xP
Simple as that.


Their is when they won't let you watch them.

psychopompos
03-03-2009, 03:49 PM
i voted y es in so far as i support universal human rights.

i disagree that ANY marriage should be recognised by the state though.
in no case should marriage(religious) be recognised by state(law).
as that in itself is bestowing rights on one group(married) like tax breaks, next of kin status etc, that is denied to the unmarried.

in a perfect system, the state would only recognise civil partnerships, as the legal aspect of a couple with the tax benefits, rights etc.

and it would be up to the church/mosque/temple/other to recognise the marriage, as the PURELY religious aspect to the arrangement.

OoXianghuaoO
03-03-2009, 03:51 PM
I can't understand why anyone would oppose sweet marital union between two beautiful women.

LOL true dat :kakashi: But yes, I am a heavy supporter of gay marriage.

Rick
03-03-2009, 03:57 PM
Nothing wrong with it in my eyes. xP
Simple as that.
What he said.

Wh1t3y3t1
03-03-2009, 04:02 PM
Let sleeping dogs lie, if they wanna have some bum fun fine with me.

Sexuality has nothing to do with them being any different from the rest of us, they're still humans.

stukasa
03-03-2009, 04:03 PM
I support gay marriage and I hope to see a day when people stop discriminating others over stuff like this. There's been so much discrimination in the past... discrimination of race, gender, religion, and sexual preference. Let's just treat everyone as equals and move on already!

icewirm
03-03-2009, 04:07 PM
I say: why does this curse of marriage has only to fall upon heterosexuals, let homosexuals feel the same pain and angony the rest of us do -.-

Donut
03-03-2009, 04:16 PM
I say: why does this curse of marriage has only to fall upon heterosexuals, let homosexuals feel the same pain and angony the rest of us do -.-

Woooord. I'd just say that's good, gay get to be with gays. More girl-meat for me :grin:

micky21761
03-03-2009, 04:51 PM
no!!! never!!!! they would just show imorality!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qR0Uke2XNI

invissense
03-03-2009, 05:14 PM
The pain of unable to marry the person that you love is worse than death. I support gay marriage.

Whoaness
03-03-2009, 05:24 PM
It's wrong!

Only yuri marriage is allowed. =3

Mirai Aoi
03-03-2009, 06:36 PM
I see no wrong in gay marriage.
Is only not liked by Christian fanatics or other freaks.

Fenrir91
03-03-2009, 06:42 PM
i voted y es in so far as i support universal human rights.

i disagree that ANY marriage should be recognised by the state though.
in no case should marriage(religious) be recognised by state(law).
as that in itself is bestowing rights on one group(married) like tax breaks, next of kin status etc, that is denied to the unmarried.

in a perfect system, the state would only recognise civil partnerships, as the legal aspect of a couple with the tax benefits, rights etc.

and it would be up to the church/mosque/temple/other to recognise the marriage, as the PURELY religious aspect to the arrangement.

I agree with the 2nd paragraph of this post before he then goes on to contradict himself. I think people should be equal before the law and be treated as individual citizens of a country. That means that the government and law does not see black; white; asian; straight; gay; married; unmarried; tall; small; fat or thin people. The government and law should only see citizens with universal individual rights. If anyone chooses to get married that should be a purely private matter, of which the state and the law take no interest in and make no distinction of.

whiteheadedboy
03-03-2009, 06:49 PM
I support gay union and I agree that we should all be equal.

I voted yes!

Maryn
03-03-2009, 07:09 PM
I'm all for it. It's their life and not mine. If this kind of thing is your fancy and you're not hurting anyone else in the process its fine with me. They're humans just like the rest of us and should deserve the same respect as any of us, be it good or bad.

Hesperus
03-03-2009, 07:31 PM
Technically, 'Marry' comes from the Latin 'maritare', and implies the union between the uxor and the maritus, or wife and husband. 'Wed' or 'wedding', on the other hand makes more sense because they are derived from the Old English 'weddian', which basically means 'to pledge'. If only to avoid confusion, I feel that different words for female-female, female-male, and male-male, unions should be addopted.

I don't know, but it bloody annoys me when everyone refers to their significant other as 'partner'. Gay or straight, if you have a boyfriend or girlfriend, husband or wife, just refer to them as what they are.

Areskel
03-03-2009, 07:52 PM
Marriage is a legal contract, there are benefits that come with marriage. There is nothing special about it anymore.

Temishi
03-03-2009, 07:58 PM
It's not like I'd want to walk down the street and see two gay guys holding hands and making out in the park or anything like that, but hey, they are human too. They have as much right as we do, even if I don't necessarily want to see what they do in their personal time together.

psychopompos
03-03-2009, 08:01 PM
I agree with the 2nd paragraph of this post before he then goes on to contradict himself.
*checks*
damn i did didnt i lol.
to be more specific/accurate, i support the idea of taxing people less when they have kids, that way they can look after the kids properly without needing child support if they have low incomes.

SniperTak
03-03-2009, 09:04 PM
Okay, here is my two cents on the issue.

Well, there are two methods of marriage. One is the legal binding contract which is recognized by the state. The other is the religious ceremony performed by a preist. Now, a preist has the right to refuse to marry two people. However, the government should not. The government exists to protect the rights of everyone, and as long as the two people are citizens who pay taxes, they should get the right to do the same as any other two couples who love each other and want to get married.

A small breakdown of the arguments against gay marriage:
1. Homosexual marriage will lead to bestial marriage, or man and animal marriage, which will lead to object marriage, or man with a spoon or man with a toaster marriage, so we shouldnt have Gay marriage!
-Slippery slope argument, a logical fallacy. Death penalty leads to vigilantism leads to people on the streets killing each other. Should we ban death penalty?
2. Marriage is a religious communium between two people infront of god.
-Stupid argument. By this definition, Atheists shouldnt be allowed to marry. Buddhists shouldnt be allowed to marry. Damn near everyone who doesnt belong in a religion shouldnt be allowed to marry.
3. Marriage is an important part in child bearing. Homosexual marriages dont make sense because the couple cant produce children!
-Great. So sterile couples shouldnt be allowed to marry? Couples who dont want children shouldnt be allowed to marry?

DeadlyPocky
03-03-2009, 09:45 PM
Yep, i also agree, definitely nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Although.. It kinda bothers me how some people just don't want gay people to get married. With their only reason is: Because they're gay. I mean.. Really, that's not a legit reason. And it turns out, every single one of those guys is also very religious. It really pisses me off.

Havel
03-03-2009, 10:12 PM
What benefits do gay couples get when they get married anyway?

Satelight
03-03-2009, 10:14 PM
well...
let's see...
there is the marriage tax...

*buzzard sounds: satelight gets sacked*

thebigbadwolf
03-03-2009, 10:37 PM
Only religions say that homosexuality is immoral, and religion is not the concern of the State.

A person's sexual preference is not criminal and thus not the concern of the State.

A civil union with the included legal advantages should be available to those who wish it.

Too bad America is somewhat hipocritical on this issue. The Republican party is anchored in christian moral beliefs from which it cannot divest itself. Thus their politics will never be religion free.

Hesperus
03-03-2009, 11:04 PM
^Unfortunately, the Christian and Catholic church goers also happen to make up a large population of the people. It is true that the state 'tries' to advocate 'separation of church and state'; however, it is also true that many churches try to advocate 'the marriage of church and state'.

To many political parties, advocating gay marriage is a walk on the edge simply because many Church leaders will condemn the offending party and encourage their congregation to condemn the offending party as well. From what I have heard, Bill Clinton's 'indiscretions' caused a large majority of the church going population to believe that 'God had left the democrats', and thus, apparently boycotted the party until 'bama came in.

6531597
03-04-2009, 03:57 AM
I don't see what's the prob. if they pay the taxes, don't go around killing people, and doesn't raep kids, then what's wrong with gay marriages?

minato
03-04-2009, 06:36 AM
I don't see what's the prob. if they pay the taxes, don't go around killing people, and doesn't raep kids, then what's wrong with gay marriages?

Same idea here. I approve lesbian marriage, why Gay can't survive side by side each other? They also have the extremely large urge to have sex to melt your brain>:D.

Fenrir91
03-04-2009, 07:12 AM
*checks*
damn i did didnt i lol.
to be more specific/accurate, i support the idea of taxing people less when they have kids, that way they can look after the kids properly without needing child support if they have low incomes.

I'd agree with assisting parents and guardians raising children, but that's quite different from marriage. Many married people do not have children whilst many unmarried people do have children. If the objective is to help with the raising of children that's TOTALLY different from helping married people with preferential tax rules and general legal rights. The law shouldn’t make any distinction between married and unmarried people, it should be meaningless in the eyes of the law and taxation, government shouldn’t be involved in the issue of marriage at all.

uremog
03-04-2009, 08:04 AM
let them do whatever they want, it's not infringing on anyone else. in fact, it's not even anyone else's business. no one has any more right to say it's immoral than anyone has right to say any other way of life or belief is immoral (any one that doesn't infringe on another person, that is).

i say, let all the gay guys take each other, so the girls have fewer guys, haha. and let all the butch girls take each other out of my way (and hope none of the hot ones go les).

maumastoks
03-04-2009, 08:25 AM
I don't really care about gays but let them be - they're humans too ;)

random100818-0
03-04-2009, 08:41 AM
Gay, straight, as long as they in love who gives a fuck,
also the people who are against it are just stupid pricks.

moogleking
03-04-2009, 09:16 AM
People can do whatever they want, its none of my business, only fascists are against gay marriage.

Ctrl Alt DelBR
03-04-2009, 09:30 AM
Well, there are two methods of marriage. One is the legal binding contract which is recognized by the state. The other is the religious ceremony performed by a preist. Now, a preist has the right to refuse to marry two people. However, the government should not. The government exists to protect the rights of everyone, and as long as the two people are citizens who pay taxes, they should get the right to do the same as any other two couples who love each other and want to get married.
This, exactly. The legal and monetary issues a marriage implies should be allowed to any kind of couple, hetero or not. If you're gay and your partner dies before you're married, you can say goodbye to the insurance money.

Deere666
03-04-2009, 10:09 AM
really, never cared less that so, about gay marriage ..... and after all, if they don't kill, rape, rob, do evil things, nor break my b***s, why the hell i have to complain if they get married or not ? ..... it's just their business :D

Yumenthic
03-04-2009, 10:55 AM
It's just not right
and I believe,,,
it's okay for us to love(without sex) to our same gender
but
don't never ever do marry or something like that
I love my friends too
but never think to have sex,,,
that's not good
btw
the most important.
it is SIN

bruce lee
03-04-2009, 11:00 AM
I voted No..and i'm glad there were six people before me.

it's just wrong, OK? Just picture this.

Let's say you have a healthy, attractive, good-looking son (like, I don't know, Gundam's Lockon Stratos):P :

Would you like to see him married with a 7-ft-tall muscular, sweaty Village-People-looking guy, with whom he'll share the bed, the sheets, the jacuzzi???

I'm not mentioning the worst, that's up to your imagination...

If you all sincere with yourself, I bet you'll rather see your beloved son having a lovely wife, and rising beautiful children (like, I don't know, Fullmetal Alchemist's Maes Hughes, :P)...am I right?


I can't understand why anyone would oppose sweet marital union between two beautiful women.

I'd say : WHAT A WASTE ¡¡¡ You talk like you would gaze at the couple's intimacy...let me tell you something: voyeurism exist only in porn, ok?

Well, i said it all :grin:

Kamigoroshi
03-04-2009, 11:07 AM
...am I right?

Nope. Simple as that! :P:

bruce lee
03-04-2009, 11:24 AM
Nope. Simple as that! :P:

well, i'm sorry, i have no right over your life.......

just remember what the Manic Street Preachers (1 of the coolest bands on earth :neko:) used to sing:

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next

Don't say i didn't warn U :grin:

solarenemy
03-04-2009, 11:33 AM
I voted No..and i'm glad there were six people before me.

it's just wrong, OK? Just picture this.

Let's say you have a healthy, attractive, good-looking son (like, I don't know, Gundam's Lockon Stratos):P :

Would you like to see him married with a 7-ft-tall muscular, sweaty Village-People-looking guy, with whom he'll share the bed, the sheets, the jacuzzi???

I'm not mentioning the worst, that's up to your imagination...

If you all sincere with yourself, I bet you'll rather see your beloved son having a lovely wife, and rising beautiful children (like, I don't know, Fullmetal Alchemist's Maes Hughes, :P)...am I right?



I'd say : WHAT A WASTE ¡¡¡ You talk like you would gaze at the couple's intimacy...let me tell you something: voyeurism exist only in porn, ok?

Well, i said it all :grin:

I have to disagree with you. First all your references are to anime characters. Do you not live in reality? Nobody on this earth looks like an anime character. So that being said you comparison SUCKS! Secondly there is no law that says your child has to carry on your name or have children. He could very well decide he likes men and does not want to have children. So what? Myself and my brother have both chosen to carry on the family name by not having children. Now come back to reality and look around you. Normal people do not get lucky enough to land some knock out super model mate. If they do that super model will not want to ruin her appearance by having children. If people in the world looked like anime characters they would all look like my avatar.

Kamigoroshi
03-04-2009, 11:34 AM
well, i'm sorry, i have no right over your life.......
Damn right!

just remember what the Manic Street Preachers (1 of the coolest bands on earth :neko:) used to sing:
Who?? :huh:

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next
If they want to sure, why not? No big deal to me what their sexual orientation will look like.

random100818-0
03-04-2009, 11:36 AM
If people in the world looked like anime characters they would all look like my avatar.

Lol....oh sorry, serious topic right.

SniperTak
03-04-2009, 11:36 AM
It's just not right
and I believe,,,
it's okay for us to love(without sex) to our same gender
but
don't never ever do marry or something like that
I love my friends too
but never think to have sex,,,
that's not good
btw
the most important.
it is SIN

That is your religious belief. However, sadly, Buddhists, Janists, atheists, Hindus, and any other religion that isnt one of the three Abrahamic religions, dont believe in Sin.

Now, if you want the state to recognize Sin as a crime punishable by law, okay, go ahead. But you dont get to skip that step and instantly assume that since its wrong for you, it should be wrong for everyone. And quite frankly, its a sin to worship other religions, it says so in the first commandment so you should be extra angry towards the Founding Fathers and freedom of religion clause. Yet, I dont see many christian groups petitioning the removal of that from the US constitution.

Also, I love my friends too, and you may not have any friends who are of the opposite gender, but I do. Yet, you obviously wouldnt think it wrong for me to have sex with any of them, would you? So in other words, its not about Friendship or anything of the sort, youre just trying to justify your biggotry.

As a final note, let us write down your complete argument.
-Homosexual marriage is wrong.
-Its wrong cause i wont sleep with my friends, despite the fact that i would if i had any friends who were women.
-Its sinful.

Great. You clearly win!


I voted No..and i'm glad there were six people before me.

it's just wrong, OK? Just picture this.

Let's say you have a healthy, attractive, good-looking son (like, I don't know, Gundam's Lockon Stratos):P :

Would you like to see him married with a 7-ft-tall muscular, sweaty Village-People-looking guy, with whom he'll share the bed, the sheets, the jacuzzi???


Is it any more wrong than to have your attractive, good looking son be married to a morbidly obese woman who also happens to be a midget?

Judging by your post, im going to assume your answer is Yes.

So, in reality, your biggotry isnt towards Homsexuality, its towards the fact that you want to brag to people that your son snagged a hot bitch who he fucks every night till the cows come home. Which is fine. I just find it a bit selfish. This isnt the middle ages, and you dont get to choose who your son or daughter marries.


I'm not mentioning the worse, that's up to your imagination...
And im not mentioning the worse either, cause there is alot worse than a morbidly obese midget girl. Far, far worse.


If you all sincere with yourself, I bet you'll rather see your beloved son having a lovely wife, and rising beautiful children (like, I don't know, Fullmetal Alchemist's Maes Hughes, :P)...am I right?
Thanks for proving my point. In other words, youd be embarrased to introduce your son at a party and have his "Boy toy" stand next to him. Just like youd be embarrased to have to introduce your son and his new "Morbidly obese midget" wife. So in other words, its not that you want to do whats best for your son, and in the interest of your sons hapiness, but rather, for your own embarrasement and selfish pride.

Clearly you are a model parent. Will you also throw your son infront of you in order to sheild yourself from a gunman, so that you can protect that selfish pride?


I'd say : WHAT A WASTE ¡¡¡ You talk like you would gaze at the couple's intimacy...let me tell you something: voyeurism exist only in porn, ok?

Well, i said it all :grin:

Apart from the fact that there is no gauruntee that you will ever have a son, let alone one that is even passable as "Handsome"(Oh, ZING!, why dont you start by petitioning to remove the rights of Fat people from getting married or even having sex before you waste your time, and our tax money, petitioning for the removal of Gay marriage?


EDIT,

Oh shit, just made a good joke.

And your sex life only exists in porn too. Okay?

Oh, ZING!

random100818-0
03-04-2009, 11:39 AM
It's just not right
and I believe,,,
it's okay for us to love(without sex) to our same gender
but
don't never ever do marry or something like that
I love my friends too
but never think to have sex,,,
that's not good
btw
the most important.
it is SIN

:errrr: WHAT???

SniperTak
03-04-2009, 11:49 AM
:errrr: WHAT???

Apparently the man strives to become a poet and a biggot.

realsilverjunk
03-04-2009, 03:48 PM
Well, no, to say he is a biggot is incorrect. Yes, he's segregating homosexuality, but it's a sexual pref. NOT a race. It's usually not a mental disorder either. It's by choice. He's segregating the act, it looks like, and not the person. As they say, "love the sinner, hate the sin".

Athias
03-04-2009, 04:14 PM
It's just not right
and I believe,,,
it's okay for us to love(without sex) to our same gender
but
don't never ever do marry or something like that
I love my friends too
but never think to have sex,,,
that's not good
btw
the most important.
it is SIN


Well, no, to say he is a biggot is incorrect. Yes, he's segregating homosexuality, but it's a sexual pref. NOT a race. It's usually not a mental disorder either. It's by choice. He's segregating the act, it looks like, and not the person. As they say, "love the sinner, hate the sin".

It's funny how you guys say that, given that you, realsilverjunk, are an admitted hentai-fan. And my guess would be, since this is hongfire, Yumenthic is one, too. What do you guys think you're jibber-jabbing to? Lighting some candles and burning some incense before you do it, doesn't change the fact that you're releasing baby batter to images that's dominated by the male penis roughly 80% of time. So according to you, you willingly choose to be aroused by the male penis? Isn't that a sin? :O

In the wise words of Peter Griffin, "If gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, let' em!"

SniperTak
03-04-2009, 04:19 PM
Well, no, to say he is a biggot is incorrect. Yes, he's segregating homosexuality, but it's a sexual pref. NOT a race. It's usually not a mental disorder either. It's by choice. He's segregating the act, it looks like, and not the person. As they say, "love the sinner, hate the sin".

big⋅ot

 /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uht] Show IPA
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Bigottry is not just an intolerance of race. Thats racism, and i wouldve used the word racist, instead of bigot. But yes, he is a bigot, by any definition.

Yumenthic has decided to demote the right of the person based on a single belief held by them that having sex with the same sex is alright. That is not demoting the act of simple homosexual sex, but rather demoting the rights. If Yumenthic had said "Although i dont approve of Homosexuality, I wouldnt mind if they got married", then he wouldnt be a bigot. But his exact words were: don't never ever do marry or something like that.

And although you can still be tolerant of someone but disapprove of their course of action, openly trying to remove the rights is being intolerant and thus makes you a bigot for trying.

Youre basically making the argument of hate the race, not the person and justifying your hatred for blacks. And although it isnt a choice, as seen by many failed conversions by christian churches in order to turn homosexual men into straight men, It doesnt matter if you hate the act, youre still condemning the person as long as he is doing the act. Again, with the racism analogy, its like hating the race of african americans, but not hating the people, which still makes you a racist. Its insulted further when you claim that you would gladly stop reducing the African Americans rights as a citizen of the United states, if he stopped being black! That is basically what you are trying to say

realsilverjunk
03-04-2009, 04:22 PM
Hey, I was just saying that calling him a bigot is wrong. Guess I was thinking of the wrong definition. Personally, I like futanari, soooo...

SniperTak
03-04-2009, 04:26 PM
Hey, I was just saying that calling him a bigot is wrong. Guess I was thinking of the wrong definition. Personally, I like futanari, soooo...

The more you know... ====(w)

Anime Student
03-05-2009, 02:39 AM
i support gay marriage :pika30:
I don't have a good reason for doing that thou.

6531597
03-05-2009, 04:27 AM
also, I don't see why many people make such a big crappy deal out of this. a marriage is just a contract on a piece of recyclable paper. hell, you could probably take a $hit on it and use it to write out the words. no such thing as a "sacred" marriage nowadays anyways. married or not if gays want to stay together, that's cool. as long as they don't go causing trouble.
Marriage is Overrated.

Lord Zero
03-05-2009, 04:37 AM
It's funny how you guys say that, given that you, realsilverjunk, are an admitted hentai-fan. And my guess would be, since this is hongfire, Yumenthic is one, too. What do you guys think you're jibber-jabbing to? Lighting some candles and burning some incense before you do it, doesn't change the fact that you're releasing baby batter to images that's dominated by the male penis roughly 80% of time. So according to you, you willingly choose to be aroused by the male penis? Isn't that a sin? :O

In the wise words of Peter Griffin, "If gay people want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, let' em!"

Thy shall not spill ty seed... god said that. So you are sinners... and will
burn, suffer, scream in excruating pain for eternity!!!!

For further reference check the classic Monty Phyton video...

U0kJHQpvgB8

bobuild01
03-05-2009, 08:33 AM
Although I personaly do not agree with "gay marriage" it is just another personal prefrence which the government has no right in. The US tax laws have already been rewritten to allow gays the same tax and dependent rights as "traditional" partnerings, many states allow benifits to be paid to them when needed, the job market, especially education and health services, seems to have accepted them as good employees, life insurance companies pay out, so I imagine that the "marriage" issue is more hype than substance directed mainly at the religous community and will eventually just happen, especially with our current hyper leftish socialistic administration. I happen to agree with the traditional view of marriage myself but times change and so do laws.
As long as no one says I HAVE to marry/live in sex with a same sex partner I guess it is not an issue.
One point though, the Spartans and Athenans(real home of democracy) didnt care if your homosexuality was out in the open, they did define/require marriage as between opposite sexes. Even Alexander and the pharohs before him couldn't "marry" their same sex partners. This issue is by no means new.

Edit:: Why did the voters in California bother to vote on Prop 8(to ban gay marriages in California which passed) if a judge can say their majority view can be circumnavigated by a few thousand persons wanting gay marriage? Maybe they picked a gay judge to rule on the issue?

bruce lee
03-05-2009, 10:27 AM
I have to disagree with you. First all your references are to anime characters. Do you not live in reality? Nobody on this earth looks like an anime character. So that being said you comparison SUCKS! Secondly there is no law that says your child has to carry on your name or have children. He could very well decide he likes men and does not want to have children. So what? Myself and my brother have both chosen to carry on the family name by not having children. Now come back to reality and look around you. Normal people do not get lucky enough to land some knock out super model mate. If they do that super model will not want to ruin her appearance by having children. If people in the world looked like anime characters they would all look like my avatar.

ROFLMAO, man, where's da sense of humor???

This is F***IN' HONG FIRE, what kinda reference d'ya want mo to use? Eastern-europe-filmography??? Kusturica or Kaurismaki characters???

With all the respect in the world let me tell U: GTFO, buddy ¡¡¡




Is it any more wrong than to have your attractive, good looking son be married to a morbidly obese woman who also happens to be a midget?

Judging by your post, im going to assume your answer is Yes.

So, in reality, your biggotry isnt towards Homsexuality, its towards the fact that you want to brag to people that your son snagged a hot bitch who he fucks every night till the cows come home. Which is fine. I just find it a bit selfish. This isnt the middle ages, and you dont get to choose who your son or daughter marries.



Oh shit, just made a good joke.

And your sex life only exists in porn too. Okay?



The same answer.

Did I mention EVER that a perfect wife should be cute, slim, Audrey-Hepburn-like???

If you like fat-chicks porn, it's up to you, i have no right over your likes or dislikes, have a nice life, so your fortunate children :grin:

Narakuu
03-05-2009, 10:59 AM
I'm Agree even I'm Homophofic, and in the begin i was against this crteria but my mind change when one of my closest friend my brother tell me he was gay ...

Satelight
03-05-2009, 03:01 PM
is it wrong to hold the opinion/attitude:
"doesn't affect me; don't care."
when it comes to homosexual marriage?

to me, its just that... i dont agree or disagree- just let that issue run to where it may in real life for now.
if they can have it (legal marriage), then they can. If they can't... too bad (consider moving to where you can or whatever you feel like you need to do to cope).

solarenemy
03-05-2009, 03:53 PM
ROFLMAO, man, where's da sense of humor???

This is F***IN' HONG FIRE, what kinda reference d'ya want mo to use? Eastern-europe-filmography??? Kusturica or Kaurismaki characters???

With all the respect in the world let me tell U: GTFO, buddy ¡¡¡



The same answer.

Did I mention EVER that a perfect wife should be cute, slim, Audrey-Hepburn-like???

If you like fat-chicks porn, it's up to you, i have no right over your likes or dislikes, have a nice life, so your fortunate children :grin:

Here at Hongfire unlike those OTHER forums we know how to separate anime from reality. It is not about having a sense of humor or not. It is about acting your age and being an adult. If your not able to discuss things like an adult without adding anime references where they are not appropriate then you really should not even be posting in this thread. Why don't you go back to the anime section and discuss what you know with all the other Narutards.

SniperTak
03-05-2009, 03:53 PM
The same answer.

Did I mention EVER that a perfect wife should be cute, slim, Audrey-Hepburn-like???

If you like fat-chicks porn, it's up to you, i have no right over your likes or dislikes, have a nice life, so your fortunate children :grin:

Your exact argument was "Imagine your beautiful son with a huge sweaty man-beast." Therefore, my counter argument was "Imagine your beautiful son with a huge sweaty woman-beast". Clearly you are not against homosexuality, youre just against your beautiful son marrying some ugly peice of shit. My argument stands.



is it wrong to hold the opinion/attitude:
"doesn't affect me; don't care."
when it comes to homosexual marriage?

to me, its just that... i dont agree or disagree- just let that issue run to where it may in real life for now.
if they can have it (legal marriage), then they can. If they can't... too bad (consider moving to where you can or whatever you feel like you need to do to cope).

Well, is it wrong to hold the opinion/attitude, "That man whos bleeding on the street and could use an ambulance, doesnt affect me; dont care"? I mean, if you are so selfish that you cant see past your own little soul, you probably wont notice the fact that we live in a society, and if a certain minority in that society has its rights pulled, then you could be next.

Its like in World War 2, when the Germans were doing so much atrocities, but the rest of europe didnt really care, until it was too late, and then they were crying cause they didnt act sooner. That could be you. :D

stukasa
03-05-2009, 04:07 PM
Its like in World War 2, when the Germans were doing so much atrocities, but the rest of europe didnt really care, until it was too late, and then they were crying cause they didnt act sooner. That could be you. :D
You're thinking of this poem, right?

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
- Martin Niemöller

I was thinking the same thing when I read Satelight's post.

Satelight
03-05-2009, 06:36 PM
Well, is it wrong to hold the opinion/attitude, "That man whos bleeding on the street and could use an ambulance, doesnt affect me; dont care"? I mean, if you are so selfish that you cant see past your own little soul, you probably wont notice the fact that we live in a society, and if a certain minority in that society has its rights pulled, then you could be next.

Its like in World War 2, when the Germans were doing so much atrocities, but the rest of europe didnt really care, until it was too late, and then they were crying cause they didnt act sooner. That could be you. :D

interesting argument.. comparing defending one's life to defending one's lifestyle.

..you do realize a lot of people (including myself) would react differently to the mass extermination of homosexuals than just the concept of this topic, gay marriage, right? Degree of importance/priority for such a topic/issue is not very high for me at all, hence I have such an indifferent attitude. I do nothing to harm or help their cause, and such a cause does not effect me enough for me to willingly take a side and act. (aka not worth my time and effort)


You're thinking of this poem, right?

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
- Martin Niemöller

I was thinking the same thing when I read Satelight's post.

Unfortunally stukasa, in the real world, when you speak, they can still come for you. That is what I was thinking when I read your quote of Martin Niemöller.
On second note: by not speaking and surviving longer than all the communist, jews, unionists, catholics AND protestants sounds like a good deal to me as well- still plenty of protestants and catholics still out there. ;)

Hayeate
03-05-2009, 07:14 PM
Some people should be exterminated though. Like mimes and furries.

stukasa
03-05-2009, 08:21 PM
Unfortunally stukasa, in the real world, when you speak, they can still come for you. That is what I was thinking when I read your quote of Martin Niemöller.
On second note: by not speaking and surviving longer than all the communist, jews, unionists, catholics AND protestants sounds like a good deal to me as well- still plenty of protestants and catholics still out there. ;)
I think you're taking the poem too literally. The point of the poem is that if you don't care enough to help others, you can only expect the same in return. Imagine if the situation was reversed and you weren't allowed to marry but no one was willing to help you because "it didn't concern them." Remember that gays are in the minority and can't achieve equal rights without support from the majority. No one can force you to care about gay marriage, it's something you have to decide for yourself.

My opinion is that discrimination against one group reflects poorly on everyone, and it's something that needs to stop.

RyviusRan
03-05-2009, 08:57 PM
I think you're taking the poem too literally. The point of the poem is that if you don't care enough to help others, you can only expect the same in return. Imagine if the situation was reversed and you weren't allowed to marry but no one was willing to help you because "it didn't concern them." Remember that gays are in the minority and can't achieve equal rights without support from the majority. No one can force you to care about gay marriage, it's something you have to decide for yourself.

My opinion is that discrimination against one group reflects poorly on everyone, and it's something that needs to stop.

Even though I am not gay and I am not really effected directly by this law it can still come back and bite me in the ass.

After all I am an atheist one of the minorities in America. One of the most untrusted minorities.

Once you start making it against the law to marry the same sex they will move on to other things until it eventually involves you. This is a major issue because of religion and it seems like as time passes religion will try to take away more of our rights becuase of it's dogma.

If there was a justified reason to make something against the law then I would side with that view but I see no wrongs with marriage of the same sex so it shouldn't be outlawed.

TSR
03-05-2009, 09:23 PM
You diminish all men when you diminish one man. The thing here isn't so much about gay marriage as it is about equal rights. By denying people equal rights, you are saying that you think that some people are inferior and don't deserve to be treated as well as you are. That caste hierarchy thing is generally known as feudalism. Largely only prefered by the folks at the top. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of The United States of America some time. Very inspirational. If only our elected officials would read them, now. A lot of our ancestors died getting out from under that system, and now we seem to be eagerly embracing it all over again.

The other point of that poem is that you are setting a bad precedent. By allowing people to be oppressed through inaction, you are setting yourself up to be oppressed. Sure, maybe you can't stop them if you try. But you surely cannot if you don't. As for it being better to live in fear than to risk yourself in an attempt to abolish fear, well, I can't really agree with that, either, however easy it is to understand.

ja ne

Starkadder
03-05-2009, 11:13 PM
Why bother even posting this poll? Your remarks in your poll show how biased you are, and I would say you designed it so to discourage any remarks that were not in agreement with yours.

This is a forum for discussion. Polls are supposed to entice people to participate, so that a hopefully fair response will be achieved. The way you worded it, left it clear what you thought of people who didn't agree with you.

Instead of pretending you are interested in discussion, you would have been better off just making a ranting post, so that those who agreed with you could join on the bandwagen and castigate those evil vile people who dare not be in agreement with you.

SniperTak
03-06-2009, 12:28 AM
[B][COLOR="Gray"]

interesting argument.. comparing defending one's life to defending one's lifestyle.
Actually, its comparing ones life to ones rights


..you do realize a lot of people (including myself) would react differently to the mass extermination of homosexuals than just the concept of this topic, gay marriage, right? Degree of importance/priority for such a topic/issue is not very high for me at all, hence I have such an indifferent attitude. I do nothing to harm or help their cause, and such a cause does not effect me enough for me to willingly take a side and act. (aka not worth my time and effort)
Yeah, and who cares if the african americans were still slaves. Atleast theyre not dead, right?

If you want to list the things that are most important, then yes, gay marriage is one of the lower things. However, the difference between gay marriage, and, say, solving world hunger, is that we can actually make gay marriage legal in our lifetime.

realsilverjunk
03-06-2009, 01:09 AM
Just make sure those equal right stay in the " Two adult humans" factor. I don't want any bestiality, or child molestation going on here. Same goes for marrying your immediate family. Some things need to be banned.

Satelight
03-06-2009, 01:35 AM
I think you're taking the poem too literally. The point of the poem is that if you don't care enough to help others, you can only expect the same in return. Imagine if the situation was reversed and you weren't allowed to marry but no one was willing to help you because "it didn't concern them."
I’m going a bit tangent on this one but:
Karma has been an interesting subject to me... but in the end, I decided not to rely on it... much like the concept of luck. There will be people who will be helpful to others but still wont get much help when they need it- they could end up bleeding on the streets as in snipertak's scenario just as much as those who may "truly" deserve it. There'll be people that WILL be the type that don’t care for others but won’t get the same in return. Human politics... whoever play their cards right.
My experience in the United States so far, I’ve come to expect a great degree of "indifference" when it comes to a lot of issues (from the people I know around me, but not a statement covering everyone in the country- I’d let others be the judge of that situation), stukasa. And let me clarify. I also do not consider a blurp to a friend or among friends while walking or during a conversation/argument in the office... or a on the internet... as some sort of movement away from indifference... its basically a cheap way not to look like one isn’t indifferent. Yes, my friends and I have talked about this at lunch or walking to class. In the end, I doubt anyone of them has taken any serious action to promote this equality, other than talk, and meanwhile I strongly doubt any of us has any contacts or will possess the power to alter these attitudes- be it indifference or intolerance.
Words/talk is cheap. It takes little to output something that sounds nice or kind but it usually does little impact overall. I also would question intent.
Action speaks louder than words. Has anyone here who claims to care actually tried to access the right channels, get the right contacts, actively participate, and achieve some position of power and influence to make a difference? Anyone here actually stood in the middle of campus or a mall and handed out gay-marriage support fliers!? But in a way, some of these are still words IMO... just words on paper or through a megaphone. This action must be a change in attitude, best by themselves... but how do you change something that people have no intent to change?
If all I have to do is talk, then I’ve done my part in real life- this (the message/theme in the posts I wrote) actually isn’t the response I give in real life on this subject to others on this topic, and several others (but depending on how radical and/or rational the person I'm talking to is being- ups, reoccurring theme/point: sometimes its not worth it/talking :/)... but I do not feel that talking qualifies much for anyone on this matter.
Hence my position, I say I’m indifferent... that I do not really care.



Remember that gays are in the minority and can't achieve equal rights without support from the majority. No one can force you to care about gay marriage; it's something you have to decide for yourself.

My opinion is that discrimination against one group reflects poorly on everyone, and it's something that needs to stop.

And I should really just bring it to the main point. I asked earlier "how do you change something that people have no intent to change?". I can only provide a simple answer: stimulus. It is only natural we react to something that will affect us. Link how it will affect someone like me... the indifferent... or someone who is against it for whatever reason.
Can one provide a plausible scenario where not supporting gay marriage will lead to another case of concentration camps? Without making it sounds too paranoid or farfetched of course.
Ryv pointed out it could bite us in the ass... "they" will be done with the gay marriage issue and move on to another that could affect me. very plausible! but it sounds like its more beneficial then to put "they who will persecute" on a spinlock with the gay marriage issue and let them be busy with it as long as possible, rather than let them accept it.. after all, nothing is stopping them from moving on to the next minority-issue-piñata to beat on after allowing/getting-over gay marriage. (oh dear god, someone shoot satelight for suggesting that we use a minority's problem for someone else's -possible- benefit!)
TSR mentioned (living in) fear. (hey TSR, we had a talk in flashchat of something on this topic a long time ago... the train I’d be on to the concentration camp right? :D) Fear can be a motivator as well; I agree I wouldn’t want to live in fear for a long time therefore possibly fighting against the source... of course it can just make me run away and hide in the corner instead of fight, but fighting is an option after the right buttons are pushed. Problem is I’m not living in fear because gay marriage isn’t allowed... where is the stimulus for me (and many others)? I doubt the homosexuals are living in fear- maybe frustration but not fear- over these matters.. again... no one is proposing we crucify all of them over gay marriage (or have they... but you know what I mean). And again, to relate this subject of "rights abuse" and link it with possible scenario of concentration camps or whatever other cruel oppressive scenarios... lets put it this way- if one was only trying to convince me that my rights and lifestyle for being a racial minority or something will be next on the hit list- or even more radical reason for oppression- because gay marriage isn’t allowed, I would see that as trying to instill paranoia/fear for their cause... somewhat like some propaganda (which doesn’t mean it cant have truth). Like those who irrationally think gays will (excuse the ultra-broad phrase) "take over the world" if they let them marry.. or that their (presumably adopted) children will become homosexual in sexual orientation if raised under such conditions, or some family values are severely threatened/in danger of extinction due to legal gay marriage, such paranoia is ... self explanatory(?). Hence, I am not easily convinced that allowing myself to be indifferent towards this issue will lead to such some dire result where my rights (whichever ones I value most) will be threatened. Therefore, I would argue one should pick his battles carefully. For this "battle"/issue, I deem it isn’t one worthy of my time and effort and it certainly isn’t worth my time campaigning against gay marriage- so I can remain in this so-selfish state of indifference. For those immediately involved, it is up to them to decide how they play their hands... to go all in or what not, etc.

To me, this issue is like the mother and child at the mall. A child loudly pleads with his mother to allow him to spend his allowance on a toy he wants. The mother however, refuses to allow the child to waste his money on that silly trinket and just shakes her head and continues to proceed out of the store in the mall. There is no defined "law"/rule by the mother (or mall rule, or national regulation) that the child cannot have/buy a toy. Bystanders are starting to notice the disturbance in the mall- there are eyes on these two and opinions being formulated. Lets say, on one side, one bystander said: "Clearly the mother is unreasonable! That is the child's earned allowance, why not allow him to spend on what he likes!?" While on the other side, another will argue: "Clearly the child is disobedient! That is his mother's decision, why does he not accept?!" Then, there are 3 other bystanders. They are indifferent... but not for the same reason. One member simply thinks while passing by the disruption: "Pfft, what a noisy child... brat needs to STFU or else receive a good beating!" On the other hand, another member of the indifferent gang thought of this while passing by: "Its just a little toy... jeeze just let him have it already... I mean its no big deal, and he'd stop whining!" Lastly, there is one who just walked by without much of a glance... maybe a "glad I’m not the kid or mom", "almost at the arcade", or just a smirk of amusement.

In relations to this issue, 2/3 indifference would do nothing to halt any amendments or actions to allowing gay marriage... but whether they'd get up off their ass when the time comes to vote for such issue is questionable. Meanwhile, I do think gay marriage will succeed in time- it could very well piggyback or be the pork of something that finally staples what marriage is/defined in the constitution... and I doubt that will be Bible based... I find it more likely to be an extension of the "pursuit of happiness" part. If it does end up to be bible based, well, time for the homosexuals to move out of the USA. Keep in mind that most hot topic issues, like gay marriage, open as much Pandora’s boxes as much as they close the ones on rights violation. Unless your planning to make polygamy the next spinlock victim... or something else... that relates to marriage and the right to pursue happiness and what not... those will be challenged too... sure, I’d have no problems with more than 1 wife... 5, 7, 10... if I can get them why not? hell that would actually affect me and my lifestyle... will all of you support it? And can I get marriage to my hot sister (put at over 18) if I get neutered so there is no way to have a biological child with a high chance of birth defects? I can screw her all I want now right? ..lets open that box and break the taboo! right? yes/no/why? ...what about cows? horses? fair game?
Most of you are probably thinking wtf by now, but I’m trying to say that there is a limit to how much rights one tolerates being given out just like how much rights one will allow rights to be violated. Its a long list of items on both sides.. where DO you draw the line? Are you prepared for the possible consequences? Doesn’t matter.. there is at least one (consequence) around every corner... so pick where you turn.

@SniperTak

still... serious problem with your comparisons

bleeding to death vs. lifestyle/"rights"
if you're going to make bleeding to death be compared to a person's rights, you'd be debating about whether to allow the guy to who cut his wrist suicidally on the street bleed to death or call the 911/ambulance. I'd completely disrespect his right to die/suicide and call the ambulance. He is free to try again later when I wont be passing by. On protesting for or against gay rights- I’d still keep walking.

suffering under slavery vs. gay marriage
Forcing people to work under poor conditions and no pay, making them property- disposable ones at that and not always worth very much... and at least they are not dead? at the time they were slaves, they WERE dying.
vs.
gays who cannot have more than civil unions. No properly defined representation of what a marriage should be in the constitution...
...
problem is no gay couples have died because they were being forced to work to death for the policy of civil union or a lack of gay marriage recognition. Regardless, you seriously comparing the suffering in SLAVERY to the suffering in the gay-marriage issue? Again, levels of importance or severity difference... huge. Or... you'd have to provide me with the articles testifying to the cruel fate of the homosexuals who were denied legal marriage status (or how they could be the next slaves).

but.. you'd have more luck (a lot more luck) using gender discrimination in this comparison...

you even extend global hunger into the mix- lets scale it down so we can make it "fixed" in our lifetime:
how about local hunger, unemployment rates, or education, etc?
if gay marriage will fix our (U.S.) economy, tag as pork (marriage to econ, or econ to marriage) and I'll support it 100% with my heart and "selfish lil soul".

Kalimutan
03-06-2009, 06:22 AM
Do I agree with gay marriage? Somewhat I do.
I have befriended many gays, lesbians and bisexuals. A few of them are my friends. So their marriage rights is not my concern at all.

bobuild01
03-06-2009, 07:16 AM
ANY marriage, traditional or gay, is not a right, it is a choice. Once you make the personal choice the choice is protected but not the actual deed, otherwise divorce couldn't happen. The Constitution was purposefully drafted to reflect the time it was written in while still leaving room for interpretation and modification by a set process when needed. Absolutely nowhere in that document does it suggest all it takes is whining to change. Please don't forget that, in the US, the Supreme Court has already ruled that gay marriage is not a federal issue, but rather a state by state issue. Right or wrong makes no difference, it is the current interpretation of the constitution.
Here in the US the majority alledgedly rules, all minorities here feel put out but there are processes that can be used for change of what are considered social issues to move them to the realm of law. Time consuming? Undoubtably. Possible? Definately. Interacial marriages were both socialy and legaly banned at one time and now have become common and acceptabe by most people. That took time, money, and a change of views before it could happen.
Some states have tried to force the issue down the throats of the populace by legislation, only to have it repealed later by popular vote, the exact premise defined by our constitution.

bruce lee
03-06-2009, 09:22 AM
Here at Hongfire...we know how to separate anime from reality...If your not able to discuss things like an adult without adding anime references...Why don't you go back to the anime section and discuss what you know with all the other Narutards.

OK, uncle, next time then, I'll use Truffaut or Godard or any nouvelle vague references just to please your majesty :neko:

P.S.: I hate Naruto, so STFU, you bleach-freak :grin:


Clearly you are not against homosexuality... My argument stands.


Then you didn't understand my argument, 'coz i'm clearly against homosexuality...no matter if the fag is handsome or ugly as hell...

P.S.: thanx 4 sayin' my son is beautiful :)...i'm not father yet, but that was very nice from you, and showed that your kind-hearted despite your misled opinions :kakashi:

stukasa
03-06-2009, 12:09 PM
@Satelight: I think we just have different perspectives on the definition. No one is asking you to be a political activist. That's not the definition of indifference, it's "Having no strict preference among two alternatives." When you said you were indifferent, you implied you don't care one way or another. You can have a preference without actively seeking change! Obviously an activist will be able to do more good, but don't assume that your opinion is meaningless if you're not one. It's public opinion that will change the outcome of this issue, and if enough people support the idea, sooner or later it WILL happen. You may not make a difference today, you may not make a difference tomorrow, but someday you may be at a voting booth with a "gay marriage: yes/no" form in front of you. When that day comes, your opinion will matter.

Oh, and I wasn't talking about karma. Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return.

Manakurei
03-06-2009, 12:27 PM
Sure why not it doesn't affect me if gay people decide to get married.

Lord Zero
03-06-2009, 12:39 PM
@Satelight: I think we just have different perspectives on the definition. No one is asking you to be a political activist. That's not the definition of indifference, it's "Having no strict preference among two alternatives." When you said you were indifferent, you implied you don't care one way or another. You can have a preference without actively seeking change! Obviously an activist will be able to do more good, but don't assume that your opinion is meaningless if you're not one. It's public opinion that will change the outcome of this issue, and if enough people support the idea, sooner or later it WILL happen. You may not make a difference today, you may not make a difference tomorrow, but someday you may be at a voting booth with a "gay marriage: yes/no" form in front of you. When that day comes, your opinion will matter.

Oh, and I wasn't talking about karma. Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return.

I totally agree with you.

PS: Karma... geez... more magic and misticism ? Damn... its really tiring to read so much nonsense...


Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return.

Thats how its meant to be. I will help people on need, even if i dont get nothing, or they dont even know than someone helped them to begin with.

I will gain something from it, even if nobody knows. Its feels good indeed.

ShampooKisses
03-06-2009, 02:15 PM
Although I personaly do not agree with "gay marriage" it is just another personal prefrence which the government has no right in. The US tax laws have already been rewritten to allow gays the same tax and dependent rights as "traditional" partnerings, many states allow benifits to be paid to them when needed, the job market, especially education and health services, seems to have accepted them as good employees, life insurance companies pay out, so I imagine that the "marriage" issue is more hype than substance directed mainly at the religous community and will eventually just happen...

I agree with gay marriage, but I also agree with civil unions. A man and woman can have a "marriage" ceremony in a church, or in front of a judge, but by most people they are both called "marriages." From what I've seen, people who are talking about "gay marriage" don't care what method they can have, as long as it is equal to the marriage a man and a woman can have. Most of the gay people that I have talked to about it say that if you want to have a "marriage" that it is up to whatever church you're a part of if they want to give you a religious ceremony. They would be just as happy with a civil union, but in most states civil unions are not available, or the type of relationship that two partners of the same sex can have are "domestic partnerships" or titles like that which give you some rights to insurance, but usually NOT to tax rights like you would have in a civil union or marriage, and NO rights like next of kin, so you have no say if your "partner" of 30 years ends up in the hospital. It's only, I think, two states out of 50 that actually recognize full gay marriage and/or civil unions.


[/B]Edit:: Why did the voters in California bother to vote on Prop 8(to ban gay marriages in California which passed) if a judge can say their majority view can be circumnavigated by a few thousand persons wanting gay marriage? Maybe they picked a gay judge to rule on the issue?

In case you didn't know or haven't been following the news, the voters of California have tried making an amendment to the state constitution of California before to restrict marriage to a man and woman only, and it passed. It was later ruled unconstitutional to take away a person's rights in the an amendment to the constitution by the Supreme Court of California, and the amendment was then repealed. That's when you had those thousands of gay marriages happening last year in California. (Hooray!) Apparently someone thought that if they tried a second time to restrict marriages to opposite sex couples only, which is this Prop 8 that passed this last election, that it would work for some reason this time, but it is most likely going to be repealed a second time by the same Supreme Court for the same reasons.

Not one judge is picked to rule on something like this, and I don't think any of the California Supreme Court justices are gay.

bobuild01
03-06-2009, 02:43 PM
^Yes I have been watching the California issue for nearly two years only because they are usually in the forefront of ideas which might migrate to other states, like this issue. The judge part was really a question I was interested in because if any state elected a "gay" judge I believe it would be California first.
As far as the IRS tax I should have stipulated that incomes still may not be combined, but if only one party has an income they may claim their partner as a non-relative dependent.
I think it is at least five, maybe seven judges, not one.
The two states are California and Massachusets, I think, and the voters have complained in both.
My point is there is no right answer to the issue right now. The Constitution was written to try to balance the rights of all against the wishes of the majority.
I know they will win their issue eventually state by state, and I have no problem with it.

realsilverjunk
03-06-2009, 03:34 PM
Either way those judges are walking on minefields. Pick one side, infuriate the other!

Satelight
03-06-2009, 03:42 PM
@Satelight: I think we just have different perspectives on the definition. No one is asking you to be a political activist. That's not the definition of indifference, it's "Having no strict preference among two alternatives." When you said you were indifferent, you implied you don't care one way or another. You can have a preference without actively seeking change! Obviously an activist will be able to do more good, but don't assume that your opinion is meaningless if you're not one. It's public opinion that will change the outcome of this issue, and if enough people support the idea, sooner or later it WILL happen. You may not make a difference today, you may not make a difference tomorrow, but someday you may be at a voting booth with a "gay marriage: yes/no" form in front of you. When that day comes, your opinion will matter.

@stukasa:

But do you see where the problem lies? I state again, people need a stimulus- something that will affect themselves and make them react. Purely relying on having opinions is faulty- opinions are cheap to formulate, like words.. One of the points in my last post is that if you're not willing to act (for you don’t feel strong enough about the situation), then your opinion is meaningless- support for or against this issue. Last I recall, the United States does not make it illegal for you to sit on your ass during election day (they use this so-strong and inspirational of a phrase: it is your right and duty); our turnout is one of the poorest, if not the poorest, for countries under the label of democracy. For those not doing anything to be "active", in whatever the subject, what is their motivator to go and vote for the respective politician at all (and if you're not at least active in expressing your views to those politicians- who you are not going to help vote for-... you get the point)? You'd need to be at the actual voting booth during the voting day... not the one only in one's mind and outputs the vote out of one's mouth. I agree though... maybe sometime LATER it will all work out... maybe not in 4 years... 8 years... 32 years... but sometime later.. it will. I will continue to sit on my -allow gay marriage opinion- in real life until then and continue to make it a once-in-a-while lunch time, walking home, or office topic (and many others will do the same, even if they do not admit it or think they will now... this will be put on the back-burner when some other aspect in life comes up- unless it affects them personally).

People can surely have opinions that support this cause, among others.. but they are actually indifferent if thats all they do- have opinions (one who talked like they have a position, but doesn't do anything to show they they care for the outcome); that is my view. To not be indifferent it to be showing/taking action.
So... second, a problem I've pointed out as well... what is that motivator?
"the right thing to do" argument isn't going to go very far for those who believe homosexuality "is not right" - in multiple meanings of the word "right"- anyhow.
Other motivations were listed in previous post and require a feasible link:
my concept is simple, provide either a benefit or believeable effect that will affect many of the indifferent- or even better- (and) intolerant.
Its natural people won't worry about something they do not have a personal stake in.

I maintain that this is the "mom vs. child in the mall/toy store" situation. This issue gets attention/media, but lacks severity/seriousness. It will be pork along with other things (general equality/rights, lack of an amendment defining marriage, polygamy, etc.), along with whatever else should we choose to accept and include, in the future... when it joins an issue or issues that combined gets more attention AND response- likely because then it does more obviously and/or immediately affect more than "just then gays".



Oh, and I wasn't talking about karma. Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return.

Unlike some people, I don’t treat karma as something magical or mystical which can apparently act as a reading-road-block. It’s a fancy word that is basically "consequences" for me, as I am not religious and not affiliated with any religion that the word karma usually associates with. In other words, I do not rely of the effects of consequences to go my way or your way or the poet's way.

Ultimately, we also may have 2 different perspectives on what you yourself wrote as well, for to me, your comment on the poet's meaning:
"The point of the poem is that if you don't care enough to help others, you can only expect the same in return."
Vs.
your comment just now:
"Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return"
does not equate to the same message in my mind. one is relying on considering possible consequence while the other relies on some moral position.

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

@Lord Zero

"thats how its meant to be. I will help people on need, even if i dont get nothing, ...

I will gain something from it, even if nobody knows. Its feels good indeed."

you contradict yourself.
I, firstly, do not believe that any action is done without "selfish" intent. You do get something out of every action (its just may happen that it wasnt what you expected... favoring you more or not). While I cannot read your intent, there will always be a consequence- and as humans, we do recognize what they are and it factors into how we behave.

I was thinking of the exact same thing you wrote:
"I will gain something from it, even if nobody knows. Its feels good indeed."
when I was reading:
"Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return."
from stukasa.

You and I have egos, and we (will) feed it- "unknowingly" or not.

There is a post in the same section of the forum on Objectivity. Feel free to contribute there if you differ. I think you can guess what option I selected in that poll.

Hesperus
03-06-2009, 03:48 PM
Couldn't you just withhold your vote in the voting booth situation?

Murrowboy
03-06-2009, 03:50 PM
Couldn't you just withhold your vote in the voting booth situation?

IdolMaster... :mumbles:

Satelight
03-06-2009, 03:52 PM
^^- in some cases there is even an option of "null vote"/undecided. If not, people can randomly select something they know (or really think) will not happen..
ex. one of my teachers, to protest both (popular) canidates, voted for a member of a party (...socialist, communist.. or something else) that was below the green party in popularity/followers and chances for that candidate of that party to win the election requires a data malfunction or act of God.

Hesperus
03-06-2009, 04:26 PM
I remember that when it comes to voting, you could just 'omit' the particular section (in the case of paper votes). Then the vote won't count either way.

stukasa
03-06-2009, 05:38 PM
@Satelight: Our opinions/perspectives are just too different. We're not going to agree on this so we might as well stop debating it. This is probably my last post here unless I need to add or clarify something. I'll at least reply to your post, since you took the time to write it. I still believe that opinions are not worthless, that indifference is not decided by action, and that given enough time and support, change will come.

Opinions are the building blocks of change. Some people are willing to act on their opinions, others are not. But each person you convince is an opportunity, a chance to bring about change. Without that opinion in the first place, no change can ever happen.

Also, remember that this thread is called "Do you agree with gay marriage?", not "Are you willing to take action to support gay marriage?"


Unlike some people, I don’t treat karma as something magical or mystical which can apparently act as a reading-road-block. It’s a fancy word that is basically "consequences" for me, as I am not religious and not affiliated with any religion that the word karma usually associates with. In other words, I do not rely of the effects of consequences to go my way or your way or the poet's way.

Ultimately, we also may have 2 different perspectives on what you yourself wrote as well, for to me, your comment on the poet's meaning:
"The point of the poem is that if you don't care enough to help others, you can only expect the same in return."
Vs.
your comment just now:
"Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return"
does not equate to the same message in my mind. one is relying on considering possible consequence while the other relies on some moral position.
One was the poet's point, the other was mine, that's the difference. I don't think I ever said they were the same thing.

And I don't believe in karma either.


I, firstly, do not believe that any action is done without "selfish" intent. You do get something out of every action (its just may happen that it wasnt what you expected... favoring you more or not). While I cannot read your intent, there will always be a consequence- and as humans, we do recognize what they are and it factors into how we behave.

I was thinking of the exact same thing you wrote:
"I will gain something from it, even if nobody knows. Its feels good indeed."
when I was reading:
"Do good things because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect something in return."
from stukasa.

You and I have egos, and we (will) feed it- "unknowingly" or not.
Feeling good about doing the right thing is a selfish intent? I strongly disagree, and just because I feel good doing something doesn't mean that's the only reason I did it. But since we're not going to agree on this either, I won't bother debating it.


Couldn't you just withhold your vote in the voting booth situation?
Of course you CAN withhold your vote, but if you agree with gay marriage, why would you do that?

Hesperus
03-06-2009, 06:31 PM
Of course you CAN withhold your vote, but if you agree with gay marriage, why would you do that?

'twas just my thought on the whole 'indifferent' thing that y'all were talking 'bout... =)

bobuild01
03-06-2009, 07:07 PM
Concerning voting
Withholding a legal vote is one of the biggest forms of apathy in a supposedly free democratic society possible. If you can vote and if you agree vote yes, if not vote no, otherwise you have no choice in the outcome and have no right to an opinion. So far in my state we have not had the opportunity to vote on the issue of this thread because any attempts to get a general ballot on it has been blocked by the state legislature. My personal views put aside I would vote yes on the side of personal preference.

Satelight
03-06-2009, 07:37 PM
I still believe that opinions are not worthless,

I never said they were worthless either (just cheap- in qualifications to be considered not indifferent); so in other words, I agree with you on that..


.. that indifference is not decided by action, and that given enough time and support, change will come.
Opinions are the building blocks of change. Some people are willing to act on their opinions, others are not. But each person you convince is an opportunity, a chance to bring about change. Without that opinion in the first place, no change can ever happen.

..but not on this. These opinion-building-blocks don’t build themselves into the product of change. Someone/something has to force it/move it. Else they just sit there looking pretty… or dirty.
I understand things will come in time, but for some time is an issue. If the goal (like SniperTak seemingly suggest) is to take advantage of the trait that this issue can be resolved soon, then it requires motivation/stimulus for many, for it is my belief that this issue/topic lacks the "umff" it needs as is to be taken seriously by many still out there. Else, you're right... its just waiting out until the people just accepts it and/or express the like: "just let him buy it already.. its just a damn toy"- refering to the mom-child-mall/store example.


One was the poet's point, the other was mine, that's the difference. I don't think I ever said they were the same thing.

I know that the 2 quotes' points were different. It wasn’t what you actually said but what I thought was how you were using them. If they were (used) completely different (from what I am thinking), that I misread/misinterpreted- as one of my professors said: “…miscommunications happen.” Hence, clarifications are good.


Also, remember that this thread is called "Do you agree with gay marriage?", not "Are you willing to take action to support gay marriage?"

I’m going to go bit OT again but:
The title of the thread is a poll question. I find that inadequate to define the true purpose of this thread. The poll itself, with few options and (more than one person has mentioned this) not so great wording for the limited choices, is not such a great trait. But since this was not in the poll sub forum, of the General Discussion section where it continues to remain, I decided to inject a possible third perspective away from the 2 generic (if not biased) options given as choices and idea expressed in the main topic post (aka I didn’t vote, neither choice fits me). I didn’t want to conform to the frequent responses just reaffirming one’s reason for picking “agree” (and disagree, but those responses lack “posture” for the most part). I did consider trying respond on the disagree side (less spoken right now) but since I am not in the position in real life that would understand the disagree POV coming from religious or Darwinian, or others etc. perspectives, I would not be able to provide anything beyond assumptions about their reasoning (rational or not); I easily decided to let their own do the hard work. Of course, I am no homosexual; I know nothing about that point of view either. I may be able to imagine the social humiliation by relating to experience of my own, but thats about it. So I grabbed one of my obvious POV naturally for a discussion… “indifference/not in mood to or don’t: agree or disagree”. Yea, not the most “pretty”/nice of all possible positions- blowing out a dust-bunny from under the couch I guess. From such perspective comes the other things- is it right or not, and what is a convincing argument to be agreeing or disagreeing.
Of course, one can request this to be moved (to polls) and then request the moderators can wipe the existence of all posts I made from the face of this post if they wish. I dont usually respond to polls until i hit one on the "random main page poll of the day/hour/minute area.


@Satelight: Our opinions/perspectives are just too different. We're not going to agree on this…
Yes, that is something I can agree with you on… “agree to disagree” for clearly there are things that are too different- for now. Like:

Feeling good about doing the right thing is a selfish intent? I strongly disagree, and just because I feel good doing something doesn't mean that's the only reason I did it. But since we're not going to agree on this either, I won't bother debating it.

But someday stu-stu… when the technology is there… and I can alter your thoughts and memories… those evil nano-bots with such tasks will be injected into your bedroom and then… THEN… you will be…
ONE OF US!
ONE OF US!
ONE OF US!
>:]

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

@Hesp
If you were saying how a person can still take the action to go vote, but still take the "road of indifference", then yes, I think I understand what you're getting at. But a person could go vote for more than this issue- so he has to be there but just null vote that particular question/issue; or a person could have second thoughts and decided to null vote that. If the person was undecided/indifferent to begin with but still took "action" to ...*ahem*.. vote/express his views of indifference... either he really takes pride in democracy and is making a statement about going to vote, etc. or he really wants to waste time and gas money to demonstrate how casting the null vote on the issue has the same effect as not going in the first place. If it is the latter, then yes, I'd rather keep my gas money and use my time for something else.
edit: actually, if its the first, i'd still keep my money and time...

kalen
03-07-2009, 12:55 AM
I say "nay" to gay marriage.

I don't like any kind of marriage. Why does the humankind still have this useless stupid custom called marriage?

SniperTak
03-07-2009, 01:22 AM
[COLOR="Gray"]

@SniperTak

still... serious problem with your comparisons

bleeding to death vs. lifestyle/"rights"
if you're going to make bleeding to death be compared to a person's rights, you'd be debating about whether to allow the guy to who cut his wrist suicidally on the street bleed to death or call the 911/ambulance. I'd completely disrespect his right to die/suicide and call the ambulance. He is free to try again later when I wont be passing by. On protesting for or against gay rights- I’d still keep walking.

Apart from the fact that there is actually no law preventing you from cutting your wrist, nor is there a law that prevents you from calling the ambulance, you can disrespect his right, you can even try and stop him, but that does not change the fact that he does have a right to kill himself.

And although you completely derailed from our original argument of whether or not you would do SOMETHING in order to help the man bleeding on the sidewalk, or just leave him there, my argument still stands.



suffering under slavery vs. gay marriage
Forcing people to work under poor conditions and no pay, making them property- disposable ones at that and not always worth very much... and at least they are not dead? at the time they were slaves, they WERE dying.
vs.
gays who cannot have more than civil unions. No properly defined representation of what a marriage should be in the constitution...

There is something called a right. It doesnt matter how small or how important they are, everyone is entitled to the SAME right. You cannot arbitrarily assign which right is more important and diminsh the lesser rights from people, society does not work that way.



problem is no gay couples have died because they were being forced to work to death for the policy of civil union or a lack of gay marriage recognition. Regardless, you seriously comparing the suffering in SLAVERY to the suffering in the gay-marriage issue? Again, levels of importance or severity difference... huge. Or... you'd have to provide me with the articles testifying to the cruel fate of the homosexuals who were denied legal marriage status (or how they could be the next slaves).

Great! So just because no one is dying, we can ignore those rights? I love you! Thank god. I always wanted to ignore the rights of Christians. Lets remove the right to marry! No one is dying. The right to receive education! The right to bear children. Clearly your argument is sound.


but.. you'd have more luck (a lot more luck) using gender discrimination in this comparison...
Unlike you, i see all rights as equally important, especially since we live in a 1st world country. I mean, do you think there will be any less outroar if we ban the right to bear children, as opposed to banning the rights of black people to be citizens?


you even extend global hunger into the mix- lets scale it down so we can make it "fixed" in our lifetime:
how about local hunger, unemployment rates, or education, etc?
if gay marriage will fix our (U.S.) economy, tag as pork (marriage to econ, or econ to marriage) and I'll support it 100% with my heart and "selfish lil soul".


We already have programs set to solve local hunger. We already have programs set for unemployment. And we already have programs set up for education. All of these are working systems that have provided more than positive results. However, what is the program that is allowing Gay marriage to proceed? If you want to talk about success rates and the programs that have been created that support our current problems, id be happy to. But i gauruntee that i will win.

Hesperus
03-07-2009, 02:21 AM
Apart from the fact that there is actually no law preventing you from cutting your wrist, nor is there a law that prevents you from calling the ambulance, you can disrespect his right, you can even try and stop him, but that does not change the fact that he does have a right to kill himself.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide

In the United States, suicide has never been punished as a crime nor penalized by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. Historically, various states listed the act as a felony, but all were reluctant to enforce it. By 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime (North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma that repealed its law in 1976). By the early 1990s only two US states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification. In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," that is, a crime based on the law of old England as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in Wackwitz v. Roy in 1992.) As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the family of the suicidal person in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary, not voluntary, act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded money damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care. Some legal scholars look at the issue as one of personal liberty. According to Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, "The idea of government making determinations about how you end your life, forcing you...could be considered cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances, and Justice Stevens in a very interesting opinion in a right-to-die [case] raised the analogy."

In many jurisdictions medical facilities are empowered or required to commit anyone whom they believe to be suicidal for evaluation and treatment.

Satelight
03-07-2009, 08:17 AM
Apart from the fact that there is actually no law preventing you from cutting your wrist, nor is there a law that prevents you from calling the ambulance, you can disrespect his right, you can even try and stop him, but that does not change the fact that he does have a right to kill himself.

Edit: just read what hesp linked you to. Not bothering to write what’s already provided now.


And although you completely derailed from our original argument of whether or not you would do SOMETHING in order to help the man bleeding on the sidewalk, or just leave him there, my argument still stands.

I didn’t have arguments with you on the “man bleeding in the streets” scenario. There was nothing to argue, it is an irrelevant example to use as comparison. Like I already said:


..you do realize a lot of people (including myself) would react differently to the mass extermination of homosexuals than just the concept of this topic, gay marriage, right? Degree of importance/priority for such a topic/issue is not very high for me at all, hence I have such an indifferent attitude. I do nothing to harm or help their cause, and such a cause does not effect me enough for me to willingly take a side and act. (aka not worth my time and effort)

In other words, what prompts one like me to react to a bleeding man isn’t the same reason I would support gay-marriage. They vary in severity. Moreover, the reaction varies on the person and comes down to some core beliefs. I have a threshold of what I feel are items worth acting on and what isn’t worth acting on. You do as well. So does someone else. That person who thinks the man bleeding to death in the streets deserves no help as it is the will of fate, or because he isn’t responsible for his life (regardless of what you may believe about that), or because he deems that person not worthy of living as clearly he failed to take care of himself. While I hold no such views, it is in their right and yours to hold your own. That is the problem of defending your views/position with rights and morals. Neither side is willing to give their's up easily. Therefore, I maintain my statement earlier. I’d help the man that is bleeding- suicidal attempt or not- but I keep can walking when it comes to protesting/advocating for or against gay-marriage.


There is something called a right. It doesn’t matter how small or how important they are, everyone is entitled to the SAME right. You cannot arbitrarily assign which right is more important and diminsh the lesser rights from people, society does not work that way.

The concept of rights is something has rung over and over in many topics.
To start, let me give you a short summary- one I had already written about in some other topic before. A while back, a respected history teacher of mine mentioned a phrase that was in regards to rights. He, like many here, would support human right and natural right concepts wholeheartedly. However, whatever topic we were on (I do not recall the exact context), he had to tell me what happens in cases of conflicting rights. He responded: “Your rights end, when/where(?) mine begins.” It is very blunt, yes… not actually what I expected from him. However, as more of a “realpolitik” person now, this view stands even today for me.
You can throw the “rights/freedom to” tags left and right to every action you wish. However, when the time comes, you’re not alone in this world. You mentioned before about society. Do you (really) know what a society is? The only place where a person would have complete freedom to do as he pleases- to do all he has the right to do without conflict- would be most likely a island by himself (not accounting for multiple personalities). As soon as you throw in another person, you get politics. To sum it up, perspectives will clash and either both of you give up some rights for something (by compromise), one of you exert your right over the other (by force), or one of you leave the environment/situation (by avoiding). At least in the country I am in (I presume you are too), we operate under the concept of democracy- specifically a democratic republic. In a democratic model, it attempts to remain stable and survive by operating under the concept that the winning majority’s view will be represented and that the minority of the situation is bound to the decision of the majority (by “contract”). When the tables are turned, and the minority views become the majority, the former majority is supposed to be bounded just the same. By such operations, automatically there is a practice of assigning which group’s issues/views- including those on rights- have priority. So you see: this society that “does not work that way” actually does. Society is bounded together by similarities. Unfortunately those similarities are not just the broad scope of being human. It breaks down to aspects like ethnicity, religion, lifestyle, culture, etc. and many of which can cross influence each other. In other words, there are “requirements” for being considered part of a society- you are expected to conform to a certain behavior, style, etc. With that said, it is only obvious that society will also have practices that attempts to avoid, discriminate, and even discipline certain behaviors and attitudes that goes against what this society defines as its requirements/expectations for behavior and attitudes. You may want to think not, but it does- that is an attribute of society, or at least consider the fact it always ends up being an attribute.
Additionally, I’ve said it before and I will say it again: words are cheap. I don’t care if you have the prettiest and most ideal things written on the paper (ex. Bill of Rights) - how they get executed will never be ideal. There is no such thing as true equality. Deserving the same entitlement does not mean you will receive it. In the real world, your rights only go as far as you can push it (whether it’s against a person, a group of people, society, or the nation). It’s not wrong to think and try to reach these ideals, but when you try to enforce it, things become complex and even hypocritical. Homosexuals are no exceptions to the rules of human politics. You are (or will be) a victim of “realpolitik” whether you believe in it or not, and whether you use/abuse it or not.


Great! So just because no one is dying, we can ignore those rights? I love you! Thank god. I always wanted to ignore the rights of Christians. Let’s remove the right to marry! No one is dying. The right to receive education! The right to bear children. Clearly your argument is sound.

Problem with your whiny reason: you still ignore severity. You were trying to appease to the morals by mentioning what if slavery was not abolished because they were “not dead”… in comparison to gay-marriage “rights”. Are you sure you don’t see the problem with trying to defend that comparison? To put it this way, when slavery existed in the U.S., not having the right for a black male slave to marry a white man’s daughter WAS one of the least of their worries- nonetheless anything about homosexual rights among them. If slavery STILL existed in the U.S., then not having the right for a black male slave to marry a white man’s daughter is still one of the least of their worries- nonetheless anything about homosexual rights among them.


Unlike you, i see all rights as equally important, especially since we live in a 1st world country. I mean, do you think there will be any less outroar if we ban the right to bear children, as opposed to banning the rights of black people to be citizens?

Some info for you:
1. There are a lot of heterosexual couples who can bear (naturally) children ( but not all). Homosexual couples are not one of these cases. They have to find surrogates/donors, or adopt. In the future, lesbians may not need male donors and have their stem cells generate a sperm artificially.
2. The right to bear children has been questioned. Some nations have ways of regulating population. Other nations, including the U.S. have issues regarding whether certain couples should have children, say for example because they cannot afford to raise the children they produce properly with their income and/or skills. It also is affected by the fact that there is no stated definition, regulation or guaranteed right in the Constitution regarding this topic- like the issue with what a marriage should be (between).
3. The out roars caused by your listed issues affect a population MUCH larger than the % of homosexuals in the United States. Therefore, there is the personal effect, the stimulus, to make a majority care- be it those to bear children, receive education, or marry.

I proposed the issue of indifference in this issue. I left wrong or right of indifference to you guys to decide; I do not state it is right or wrong. However, I do question how many here is just talk and no walk- and by walk, I mean there is active support and not just lunch time conversations with friends. If you feel you’re a true advocate (regardless of my definition of who is indifferent) and those indifferent should change, provide a feasible scenario where the indifferent would be effected by such decision or even benefit. People have been throwing moral cards for a long time now, and how well has that worked? Even till now, no one here has yet suggested any stimulus- benefit or personal effect- for the non-gay majority who are either indifferent or intolerant to have a reason to support gay marriage without playing the “my concept of what is moral is right” card. Like I hinted to stukasa, if there HAD to be a vote that would change the destiny of this issue, I would vote in favor- but I do not consider myself a supporter of their cause, more indifferent on the level of the “give that child the toy and let him stop crying already” scenario. But in the end, we DO NOT HAVE TO deal with this issue; most are not left with any crucial consequence should gays not be able to marry. This issue will sit on the back burner for it lacks the same appeal and/or priority other have. Yes, your going to get outclipped by news about other human right violations- likely not even in the same hemasphere- and issues such as the stock market to sports, where deaths, money, and entertainment is worth more. This subject just lacks that much appeal (it wasn't even a popular topic to start with), and severity. To many out its as much of a joke as the how they use the word faggot. Aside from those social attitudes, there are those who claim the moral high ground- preserving a sacred order/message or some tradition, etc. Like you, many have their own concepts of moral to protect and cannot accept homosexuality or allow for policies that promotes it (making it “ok” is not ok, for it is their belief- whatever it may be- that homosexuality isn’t “right” in the first place). Others, out of social reasons/stereotypes/misunderstandings, will simply resist your moral reasoning and stay out of supporting this issue public to avoid harassment and/or humiliation. Maybe they are all ignorant, or maybe they all just want to have something to pick on. To me, it is necessary to find a reason that (somehow) appeal to their own interest. Otherwise, be prepared to wait …a lifetime or more if needed, for these opinions to change widely. Hey, I'm game for just waiting... afterall, I know I can sit on my opinions and make it a walking-home, internet forum, or office converstation for many years to come.


We already have programs set to solve local hunger. We already have programs set for unemployment. And we already have programs set up for education. All of these are working systems that have provided more than positive results. However, what is the program that is allowing Gay marriage to proceed?
LOL, first thing that came to my head to answer your question was: Canada: America’s hat.
I see your point; I understand the unfairness you feel. But in the end, you still don’t get the point I was trying to make:
Food > gay marriage
Education > gay marriage
Unemployment > gay marriage
“Gay” marriage only applies to homosexuals. The 3 issue I listed effects can effect the entire population. Priorities and personal risk are factors people do (and often have to) consider.


. If you want to talk about success rates and the programs that have been created that support our current problems, I'd be happy to. But I gauruntee that i will win
Go start the topic(s) for poverty, unemployment, and/or education, etc. and pour what you know about how good of a job those programs and plans in place does in addressing those issues. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for something constructive from you to me.

Hesperus
03-07-2009, 10:26 AM
Honestly, unless you are gay or christian, or you have someone close to you that is gay or christian, I really don't see how anything really matters. I shall be one of those who shall withhold his vote; in fact, I didn't even vote on the poll =)

33Zephyr33
03-07-2009, 11:35 AM
I totally agree. As some of you might know there were propositions in a few states to see weather or not gay marriage would be allowed. The biggest one being in California. Prop 8 was the biggest one of them all since marriage had already become legal in California. They Church spent million upon millions of dollars on a campaign of lies and deceit and thats why prop 8 was passed. Why cant gay people have the same rights as everybody else? Is it so wrong that they get to have what we have? Hopefully they will some time in the future. So yes! They deserve the same rights as everybody else! Repeal prop 8!

33Zephyr33
03-07-2009, 11:37 AM
I say "nay" to gay marriage.

I don't like any kind of marriage. Why does the humankind still have this useless stupid custom called marriage?

Marriage or even gay marriage for that matter is going to stay around for a very long time so why not vote for the right side?

33Zephyr33
03-07-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm against gay relationships, gay presence in media, gay marriage and adoption. And not because of some stupid religion, but because they're disgusting abnormal creatures that don't deserve the same rights as normal people. If you want to do what you want, go find some other planet to live in.

I know Im not allowed to flame anybody but you are too much of a fucktard bigot to resist.
Homosexual people are people. They are not aliens, they are not animals. They are people just like you and me and they deserve the same amount of respect as every other person in the world. You sir are a fucking moron.

Lord Zero
03-07-2009, 12:38 PM
So you're saying that humans haven't been MADE to Reproduce? That would be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

Gays ARE different and if you don't admit it you just show how stupid you are.

I am perfectly normal. I am for things doing what they're designed to do, not start doing disgusting abnormal things which do nothing but bad things (promote homosexually, spread STDs, make children leave a terrible life by child adoption etc.)

And I don't care either about all you ignorant people who think that such a horrible thing is perfectly normal. Why don't you do yourself a favor and go and get screwed by some fat lorry driver, so you are happy? Oh, and don't forget do stimulate yourself with a screwdriver first!

Well, i have to object here, gentlemen.
My dear sir, with all due respect, homosexuality isnt not abnormal
at all, in fact is a evolutionary mechanism which is present some social
contructs which rely heavily on jerarchy.
To demerit of your position, current research as found interesting
morphological and genetic evidence on this regard.

I understand than you express a personal dislike for this, but i can
assure you than your feeling has arised from your culture and
lack of knowlenge rather than tangible facts.

LZ, Biologist.

My kind regards.

SniperTak
03-07-2009, 01:07 PM
So you're saying that humans haven't been MADE to Reproduce? That would be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
No one is saying that humans are not made to reproduce. But humans are made to do things that feel good. This is why you jack off. What purpose does Masturbation provide, other than the feeling of ectasy? Clearly youre not reproducing.


Gays ARE different and if you don't admit it you just show how stupid you are.

Sure gays are different. And so are blacks. And so are Chinese. And so are russians. Were all different. Your point? I mean, If you prefer to have sex with Fat, ugly women, you would also be different from me.


I am perfectly normal. I am for things doing what they're designed to do, not start doing disgusting abnormal things which do nothing but bad things (promote homosexually, spread STDs, make children leave a terrible life by child adoption etc.)

Apart from the fact that Gay sex is no less responsible than straight sex for spreading STDs, what sort of statistical evidence do you have that children who are adopted by gay couples lead horrible lives, as opposed to those children spending their time in adoption agencies, jumping from one home to another? That is much more harmful on children.


And I don't care either about all you ignorant people who think that such a horrible thing is perfectly normal. Why don't you do yourself a favor and go and get screwed by some fat lorry driver, so you are happy? Oh, and don't forget do stimulate yourself with a screwdriver first!

If you truly think that homosexuality is wrong, and that it is unnatural, i implore you to see the next picture.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/SniperTak/deersome-1.jpg

Clearly even in the animal kingdom, homosexuality is rampant. There have been over 1000 species which have been recorded to have gay sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Quite frankly, you are wrong.

Otaku Ichise
03-07-2009, 01:08 PM
I got nothing against them as long im not forced to watch or like it.

Its their life to begin with, as long they dont go try make some straight people uncomfortable, like showing off and all, that to me is something that should be private tough, no wonder people disagree because they dont want their children to start learning that more easily on tv, to me its quite simple as that.

Well theres nothing much i can tell about this as theres always the cause of this and that.
Also dont know if this is true but the sex of male to male/ then the gay going to have sex with the female could be a new born desease, dunno.

lol i can agree to this marriage or can disagree, theres lot in it that i dont feel typing and im in a hurry to go play my super robot wars lmao.

solarenemy
03-07-2009, 01:43 PM
So you're saying that humans haven't been MADE to Reproduce? That would be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

Gays ARE different and if you don't admit it you just show how stupid you are.

I am perfectly normal. I am for things doing what they're designed to do, not start doing disgusting abnormal things which do nothing but bad things (promote homosexually, spread STDs, make children leave a terrible life by child adoption etc.)

And I don't care either about all you ignorant people who think that such a horrible thing is perfectly normal. Why don't you do yourself a favor and go and get screwed by some fat lorry driver, so you are happy? Oh, and don't forget do stimulate yourself with a screwdriver first!

Wow! Who left the closed minded moron door open? Dude get with the times. Most civilized people have accepted homosexuality as just another form of human sexuality. Only the closed minded bible thumpers like yourself see it as abnormal or wrong. As Sniper said yes we are created to reproduce. But we are also created to do WHAT FEELS GOOD.

If being with another man make a man feel good then it is normal as it is what we are supposed to do. If being with another woman makes a woman feel good then it is normal as it is what she was created to do. They are created to do what feels good and right. So if it feels good and right to them then it is not abnormal.

In todays society it is more abnormal not to accept such things. I might also inform you that about 10% of Hongfire member base is gay and composed of both men and woman and there is even a small percentage bisexual members here. So if they are monsters and abnormal, then maybe you should pack your bags and move back to whatever other shithole forum you crawled out from under because we don't appreciate your comments or the fact you call other humans that are no different from you or I except the fact they find PLEASURE from the SAME SEX monsters.

Yes I did neg rep you because I feel your post was totally in the wrong and you had no consideration for anyone other then your own bullshit opinion. I am sorry for knocking you into a the negatives but hey that's life and you think before you speak. There are people present that your comments will and do offend. Not to mention your post pretty much can be construed as flaming any member who is gay since you call all gays a monster and abnormal.

Hesperus
03-07-2009, 04:06 PM
One person's right is the subjugation of the rights of someone else. Whether or not gay marriage is allowed, someone's rights will ultimately be stepped upon. For those to whom any decision regarding gay marriage does not affect, to bicker is simply an act of self-righteousness.

realsilverjunk
03-07-2009, 07:59 PM
Whoa whoa! Stop the hatred! Some of these guys are going too far!

Hayeate
03-07-2009, 08:15 PM
Since human zygotes begin as females, it technically makes us all lesbians.

bobuild01
03-08-2009, 11:01 AM
Since human zygotes begin as females, it technically makes us all lesbians.

very good point, men could be bred out of existance.(jk)

Otaku Ichise
03-08-2009, 11:40 AM
Another simple fact > everybody is free to do what they like :P

I wouldnt care if someone is having gay marriage or not, nobody is forced to go there and see.
Who would simply care other than our own life? sheesh... specialy when theres always lot nice things to do, only bad thing most time is geting the free time (and the other is the life being short <_<)

rbp
03-08-2009, 01:47 PM
All marriage is gay, amirite?

...my opinion is unsurprisingly all should be equal before the law...

rbp
03-08-2009, 06:42 PM
All fetuses don't start out female, their sex was determined at conception... male and female fetuses just have the same undercarriage up until a certain developmental stage (don't remember the time frame), then they develops differently...

DazTora
03-08-2009, 08:03 PM
Yeah it's fine,

*wafflez*

arcticcz
03-12-2009, 04:05 AM
It is not against nature I dont say that but well if girls kiss each other it is acceptable becouse they are "girls", but if guy kiss another guy it is like you are trying to jump of bungee without rope :D .... people will say that you are wierd

Cogoyo
03-12-2009, 10:39 AM
People is people ... regardless the fact that they like to mate with other people of the same gender ... and that they can't procreate ... and that is gross when you go out dancing and one comes to make their moves on you ... D:

But it's fine by me ... more gals to me ;D

XD

Starkadder
03-12-2009, 06:59 PM
Do you agree with Gay Marriage ?
Yeah, i think they have the same rights as me, regardless their sexual preferences.
No, they are acting against nature, are going to hell for their sin.

The original creator of this poll wanted to be flamed. His poll is so biased and hateful. Obviously if you don't want to pick his first choice, you are only left to being decried as some evil religious extremist.

The poll is blantantly not fair, and it doesn't even pretend to be fair. The poll is not designed to be reflective of the membership or informative. This thread's main purpose is the punish those who disagree with the creator of this thread.

This poll and thread should be closed.

BruceKO
03-12-2009, 07:22 PM
I can't understand why anyone would oppose sweet marital union between two beautiful women.
because that would reduce the prospective of getting my hands on these beautiful women by two.

realsilverjunk
03-13-2009, 01:45 AM
Out of the closet and into the streets honey!
Were here, were queer, get used to it!
and were looking FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUSSSSSSSS!

Deere666
03-13-2009, 04:10 AM
because that would reduce the prospective of getting my hands on these beautiful women by two.

think positive ..... if they are bi, instead only lez, instead reduce your possibility by two, you increase by one the possibility to get your hands on both them together, huh ? ..... :p :D

..... always think positive ..... :D

Denamic
03-13-2009, 04:34 AM
Out of the closet and into the streets honey!
Were here, were queer, get used to it!
and were looking FAAAAAAAAAAABULOUSSSSSSSS!
Well, I accept you for being what you are and respect your courage to 'come out'.
I still don't like you, but you can get married with any guy you want.

TheShadow
03-14-2009, 09:34 AM
TOTALLY NO

No matter what u guys think but when something is wrong, it would be kept as WRONG ! i don't like to see or hear even about them.. and if i do i simply cut my relationship with him

And about marrage, i don't mind ONLY if they decide to change and be back into human natural (man with woman)

Faval
03-14-2009, 09:39 AM
Humans are by far natural, we suppress our desires all the time.

Anyway I hardly see what's wrong with homosexuality, the world could use a few less people in it :p

Rick
03-14-2009, 09:41 AM
No matter what u guys think but when something is wrong, it would be kept as WRONG !
That is, if it was wrong, which isn't. So your argument holds no water. :P

realsilverjunk
03-14-2009, 10:11 AM
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK! !!!! Hahahahaha!!!

laclos
03-14-2009, 11:35 AM
You should be allowed to marry whoever you want. Why would you put laws on something like that to prohibit it. It's almost like the government putting a law out there you can't sleep with someone who has red hair. It's personally our choice to do what we want. I certainly remember that something was written about separation of church and state... Just can't remember where that was from. That's in case this stems from a religious point of view.

See, there was even a feminist artist named Amber Swanson who married a Real Doll that looked just like her in Vegas. I believe it was more for a thing she was working on in the moment, but I see no problem with it. It's inanimate.

Lord Zero
03-14-2009, 11:45 AM
79% for the non-bigotry side... excellents odds if you ask me.
Make me feel warm and cozy inside to realize than ppl
here understand this matter as being personal and therefore
having nothing to do with law.

Damn, its common sense to realize than what people do
in their bedroom without hurting anyone is their bussiness
and law shouldnt meddle into it.

Period.

laclos
03-14-2009, 11:48 AM
We should poll like a Metallica forum or something. I kind of assumed we'd be pretty open to new things here.

Deere666
03-14-2009, 11:54 AM
Damn, its common sense to realize than what people do
in their bedroom without hurting anyone is their bussiness
and law should meddle into it.

Period.

..... and you really have seen somewhere laws made from peoples with any common sense ? ..... :)

..... i don't know for other countries, but in my country, i never seen one made so ..... :p :D

bruce lee
03-14-2009, 11:56 AM
We should poll like a Metallica forum or something. I kind of assumed we'd be pretty open to new things here.


Wrong. Metallica is not 4 fags :grin:

laclos
03-14-2009, 11:56 AM
Land of the free? Oxymoronic, I say.


Wrong. Metallica is not 4 fags :grin:

Now, you are just assuming.... God, I hate that F-word...

bruce lee
03-14-2009, 11:59 AM
Not, just tellin' what i've seen...ppl who i know love metal is not fag...and ppl who i confirmed is fag like other stuff...U know, kelly clarkson and that crap

Lord Zero
03-14-2009, 12:00 PM
..... and you really have seen somewhere laws made from peoples with any common sense ? ..... :)

..... i don't know for other countries, but in my country, i never seen one made so ..... :p :D

Let me dream of a more reazonable world. I do science for
the progress of mankind... (and fun) so you can already
get an idea of my idealism... :P

Anyway, if we dont strive for a world like that, would we
ever get to achieve it ?
We have to picture that ideal in our minds. Better to
live if it were already reality. Helps to put yourself
in the mood to straight things out.

At least for works for me.

laclos
03-14-2009, 12:06 PM
Not, just tellin' what i've seen...ppl who i know love metal is not fag...and ppl who i confirmed is fag like other stuff...U know, kelly clarkson and that crap

My God....

bruce lee
03-14-2009, 12:07 PM
... God, I hate that F-word...

Trust me buddy, God hate that word 2, that's Y He created us Man and Woman :neko:

laclos
03-14-2009, 12:10 PM
Walking away... slowly.

bruce lee
03-14-2009, 12:30 PM
Farewell, dude ... (man, Truth's not nice 4 every1, is it?)

Maul Sarrowtail
03-14-2009, 01:10 PM
Oh, god... This debate.

If I remember correctly, it was something that the Canadian government did vote on in the House. The result was close, heated as hell, and something that I don't think the Canadian public ever want to see brought up again.

And I can't say that I can blame the public for that. The arguments got pretty stupid, both for and against gay marriage. In the end, they got the right to marry... and as a friend of mine once said on the topic, "Hey, gays and lesbians have as much right to be miserable as anyone else."
To do that end, I am neither for or against... I don't mind it, but then I'm not gay... so the ruling has little to no effect on me. I just wished that for every time that the subject comes up... the religious and political rhetoric would die down a few notches.... or get set to mute.

zennacko
03-14-2009, 01:15 PM
Everyone has the right to do whatever they want....
The free life is the ultimate goal of most of the live beings

Gashbell
03-14-2009, 01:35 PM
To respond this topic.... I do not agree with gay marriage.
Well, no matter what. Do what you like to do. Peoples will not judge your marriage.
Its your life not theirs.

laclos
03-14-2009, 01:38 PM
and as a friend of mine once said on the topic, "Hey, gays and lesbians have as much right to be miserable as anyone else."


Pretty much. It's funny that mainly straight white older males are making the decisions in America. We should bring Harvey Milk back from the dead. I mean I am not gay so, why the hell should I have a say in other people's business.

姫狩りダンジョンマイスター
03-14-2009, 01:51 PM
I don't see how gay people directly cause injury to me or anyone I know...

I think it's not really the peoples fault that they are this uninformed and....well frankly.....stupid.

laclos
03-14-2009, 01:54 PM
I don't see how gay people directly cause injury to me or anyone I know...

I think it's not really the peoples fault that they are this uninformed and....well frankly.....stupid.

Ahem. Ill-informed is a better adjective to describe such people.

triplehydra
03-14-2009, 01:59 PM
The issue of gay marriage here in the States is connected to the wider push for the incorporation of Christian ideals (as read by the fundamentalists, of course) into state and federal law. When most people argue against gay marriage, they argue from that religious standpoint: "The Bible forbids it." Fine, no one's going to force a church to marry two men or two women if they think it's a sin. But gays should definitely have the right to have a civil marriage and the benefits that go along with it. That's a civil issue, not a religious one.

Never mind the fact that most people citing Leviticus or Deuteronomy as forbidding homosexuality almost certainly don't follow most of the other laws proscribed in those books, if they've even read them.

laclos
03-14-2009, 02:04 PM
The issue of gay marriage here in the States is connected to the wider push for the incorporation of Christian ideals (as read by the fundamentalists, of course) into state and federal law. When most people argue against gay marriage, they argue from that religious standpoint: "The Bible forbids it." Fine, no one's going to force a church to marry two men or two women if they think it's a sin. But gays should definitely have the right to have a civil marriage and the benefits that go along with it. That's a civil issue, not a religious one.

Never mind the fact that most people citing Leviticus or Deuteronomy as forbidding homosexuality almost certainly don't follow most of the other laws proscribed in those books, if they've even read them.

They should take a closer look at the first amendment then. Incorporating more Christian values into Federal Law is a violation of it. They made the first amendment so that Law would not be bias. It would be equal to those of all religions. It's funny that now, they can't find any legitimate things in law to use against gay marriage so they have to resort to something that is really frowned upon. Man, I hate law makers. Regardless of what party they are from.

triplehydra
03-14-2009, 02:10 PM
They should take a closer look at the first amendment then. Incorporating more Christian values into Federal Law is a violation of it. They made the first amendment so that Law would not be bias. It would be equal to those of all religions. It's funny that now, they can't find any legitimate things in law to use against gay marriage so they have to resort to something that is really frowned upon. Man, I hate law makers. Regardless of what party they are from.

eh, that's how it is. Politicians want to make the voters happy and distracted from the truly important issues (the economy, foreign policy, all that stuff that people ignored in 2004.) Of course, these days things aren't quite the same. Maybe that's for the best...

laclos
03-14-2009, 02:12 PM
Don't we have some kind of economic crisis in America to worry about rather than the right for people to marry?

33Zephyr33
03-14-2009, 06:02 PM
Trust me buddy, God hate that word 2, that's Y He created us Man and Woman :neko:

FULL WORDS AND SENTENCES.

Lagoonate
03-14-2009, 09:58 PM
Gay marriage isn't good coz it's defy nature and my religion forbid it but as long it's not bring harm to others i think they have rights to do that:)

laclos
03-14-2009, 10:03 PM
FULL WORDS AND SENTENCES.

At least, someone said what I was thinking.


Gay marriage isn't good coz it's defy nature

ROFL is all I have to say.

Denamic
03-15-2009, 04:11 AM
Gay marriage isn't good coz it's defy nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

TheShadow
03-15-2009, 09:26 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Well at less we r human and have brain ! Those r animals at the end unless whoever is gay want to be an animal too

Kamigoroshi
03-15-2009, 09:44 AM
Huh, so by your logic animals don't have brains? Wow, never thought about that!
Also humans are animals. Period.

Lord Zero
03-15-2009, 10:24 AM
Well at less we r human and have brain ! Those r animals at the end unless whoever is gay want to be an animal too

Care to join a hate group ? It would be fun to
see you get in jail and meet bubba.

YamiNoSekai
03-15-2009, 10:51 AM
I can never fully undesrtand what the big issue is about homosexuality in the States. One minute A-O.K, next minute burn them! Apart from obvious religious outcasting. There is nothing wrong or evil about it. If 2 consenting adults of the same sex do love each other, where there is no harm done to either party or others, then I see nothing wrong. Just like any other couple. Take into consideration of Psychology involved. Studies have shown that people who greatly dislike homosexuals have homosexual tendencies themselves. Usually they themselves are gay and are in denial or fear gay people because they don't understand it. Religious fanatics on the other hand...well they just aren't with the times...ever. If your religion does not condone it, then don't act on it and leave others who aren't religious out of it.

What is with the 'I think it's disgusting, therefore I want it banned or set on fire' mentality lately accross the world? Also is it me or is some religious fanatics further invading freedom of speech and well...common sense? Anything I picked up from this in History and Sociology, whenever there is depression/economic downturn/recession religious groups, moral police, media and government take advantage of the situation and get really power mad trying to rebuild/instill their 'Ideal' society regardless of logic.

Agree with Kamigoroshi about humans being animals, we technically are. The only difference is that we are seen as more sentient beings. We still live with the mind set fight or flight mentality that even animals have and our basic urges to survive. The Strong survives (Rich) and the Weak die (Poor). Heck even Capitalism is similar to the Food Chain. The strong feeds off/ benefits from the weak. Go Marxist thinking!

Deere666
03-15-2009, 10:52 AM
Let me dream of a more reazonable world. I do science for
the progress of mankind... (and fun) so you can already
get an idea of my idealism... :P

Anyway, if we dont strive for a world like that, would we
ever get to achieve it ?
We have to picture that ideal in our minds. Better to
live if it were already reality. Helps to put yourself
in the mood to straight things out.

At least for works for me.

well, in this sense, i can agree with you ..... i mean, working for make a better world, and so on .....

the only thing i regret, about that, is that regardless any good thing that scentists and researchers can do and discover for proceed i this sense, there's always some damn politician, judge or businessman eager and bad-minded enough for find an easy way for ruin all their efforts taking personal advantage from them .....




Well at less we r human and have brain !

..... are you sure ? ..... all the times i watch tv, lately, i feel myself a bit more insecure, about that :D





Religious fanatics on the other hand...well they just aren't with the times...ever. If your religion does not condone it, then don't act on it and leave others who aren't religious out of it.

this require that religious fanatics have working brains ..... i personally, til now, never found any kind of fanatics, religious at top, with a working brain ..... still searching, but with no hope :D


What is with the 'I think it's disgusting, therefore I want it banned or set on fire' mentality lately accross the world?
:D ..... i always found disgusting politicians, bad judges and eager businessmen ..... but never found a way for ban them or set all at fire, cause laws always protect them (uhm, is just my impression, or those laws are "a bit" of part ? ..... :D)

TheShadow
03-15-2009, 11:25 AM
Being a stupid doens't mean u don't think...

Lord Zero
03-15-2009, 11:47 AM
Being a stupid doens't mean u don't think...

Thats truth indeed. If you start with flawed bases and go all
the way to reach the logical conclusion you will
end in the wrong spot.
Even if you whole process follows logic and reason.

laclos
03-15-2009, 12:07 PM
I think we need to distinguish "Nature" from "nature" because they are definitely not the same thing. By the way kids, animals have brains too, just not developed as ours. Their needs and desires are also quite different than ours. Most people aren't stupid; their Nature is just flawed as most of people's. We wont be able to change people, educate maybe, but besides that I doubt we will be able to do much. It's not like we are working with a Tabula rasa.

Sure, if politicians are worried that it will bastardize the word "marriage", then they don't understand that "marriage" is just a word. We come up with new words all the time and change the meanings of words all the time. I think we have already comprised for the word "union", but yet, it's just another word set to an idea. I just don't see the issue with how we define marriage. It's mainly just the big three religions that have an issue with it. Buddhists and Hindis don't have a definite feeling on this, though there are always the more conservatives in the religions; it makes you think though is this through outside influences. Is it a pressure to conform to how the Others feel?

I just say we allow them too, since it's just a word. If people feel so up tight about it, let them have a union. We have better stuff to worry about at this time-- Like our economy, or Korea or Iran attempting to blow us up.

Deere666
03-15-2009, 12:29 PM
Being a stupid doens't mean u don't think...

right, but also don't mean you're automatically right, you don't agree ?

the difference is just in how you use your brain, after all ..... :p




I just say we allow them too, since it's just a word.
basically, this is the problem ..... marriage is just a word, but those that in politic don't want to allow it between gay/lez peoples don't care about it, care just about money .....

they don't care to give them the possibility to live together, but if they gain the same rights of an ethero couple, the state loose a lot of easy money ..... if you're married, the other can left you his eredity, where instead when you die alone the state take all ..... if you're married, have right to familiar permissions and medical assistance that usually you don't have if you're alone ..... and so on, all the states have some different laws about all those things, but i'm sure that if you put all together, the main reason for which most states and religions deny this right to gay/lez peoples, is money, money, and money again :p :D

Rick
03-15-2009, 12:50 PM
To respond this topic.... I do not agree with gay marriage.
Well, no matter what. Do what you like to do. Peoples will not judge your marriage.
Its your life not theirs.
Hmm... how will people not judge marriage if you do not agree with gay marriage yourself to begin with? How do that add up?

Also humans are animals. Period.
Quoted for truth. No matter how "intelligent" or "socially evolved" we are, nothing will ever change that fact.

Being a stupid doens't mean u don't think...
Indeed, it just basically means you are not thinking well and/or hard enough, if at all. And no offense but, seeing the responses in this thread, that is precisely what you, as well as many of the others (if not all of them) who chose the 2nd option in the poll, have been doing in this thread so far. :P

EDIT
On a note to Starkadder:

Do you agree with Gay Marriage ?
Yeah, i think they have the same rights as me, regardless their sexual preferences.
No, they are acting against nature, are going to hell for their sin.

The original creator of this poll wanted to be flamed. His poll is so biased and hateful. Obviously if you don't want to pick his first choice, you are only left to being decried as some evil religious extremist.

The poll is blantantly not fair, and it doesn't even pretend to be fair. The poll is not designed to be reflective of the membership or informative. This thread's main purpose is the punish those who disagree with the creator of this thread.

This poll and thread should be closed.
While I can agree that the options in the poll were badly phrased and they should've been a simple "yes/no", that is not to say we can't have a good discussion even if the poll is awfully biased beyond repair. Besides, it can't be helped that some people who are against gay marriage hasn't exactly come up with very good arguments to justify their opinions in the first place. And before you ask, I am disregarding the "gay marriage is against nature or my religion" arguments because, while they are good enough to be one's reasons to not agree with gay marriage, they are NOT (or at least should not be IMO) good enough to outlaw gay marriage if you ask me.

At least all the ones against gay marriage seemingly will ever have as an argument is something out of personal bias, which is fine but is not likely to convince anyone who is for gay marriage to be against.

I'd say the mods should feel free to close the poll if they deem it appropriate but there's little point in closing the thread as well at this point.

Just my 2 cents.

TheShadow
03-15-2009, 02:02 PM
Indeed, it just basically means you are not thinking well and/or hard enough, if at all. And no offense but, seeing the responses in this thread, that is precisely what you, as well as many of the others (if not all of them) who chose the 2nd option in the poll, have been doing in this thread so far. :P

that's there opinion... not mine ! So even many think they don't mind or if it's normal what is wrong is wrong

this is the most basic rule which i always follow - ( of course u can always decide either keep you self in the wrong side or correct it )

Rick
03-15-2009, 02:06 PM
So even many think they don't mind or if it's normal what is wrong is wrong
Wrong only in the religious spectrum the way I see it, which, quite frankly, ain't worth shit. No offense. So I'm afraid my point still stands.

tenjouten
03-15-2009, 02:39 PM
It doesn't matter that much anyway. With or without marriage the gay people are going to be together anyways; the only difference is you're binding them on paper and giving them benefits.

ShampooKisses
03-15-2009, 04:44 PM
I say "nay" to gay marriage.

I don't like any kind of marriage. Why does the humankind still have this useless stupid custom called marriage?

I don't understand this viewpoint. You're against marriage in general, but you don't seem to have anything to say against gay and lesbians getting married per se. Since marriage is not something that's going away for "normal" couples, the only people that are not able to get married are the gay and lesbian couples. Gays and lesbians are fighting for equal rights in relationships, and that means the benefits that come with the marriage custom. Either do away with it for all, or have it for all, but don't have it for some and not others.


It doesn't matter that much anyway. With or without marriage the gay people are going to be together anyways; the only difference is you're binding them on paper and giving them benefits.

Benefits are almost the entire point of most of the fight for gay marriage. They want the same rights in their relationships that opposite sex couples can choose to have if they choose to get married.

Maverick007
03-15-2009, 04:58 PM
^-^ Less loosen up the tension...
Prop 8: The Musical!!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

As for me...I don't care... It doesn't affect me whether or not a guy wants to marry another guy, or a girl wants to marry another girl.

scubidubi
03-15-2009, 05:13 PM
i don't mind gays really, just on one day here in germany, much alike csd, when they make you feel like you are the one who is out of the line. like laughing at you and being offensive.

laclos
03-15-2009, 06:18 PM
I don't believe we are going to find a solution anyways here. *Points to the dead horse on the ground*. Now, lets all agree to disagree haha. Lets pass the peace pipe, shall we?

realsilverjunk
03-16-2009, 04:29 AM
Heres my thought...
"First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong
I learned how to carry on
and so you're back
from outer space
I just walked in to find you here
with that sad look upon your face
I should have changed my stupid lock
I should have made you leave your key
If I had known for just one second
you'd be back to bother me

Go on now go walk out the door
just turn around now
'cause you're not welcome anymore
weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
you think I'd crumble
you think I'd lay down and die
Oh no, not I
I will survive
as long as i know how to love
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my love to give
and I'll survive
I will survive

It took all the strength I had
not to fall apart
kept trying hard to mend
the pieces of my broken heart
and I spent oh so many nights
just feeling sorry for myself
I used to cry
Now I hold my head up high
and you see me
somebody new
I'm not that chained up little person
still in love with you
and so you felt like dropping in
and just expect me to be free
now I'm saving all my loving
for someone who's loving me "

luk4444
03-16-2009, 05:25 AM
Well i don't care what they do as long as they don't force themselfs on me

bruce lee
03-16-2009, 11:47 AM
That's something you all should have noticed. Although 75% say ¨Yes, I agree¨, it happens that most (or at least half) the people voted ¨Yes¨ just don't care. They don't necessarily support gay marriage, it's just that they didn't find the option ¨They can do whatever the hell they want, not my biznez¨...

On the other hand, the other 25% (that includes me :grin:) has voted ¨No¨ and given a perspective that clearly points against gay marriage.

This poll's results ought to be analyzed considerin' this.


Huh, so by your logic animals don't have brains? Wow, never thought about that!
Also humans are animals. Period.

As many people here have replied, having brains it's not a guarantee of thinking (meaning being rational)...Osama Bin Laden has brains...a comatose has brains...animals have brains...

So, if there's homosexuality in animal kingdom... is perfectly natural 4 a man 2 be attracted by other man???

C'mon..............Gorillas, lions, pigs and other species devour their own descendants...should we do that, since it's natural ???

GarotoBH20
03-16-2009, 11:52 AM
No, I do not aggree.

Maul Sarrowtail
03-16-2009, 02:15 PM
You know I was just going to look about this thread and not answer... but you sir, you did the one thing that is hard for me to pass on. You put words in my mouth, en garde!


That's something you all should have noticed. Although 75% say ¨Yes, I agree¨, it happens that most (or at least half) the people voted ¨Yes¨ just don't care. They don't necessarily support gay marriage, it's just that they didn't find the option ¨They can do whatever the hell they want, not my biznez¨...
First off, can I ask what matters with those metrics?
To be honest here, I think you are just grasping at straws. The fact of matter is that most support it, and myself as must as I don't care about it... and am not oppose to the legal construct of the matter. In fact, my opinion of it is rather clear... it's a matter of civil rights and not religious acceptance, under those terms it would rather foolish to grant rights to one civil group (heterosexuals) and yet deny the same rights to another(homosexuals) without a clear view that it would be harmful to society to so do.

Till you prove that, I am not sure you could ever really count me in against the construct, in a legal matter.... To quote the late Pierre E. Trudeau on the matter, "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."




On the other hand, the other 25% (that includes me :grin:) has voted ¨No¨ and given a perspective that clearly points against gay marriage.


Under your metrics and based on my own opinion, your arguments here are flawed... you have yet to prove an example of where such unions would have done any from of harm to the public at large. Nor do you make any attempt to...

To use Canada as an example, you want to know what happened the day after that "gay marriage" vote... NOTHING. Nothing outside of the normal day for the nation, maybe a flood of those that wanted to this pass at City Hall (which didn't last long) but aside from that nothing else out of the ordinary.


This poll's results ought to be analysed considerin' this.

As many people here have replied, having brains it's not a guarantee of thinking (meaning being rational)...Osama Bin Laden has brains...a comatose has brains...animals have brains...

So, if there's homosexuality in animal kingdom... is perfectly natural 4 a man 2 be attracted by other man???

C'mon..............Gorillas, lions, pigs and other species devour their own descendants...should we do that, since it's natural ???
No, but you have proven the reason to why this subject is not approached again by canada, at least on the political level.

The definition, as it stands legally, it more construed under religious opinion than most people would like to think. By that token, most of the screaming defending the bill and those against it is more of a moot point... it's tiring to deal with, and quite venomous to handle.. most people in canada, regardless of opinion, would rather that the law says with it will and then have it left alone.
It a whole lot of bickering over nothing. And why, I could really careless if it's brought up again.

laclos
03-16-2009, 04:40 PM
Isn't it moot and not mute?

I wouldn't criticize the poor kid. His argument was at least amusing.

realsilverjunk
03-16-2009, 04:50 PM
In my country, It was like 52% against it, 48% with it. I live in the United States. If you really want Gay marriage to come to fruition, then you will have to wait a generation, until the last generation dies out...

HolyHoly123
03-16-2009, 05:32 PM
RSJ. Gay marrage is a sin. How is it a man such as yourself who preaches the bible say anything other than "No gay marrage!" Really I am begining to question your faith.

Maul Sarrowtail
03-16-2009, 05:35 PM
Edit made, thank you.

I wouldn't criticize the poor kid. His argument was at least amusing.

As I said, was going to just watch this thread, and then he went and said that. Assuming that he speak for all those here....

And that point, he earned the hardest hammer I can toss.

PrincessMai
03-16-2009, 06:39 PM
Yes I agree, and you know what else? it's hot when men fuck each other.

laclos
03-16-2009, 06:45 PM
Yes I agree, and you know what else? it's hot when men fuck each other.

You tell it like it is sister. Finally, some input from the opposite sex.

solarenemy
03-16-2009, 08:03 PM
You tell it like it is sister. Finally, some input from the opposite sex.

LOL!

You have not been on the internet long have you? Let introduce you to two very well known facts about the internet.

Number one. There are no girls on the internet.

Number two. Any girl you find is almost always a guy in denial or a guy claiming to be a girl just for the lulz.

If you do find a real girl it's only be cause she lost her way or she is just weird and that is only like 2% of the internet population..

The little pink symbol means nothing as any guy can choose it as many have here. Don't get me wrong Princess. I'm just pointing out the err of his assumption on the internet.:kakashi:

animedoll
03-16-2009, 08:39 PM
^..i guess i'm in the 2%...

anyways..gay people are fun, especially the lesbians...

triplehydra
03-16-2009, 10:51 PM
What really kills me is how a lot of people down here (I live down South) claim to believe in states' rights, and then they push for an amendment IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION federally outlawing gay marriage. And they honestly don't see the contradiction there. For God's sake...

6531597
03-17-2009, 04:01 AM
sweet, sweet, irony

realsilverjunk
03-17-2009, 07:26 AM
RSJ. Gay marrage is a sin. How is it a man such as yourself who preaches the bible say anything other than "No gay marrage!" Really I am begining to question your faith.

how the heck can you challenge me, and you barley got here! You don't have the knowledge of the faith to challenge me! Yes, I don't agree with gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I have to parade around, rubbing it in peoples faces! You agree with it, or you don't, 'nuff said!

Pissed0ff
03-17-2009, 10:18 AM
Why not? If they really want to that is..

SFOHollandMGO
03-17-2009, 10:34 AM
Gay ppl will get married regardless....

Jesus is a alien, he dont judge you....

Let em get married and stop trying to conserve what is unconservable

33Zephyr33
03-17-2009, 02:54 PM
It seems that 93 members are on the logical side :D

DotheDew
03-17-2009, 03:13 PM
Let them do what they want, it's there choice, but all i'm saying is that your not born beging gay, you choose it.

Hesperus
03-17-2009, 05:10 PM
how the heck can you challenge me, and you barley got here! You don't have the knowledge of the faith to challenge me! Yes, I don't agree with gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I have to parade around, rubbing it in peoples faces! You agree with it, or you don't, 'nuff said!

I'm indifferent. I neither agree nor disagree.

bruce lee
03-17-2009, 05:46 PM
I wouldn't criticize the poor kid. His argument was at least amusing.

Totally agree...I mean...C'mon ¡¡¡ Check this:


most people in canada, regardless of opinion, would rather that the law says with it will and then have it left alone.


Guess I start to understand Y american ppl make fun of canadians...:grin:

(No offense at all, I think that answer was so naive that sounded....even...cute ¡¡¡ :neko:

EDIT: By the way, Hesperus, what does your sig tells??? I think it's sth heretic and funny...

laclos
03-17-2009, 05:53 PM
Is English your first language? Or is grammar not a priority?

I thought this debate was about Gay marriage and not about Canadians. Maybe I was wrong?

realsilverjunk
03-17-2009, 06:16 PM
I'm indifferent. I neither agree nor disagree.

Oh, I was yelling at HolyHoly123...

Starkadder
03-17-2009, 08:29 PM
.......
EDIT
On a note to Starkadder:

While I can agree that the options in the poll were badly phrased and they should've been a simple "yes/no", that is not to say we can't have a good discussion even if the poll is awfully biased beyond repair. Besides, it can't be helped that some people who are against gay marriage hasn't exactly come up with very good arguments to justify their opinions in the first place. And before you ask, I am disregarding the "gay marriage is against nature or my religion" arguments because, while they are good enough to be one's reasons to not agree with gay marriage, they are NOT (or at least should not be IMO) good enough to outlaw gay marriage if you ask me.

At least all the ones against gay marriage seemingly will ever have as an argument is something out of personal bias, which is fine but is not likely to convince anyone who is for gay marriage to be against.

I'd say the mods should feel free to close the poll if they deem it appropriate but there's little point in closing the thread as well at this point.

Just my 2 cents.

I will have to disagree with you on the term 'badly phrased'. It was not 'badly phrased', rather it was purposefully phrased. It was the thread's creator purpose to demonize those that dared to disagree with him and then ensure their names were immortalized publically for further disdain.

The poll is fatally flawed. It is a joke actually. If you don't agree with the first choice, you have to pick a choice that is blantantly offensive.

Many are complaining about those zealots, but what do you expect. Who else would dare to publically counter the first poster. The orginal poster didn't create an atmosphere conducive to discussion.

How can there be fair and free discourse on this subject, when the topic is tainted from the very beginning.

Denamic
03-18-2009, 05:15 AM
Well, the second option certainly does sound biased.
But the thing is that the proponents of the second option has basically said exactly what the second option says.
You know, defies nature and it's a sin and they're going to hell, etc.
So how it's phrased isn't going to affect any discourse that follows.
Actually, the only one who has even cared about it at all up to this point, is you.

AyaKunoichi
03-18-2009, 05:34 AM
I dont agree with it.... but you wont see me at any protest rallies.

Do whatever the hell you want. dont just get me involved.

Fair no?

Lord Zero
03-18-2009, 05:36 AM
Let them do what they want, it's there choice, but all i'm saying is that your not born beging gay, you choose it.

I dont think is so simple. There is strong evidence for
homosexuality to be phisiological.
But im sure not all people born with homosexual characteristics
become gay in their lifetime.
That would be the same as saying than people which
tendency to become alcoholics will be helpless drunks
dumped on the street.
Or than people which high IQs will always sucess on life,
no matter what happens to them.

There is no determinism anymore. Its a blend between
genes and enviroment, no one OR the other.

rbp
03-18-2009, 05:41 AM
I dont agree with it.... but you wont see me at any protest rallies.

Do whatever the hell you want. dont just get me involved.

Fair no?

No... not fair I'm afraid... marriage comes with all manner of important rights... from tax breaks to child care to access in a hospital.

If one legal couple is allowed to gain those rights should they choose to, then all legal couples should have the same option...

It's not really about morality or any of the rest of it... if you're legally allowed to pair up with someone (ie because the law no longer punishes homosexual sex where you are) then you've already abandoned a moral objection and are maintaining a prejudicial division in your society... a glass aparthid if you will...

6531597
03-18-2009, 06:23 AM
here's a hypothetical, what if you fall in love with another guy JUST BECAUSE he's a damn fine looking trap?

Tora Chan
03-18-2009, 07:01 AM
I'm neutral in this matter because as long as It doesn't involve me I honestly don't care.

Lord Zero
03-18-2009, 08:39 AM
I'm neutral in this matter because as long as It doesn't involve me I honestly don't care.

Whoever dont take a side on the question, dont understand the question.

Its really sad to realize how many people dont get than withdrawing
of taking a choice is a choice and a side on itself.
Its like not voting. You are still part of the issue and you are
still responsible of the outcome. As simple as that.


here's a hypothetical, what if you fall in love with another guy JUST BECAUSE he's a damn fine looking trap?

Mmm... i think if you know is a trap... then you are still a gay.
And you had a very weak sexual identity.

bruce lee
03-18-2009, 12:11 PM
I will have to disagree with you on the term 'badly phrased'. It was not 'badly phrased', rather it was purposefully phrased. It was the thread's creator purpose to demonize those that dared to disagree with him and then ensure their names were immortalized publically for further disdain.

The poll is fatally flawed. It is a joke actually. If you don't agree with the first choice, you have to pick a choice that is blantantly offensive.

Many are complaining about those zealots, but what do you expect. Who else would dare to publically counter the first poster. The orginal poster didn't create an atmosphere conducive to discussion.

How can there be fair and free discourse on this subject, when the topic is tainted from the very beginning.

Second that

Azuriys
03-18-2009, 12:41 PM
I dont think is so simple. There is strong evidence for homosexuality to be phisiological.
But im sure not all people born with homosexual characteristics become gay in their lifetime.
That would be the same as saying than people which
tendency to become alcoholics will be helpless drunks
dumped on the street.
Or than people which high IQs will always sucess on life,
no matter what happens to them.

There is no determinism anymore. Its a blend between
genes and enviroment, no one OR the other.

Okay. So. First off, thank you Starkadder, for pointing out the flaws in the poll. Secondly, homosexuality is not something that is determined by genes. You can't be "born gay," or "born with gay tendency." While it is possible to be born with alcoholic tendencies, homosexuality is something that all humans have within them. How else do you explain why men like to have physical contact (such as sports), and women are "touchy-feely" (no offense, I meant it in the "feel the fabric of a dress while someone's wearing it" sense)? While none of us can say for certain, I believe that homosexuality is a product of culture, and what the child learns in his/her surroundings. This does not mean someone else around him has to be interested in the same-sex. I merely define it in the term that there has to be a strong notion of love for a person of the same gender. Of course, there also must be a key to change it from familial love into "romantic love," whether it be an experience of hardship, or well, who knows. In any case, I would like to point out that while homosexuality is not condoned in most Western-styled countries, there are long histories of homosexual practices in all countries. For example, there is shuudo in Japan (look it up). European countries have male bathhouses, as well as homage from the Middle Ages. New Guineans have ritualized homosexuality (search Etoro). Many other examples, but these are all products of society, not biological choices.

Lastly, I would like so say that I do not believe in gay marriage. I do not believe in "gay marriage" because calling it "gay marriage" labels it as such. No matter how nicely it's put, gay marriage still has the stigma of homosexuality because of the fact that one has to especially mention the word "gay" in it. It may be conscious or unconscious ostracization, but it's still ostracization. I also believe that we are making too much of a deal of this, as well as marriage in the first place. However, that's for another time.

lynx655
03-18-2009, 01:28 PM
I sense a lot of controversy here.

Many heterosexual couples don't want to marry and just live together without much commitment, or many say marriage is only a paper and that they can live happily without it. (Whether it is true or not doesn't concern us now.)
If they do marry, half of it ends in divorce, thats one force holding many back. Also for many it no longer holds any religious dimension, tough it was originally a blessing of God, and without it we can really say its just a paper of a judiciary status. (And an excuse to get drunk for like 3 days. :P)

Tough I couldn't find any statistics, I believe it is safe to say that most of the homosexuals aren't Christian. So why would they be so fixated on marriage, something that society is mistreating so much?

Though I do not agree with homosexuality, I do not hate them, I just think its unnatural as much. Also I agree with marriage (I am engaged right now. :neko:) and I believe the only way to having healthy kids is if they have a mother and father.

Right now I believe marriage in general has a much greater problem on its own, also I don't see how accepting homosexual marriage is a necessary step to accepting homosexuality more in general.

Denamic
03-18-2009, 01:37 PM
Right now I believe marriage in general has a much greater problem on its own, also I don't see how accepting homosexual marriage is a necessary step to accepting homosexuality more in general.
Marriage is stupid.
But if straight people are allowed to get married, so should gay people. That's basic equal rights.
Can't you see that by denying them the same right as you have, you're outright discriminating against them. It's the definition of bigotry.
They are human beings, just like us, and they deserve equal rights.

Also, homosexuality is observed and documented to occur in nature all the time.
That means it's natural.

kupo3000
03-18-2009, 02:25 PM
Homosexuals should be allowed marriage.
Sadly the fundies go into head asplode mode, fearing that their Abrahamic god will drown them or whatever if they permit it.

realsilverjunk
03-18-2009, 03:09 PM
Oh PLEASE don't let them (homosexuals) have children. They can NOT raise a child with two disciplinarians in the household. A man CANNOT fulfill a mothers duties, no matter how hard he tries. You need a mother and father to raise a child.

Rick
03-18-2009, 03:18 PM
Oh PLEASE don't let them (homosexuals) have children. They can NOT raise a child with two disciplinarians in the household. A man CANNOT fulfill a mothers duties, no matter how hard he tries. You need a mother and father to raise a child.
Adoption, anyone? And what exactly are these mother duties you speak of?

triplehydra
03-18-2009, 03:26 PM
Oh PLEASE don't let them (homosexuals) have children. They can NOT raise a child with two disciplinarians in the household. A man CANNOT fulfill a mothers duties, no matter how hard he tries. You need a mother and father to raise a child.

That's too much of a generalization. Lots of mother/father teams make terrible parents. And speaking of the mother's duties, now that just as many women are in the workforce as men in the US and most of the rest of the first world, that idea's become largely obsolete. At least as far as the woman staying in the kitchen is concerned.

Still, I'd never, NEVER be a stay-at-home father with a working wife. That's just plain humiliating.

realsilverjunk
03-18-2009, 03:33 PM
Well, normally I wouldn't want to buck heads with you Rick, but I have to say something about this. In a family there is a masculine, and feminine figure. When two of the same kind try to raise a child, the child receives too much of one or the other. I have read studies that speak against the differences, but I don't think they are nearly in depth, or long term enough to give an answer.
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html

rbp
03-18-2009, 04:42 PM
You know... if gayness was a product of culture... why are there instances of teh gay in animals other than humans?

Denamic
03-18-2009, 05:51 PM
Oh PLEASE don't let them (homosexuals) have children. They can NOT raise a child with two disciplinarians in the household. A man CANNOT fulfill a mothers duties, no matter how hard he tries. You need a mother and father to raise a child.
My father's a dick and I would have had a better childhood without him.
My cousin's mother died from giving birth to her.
My friend was raised by his dad alone after his mom split.

If a child can be raised just fine with just one parent, then there's no logical reason they couldn't be brought up by two of the same sex.
Only problem I can really see with it is the social stigma, which is because of bigots like you.

blakazax
03-18-2009, 06:39 PM
A man CANNOT fulfill a mothers duties, no matter how hard he tries. You need a mother and father to raise a child.
man, you need to get a cultural anthroplogy class. in some cultures the roles are interchanged. you have to see it, to believe it.
for sure the gay marriage is weird, but....despite my cultural background does not accept it.....i don't know, i have nothing against these people. this is where our evolution led us! the point is, whether or not we accept them......they are going to be accepted in the society one day. we cant do nothing. they also good people, pff, let them live!

Lord Zero
03-18-2009, 06:39 PM
Okay. So. First off, thank you Starkadder, for pointing out the flaws in the poll. Secondly, homosexuality is not something that is determined by genes. You can't be "born gay," or "born with gay tendency." While it is possible to be born with alcoholic tendencies, homosexuality is something that all humans have within them. How else do you explain why men like to have physical contact (such as sports), and women are "touchy-feely" (no offense, I meant it in the "feel the fabric of a dress while someone's wearing it" sense)? While none of us can say for certain, I believe that homosexuality is a product of culture, and what the child learns in his/her surroundings. This does not mean someone else around him has to be interested in the same-sex. I merely define it in the term that there has to be a strong notion of love for a person of the same gender. Of course, there also must be a key to change it from familial love into "romantic love," whether it be an experience of hardship, or well, who knows. In any case, I would like to point out that while homosexuality is not condoned in most Western-styled countries, there are long histories of homosexual practices in all countries. For example, there is shuudo in Japan (look it up). European countries have male bathhouses, as well as homage from the Middle Ages. New Guineans have ritualized homosexuality (search Etoro). Many other examples, but these are all products of society, not biological choices.

Lastly, I would like so say that I do not believe in gay marriage. I do not believe in "gay marriage" because calling it "gay marriage" labels it as such. No matter how nicely it's put, gay marriage still has the stigma of homosexuality because of the fact that one has to especially mention the word "gay" in it. It may be conscious or unconscious ostracization, but it's still ostracization. I also believe that we are making too much of a deal of this, as well as marriage in the first place. However, that's for another time.

Im sorry man, but you argument is no more. When science call, you answer.
Since we are living beings product of evolution, biology come first.

Of you are willing to deny than you ARE your brain ? Than every single thought which you have had or will ever have is the sum of chemical processes ?

Anyway, while im sure there are social homosexuals also there are
people which were born that way.
Whatever your denialism is originated, morphofisiological differences
seem to exist. As you can see, im merely stating a fact. Not discussing
the social or moral implicancies of that fact.

And well, i also do share your stance than marriage shouldnt be
defined by sex, but for what its means as bond between people
which love each other. And obviously than this bigotry case must stop.

Satelight
03-18-2009, 11:31 PM
Whoever dont take a side on the question, dont understand the question.

You really think all those who (claims to) take sides truely understand the question at hand? And those who picked to ignore your poll does not?
By the way, by question I mean this issue and what can relate to it, not you're poll question.
I mean, trying to understand anything from someone who writes like this:


Its really sad to realize how many people dont get than withdrawing
of taking a choice is a choice and a side on itself.


Of you are willing to deny than you ARE your brain ? Than every single thought which you have had or will ever have is the sum of chemical processes ?

..not worth the work.

While bruce lee may lack in syntax, you seriously need some sematics.

I agree with you on the "it is like not voting" and "outcome" part...
...just like terriorists do not care if who they killed in the plane bombing attack; by being a citizen, you're responsible.
Just in this case, those who don't care or are indifferent will be fine to be responsible for status quo as well as change in this issue.

So in the end, I can only hope all the righteous 75% "yes" people and 25% "no" people actually go out and do things to affect the outcome, and not just doing "+ ego" and "+ self-image" talks on a forum of hentai and torrents or in class or at the dinner table.
Else, one would be thinking too highly about oneself.

Tora Chan
03-19-2009, 01:56 AM
Whoever dont take a side on the question, dont understand the question.

Its really sad to realize how many people dont get than withdrawing
of taking a choice is a choice and a side on itself.
Its like not voting. You are still part of the issue and you are
still responsible of the outcome. As simple as that.



It might count If the boy I liked was gay but sadly enough he isn't.
My point of saying that is I don't mind gay marriage, that being said I don't approve it either. More importantly I don't understand how I'm part of this issue and how I can be held accountable for it?

bruce lee
03-19-2009, 04:19 PM
While bruce lee may lack in syntax, you seriously need some sematics.



well, i don't know if takin' that as a compliment...

Blame the fact that i think in french, spanish and english equally every day...:neko:

rbp
03-19-2009, 05:25 PM
Hmm... that was exactly 20 minutes in spanish, now I must recharge with french...

33Zephyr33
03-19-2009, 08:56 PM
Well, normally I wouldn't want to buck heads with you Rick, but I have to say something about this. In a family there is a masculine, and feminine figure. When two of the same kind try to raise a child, the child receives too much of one or the other. I have read studies that speak against the differences, but I don't think they are nearly in depth, or long term enough to give an answer.
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html

Have you heard the terms "butch" and "Bitch"? While they sound derogatory, at the same time they are very true. On man or female in a same sex marriage will generally be way more feminine thus playing the role of the mother.

Starkadder
03-19-2009, 10:22 PM
Well, the second option certainly does sound biased.
But the thing is that the proponents of the second option has basically said exactly what the second option says.
You know, defies nature and it's a sin and they're going to hell, etc.
So how it's phrased isn't going to affect any discourse that follows.
Actually, the only one who has even cared about it at all up to this point, is you.

I don't think you exactly understand my point. The proponents of the second option are the only ones you really are going to hear on the other side of this subject, or those who don't care either way. You are not given any other option other than saying people are going to hell. I believe that 98% of the people on Hongfire don't really think people are going to go to hell on this subject.

The question is, is this really a poll looking for information, or rather a cheerleading action for proponents of this subject and a means for them to bash those who disagree with them. The poll and the starting post are biased, but also insulting. Many people are not going to participate because of the offending nature of the poll. The starting pollster probably is happy the zealots are responding to him, because he can say that is all the opponents can say about the subject.

You are right that hardly anyone cares about what I am saying anyway. Don't even know why I am bothering.

Athias
03-19-2009, 10:36 PM
I don't think you exactly understand my point. The proponents of the second option are the only ones you really are going to hear on the other side of this subject, or those who don't care either way. You are not given any other option other than saying people are going to hell. I believe that 98% of the people on Hongfire don't really think people are going to go to hell on this subject.

The question is, is this really a poll looking for information, or rather a cheerleading action for proponents of this subject and a means for them to bash those who disagree with them. The poll and the starting post are biased, but also insulting. Many people are not going to participate because of the offending nature of the poll. The starting pollster probably is happy the zealots are responding to him, because he can say that is all the opponents can say about the subject.

You are right that hardly anyone cares about what I am saying anyway. Don't even know why I am bothering.

No, No, No! I actually agree with you, Starkadder! Given that Lord Zero created a public poll while phrasing the poll options as he did, does seem to cheer lead his point of view. Also by the way he structured his intro, it seems that Lord Zero did intend to aggregate the pro-gay marriage members and bash the other members who may disagree. You're right, it's incredibly biased and does have an effect on how the discourse of thread is led.

bruce lee
03-20-2009, 10:03 AM
My father's a dick and I would have had a better childhood without him.


Now I see clearly. I'm so sorry. I mean it.

Although you're right in the fact that a father can raise sufficiently a child by himself, you can not say that a mother is not crucial 4 a optimal development of a little boy or girl...and even in the less cultured regions (since divorces are much more common in USA n' EU :neko:) the presence of the mother is highly valued 4 their societies.


man, you need to get a cultural anthroplogy class. in some cultures the roles are interchanged. you have to see it, to believe it.


You'd better talk serious, 4 I'm very interestin' in that matter

*sits and waits 4 the illustration*

:kakashi:


Hmm... that was exactly 20 minutes in spanish, now I must recharge with french...


That's globalization, I guess ;D

Lord Zero
03-20-2009, 10:09 AM
No, No, No! I actually agree with you, Starkadder! Given that Lord Zero created a public poll while phrasing the poll options as he did, does seem to cheer lead his point of view. Also by the way he structured his intro, it seems that Lord Zero did intend to aggregate the pro-gay marriage members and bash the other members who may disagree. You're right, it's incredibly biased and does have an effect on how the discourse of thread is led.

Indeed, im biased towards personal freedom and against enforcement
of bigotry by the use of the law.

And the options go according that same idea.

Since there is no proof than gay people do harm society
just by being there and live their lives as they want to...
And given the fact than there is no proof either than
children raised by gay couple suffer any harm either,
besides the society bias itself...

I came to confirm the idea than the only objection to deny them
the basic right get married if they feel like it... must
come from moral issues, which as they are not based on
actual evidence, must arise purely from our societies customs
and filthy manipulation.

KillerLoli
03-20-2009, 10:31 AM
Gay couples should be allowed the same rights as a married straight couple but not the right to get married in a church. While a lot of people might not agree with the Christian faith they should still respect it's decisions because it is their religion. I wouldn't like it very much if someone just decided to change the rules for something that's been the same for me for a long period of time now.

bruce lee
03-20-2009, 10:52 AM
Gay couples should be allowed the same rights as a married straight couple but not the right to get married in a church. While a lot of people might not agree with the Christian faith they should still respect it's decisions because it is their religion. I wouldn't like it very much if someone just decided to change the rules for something that's been the same for me for a long period of time now.

I don't have 2 agree completely with KillerLoli's opinion (I'm partially, though) 2 say that this is the best, well-intended, well-explained, sincere answer so far and by far. I perceive wisdom in her words, sth not very usual lately (including me, of course).

kusumoto
03-20-2009, 11:00 AM
We have the facts and we're voting yes.

Athias
03-20-2009, 12:12 PM
Indeed, im biased towards personal freedom and against enforcement
of bigotry by the use of the law.

And the options go according that same idea.

Since there is no proof than gay people do harm society
just by being there and live their lives as they want to...
And given the fact than there is no proof either than
children raised by gay couple suffer any harm either,
besides the society bias itself...

[Artificial Thread]

Do you agree with Abortion Rights?

[ ]Yes, I believe it's a woman's choice and only a woman's choice.
[ ]No, it's an act against GOD and shouldn't be allowed.

Now I think women should have the choice to get an abortion. It is their bodies after all! I just don't see why people would want to be against this. Do they want girls using hangers again?! I just don't understand! It's not about you liking it or not, it's about giving a person rights over their own bodies.

[/Artificial Thread]

Do you see how bilateral those poll options are? There are many sides to a story, Lord Zero. I, personally, don't agree with abortion rights, or at least it's current layout, but given the way the poll options are structured, my disagreeing with them must mean I think it's an act against GOD--which isn't true. In addition, the way the intro is structured seems to only favor arguments that acquiesce with Poll option number 1. And it doesn't help that members' choices are displayed. This is not about your stance on the issue, Lord Zero. This about how you created your thread and set it's dynamic. You didn't open the discussion to everyone, you just opened it to the pro-gay marriage aggregate so you and your peers can cheer lead, again, your point of view. Lord Zero, you can choose whatever you want to put your support in as well as choose to create any type of thread you want--that's not for me to decide. However, if you're asking me whether I think this thread intends to make this issue black and white and favor one side, then my answer is yes. I think that's why Starkadder is boycotting this thread.



I came to confirm the idea than the only objection to deny them
the basic right get married if they feel like it... must
come from moral issues, which as they are not based on
actual evidence, must arise purely from our societies customs
and filthy manipulation.

That's not really your decision is it? You don't know what goes on in a person's head. Who are you to confirm anything about anyone?

rbp
03-20-2009, 12:41 PM
People are arguing over nonissues... the poll says:

Yes, [no further information given qualifies the affirmative]
No, [no further information given qualifies the negative]

You have two options, one agrees, one disagrees...

Have some firm opinions for christ's sake... if for any of you, an issue as fundementally important as equality can be swayed by presentation then I worry for you...

Lord Zero
03-20-2009, 01:22 PM
People are arguing over nonissues... the poll says:

Yes, [no further information given qualifies the affirmative]
No, [no further information given qualifies the negative]

You have two options, one agrees, one disagrees...

Have some firm opinions for christ's sake... if for any of you, an issue as fundementally important as equality can be swayed by presentation then I worry for you...

Indeed. Its a crucial subject. Which only have two outcomes.
Because the status quo still means "NO".
That was my intention Rbp.



Ahh, well... mmm, indeed, the god option there ... i agree,
its just too focused on stupid religious bigotry and ignorance.

While i should have tried to spell that option to
enclose a wider range of bigotry and idiocy.

I will correct that next time, thx Athias. You are right,
is just wrong to let outside the whole world of inanity
besides religion.

BTW, would you suggest me another way of expressing the
repressive side ? I will edit it, if the thread allows me too.

PS: I agree with abortion... people should be allowed
to choose when to have children even if they screw up
and ended pregnant.


PS 2: The church gives more value to
a undeveloped fetus than a grown and scarred poor little girl...

Isnt just stupid than the doctors have been excomulgated for
saving that child life, but the actual rapist do not ?

Geez, at least the brazilean president did state his
position supporting the medics.

rbp
03-20-2009, 01:49 PM
You can end complaining over representation by droping everything but Yes and No.

If you want to give people additional options on their grounds for objection/agreement like, religious, plain old homophobia, disagreement with the institution of marriage in all cases or legal consistancy, humanism, economic reasoning...course, that just leads to clutter... people can explain themselves in the thread.

KillerLoli
03-20-2009, 01:54 PM
Abortion is a different matter, one where the church doesn't belong. Because the decision lies solely with the mother and not with the church. Marriage being held in a house of God however is the church's decision weather all of you like it or not. In this case they make the rules. A lot of people are showing just how hypocritical they can be by throwing around the "How insensitive can you be by taking away human rights" card. It's the Christian followers right to believe in their religion, and if their religion doesn't agree with same sex couples getting married under the name of God then they do not have to institute their marriage.

rbp
03-20-2009, 02:02 PM
Abortion is a different matter, one where the church doesn't belong. Because the decision lies solely with the mother and not with the church.

The church disagrees.



Marriage being held in a house of God however is the church's decision weather all of you like it or not.

You're confusing marriage the ceremony, with marriage as a set of rights and responsibilities. :)



A lot of people are showing just how hypocritical they can be by throwing around the "How insensitive can you be by taking away human rights" card. It's the Christian followers right to believe in their religion, and if their religion doesn't agree with same sex couples getting married under the name of God then they do not have to institute their marriage.

One has a right to believe anything one wants... it's whether one acts on that believe that can get you in to trouble... as here this is nothing but a matter of opinion that distinction isn't terribly important... unless you start bombing registry offices or courthouses or whatever place that marriages get registered where you guys are...

KillerLoli
03-20-2009, 02:18 PM
If you read my first post you would have seen that I agreed that same sex couples deserve the same benefits as a married couple but they shouldn't be allowed to have their marriage ceremony in a church or be married under the name of God and what not. xP

Obviously the church disagrees on the abortion matter.

TheShadow
03-20-2009, 02:52 PM
If you read my first post you would have seen that I agreed that same sex couples deserve the same benefits as a married couple but they shouldn't be allowed to have their marriage ceremony in a church or be married under the name of God and what not. xP

Obviously the church disagrees on the abortion matter.

like god don't know... he know everything =|

Kamigoroshi
03-20-2009, 03:07 PM
Indeed, god is voyeurism incarnate after all.

whiteheadedboy
03-20-2009, 03:16 PM
Indeed, god is voyeurism incarnate after all.

lol.

The omniscient/omnipresent voyeur.
:D

ShampooKisses
03-20-2009, 03:17 PM
Abortion is a different matter, one where the church doesn't belong. Because the decision lies solely with the mother and not with the church. Marriage being held in a house of God however is the church's decision weather all of you like it or not. In this case they make the rules. A lot of people are showing just how hypocritical they can be by throwing around the "How insensitive can you be by taking away human rights" card. It's the Christian followers right to believe in their religion, and if their religion doesn't agree with same sex couples getting married under the name of God then they do not have to institute their marriage.

I believe I pretty much addressed most of those issues in this part of one of my earlier posts:

I agree with gay marriage, but I also agree with civil unions. A man and woman can have a "marriage" ceremony in a church, or in front of a judge, but by most people they are both called "marriages." From what I've seen, people who are talking about "gay marriage" don't care what method they can have, as long as it is equal to the marriage a man and a woman can have. Most of the gay people that I have talked to about it say that if you want to have a "marriage" that it is up to whatever church you're a part of if they want to give you a religious ceremony. They would be just as happy with a civil union, but in most states civil unions are not available, or the type of relationship that two partners of the same sex can have are "domestic partnerships" or titles like that which give you some rights to insurance, but usually NOT to tax rights like you would have in a civil union or marriage, and NO rights like next of kin, so you have no say if your "partner" of 30 years ends up in the hospital. It's only, I think, two states out of 50 that actually recognize full gay marriage and/or civil unions.

There are some churches however (mostly the liberal branch of the Episcopalian Church I believe--the same one that allows women to serve as priests) that have married, and are willing to marry gay couples in a religious ceremonies. Like I was trying to say, I think it is up to that particular church, and most gays and lesbians would agree with that. Most of them just want the rights that come with "marriage," even if it's with a different title.

Muspel
03-20-2009, 03:23 PM
Let them do as they please.

Perhaps the future of Science will even allow them to bear their own offspring. With the appropriate amount of willpower, no law of nature cannot be undone.

Athias
03-20-2009, 03:50 PM
Ahh, well... mmm, indeed, the god option there ... i agree,
its just too focused on stupid religious bigotry and ignorance.

While i should have tried to spell that option to
enclose a wider range of bigotry and idiocy.

I will correct that next time, thx Athias. You are right,
is just wrong to let outside the whole world of inanity
besides religion.

BTW, would you suggest me another way of expressing the
repressive side ? I will edit it, if the thread allows me too.

PS: I agree with abortion... people should be allowed
to choose when to have children even if they screw up
and ended pregnant.


PS 2: The church gives more value to
a undeveloped fetus than a grown and scarred poor little girl...

Isnt just stupid than the doctors have been excomulgated for
saving that child life, but the actual rapist do not ?

Geez, at least the brazilean president did state his
position supporting the medics.

Dude, I'm not trying to lecture you nor dissuade you from your position. I made a comment supporting Starkadder's assertion (a rarity by the way), you offered a rebuttal, I responded. Simple as that! Your opinion is your own, Lord Zero, and I can't take that away from you even If I wanted to.

bruce lee
03-20-2009, 04:00 PM
I'd like 2 share this study by UCLA's Williams Institute (Laws) that claims that lesbian couples are more likely to be poor than married heterosexuals, and children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to live in poverty as those of traditional married couples...

This comes as an interesting insight related to the homosexuals-as-parents debate:

Study looks at poor among gays, lesbians
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY


Lesbian couples are more likely to be poor than married heterosexuals, and children of same-sex parents are twice as likely to live in poverty as those of traditional married couples, a new report shows.
UCLA's Williams Institute, which studies gay issues, says its report out today is the first to analyze poverty among gay and lesbian couples.

The report is an analysis of the most recent data on same-sex unmarried partners from the 2000 Census and two smaller surveys that include questions on sexual orientation. Together, it argues, they debunk "a popular stereotype (that) paints lesbians and gay men as an affluent elite."

Unlike the upper-middle-class gay characters on TV's The L Word and Will and Grace, "There are clearly many poor lesbian, gay and bisexual people," says co-author Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

"That alone is an important finding," Badgett says.

The data she used include the 2002 federal National Survey of Family Growth and the 2003 and 2005 California Health Interview surveys.

The data were adjusted to account for differences in race, education and geography but do not reflect the impact of the current recession, Badgett says.

Even though single mothers are most likely to be poor, Badgett says, the study did not focus on single lesbians and gay men because most population surveys don't ask about sexual orientation unless respondents volunteer that they are living with a same-sex partner.

The report comes as the California Supreme Court weighs the legality of the state's ban on gay marriage and a bill to outlaw job discrimination based on sexual orientation awaits action in Congress.

Badgett says same-sex partners are more likely to be poor because they lack such safety nets as a spouse's health insurance coverage and Social Security survivor benefits.

Robert Rector, a poverty scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls the study "garbage."

He says it is flawed because by studying only couples, it overlooks a larger group in poverty, single mothers.

"When you look at it, this is ... a very small group," says Rector.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-20-gay-poverty_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Again, I don't necessarily agree w/ the article 100%, I just emphasize the fact that this study shows an social-economic point of view.

Good night, every1...^_^

NinjamasterGara
03-20-2009, 07:25 PM
I dont have anything agianst same sex marriages, although, marriage in the since is a religious thing, but if the government would aknowlegde same sex couple living together and give them the same beniefits as a hetero married couple would get i think everyone would win out on that. But i also never looked alot into myself.

33Zephyr33
03-20-2009, 08:20 PM
I dont have anything agianst same sex marriages, although, marriage in the since is a religious thing, but if the government would aknowlegde same sex couple living together and give them the same beniefits as a hetero married couple would get i think everyone would win out on that. But i also never looked alot into myself.

Marriage is more legal now than it is religious.

realsilverjunk
03-21-2009, 12:30 AM
Let them do as they please.

Perhaps the future of Science will even allow them to bear their own offspring. With the appropriate amount of willpower, no law of nature cannot be undone.

Whoa, let's not get carried away now, that baby cant come out of his john, and a C-section seems more trouble than it's worth...

Denamic
03-21-2009, 08:24 AM
Whoa, let's not get carried away now, that baby cant come out of his john, and a C-section seems more trouble than it's worth...
Yeah, no one would bother with a c-section just to have a child, right?

S1En1
03-22-2009, 02:07 PM
I'll agree if the marriage is between two chicks

Lord Zero
03-22-2009, 02:34 PM
Whoa, let's not get carried away now, that baby cant come out of his john, and a C-section seems more trouble than it's worth...

In fact the most crucial single factor which prevented human
beings from evolving bigger brains or just to be born in a later
developement stage its the bottleneck of the
pelvis size...

Babies do born defenseless, unable to do anything for
themselves, just because the birth canal doesnt allow
babies any bigger.

In fact, well, there are some studies which have shown some
correlation between babies sizes in countries which a large
number of C-section procedures...

Maybe C-sections would allow humans beings to evolve
a bigger brain or have a sighlity longer pregnancy...
So babies would be born with a greater fitness... like would
be a newborn which phisical capabilities than a 1 year old
baby.

Well, the thing is, C-sections worth it. I think.

Hesperus
03-22-2009, 03:19 PM
I was from my "mother's womb untimely ripp'd".

Since I'm Asian, my mother opted for a C-Section to make sure I was born on an 'auspicious' day.

Lord Zero
03-22-2009, 03:26 PM
I was from my "mother's womb untimely ripp'd".

Since I'm Asian, my mother opted for a C-Section to make sure I was born on an 'auspicious' day.

Weird customs... but again, is not my culture, so i will
let it pass.

BTW it was a particular auspicious day or there is a list or
something ?

Hesperus
03-22-2009, 03:32 PM
^You know how Asians are with their numerology. 4 is a bad number because it sounds too close to 'die' and stuff like that...basically, my mother chose the numbers.

minato
03-22-2009, 05:13 PM
^ I'm an Asian too. But the "deathly number" and "Godly number" varies on each country and/or culture. Here(Java, Indonesia), Deathly number is 3, and godly's 7.

We DO care about what day we should give birth, though. It seems it has something to do with the future luck based on astronomical study of ancient Javanese tribe. So ancient, yet, many people still believe it. The tradition still exist and well-believed as a "truelike" supersition.

Hesperus
03-22-2009, 07:08 PM
^That's really interesting =) I'm not too sure 'bout other asian cultures, but I know that for most Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, 4 = death and 8 = $$$+Happiness.