Gay marriage?

[Peter]

Should Gay marriage be allowed in the US?

[JimmyDean]

My signature pretty much answers my stance on this one...

[Movie mogul]

It shouldn't be allowed! Being gay is not normal therefore should not be tolerated in marriage. Sorry to sound harsh but its my opinion.

[FilmJerk]

Gay marriage is ****ing sick

[JimmyDean]

Hmmmmm.

[BrodieBruce]

Hmmm indeed

[droidguy1119]

Yeah...I don't neccesarily think it's sick or gross or anything but I agree with the sentiment that gays are different and therefore there should be a different type of union. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I have no problem with gays getting bonded similarly though.

[cg124]

i may not agree with gay mariage, but I'm not gonna treat someone different just because their gay. It's not gonna stop and it's that person choice, so I say yes because it's there choice to be gay.

[JBond]

It's their choice to be gay?

Is it your choice to be straight? ;)

[cg124]

hey everyone has choices in their life.

[Knerys]

I think it should be allowed. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as long as it is not hurtng anyone.

[rosncranz]

pursuit of happiness, and if you say they are not normal, they are "created by god" just like straights so how can they not be "normal" i am all for it! and anybody who freaks out about gays is narrow minded. i dont mean to be rude but thats the truth. IMO

[Diablo]

Although im against the thought of being gay or lesbian, but i do think it should be allowed...

[UnicornBlood3]

Personally people should just mind their own business..If someone wants to be gay..let them..If it effects your life then thats your own fault for letting it. So yeah I think it should be allowed.

[simmy]

i dont get how ppl ask how someone can be gay/bi, how do they know? well what i say is:

'How do you know your straight?'

cos it's not an object, not a thing, it's a thing a person feels personally.

[Inval1d]

No matter what people thinks it should be. You can't restrict people from doing things.

[ehinds]

More power to them.

[droidguy1119]

Just a statistic -- more than half of gay people are not gay naturally, it is damage caused by sexual abuse.

[Mat]

I don't really care...

[jjyj88]

I'm against gay marriage to the fullest extent..

Though like droidguy said, I have no problem with them being bonded in similar ways.

[mentiroso]

Originally posted by droidguy1119
Just a statistic -- more than half of gay people are not gay naturally, it is damage caused by sexual abuse.


But how many people are not straight naturally do to sexual abuse??

[Catshe]

Originally posted by droidguy1119
Just a statistic -- more than half of gay people are not gay naturally, it is damage caused by sexual abuse. are you sure that statistic is correct.

[Catshe]

I know a lot of guy people and they are happy ,life is life

[pdmntpdl]

Originally posted by droidguy1119
Just a statistic -- more than half of gay people are not gay naturally, it is damage caused by sexual abuse.

I'm not sure where you got this statistic, but I doubt that it is true. First of all, you can't prove if someone is gay "naturally" or not. Even if you could and a gay person was sexually abused, there are so many different factors that should be accounted for; how would you know what determined their sexuality.

Having said that, I am all for legalizing gay marriage. Just as it was when the government told people that they couldn't marry outside of their race, it is against the Constitution to ban gay marriage. I think it is horrrible how some government figures will let their hate and/or fear of gays get in the way of their obligation to uphold the rights that are given to each citizen.

[droidguy1119]

Originally posted by mentiroso
But how many people are not straight naturally do to sexual abuse??

Don't understand the question...

Originally posted by Catshe
are you sure that statistic is correct.

Yes. I wasn't sure the exact percentage so I didn't put one.

[Doomsday]

People always say "it's their right to be happy" and stuff, and people have a right to be happy, sure. But if you allow gay marriage, where is it gonna end? Then you'll have people say "why can't I marry my dog, I want to and I have the right to be happy," or "why can't I marry this oak tree, it will make me happy and I have a right to be happy." It just opens a lot of doors that should stay closed. Besides, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman before God. Gay marriage is basically a slap in the face to everyone and everything moral in this country.

Besides, if you don't think that homosexuality is flat out disgusting, then you got issues.

[Catshe]

my point

[mentiroso]

Originally posted by droidguy1119
Don't understand the question...


You said that a majority of people who are gay would not have been gay had it not been for sexual abuse correct?

Well what percentage of straight people would have been gay had they not been sexually abused?

So maybe there are more gay people than you think but they got screwed up as a kid and are now straight.

[ambrosia]

In 1999 there were claims that there was sucha thing as a 'Gay Gene' and if that was so then Homosexuality could have been proven to be a gene

[Catshe]

Originally posted by droidguy1119
Don't understand the question...



Yes. I wasn't sure the exact percentage so I didn't put one. That what I thought stay out of this one dude

[rosncranz]

Originally posted by Doomsday
Gay marriage is basically a slap in the face to everyone and everything moral in this country.

Besides, if you don't think that homosexuality is flat out disgusting, then you got issues.

i dont think white people should marry black people...notice how i could argue the same things you did for that argument? gays have just as many rights as you do. its not disgusting besides i am sure you think lesbians are awesome if they are attractive. i am not gay, and the idea of doing what gay people do is something i would never consider, but just because i wouldnt do it doesnt mean that it is wrong to do. besides one of hte greatest people to ever walk the earth: michelangelo was a homosexual. stop being so narrowminded! also you argument that what will happen next, people already do marry inaniment objects, a man married a barbie.

[Catshe]

Satistic nearly everybody in there kife has a guy/lesbian thought and dont lie

[rosncranz]

yes i agree.

[pdmntpdl]

Originally posted by Doomsday
People always say "it's their right to be happy" and stuff, and people have a right to be happy, sure. But if you allow gay marriage, where is it gonna end? Then you'll have people say "why can't I marry my dog, I want to and I have the right to be happy," or "why can't I marry this oak tree, it will make me happy and I have a right to be happy." It just opens a lot of doors that should stay closed. Besides, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman before God. Gay marriage is basically a slap in the face to everyone and everything moral in this country.

Besides, if you don't think that homosexuality is flat out disgusting, then you got issues.

Wow. That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Your argument is missing one important factor. A dog and a tree are not people, and however disgusting you might find gay people, they are still human beings. And if two consenting people love each other and they want that love to be recognized by the state who cares if they are the same sex.

In reference to your comment that marriage is a slap in the face to the moralness of our country, are you serious? What morals? Please explain, because you can't make me believe that nothing goes on between straight married couples and other people in this country that is immoral.

[droidguy1119]

Originally posted by mentiroso
You said that a majority of people who are gay would not have been gay had it not been for sexual abuse correct?

Well what percentage of straight people would have been gay had they not been sexually abused?

So maybe there are more gay people than you think but they got screwed up as a kid and are now straight.

I think if you were born gay and you were sexually abused you would remain gay, since sexual abuse is one reason people become homosexual to begin with.

To Catshe:
It's likely not much more than 50% but it is the majority cause. And I agree with your last part, although I don't see how much it applies -- most of us still end up straight. It's not neccesarily the idea of homosexuality that causes us to wonder, just regular curiosity. That's what I think anyway.

[equipe]

Just to let everyone know that Marriage is a Pagan ritual that pre-dates christianity by thousands of years... so how can it be a union in the eyes of god?

Its all about a person's right not to be discriminated. There should be no difference in the way anyone should be treated, that is a statute of the US constitution and the U.N's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, it is against a person's civil rights to not be allowed to get married because of their sexual preference.

[Doomsday]

Originally posted by pdmntpdl
Wow. That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Your argument is missing one important factor. A dog and a tree are not people, and however disgusting you might find gay people, they are still human beings. And if two consenting people love each other and they want that love to be recognized by the state who cares if they are the same sex.



Well what if I wanted to marry my german shepherd? Who cares if it's an animal, I still have a right to be happy? So shouldn't I get married? It's not a different arguement, it's the EXACT same arguement. As a matter of fact, lets forget the entire gay thing. Lets issue marriage licenses to whoever wants one, they can get married to anyone or anything, another guy, a golf club, pillowcase, walrus, whatever. Yeah people have a right to be happy, but when it comes to something like this, that was made to be between a man and a woman, it should stay between a man and a woman.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by equipe
Just to let everyone know that Marriage is a Pagan ritual that pre-dates christianity by thousands of years... so how can it be a union in the eyes of god?

Its all about a person's right not to be discriminated. There should be no difference in the way anyone should be treated, that is a statute of the US constitution and the U.N's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, it is against a person's civil rights to not be allowed to get married because of their sexual preference.

Well, said, equipe and I agree. Also, do what makes you happy. Everyone deserves a chance to be happy and if it's with someone of the same sex, I couldn't care less.

[Catshe]

I think this is getting stupid and should go

[Se7en the movie]

Originally posted by Doomsday
Besides, if you don't think that homosexuality is flat out disgusting, then you got issues.

now i must say that is the silliest thing i have ever heard here, and i've heard people say they liked charlie's angels!

i'm gonna have to refer to that guy's (cant remember his username), as long as your not harming the people around you what business it of yours what anyone does?

[WDTSF]

I'm divided. While I'm totally cool with people being gay, marriage is something that was created for the purpose of couples having children. And obviously, it is biologically impossible for gay couples to have children.

But then again, what about hetero couples who are infertile? Or ones that have no desire to have children, for that matter?

And if two people love each other and want to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives, why not let them get married, regardless of their orientation? I mean, with such a high divorce rate here in America, why not let gay couples get married if they truly want to spend the rest of their lives together? How on earth is it fair that people like Britney Spears can carelessly get married without a trace of love, and inevitably get divorced, while thousands of couples who truly do want to get married are denied that right?

I therefore think that gay marriage should be allowed.

[WDTSF]

Originally posted by Doomsday
People always say "it's their right to be happy" and stuff, and people have a right to be happy, sure. But if you allow gay marriage, where is it gonna end? Then you'll have people say "why can't I marry my dog, I want to and I have the right to be happy," or "why can't I marry this oak tree, it will make me happy and I have a right to be happy."
Apples and oranges, dude. Apples and oranges.

P.S. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard but I'm going to spare you my wrath and not go on a rant about why it is so stupid.

[ip_guru]

OK, really big issue... I'll take the bait.

First, this is a much bigger issue than gay marriage. The current hot button point is gay marriage, but it is more an issue on society itself.

We do not live in an anarchy. Our society is not one based on the principles of anarchy. Ours is a civilized society, where the people in the society are bound together by commonality. Together we, all of us as individuals, make our society. In any society, other than a total anarchy, the actions of one has an impact - both minor and major - on the whole of society.

To claim that what two people do in the privacy of their home is no one's business other than those two people sounds nice, but unless we are an anarchy is untrue. If we are a society where all of us, as individuals, are to live and grow together, our actions will always have an impact on others. If you cannot comprehend that point, then you will not like this post! :)

Second, to make the connection between race and choice is degrading to those who have experienced racism. There is a serious difference between discrimination and racism. A person who gets ridiculed, or worse, due to their race is hurt due to a physical condition of their birth. A person who gets ridiculed, or worse, due to who they decide to have sex with is hurt due to their choice.

A society that has any intention of staying intact requires rules and boundaries. Those rules and boundaries do at times include personal behavior. Ours is one of these societies, there are boundaries on behaviors - our society is not based on every person doing whatever they wish to make themselves feel good. Again, to say that it is no one's business what I do is only true in the anarchy. Otherwise, the choices I make with my life do impact you, even those I make in my own home.

Can a 30 year old man marry an 18 year old woman? Right now, yes. Can a 40 year old man marry a 17 year old girl? Right now, no, and why is that? Maybe these two people love each other, and they love having sex in the privacy of her parent's basement (Joke to ease the tension), who does that hurt? What if it was a 40 year old man and his 18 year old daughter? Is it ok for them to be married, to have sex? If not, how come? They are two consenting adults, doing what they like in private.

If you feel ours is a society that is only about doing what makes you happy, and fighting anything that might restrict a person from doing something, then the 40 year old man and his 18 year old daughter should not even be an issue to you, it should be perfectly acceptable.

What if I went home and gave myself an overdose of cocaine. It made me happy in the privacy of my home, why would anyone else care about that? Other than those people who will pay the paramedics to come and get me, and pay the hospital, and pay the doctors at the hospital, and pay the nurses at the hospital, and then pay the coroner. But hey, as long as I was in my house, why should society care what I choose to do right?

[WDTSF]

Interesting...

Answer me this. Who, exactly, do gay married couples negatively affect?

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by WDTSF
Interesting...

Answer me this. Who, exactly, do gay married couples negatively affect?

Every single person who has to pay higher health insurance premiums due to adding people in high risk categories to their plans; this means nearly all health insurance plans. So do be more direct, if you live in the US... you.

[WDTSF]

All right. But it's a matter of choice whether we're willing to accept the effect of gay marriages. Would I be willing to pay higher health premiums for a man marrying his daughter? No. Would I be willing to pay higher health premiums for the union of two people who love each other and want to get married, and happen to be gay? Yes.

And yes, I know that many do not agree. But I am simply stating my opinion, as you are stating yours.

[Switzer]

No, gay marriage shouldn't be aloud:
1. I'm a homophobic
2. It goes against my religion

[equipe]

Originally posted by ip_guru
Every single person who has to pay higher health insurance premiums due to adding people in high risk categories to their plans; this means nearly all health insurance plans. So do be more direct, if you live in the US... you.

So what your saying is that a married gay couple is more likely to engage in extra marrital affairs that result in the trasnfer of STDs.

Before I write a scathing response i'd like to know your credentials in making such a claim. What experiance do you have so that you can make a JUDGEMENT like this.

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by WDTSF
All right. But it's a matter of choice whether we're willing to accept the effect of gay marriages. Would I be willing to pay higher health premiums for a man marrying his daughter? No. Would I be willing to pay higher health premiums for the union of two people who love each other and want to get married, and happen to be gay? Yes.

And yes, I know that many do not agree. But I am simply stating my opinion, as you are stating yours.

What is your criteria for not paying the premiums for the man marrying his daughter versus the man marrying another man?

[ViperCTW]

It's a fact that AIDS is found more in gays than heterosexuals. No I don't have the statistics, although I'm sure someone will find them. It's been common knowledge for decades.

As for my feelings on the topic, I'm personaly against gay marriage but there's really no legal reason why it shouldn't be allowed. I'd hate to see it happen, but I can't really come up with a reason to stop it other than my personal and religious beliefs.

[WDTSF]

Originally posted by ip_guru
What is your criteria for not paying the premiums for the man marrying his daughter versus the man marrying another man?
My criteria? Incest is illegal for a reason. I think it is wrong. I know that tons of people think gay marriage is wrong, but as I said, this is MY criteria.

[Doomsday]

There was a law against sodomy before. To me, homosexuality is just as bad as incest. It just goes against what I believe.

[Doomsday]

Originally posted by WDTSF
Apples and oranges, dude. Apples and oranges.

P.S. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard but I'm going to spare you my wrath and not go on a rant about why it is so stupid.

Go for it, why is it so stupid. The point is that if you open the door to gay marriage, it won't end. It won't present itself now, but it will sooner or later.

[WDTSF]

lol nice title, doomsday.

when i first read it i thought is said "director of photography", which is one of the preset titles, but then i said "hey, wait a minute...". but that was probably your intention:)

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by equipe
So what your saying is that a married gay couple is more likely to engage in extra marrital affairs that result in the trasnfer of STDs.

Before I write a scathing response i'd like to know your credentials in making such a claim. What experiance do you have so that you can make a JUDGEMENT like this.


This is hardly a judgement. It is also hardly a scathing response. It may not be politically correct, but to argue that the health risks for a gay lifestyle versus the health risks for a hetro lifestyle are the same is just silly.

My experience for making such a remark? I'm an adult who can read. After a one second search on Google, here are some points from an article from the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (Sept 2002) written by the editor in chief (So keep in mind this is from an all-gay paper).

1. Eating disorders are higher than in straight men
2. Alcohol abuse and dependency is higher than in straight men
3. Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men
4. Depression and anxiety appear to effect gay men more than straight men
5. Gay men use chemical substances at a much higher rate than straight men
6. There is an increased risk of HIV infection, and increased potential for AIDS, than in straight men

This is not a point that can even be debated.

[Doomsday]

Originally posted by WDTSF
lol nice title, doomsday.

when i first read it i thought is said "director of photography", which is one of the preset titles, but then i said "hey, wait a minute...". but that was probably your intention:)

I get IMs about it all the time hehe. :p

[JimmyDean]

Originally posted by Doomsday
To me, homosexuality is just as bad as incest. It just goes against what I believe.

Uhhhh-huhhh...

It was bound to happen, folks. This thread, and people in general, just confuse the hell outta me and make me laugh till no end.

And that's... ENTERTAINMENT!!

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by WDTSF
My criteria? Incest is illegal for a reason. I think it is wrong. I know that tons of people think gay marriage is wrong, but as I said, this is MY criteria.

Is it the imorality of incest or the breeding issue? What if the Dad and daughter don't have kids? Two consenting adults in their own home, what is the difference?

I'm not really trying to argue it either way, just trying to raise the discussion to a higher/different level. I do respect the opinon of anyone that is willing to have an intelligent discussion, even when they disagree.

[droidguy1119]

I dunno. Maybe I'm naive or stupid, but in what I hear most as the common "wedding vows" (I am not religious, I do not know what denomination this comes from), they say "do you take this man" and "do you take this woman" and I just think marriage should be a term to define man and woman being bonded.

Nothing besides that, political or related to AIDS or whatnot. I am a bit shocked to see some of the people outright bashing this stuff (although I think Doomsday put it in a way I better understood when he said it went against what he believed).

[JimmyDean]

Originally posted by ip_guru
This is hardly a judgement. It is also hardly a scathing response. It may not be politically correct, but to argue that the health risks for a gay lifestyle versus the health risks for a hetro lifestyle are the same is just silly.

My experience for making such a remark? I'm an adult who can read. After a one second search on Google, here are some points from an article from the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (Sept 2002) written by the editor in chief (So keep in mind this is from an all-gay paper).

1. Eating disorders are higher than in straight men
2. Alcohol abuse and dependency is higher than in straight men
3. Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men
4. Depression and anxiety appear to effect gay men more than straight men
5. Gay men use chemical substances at a much higher rate than straight men
6. There is an increased risk of HIV infection, and increased potential for AIDS, than in straight men

This is not a point that can even be debated.

Blah, blah, blah... throw out the statistics for a second and let's talk to some common sense.

Ya wanna know something interesting? And keep in mind I found this out using my own brain. no paper, internet or help of my President... ok, here we go... PEOPLE DIE EVERYDAY!

Doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, old, young, a preist, pedophile, soldier or school teacher. You can be 2 months old and die of some infection, or 94, proud and happy... and then BAMMMMM, opps, a car crash.

The thing is, and I'll NEVER understand people and their viewpoints, religion, anything, think for your ****ing self... we have such a short-time on this planet, think of how long we've been here, people. the earth, life and how short a human life is... what? 50 years if you're lucky? You can get killed walking your doggie, or swimming in the ocean, whatever... one second you're here, the next, you're being disected... so in this short time, why... and yes, I'd like an answer, why, if it brings NO HARM to you, nothing... then why are people so freaking against something as gay marriage?

Forget I'm a man, he's a man, that's a girl, I'm a guy.... we're HUMAN BEINGS, the most intelligent and profound creatures on earth, and we're going to let some thing that petty, meaningless and boring bother us?

Well... I'm not. I have more important things to worry about and I'm sure God would agree.

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
Blah, blah, blah... throw out the statistics for a second and let's talk to some common sense.

Ya wanna know something interesting? And keep in mind I found this out using my own brain. no paper, internet or help of my President... ok, here we go... PEOPLE DIE EVERYDAY!

Doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, old, young, a preist, pedophile, soldier or school teacher. You can be 2 months old and die of some infection, or 94, proud and happy... and then BAMMMMM, opps, a car crash.

The thing is, and I'll NEVER understand people and their viewpoints, religion, anything, think for your ****ing self... we have such a short-time on this planet, think of how long we've been here, people. the earth, life and how short a human life is... what? 50 years if you're lucky? You can get killed walking your doggie, or swimming in the ocean, whatever... one second you're here, the next, you're being disected... so in this short time, why... and yes, I'd like an answer, why, if it brings NO HARM to you, nothing... then why are people so freaking against something as gay marriage?

Forget I'm a man, he's a man, that's a girl, I'm a guy.... we're HUMAN BEINGS, the most intelligent and profound creatures on earth, and we're going to let some thing that petty, meaningless and boring bother us?

Well... I'm not. I have more important things to worry about and I'm sure God would agree.

I did not introduce even one reference to religion or God into any of my posts in this thread. Don't assume that because we disagree that I am not thinking for myself.

I only responded with the stats to a comment that there was no difference in health risks between hetro and gay lifestyles, which their clearly is. Of course there are accidents and death, none of those are related to the stats on lifestyle choice either.

As far as the things a person chooses to do impacting others, I wrote about that earlier in the thread.

[equipe]

Even if the health insurance rates had to rise, which I don't think is a very good argument anyways, what you are saying is that you would rather have a tiny monetary savings on your part over the infinite happiness of another human being. Shame.

[pdmntpdl]

Originally posted by ip_guru
Second, to make the connection between race and choice is degrading to those who have experienced racism. There is a serious difference between discrimination and racism. A person who gets ridiculed, or worse, due to their race is hurt due to a physical condition of their birth. A person who gets ridiculed, or worse, due to who they decide to have sex with is hurt due to their choice.


I think that the parallel between race and sexuality is very applicable. As a black woman who has experienced racism time and time again, I do not feel degraded by pointing out the similarites that all minorities incur.

Someone's race is, as you pointed out, beyond their control. I think that someone's sexuality is also not controlled by the individual. Just as a heterosexual man doesn't choose what kind of women turn him on, gay people cannot control who they are sexually attracted to. However, in their case, the people they are attracted to are men.

Even if you do not believe that homosexuality is a choice, that shouldn't mean that they don't have the right not to be ridiculed and/or harrased. One of my best friends is gay, and I have seen how he has been hurt from discrimintation. And his pain is no less valid than pain I have felt when I was discriminated against.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you draw a line between discrimination and racism, and I see them as the same thing. They have the exact same outcome. I hope that the government and people in the country can someday get beyond all kinds of discrimination.

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by equipe
Even if the health insurance rates had to rise, which I don't think is a very good argument anyways, what you are saying is that you would rather have a tiny monetary savings on your part over the infinite happiness of another human being. Shame.

The health insurance rates rising are a given, and that subject was in direct response to a question about the actions of one person having an affect on others. I never said that I would rather have more money, I was only stating a fact. There is no shame in stating facts.

Had I said that I would rather have a monetary savings over the happiness of another, then that is far game, but I did not - and do not say that.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Doomsday
It just goes against what I believe.


Case in point, everyone has an opinion and no one is right or wrong. It's all in how you see it.

[slinger]

REAL TIME with Bill Maher

And finally, New Rule, Special Valentine's Day Edition: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves what business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other. And why does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.

Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, Social Security. Hey, how about we privatize privacy? Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

You know, Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering. But now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's a billion-five in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the 'sanctity' of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas, drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator, could be considered sacred.

Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing. Kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis. Please, I kid.

All right, but at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that theory worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But I have to tell you, the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats, because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination. And therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible. It's ripped right from the latest poll, which says most Americans are against gay marriage.

Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong. And where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of 'civil union' and 'hate the sin, love the sinner' and say loud and clear, 'There is no sin; it's not an abomination and no one can control how cupid aims his arrows. And the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks.'

The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100% outrageously, fabulously, undeniably, Fire Island gay! And they do not need reprogramming. They need a man with a slow hand!

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by pdmntpdl
I think that the parallel between race and sexuality is very applicable. As a black woman who has experienced racism time and time again, I do not feel degraded by pointing out the similarites that all minorities incur.

Someone's race is, as you pointed out, beyond their control. I think that someone's sexuality is also not controlled by the individual. Just as a heterosexual man doesn't choose what kind of women turn him on, gay people cannot control who they are sexually attracted to. However, in their case, the people they are attracted to are men.

Even if you do not believe that homosexuality is a choice, that shouldn't mean that they don't have the right not to be ridiculed and/or harrased. One of my best friends is gay, and I have seen how he has been hurt from discrimintation. And his pain is no less valid than pain I have felt when I was discriminated against.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you draw a line between discrimination and racism, and I see them as the same thing. They have the exact same outcome. I hope that the government and people in the country can someday get beyond all kinds of discrimination.

There is a massive difference between racism, where people have been bought, sold, tourtured, and killed, versus the discrimination that a person feels for being gay. It is my opinion only, but to put the two on the same level brings down the entire history of racism, and is demeaning to what people had to overcome just to get where we are today.

I never said discrimination is not painful, nor did I say that there are not similarities in the types of discrimination that people feel; I agree that is very real and very painful - but I think this pales in comparison to what others had to overcome.

[JimmyDean]

Originally posted by ip_guru
There is a massive difference between racism, where people have been bought, sold, tourtured, and killed, versus the discrimination that a person feels for being gay. It is my opinion only, but to put the two on the same level brings down the entire history of racism, and is demeaning to what people had to overcome just to get where we are today.

I never said discrimination is not painful, nor did I say that there are not similarities in the types of discrimination that people feel; I agree that is very real and very painful - but I think this pales in comparison to what others had to overcome.


Hate is hate, no matter how big or small and it shouldn't be put into different cases and sides, in my opinion.

Yes, black people had to overcome a great deal of hate, and still do, but so did the Native Americans and Jews and Armenians. There's no point in putting them in different sides and saying this was worse, this is recent, last longers, etc... the point is, it happened, is happening and is wrong, no matter how big or small.

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
Hate is hate, no matter how big or small and it shouldn't be put into different cases and sides, in my opinion.

Yes, black people had to overcome a great deal of hate, and still do, but so did the Native Americans and Jews and Armenians. There's no point in putting them in different sides and saying this was worse, this is recent, last longers, etc... the point is, it happened, is happening and is wrong, no matter how big or small.

I didn't mention anything about degrees of hate, or say that any of it was right. I was discussing the fact that racism and discrimination are different. Racism and discrimination are two different things, two different words, two different meanings, they are not synonyms, and so on. I was simply pointing out that they are different.

[WDTSF]

ip_guru, what is your main arguement against gay marriage? That it would possibly raise insurance premiums, or that it simply goes against the sanctity of marriage (at least in your eyes)?

[Dogbert0228]

Marriage is a sanctual union between husband and wife, and is a promise not only to each other but God as well, and therefore should be left up to church. However, in an equal country, despite my personal opinion that homosexual behavior is wrong, we should grant equal rights to all and offer homosexuals the option of civil unions, with all the legal rights that go along with marriage, only not the title.

I know many disagree that marriage is special anymore, with a US divorce rate of 50%, and others argue that it's just as special to a gay couple as it is to a straight couple, and that may be true, but they need to find a church (religious institutons should have this repsonsiblity) that will accept their union, since marriages shouldn't be left up the state.

Gay marriage: NO

Civil unions: YES

[WDTSF]

I just think it's completely unfair that just about any straight couple (with a few exceptions, like family members, or an adult and a minor) can get married even if they're not in love. Yet two people who love each other and want to get married and happen to be gay can't get married. I don't think that marriage is a privelage; it's a right.

[The_Movie_Man]

Who the hell am I to say that two people who love each other and want to be together forever, can't get married? I have no problem with it.

[JimmyDean]

Originally posted by The_Movie_Man
Who the hell am I to say that two people who love each other and want to be together forever, can't get married? I have no problem with it.

And that, my fellow CSers, is what it's all about.

*Gives MovieMan a pat on the back and a free pass to some swanky strip club in Vegas*

[WDTSF]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
And that, my fellow CSers, is what it's all about.

*Gives MovieMan a pat on the back and a free pass to some swanky strip club in Vegas*
Swanky strip club? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[simmy]

haha, i love that word (oxymoron)...just like goverment organisation and microsoft works (my personal favourite) :P

[JimmyDean]

Originally posted by WDTSF
Swanky strip club? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Did you just call me a moron...?! Jibbs!!

[Peter]

Originally posted by ip_guru
This is hardly a judgement. It is also hardly a scathing response. It may not be politically correct, but to argue that the health risks for a gay lifestyle versus the health risks for a hetro lifestyle are the same is just silly.

My experience for making such a remark? I'm an adult who can read. After a one second search on Google, here are some points from an article from the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (Sept 2002) written by the editor in chief (So keep in mind this is from an all-gay paper).

1. Eating disorders are higher than in straight men
2. Alcohol abuse and dependency is higher than in straight men
3. Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men
4. Depression and anxiety appear to effect gay men more than straight men
5. Gay men use chemical substances at a much higher rate than straight men
6. There is an increased risk of HIV infection, and increased potential for AIDS, than in straight men

This is not a point that can even be debated. So what....The issue is not whether people are allowed to be gay and have a gay lifestyle but whether they are allowed to be married.

[WDTSF]

Originally posted by ip_guru
This is hardly a judgement. It is also hardly a scathing response. It may not be politically correct, but to argue that the health risks for a gay lifestyle versus the health risks for a hetro lifestyle are the same is just silly.

My experience for making such a remark? I'm an adult who can read. After a one second search on Google, here are some points from an article from the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (Sept 2002) written by the editor in chief (So keep in mind this is from an all-gay paper).

1. Eating disorders are higher than in straight men
2. Alcohol abuse and dependency is higher than in straight men
3. Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men
4. Depression and anxiety appear to effect gay men more than straight men
5. Gay men use chemical substances at a much higher rate than straight men
6. There is an increased risk of HIV infection, and increased potential for AIDS, than in straight men

This is not a point that can even be debated.
What exactly is your point? I'm not ****ing surprised by those statistics. Most gay people have to deal with whole lot of **** from society; it's no wonder they have things like depression at a higher rate.

So, again, what exactly is your point? The fact that gay people have these health risks means they shouldn't be allowed to get married? Yeah, good thinking. Why don't we deny them their right to get married, and treat 'em even more badly in society while we're at it; that way their depression rate can be even higher. Boy, you sure are a good thinker.:rolleyes:

[WDTSF]

Originally posted by Peter
So what....The issue is not whether people are allowed to be gay and have a gay lifestyle but whether they are allowed to be married.
Well I think the point he was trying to make by listing health risks was that if gay people can get married, health insurance premiums might go up.

[stonefaced_1]

Edit*

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by WDTSF
Well I think the point he was trying to make by listing health risks was that if gay people can get married, health insurance premiums might go up.


Those stats were only in response to a poster making the comment that there is no difference in the associated health costs for the two different lifestyles.

[ip_guru]

OK, I wanted come into this thread and have an intelligent discussion, to see if there can be an honest debate. There has been some good, some bad. But, to debate, you present the facts and concepts that support a side of an argument.

In debating, you do not insult, you do not attack personally, etc... you should even be able to debate a position you personally don't agree with, if so required. In this thread there has been too much of people restating the same thing, and dismissing the opposite viewpoint, ignoring the point and focusing on a word, not taking a few minutes to read and think, and as such there is no chance for a debate here.

So, I'll be ending with this post. Let me try to summarize my thoughts on this. Because, up to this point I have not even expressed my personal opinions on the gay lifestyle, I've been trying to debate the effects of this type of issue on society.


Personally, I don't care if a person decides to be gay. One of my good friends, in fact the guy who was my best man at my wedding, is gay. He and I have been friends for 18 years. He knows that I disagree with his choice, but he also knows we are friends and I respect him as a person. I don't try to 'convert' him, I don't judge him, I don't try to manipulate him, etc... That is his choice, and he will live with his choice, just as I will with my choices.

Marriage is a word that is defined, for billions of people, as the joining together of a man and a woman. It has been defined as such for thousands of years. I am opposed to changing the meaning of the word marriage without even one long term study on how this will impact society. And, to say that there is no impact is blissfully ignorant of the fact that we live in an interconnected society. I'm married, it will impact me. If someone asks me today if I am married, and I say yes, there is an understanding, the conversation can end there. But, if we redefine the word marriage to include gay couples, then the followup question is, to whom are you married?

Beyond that somewhat simple point, there is no thoughtful discussion on the future imapcts of such a decision. Will we allow an adult man to marry an adult daughter? Will we allow a man to marry two women? Will we allow a woman to marry two men? Can that man and woman then get married, and therefore they are all married? These are not extreme hypotheticals. If the entire viewpoint is what does anyone care what happens in the privacy of an adult's home, then you must answer that you agree that all of these scenarios are to be allowed as marriage. You cannot argue for one, and against the other, simply because it does not help your argument.

If we, in the US, change the meaning of the word marriage, you can be sure that we now had an influence on changing the meaning of the word marriage outside the US. Are we going to try and change the meaning of a word that the entire planet has used for thousands of years, unilaterally, are we even going to ask anyone's opinion outside the US?

Clearly this debate is one that should be required before making a ruling that impacts billions on the entire planet. We spend years on studies of the imapact of environmental issues, why make a rush to change a societal issue with no equal study and debate?

I guess to summarize, I feel that we should not add any alternative lifestyles to the meaning of marriage. If, after serious and honest study, one can prove the effects on the remainder of society, both here and abroad, are minimal, then the issue changes for me. I still will not be for the redifining of the word marriage. I think there needs to be a new word, or phrase. If it is civil union, then so be it. Then after honest debate and with the effects being understood, I am all for letting those civil unions have the same health plans, insurance plans, and other benefits.

I hope this has explained my thoughts well enough. It's been interesting.... :)

[Rebecca]

I don't understand why there are so many ppl that have a huge problem with gays/lesbiens. They are ppl to. They feel just like the rest of you. Yes it is ok to be homophobic but to actually think that it's WRONG to be gay is not right. Everybody has there own opinion s and feelings with this but i can't understand why is it such a big issue about being gay....even the straightes person has had "Gay Thoughts". Straight ppl have a problem with gays but yet they just love to watch porn with women on women....or Men on Men, think about it. Does that make any sense to any of you? Not to me it doesn't.
I personally, have no problem with anyone being gay/lesbien or even Bi-Sexual like me. But anyway, If they want to be married then let them. They live the same life we live they get happy and have feelings like you do. SO why not let them be more happier and Bless there lives together through Marriage? I say go for it. There is nothing sick or gross about it. It ahppens It what makes the world go around. PPl fall in love weather it's with the opposite sex or the same sex. To me that is prejudice. Almost like being a racist only difference is your not hating anyone because of there skin color or there culture. Your hating them because they like the same sex. Not really much of a difference if ya ask me.
PPl are affraid of what's different than them. The only difference i see with a straight person and a gay person is the way they love.

You can all hate me now for saying what i have just said. I 'm not attacking anyone, this is simply my opinion.

Have a nice day!:)

[Tenafly Viper]

LMAO! :applaud: I long for the day when common sense will be its own reward.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

[PsychoMike]

Rebecca, I agree with you compleatly. I don't see the what the big deal is. If 2 men, 2 women, or a man and a women are in love and want to get married I say they should be allowed to. What I find a greater "threat" to marrige is "quickie weddings", "no-fault" divorce, these people that get married every other year.

Since I am stating my opinion If 2 people in love getting married harms you then you seriously need to open your eyes and take a good look at the world. People get married to those they love everyday. Why should we treat who the decide to marry as an issue. We like to claim that here in the US we are a great nation that understands the rights of everyone but we have a history of discriminating against one group or another. Now the group we seem to be discriminating against the most is homosexuals. This discrimination needs to stop and we as a country need to growup.

Let gays and lesbiens get married.

to rebecca: If anyone hates you for your opinion then they are complete morons. ;)

[Catshe]

I work with people with mental health problems and I dont think even half are gay. so dont know where ip stats are from.

[pixiness]

I have to say I'm surprised by a lot of what's been said here. I thought maybe all of us (particularly you, ip_guru) were a little more intelligent than to blindly jump behind statistics as justification for our own discriminatory behavior.

To take things one point at a time:

The health "cost" of gay marriage-
Gays and lesbians are not the only people in this country considered "high risk" health concerns. As a woman, I'm a health risk because I might run into complications with a pregnancy. As a result, I pay a higher insurance premium than my male counterparts. Obese people are at greater risk for heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease and a myriad of other diseases which can be extremely expensive to treat. What's more, studies have shown that children born to obese parents are more likely to become obese themselves... yet we don't restrict the marriages of the overweight do we? Every group of people be it women, men, homosexual, black, white, asian, hispanic or other has been linked to specific health problems. Heaven help us if we start denying health coverage to each and every person that's a risk.

Further - in the state of Florida, and many many other states in the US, same-sex couples must pay extra to share health benefits. If man A has health insurance and marries man B and man B decides he wants to "ride" on man A's policy, he may do so. And just like a heterosexual couple (married or not), man B has to pay the additional premium. But unlike any other couple, man A must claim the amount paid by man B as additional income on his yearly taxes. Heterosexual couples do no such thing. All that extra money at the IRS goes somewhere... why not to healthcare if it's "SUCH" a legitimate concern.

The neverending argument about "choosing" to be gay -
I still cannot believe that there are people out there who think homosexuality is every person's "chosen" path. Yes, I'll concede that some people might try both and decide they like their own sex better than the opposite, but is their preference a matter of choice? There's something innately inside that person that leads to that preference, is there not? My favorite color is blue because it just is. I think it's prettier than red, or green, or yellow, or any other color. I didn't feel like I liked red best but blue would be a better color for my favorite color. Although that's an elementary comparison, I believe it's probably pretty similar to the way many homosexuals view their preferences. All preferences come from a "natural" source. If my parents were murdered by a guy wearing red I would naturally have an aversion to it. That doesn't mean I'm an abomination to this world because I choose to marry someone else with an aversion to red. Besides that, ask yourselves if it's anyone's business to tell you your preferences are wrong. Some people prefer to believe in Buddha, others believe there is no god or higher power... yet we let people in these groups get married all the time don't we? Is the solution for homosexuals to form their own religion? Do you even recognize how preposterous that sounds? The next time you hold an unpopular preference, imagine if you were denied the person you love because of it.

The social "harm" of same-sex marriage
I find it ridiculous that people accuse gays and lesbians of being immoral and depraved and promiscuious... yet they restrict the act of commitment that would change that opinion. It's like telling the man that beats his wife he's horrible and detestable but then not letting him enter an anger management program at his own choice. We all seem to want to immediately shun the things in this world that are different. And in my eyes, that's discrimination. You cherry pick characteristics about a person and then choose to treat them differently because of it. It all of a sudden becomes threatening that this person may be just as educated, funny, fashionable and likable as you and that in many ways you're exactly the same. And so, to make yourself distinct, you make sure there are things that only you can do. Except wait... you don't have any special priveleges or powers that this other person doesn't so you have to start taking away the things you both have a right to because you happen to have numbers on your side.

To me, that's the poorest example we could set for our children... the very worst road for society to take. You're all entitled to your beliefs... just remember you're not the only ones with that right. And before you accuse someone else's decision affects your life, ask yourself if it truly has an impact on your day to day existence or if you're just upset that they don't agree with you.

[Jspitalieri]

If you are gay, fine, marriage was intended to be between man and woman. Why does the institiution of marriage have to change, to support something that it wasn't inteded to do?

[slinger]

Originally posted by Jspitalieri
If you are gay, fine, marriage was intended to be between man and woman. Why does the institiution of marriage have to change, to support something that it wasn't inteded to do?

Well then there is the whole 'White Men' were intended to do this and that. Times change.

[pixiness]

Originally posted by Jspitalieri
If you are gay, fine, marriage was intended to be between man and woman. Why does the institiution of marriage have to change, to support something that it wasn't inteded to do?

Marriage at it's most simple was intended as a symbol of commitment between two people choosing to spend the rest of their lives together. In that sense, no one is asking marriage to change.

True, the bible defines it differently... but does that mean the bible has the last word on the subject? What about those people that don't believe in westernized religions?

[Alien]

Why the hell not? If they are serious about it then let them do it.

[Lton]

I totally believe they should have the right to get married. I don't even know why this is a national debate when we have so many more issues that are more important than this.
First of all those who hide behind statistics for their arguments are usually doing so, b/c they are trying to be politically correct, and don't want to say that they are blind followers of the bible or that they find the sexual act that takes place disgusting. Most try to preface their argument by saying that they don't care what goes on in the privacy of a gay person's home, but by mentioning it they're showing that it does, in fact, bother them. (I'd probably have more respect for them it they'd just start by saying "It's just wierd, and I don't like it."; at least then they'd be telling the truth).
As far as the bible goes I can't understand why we as a modern society still allow an ancient storybook to dictate to us how we should live, when a document as important as the constitution is only 200 years old and has to constantly be revised. (Also I'm really not going to uphold a book that at one point in history was used to justify slavery.)

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Jspitalieri
If you are gay, fine, marriage was intended to be between man and woman. Why does the institiution of marriage have to change, to support something that it wasn't inteded to do?

So, you're okay with them being gay as long as they don't intrude on your cut and dried life, huh? That's no way to live. Who's to say what is intended and what isn't?

Personally, and this may get me flamed like never before, but I think the critics of gay marriage fall back behind their "religious" beliefs because they are close-minded and scared of letting others, whose lives they can't rule, be happy. If we're all meant to be happy, who is to say that it can't be with someone of the same sex? It's only wrong if you make it wrong. True love between two people is a beautiful thing, no matter if it's two women or two men. There's little enough love in this world and I think we should embrace those will to show who they truly love instead of making them feel persecuted because of small-minded, arrogant beliefs. Gay marriage doesn't bother me simply because I think you should be able to be happy with whoever makes you happy and the world be damned. It shows a hell of a lot of heart to stand up and say you love someone of the same sex when you know that you're going to be criticized and persecuted. Love is love, just as marriage is marriage and we should leave it all the hell alone and let people be happy.

[Knerys]

Marriage as American see it stems from the idea that celebacy isn't for everyone. Way back int he Middle ages it was best to be celbate but if you couldn't you could enter into a union for the sake of procreation. Granted this was written 100's of years ago and Christiantiy has never been that good at evolving withthe rest of society.

The church (at least my church) does not condenm man or women for being gay. They condemn the lifestyle that tends to accompanies.

now for my opinion. I have no problems with gay marriage. It could possibly end alot of the stereotypes that surround gays now. I have several friend who are gay and they have entered into what they a compansionship bond. It's not legalally binding but it is a symbol of their love and comitment to eachother. and the fact they they stay together with some piece of papaer that declares they marriage show how much love and respect they have for one another. Almost half the "normal marriages" these days end in divorce. I feel it's hypocritical to say that gay marriage is morally wrong, when divorce is considered amoral as well. Yes I know there are case where it's necessary.

Gay marriage is not goign to bring the apoclyse on us. I think it might even levate some of the pressure. There are countries that celebrate polygamy but we don't care.

I understand the presedence agruement, but that is somethings the courts need to uphold. They have to get their heads of the sands and stop the lawery from walking all over the constitution with loop holes and grabble up legalese.

These people just want to be happy. Why is it so difficult to give them that.

[PsychoMike]

Knerys, can you explain how your church can't condem someone for being gay but condem their lifestyle? To me it sounds like they are saying that 'we don't like you because you are gay, but we can't just go out and say it, people may not like us, so we will say we like gay people as long as they don't act gay'.

Personnally I think marrige is a load of crap anyway. Do people really need a peice of paper to tell the world that they are in love at this time? If it wasn't for the few legal benifits then marrige would be a waste. That being said if two people are in love and want to get married it shouldn't matter what sex they are. As long as they are commited to each other.

[Knerys]

They don't like promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation. It a stereotype yes but it's heavily associated with the gay community. I never it made perfect sense but it's the best answer I have recieved. Like hate the sin, love the sinner.

[Rogue]

This may be my incredible stupidity but why is the stigma of promiscuity attached to the gay community? There are plenty, more than enough, straight people out there that are promiscuous..I don't get it.

[pearljamownsyou]

Gay marrage should not be decided by goverment but by the church. Thats where the moral delema comes from. What ever happened to seperation of church and state. It looks like to me that it dosent exist.

Don't get me wrong I'm not against the church. I'm Catholic. I solely believe in the church which is why I think that the church has the say and not the goverment. What makes the goverment think that they have more power over a religous institution such as marrage.

And if the church will allow gay marrage than let them. Its none of my buisness who falls in love with each other. So I don't believe that we should enforce people to live the way we wan't them to. It's simply unamerican. Its goes againts freedom and enailiable rights.

So if you are gay and you want to get married. I say fight for your freedom. If the rest of us have that freedom; so should you.

[HeadHunter]

i think i should be able to marry a goat :p

[JBond]

I think if people are concerned about the degration of marriage from gay marriage, they should look at divorce rates first.

[Knerys]

That what i say!

[pixiness]

Originally posted by Rogue
So, you're okay with them being gay as long as they don't intrude on your cut and dried life, huh? That's no way to live. Who's to say what is intended and what isn't?

Personally, and this may get me flamed like never before, but I think the critics of gay marriage fall back behind their "religious" beliefs because they are close-minded and scared of letting others, whose lives they can't rule, be happy. If we're all meant to be happy, who is to say that it can't be with someone of the same sex? It's only wrong if you make it wrong. True love between two people is a beautiful thing, no matter if it's two women or two men. There's little enough love in this world and I think we should embrace those will to show who they truly love instead of making them feel persecuted because of small-minded, arrogant beliefs. Gay marriage doesn't bother me simply because I think you should be able to be happy with whoever makes you happy and the world be damned. It shows a hell of a lot of heart to stand up and say you love someone of the same sex when you know that you're going to be criticized and persecuted. Love is love, just as marriage is marriage and we should leave it all the hell alone and let people be happy.


Bravo! :applaud: I couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of people using religion as a crutch for convictions they can't defend on any other grounds.

This may be my incredible stupidity but why is the stigma of promiscuity attached to the gay community? There are plenty, more than enough, straight people out there that are promiscuous..I don't get it..

Yeah - that's one of the problems I have. Call the homosexual community promiscuous and then forbid them to participate in a ceremony that's about monogamy. :rolleyes:

[droidguy1119]

Well...I just think they should have a different type of ceremony.

Will gay divorces be handled the same as gay marriages?

As for the promiscuous thing, it just comes back to my opinion that just because someone is different doesn't mean they're a different species, and you can't judge any group of anything as a whole. People are individual. Gay people will be just as individual. There's no reason to say they aren't going to promiscuous, but you can't say they are either.

[Knerys]

Originally posted by Rogue
This may be my incredible stupidity but why is the stigma of promiscuity attached to the gay community? There are plenty, more than enough, straight people out there that are promiscuous..I don't get it. Maybe I'm being unclear. My statement was one of information that I got from my church. And It's the best one I have heard imo. It's not to be taking as gospel, no pun intended.

The church itself looks down on it in all forms. I stated that earlier.

I'm sayng there is a steorotype attached to it that gays, especially gay men sleep around. Mainly becasue of the Aids epidemic. there reason why gay marriage is so hottly debate is becasue of this stimga. It's unatrual and it dangerous. Now please realise I stating this in terms of information. My opinion is labeled in my previous post.

[droidguy1119]

Well, yes, at the risk of this being inappropriate, I can't think of another way to phrase this following statement.

Very simply, anal sex is unnatural and dangerous, to both gays and straights. It's simply not supposed to be done that way, and it's bad for the body to do that.

[Knerys]

Originally posted by pixiness


Yeah - that's one of the problems I have. Call the homosexual community promiscuous and then forbid them to participate in a ceremony that's about monogamy. :rolleyes: i was tryign to explain the churches views. I'm sorry if it was unclear.

[rosncranz]

i dont think its anybodys business, if your not gay then it doesnt reall affect you, and if you say it affects you because you would have to live in a society that acepts gay marriage, then i say get out of the society then. this country is built upon peoples rights, and they have the right to pursue happiness. your arguments seem to be the same arguments that aloud slavery, they are different therefor they shouldnt be equal, because i am a coward and narrowminded and cant handle people who arent like me being equal. and someone said that gays have a higher rate of aids than those who dont, and that is not necessarily true, AIDS is higher among those who use needles etc. no matter if they are gay or not. and like i said before one of the greatest people that ever lived was gay:michelangelo. and i dont know much about the bible, but where does it say that gays are wrong? also it is statistically proven that the vast majority of church goers are republican, republicans are the main people who are against gay marriage, and they are obviously not liberal at all. so i ask you how is is that jesus tought acceptance but you do the exact opposite in his name? if he came upon a practicing homosexual do you think he would say you arenot equal, and you are immoral? come on!

[Dogbert0228]

Originally posted by pixiness
True, the bible defines it differently... but does that mean the bible has the last word on the subject? What about those people that don't believe in westernized religions?

Yes, the Bible does have the last word on the subject. We live in a Christian nation. I know some disagree, but it's the prominant religion in America, and much of our lives today are based around a universal moral code, found in the Bible and the sense of right and wrong instilled in us all by God.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by pixiness
Bravo! :applaud: I couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of people using religion as a crutch for convictions they can't defend on any other grounds.



Yeah - that's one of the problems I have. Call the homosexual community promiscuous and then forbid them to participate in a ceremony that's about monogamy. :rolleyes: [/B]

Exactly! It's not fair to call them promiscuous and then condemn them for wanting to participate in the union that you say will legitimize their feelings and activities. How can a group keep them from what they feel is right, but is only for straight people. I just don't think it's fair? From that point of view, the gay population will always be promiscuous because they aren't being allowed to do what the majority see is "right." It's messed up.

[OldCoyote]

I guess I really don't care

On some level it bothers me, but it dosn't effect me so i really don't care

when it comes down to it people just need to lay off what like 5% (if that) of the population is gay, not a big deal

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Knerys
Maybe I'm being unclear. My statement was one of information that I got from my church. And It's the best one I have heard imo. It's not to be taking as gospel, no pun intended.

The church itself looks down on it in all forms. I stated that earlier.

I'm sayng there is a steorotype attached to it that gays, especially gay men sleep around. Mainly becasue of the Aids epidemic. there reason why gay marriage is so hottly debate is becasue of this stimga. It's unatrual and it dangerous. Now please realise I stating this in terms of information. My opinion is labeled in my previous post.

Makes sense now, but I guess it isn't clicking in my brain. Yes, I know about the AIDS epidemic and the demographic in the gay population it reaches but I just don't think it's reason enough to condemn the people..unless you are going to condemn everyone that could potentional end up with AIDS. What about drug users? What about the people that get it and haven't has sex with an infected person? What about the babies that are born every year with it because they inherited it from birth? I just don't see how a church can limit things like that and then look down on only one group when there are others that are exposed, if not more likely, to contract the HIV virus that eventually turns into AIDS.

I see your post now and I respect your opinion, Knerys. The above post wasn't directed at you, it was at the church in general.

Ahhh how quickly things deteriorate to religion. ;)

[OldCoyote]

Originally posted by Rogue
AIDS epidemic and the demographic in the gay population it reaches


Ahhh how quickly things deteriorate to religion. ;)

not to digress but Southern Africa is losing an entire generation to aids. much more serious there than here

[Rogue]

I'm not doubting that, my point was more towards the AIDS with in the gay population argument but it's a sad sitaution, nonetheless.

[OldCoyote]

I know just felt that i'd bring it up

[Spike2002]

I say let them get married, every human has the right to like whom they like and to be with whom they like.

[rosncranz]

i must say i am very reliefed and feel very happy to see that a lot of people here seem to be for or indifferent about gay marriage! it really makes me feel good about society and restores my faith in it as well..to an extent:)

[The_Movie_Man]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
And that, my fellow CSers, is what it's all about.

*Gives MovieMan a pat on the back and a free pass to some swanky strip club in Vegas*

Hey, thanks! I can't wait till I turn 21 to use it...

BTW, theres sort of a double standard going on here, don't you think:
http://www.comingsoon.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25096

[Peter]

Originally posted by Dogbert0228
Yes, the Bible does have the last word on the subject. How can the bible have the last word on the subject when you live in a country that has the separation of church and goverment as one of it's basic principles!?

[WDTSF]

Originally posted by Dogbert0228
Yes, the Bible does have the last word on the subject. We live in a Christian nation. I know some disagree, but it's the prominant religion in America, and much of our lives today are based around a universal moral code, found in the Bible and the sense of right and wrong instilled in us all by God.
Can't argue with that. I mean, even though we have lots of stuff, like adultery, that go against the bible, we should deny gay people the right to get married.:rolleyes:

And so you know, I personally don't think pulling out the bible card is a good approach because all you're doing is saying that you believe that gay people who get married are going to hell. Is that a slap in the face to gay people? Yes. Will that stop them from getting married? No, because those views are a load of crap to them.

[rayzor09]

Why is the bible so biased towards gays? I'm a christian, but I think the bible is unfair to gays.

[PsychoMike]

Originally posted by Dogbert0228
Yes, the Bible does have the last word on the subject. We live in a Christian nation. I know some disagree, but it's the prominant religion in America, and much of our lives today are based around a universal moral code, found in the Bible and the sense of right and wrong instilled in us all by God.

We do not live in a Christian nation, we live in a nation founded by Christians, who wisely decided not to declare a State religion.

I like how you mention "universal moral code, found in the Bible". I hope you are not arrogant enough to belive that this "universal moral code" is only found in the Bible. The basic teachings of morality are found in all 5 major world religions and nearly every code of law ever (in one form or another).

Now religious institutions have the right to say who they will marry in their place of worship, I can't argue with that. I think that the main argument is whether a homosexual couple can get married by a justice of the peace for legal reasons. And for this reason the government has full authority and not any religion. Anyway gay marrige is one of our basic rights, it falls under pursuit of happiness. Also the right of homosexuals to get married does not infringe upon anyone elses right of life liberty and pursuite of happiness. So I don't understand why there is a huge argument over it. If the govenment would only look at the documents written by the founders once in a while then they would see that there is no debate over this.

[stonefaced_1]

There is no point in arguing with you raging liberals. Which it seems most of the board is.

[Catshe]

Me thinks everyone is going to have to agree to disagree.

[Knerys]

Originally posted by Rogue
Makes sense now, but I guess it isn't clicking in my brain. Yes, I know about the AIDS epidemic and the demographic in the gay population it reaches but I just don't think it's reason enough to condemn the people..unless you are going to condemn everyone that could potentional end up with AIDS. What about drug users? What about the people that get it and haven't has sex with an infected person? What about the babies that are born every year with it because they inherited it from birth? I just don't see how a church can limit things like that and then look down on only one group when there are others that are exposed, if not more likely, to contract the HIV virus that eventually turns into AIDS.

I see your post now and I respect your opinion, Knerys. The above post wasn't directed at you, it was at the church in general.

Ahhh how quickly things deteriorate to religion. ;) Well the church isn't perfect. But it's has it's stance heh.

We may not be a christian nation but musch of our law and governement in founded on christian beliefs. That why it gopes to that so quickly. Whether you like it or not, church morallity is stilla big part of our governing system.

We stupid thing like send kids to dention for praying in schools when we can't even seprate it from our governemnt practices.

It's just a touchy sistuation. And becasue of the freedoms we have here, it will proabaly be that way for a long time.

[zamphir66]

I read this book called the "the boy who was raised as a girl." great stuff. there was an accident during this child's circumcision, and his penis was mutilated. the doctors decided the best thing to do was give the newborn a sex change then and there: plastic surgery, hormone therapy, etc. the parents took back all of their boy clothes and got girl clothes. they returned the GI Joes for Barbie dolls. as far as the girl(boy) knew, he was a she. but, surprise surprise, it didn't work. by the time the kid was maybe three or four, it was readily apparent that nature was overruling nurture. this kid wanted to play with soldiers, hated dress-up, got in fights, everything a boy should do. this happened in the seventies, and it overturned about a hundred years of psychological thinking. it was so revolutionary, in fact, that the psych. community has virtually covered it up. these sorts of post-natal sex changes STILL HAPPED TODAY!! this poor kid had to be 'changed back' years later, and he hates his partents , hates doctors, and kinda hates himself.

this relates, in a way, to a problem i have with a lot of people's arguments about homosexuality. people are always referring to it as a choice. how in the hell is it a choice, people? i didn't wake up one morning 10 years ago and say to myself: "hmm, do i like girl-kissin' or boy-kissin'? lemme think about it..." NO, i had no freakin' choice in the matter, not then , not now. if you offered me a million dollars to lead a gay lifestyle and be comfortable with it, i couldn't do it. It's just not in my NATURE!i have plenty of gay friends, and they all say virtually the same thing about being straight.

I think i understand why people don't want to believe that sexuality is nature and not nurture. If it happens that we have no control over our sexual orientation, it becomes much more difficult to marginalize and persecute an entire group of people. it would be like persecuting blue-eyed people, or people with disconnected ear-lobes. Also, the validity of scripture for dealing with modern issues would be seriously questioned. basically, we have here a can of worms.

NOW let's talk about the Bible. I am a Christian, i went to a private Christian college for several years (Berea College), and have a fair to middling grasp of Old Testament literature. My understanding is that the book of Leviticus is a set of commands for the Levites to assist them in regaining their land. homosexual behavior would hinder population growth, therefore it was called an abomination. furthermore, the commands found in Lev. should not be extrapolated to today. if all of them were, well let's see:

*Ladies, when you're on your period, you have to go and live in a shack around back, b/c you're unclean.
*Guys, do not cut your hair or shave your beards, cuz that's sinful too.
*all of the Catholic priests who sinned need to bring a clean bull without defect to the north side of the altar, as a burnt offering.

that's just what i can pull off the top of my head, there's lots more if you wanna go and read it yourself. i especially enjoy the part about when to stone people, and when to simply kick them out of the tent. :)

sorry to rant so much, peace out.

[evilsquishy]

Fine, give them some sort of legal union, but don't call it marriage.
Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. And while I don't agree with it, give them legal benefits, but it's not a marriage.

[WDTSF]

A lot of you are talking about marriage as if it is set in stone: a man and a woman legally bound, no exceptions. But long ago men could have many wives, and that obviously changed. Many people say that people of the same sex cannot get married simply because the law states it. Well, yes, but the law can be changed. And I think it should be. I wish everyone would be a little more openminded.

[Optimus Magnus]

Look, I honestly couldn't give a rat's arse if gay people want to get married or not.

Don't call it marriage you say, well here is my response

"A rose by any other name"


Can we just let our fellow people go about their business without anyone from the outside interfering

[PsychoMike]

I've read a few people that have stated that our laws are based in christianity. I would like you to find 5 laws that are only found in christianity and no other religion, moral teachings or set of laws that predate christianity.

[zamphir66]

law number one:

1. boo deedy bop doo bop eee bop can't touch this!

[sonjablue]

This is defintely a hot issue right now. With me being a Christian, I had a hard time deciding how to vote. If I voted yes, would I be going against everything I believe in and burn in hell? If I voted no, would I not be supporting my gay friends and wanting them to be happy with someone one day like they want for me? And if I voted don't care, is it a cop-out? I guess I am the person with rose-colored glasses on. I just want everyone to be happy with whoever that person is, same sex or not. As far as the AIDS issue is concerned, it can happen to anyone. It does not care who you are but what you do. Being a single straight woman, I can get it just as easily as a gay man. If I decide to practice unsafe sex, then I must stand accountable for my actions. To let you know, I voted don't care. I don't see it as a cop-out. If you are fortunate enough to find someone who loves you and you love them back, be happy. There are some people (including me) who are waiting for that special someone. I will go to a gay bar with some friends and at times I envy what some of them have. I hope I have not ranted too much. On a side not, for everyone who knows and loves CapricornDevil, he says hi.

[Rogue]

Tell him I say hi, sonja. We miss him 'round here. :)

[sonjablue]

Sorry for any mis-spellings.

[Tony Montana]

Dont care.

[pixiness]

Originally posted by Peter
How can the bible have the last word on the subject when you live in a country that has the separation of church and goverment as one of it's basic principles!?

Ah my dear fellow - that's because separation of church and state is really more of an idea than a guideline in the United States. It's more of a freedom to practice any religion you want as long as you follow the standards of "goodness" set forth in protestant religion.

Consider for a moment that our country was founded by Puritans - People so uptight the British kicked them out (to quote Robin Williams). Our national standards of morality and decency have all been based on the set of beliefs that arose from that culture.

Unfortunate and sad, but it many ways completely true.

[pixiness]

Originally posted by PsychoMike
I've read a few people that have stated that our laws are based in christianity. I would like you to find 5 laws that are only found in christianity and no other religion, moral teachings or set of laws that predate christianity.

i don't think our LAWS are based in christianity... just our standards of what is "good", "right" and "moral"

[thebtskink]

Lots of people falsely quote this statistic that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS. The disproportionate level of AIDS within the gay community, especially during the 1980's, was more due to a lack of understanding about the nature of the disease than anything else. There were, and still are a great number of people out there that think you cannot get STDs from oral or anal sex. Flat out wrong. Given that homosexuals are left with only a few options, yes, they were at high risk for AIDS given that people thought they were safe when they really weren't.

To put it another way, there are a great number of African-Americans in prisons. Does this mean that this group commits more crimes than other demographics? No. In fact, more whites in this nation commit crimes than blacks. Studies show that besides the criminal justice system being heavily biased, socioeconmic status has a greater effect on violent crimes than anything else. A great concentration of the urban poor are African-American, so many do commit crimes, but not all do. That is preposterous to say.

[bbf2]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
My signature pretty much answers my stance on this one...

What does "I'm not living, I'm just killing time" have to do with gay marriage? ;)

[pixiness]

Thanks skinky - excellent point!

[Kyle Katarn]

I don't really care one way or the other...

But I've said before that commen sense says that a sexual relationship with one partner is much safer than one with several partners.

[PsychoMike]

Originally posted by pixiness
Ah my dear fellow - that's because separation of church and state is really more of an idea than a guideline in the United States. It's more of a freedom to practice any religion you want as long as you follow the standards of "goodness" set forth in protestant religion.

Consider for a moment that our country was founded by Puritans - People so uptight the British kicked them out (to quote Robin Williams). Our national standards of morality and decency have all been based on the set of beliefs that arose from that culture.

i don't think our LAWS are based in christianity... just our standards of what is "good", "right" and "moral"

Our countries are the same as what is taught in all 5 major religions and most other moral codes that came prior.

Actually what the first admendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....". Basicly that congress can't declare a state religion. I belive it was the supreme court that said there is a separation of church and state.

Not only was this country founded by Religious Purtians but many of the founding fathers were Civil Libertarians.

[rayzor09]

Mel Gibson a week ago said, "To hate Jews is to be unchristian." So why can he hate gays?

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by thebtskink
Lots of people falsely quote this statistic that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS. The disproportionate level of AIDS within the gay community, especially during the 1980's, was more due to a lack of understanding about the nature of the disease than anything else. There were, and still are a great number of people out there that think you cannot get STDs from oral or anal sex. Flat out wrong. Given that homosexuals are left with only a few options, yes, they were at high risk for AIDS given that people thought they were safe when they really weren't.

To put it another way, there are a great number of African-Americans in prisons. Does this mean that this group commits more crimes than other demographics? No. In fact, more whites in this nation commit crimes than blacks. Studies show that besides the criminal justice system being heavily biased, socioeconmic status has a greater effect on violent crimes than anything else. A great concentration of the urban poor are African-American, so many do commit crimes, but not all do. That is preposterous to say.

Ah yes but isn't it usually the heterosexual pig that goes out and screws every girl he sees? Watch kids, bro, and he's only 14. Imagine is he was 25.

SIDE NOTE: I am straight.

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by HeadHunter
i think i should be able to marry a goat :p

Well as long as its a female goat!!! lol

[JimmyDean]

Originally posted by bbf2
What does "I'm not living, I'm just killing time" have to do with gay marriage? ;)

My OLD signature ;)

[CapricornDevil]

Well, all, I have just come out of CS retirement to throw my two cents in on this issue. First, I have to applaud all of those who have shown support to the homosexual community. It is heart warming to see that there are so many people on this board that understand the truth about homosexuality.

Now, I want to add my opinion to the whole issue. I have read several arguments in this thread that I must refute. First, to say that homosexuality is a choice is just naive. As a homosexual, I am insulted every time I hear this argument. What people fail to understand is that there is no choice in who one is attracted to. To say it is a choice trivializes the whole issue.

"So, what did you do today?"

"Well, I got my car washed, cashed my pay check, turned gay, and did some laundry. You?"

Come on now people. To say that I chose to be gay is ridiculous. To the straight people out there, I pose this question. When did you first realize you were attracted to the opposite sex? I would assume it was when you were very young. Did you sit down, weight the pros and cons, and DECIDE to be straight. I highly doubt it. I am the same as you are. I realized at an early age that I was attracted to the same sex. When I realized what this meant, I was terrified. I went through stages of not understanding what this meant for my future, denial, hiding it, fighting it, being depressed and suicidal over it, to final acceptance. Now, does being depressed, scared, and suicidal seem like a road one would choose?

On to the issue of AIDS. I admit that there are a lot of homosexual men, and a few homosexual women, who are HIV+ or have full blown AIDS. But, what about the heterosexual community? Have we all forgotten that straight people get the disease too? In fact, homosexual men are no longer the biggest group at risk for AIDS. That group is heterosexual women. You ask, how can this be? Well, to answer that, it is education. For years, homosexuals have been told that we would all get AIDS. For that reason, the gay community wised up. We realized the threat we faced, and took on the responsibility of our health. Heterosexuals, on the other hand, not fearing AIDS the way gays did, did less to protect themselves. Sure, women went on the pill, the patch, or the shot to keep themselves from getting pregnant, but that didn't stop the spread of STDs like AIDS. I am not implying a lack of education or intelligence on the part of the heterosexual community. What I am saying is that having a constant threat like AIDS scared homosexuals into protection beyond that for which we were accustomed.

Now, the issue of gay marriage affecting straight couples. I can come up with very little more than, WHAT? How can you say that gay men and women marrying one another will affect the marriage you have to your husband or wife. One person argued that, should gay marriage become common practice, that he would have to tell people that his marriage was to a woman. Okay, but how again does that adversely affect you? Does the two seconds it would take to tell someone you are married to someone of the opposite sex ruin your life? If so, you have bigger problems that whether or not I can marry my boyfriend. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce, the "sanctity" of the whole institution seems to be in question. So, if straight people can't get it right half the time, who is to say that gay men and women never will?

What this all comes down to is equality. To say to 15% of the American population "You don't matter" is nothing more than overt discrimination. Should President Bush propose a constitutional amendment banning Native Americans from marrying, he would be branded a racist and hated world over. However, since he is against gay men and women, he is being branded (by some) as an extraordinary patriot. The history of our nation has shown, time and time again, that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.

I leave you with this scenario. You wake up in the morning and turn on the morning news. While getting dressed you hear the story of a straight 18 year old Midwestern boy who was picked up in a bar. After leaving the bar he was tied, drug behind a truck, tied to a fence, and pistol whipped to the point that his skull was left as nothing more than a fine powder. The world would be outraged. But, as is stood, Matthew Sheppard was gay. The last words he heard before dying were "You fag! You are worthless!" Because he was gay, very few people cared. In fact, a few cheered.

So, is America truly the home of the free? Yeah, it is. Free if you are straight, terrifying at times if you are not.

[FilmJerk]

damn glad Bush is pushing to ban this nasty ****.

[zamphir66]

the contrast between the preceding two posts is striking.

well-worded, rational, deliberate argument vs. sentence fragment.

[Switzer]

Originally posted by rayzor09
Mel Gibson a week ago said, "To hate Jews is to be unchristian." So why can he hate gays?
Becuz they'll come back to attack you with their gay touchy touching and tights that are too revealing

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by Switzer
Becuz they'll come back to attack you with their gay touchy touching and tights that are too revealing

*Removes his revealing tights* Sorry about that. ;)

[OldCoyote]

Why is it we can have a civil disscussion about gay marrage?

But when it's about smoking bans and Handson--people gety banned and threads get blocked?

Just curious is all

[Switzer]

Originally posted by OldCoyote
Why is it we can have a civil disscussion about gay marrage?

But when it's about smoking bans and Handson--people gety banned and threads get blocked?

Just curious is all
Cuz gay marriage is an important part and problem in our society especially California. And we all know smoking is bad for you and I don't think anyone cares about "handson"

[OldCoyote]

I was just reffering to some of the past event that have happened here.

You would think people would be civilized with handson, becuase as you said, no one give a crap

you would think they would be civiled with the smoking thing (becuase on the scale of world problem it dosn't rate too high, but know.

But on this thread, which is important everyone is all calm. I expected some heated disscussions in here, but there really havn't been any

[Switzer]

Well then I got a question, when a priest molest's an altar boy does or even go as far as having sex acts, does that mean that the priest is doing gay stuff?

[Switzer]

Originally posted by OldCoyote
I was just reffering to some of the past event that have happened here.

You would think people would be civilized with handson, becuase as you said, no one give a crap

you would think they would be civiled with the smoking thing (becuase on the scale of world problem it dosn't rate too high, but know.

But on this thread, which is important everyone is all calm. I expected some heated disscussions in here, but there really havn't been any
Well I guess most of the people in here are very mature men and women.

[OldCoyote]

it's not much the gay stuff that bugs me (although it does a little)

it's that fact that alter boy are boys and that preists are usually old men

[Switzer]

Have you ever seen the "priests" or "bishops" testify in court?Man are they scary looking and they still go to court wearing their "crosses"

[OldCoyote]

What is pathetic is that the church tries to cover it up and then shifts around the preist from church to church to try to hide it.

Bunch of suckas is what they are (although I'm sure there are many good clergymen) just there leadership

[Doomsday]

That one priest who was arrested and basically started the entire witch hunt was recently strangled in prison, if memory serves me correctly.

[Doomsday]

Originally posted by rayzor09
Mel Gibson a week ago said, "To hate Jews is to be unchristian." So why can he hate gays?

Mel Gibson is a huge Catholic. The Catholic church teaches that the act of homosexuality is evil and impure. Notice how I said "act" and not just "homosexuality." They teach that if you're gay, that's your thing and thats the way you live, no problems. If you act on it however (anal sex) then that is a sin and is evil. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Mel Gibson HATES gays, but he finds the act of homosexuality evil.

[zamphir66]

It's a mistake to equate pedophilia with homosexuality. most pedophiles are straight.

[The Moose]

it may be something that some of us don't like, but what right to we have to stop 2 people who want to get married from doing it?

[pixiness]

I was debating this subject with a friend last night and came to the following conclusion:

Regardless of what your own personal beliefs on homosexual marriage are, it's truly not the government's place to intervene.

Now there's even a possibility of banning same-sex marriage as a constitutional amendment. Doesn't anyone see a huge problem with this? It doesn't matter whether the amendment allows for states to circumvent the law. It's not acceptable that the current legislature and administration forces their own personal beliefs and opinions on the rest of the country. I mean honestly, what's next? The government takes a position that same-sex couples should be fined for cohabitating (married or not)? Teenagers should be ID-chipped and their dating habits strictly monitored? Government officials coming into my home and recording my sex habits to make sure I'm not doing anything but engaging in the missionary position? Or worse - I'm only having sex with someone I can prove I'm married to?

Yes, I realize that these things seem a little far fetched now, but it's exactly why you don't open the door on issues like these. Our government seems to think that it's okay to change the constitution to serve their own purposes. And it's simply not. For instance, did you know that it's in the constitution that the government cannot impose a federal income tax? And that the supreme court rejected the government's motion as unconstitutional oh so many years ago? And so what did our wonderful elected officials do? They passed an amendment allowing it. I think all of us can agree that such an amendment would have never passed a vote by the general population - but our elected officials had no problem voting it in anyway.

To me, it's like prohibition. A constitutional amendment against drinking is just as ridiculous as a constitutional amendment restricting marriage. In fact, drunk driving actually kills "innocent bystanders" and to my knowledge I have yet to hear of a death that resulted from same-sex marriage.

I hope that this loses the election for Bush. I hope that the very idea of such an amendment gets those of you that don't vote to the polls this year to do something about it. I really hope it compels people to do a little homework and learn about the people running instead of just voting in the guy they've seen on TV.

Sorry to get so worked up folks - but I see a very slippery slope where this issue opens the door to restricting each of our own personal freedoms.

[JBond]

Well put, pixi :)

[zamphir66]

this also brings up a big issue of states rights vs. federal rights, an issue as old as the constitution. its funny how bush, a republican, suddenly takes the very democratic position of feds over states, when the repub. platform is in fact states over feds, i.e. small government etc.

[Mrspantera]

I think that it should be passed, it would be like saying straight people couldnt get married.

[Switzer]

And another reason gay marriage shouldn't be passed is becuz parents of today dont want their children watching 2 guys on the streets, holding hands, kissing, its a bad example

[Switzer]

See....

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~ccorrado/my%20pictures/black%20swim%20trunks.jpg

these are gay married guys.Thats what you'll see in South Africa

[JimmyDean]

I wouldn't advise moving to Miami then.

Don't want your kids seeing gay couples together? Jessssus christ... take the kids mouth out of yer tits and let him get his own milk for once!

Bunch of imbeciles.

[Switzer]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
I wouldn't advise moving to Miami then.

Don't want your kids seeing gay couples together? Jessssus christ... take the kids mouth out of yer tits and let him get his own milk for once!

Bunch of imbeciles.

But isn't that the best part of being a baby? ;)

[JimmyDean]

Nah, you're forgetting the belly rub afterwards ;)

[JBond]

Originally posted by Switzer
But isn't that the best part of being a baby? ;)

Considering it's your mother I'm not sure what to say about this comment ;)

[Switzer]

Originally posted by JBond
Considering it's your mother I'm not sure what to say about this comment ;)
hey, who said it has to be your mother

[JBond]

Well in most cases...

[CapricornDevil]

I was discussing this issue with a friend online one day and he accused me of pushing the gay agenda. Well, as a gay man, let me say I have never heard of a gay agenda. If there is one, why didn't I get a copy? I must have missed the memo.

So, since I didn't get the memo, I'll make up my own. Here it is, one gay boy from the Midwest's take on the gay agenda.

1. We want special rights. Yes, that's right. After all this talk about gay men and women wanting special rights, we do. We want the right to hold our partner's hand in public without fear of retaliation. We want the right to hold public office. We want the right to bring our partners to company Christmas parties. We want the right to join the military and serve in the defense of our nation. We may not choose to exercise all these rights, but we want them there in case we do choose to exercise them at some time.

2. We are for family values. Now this is a hot-button issue for many. But, let me tell you something. Being gay is not an affront to family values. We would like to raise our sons and daughters in a family where they are loved, taken care of, and treated well. Gay parents do not breed gay children. Our children are just as likely to be gay as the children of any straight couple. Just ask the gay people you know how many have straight parents. I know I do.

3. We want to think about sex. As human beings it is natural to think about sex. Everyone does. Male, female, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, gay, or straight, we all think about sex. For years mass media has portrayed heterosexual couples do everything known to man, and some not known, in public entertainment. However, when a gay kiss is shown on a popular show, we are accused of "forcing our sexuality down the public's throats." Talk about your ironic phrasing. Very few understand what the lack of positive gay role models and positive representations of gay relationships does to the gay youth in this country. They feel alone, unwanted, and on the outside of any social scenario they could foreseeable become a part of.

4. We want a gay lifestyle. For years I have heard about a gay lifestyle. What is it? More importantly, what demented heterosexual is hoarding it? Whoever he or she is, they should give it up. It has our name on it after all. Buying a retirement condo on a golf course in Boca Raton is a lifestyle. Being gay is a life.

So, there you have it; my take on the gay agenda. Unless the original copy of the agenda is hidden away in Barney Frank's filing cabinet, you are going to have to settle for mine. I may have missed the memo, but I didn't miss the meeting.

[WDTSF]

I hope John Kerry becomes president before the amendment is passed (it would take a long time). Kerry said on the Today show this morning that while he shares a relatively similar view on gay marriage as Bush, he thinks it's ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment that bans it. Kerry believes that Bush is really just doing this as an effort to distract voters from his screw-ups as the election draws nearer. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen, but the point is that if Kerry is elected he will put a stop to the passing of this ridiculous amendment.

So vote for John Kerry!:)

[Link]

I don't have a problem with homosexuality at all. And I'm very much against the right for them to marry one another to be banned. As pixi said, I hope Bush loses this year.

[CapricornDevil]

Yay Link!

[Doomsday]

Have you guys heard of that new Comedy Central show Straight Plan For The Gay Man? I haven't seen it but I think it looks hilarious!:D

[OldCoyote]

Oh yea that one looks great.

Strait guys need somethin to counter the Queer Eye.

But just watch as it gets condemed as being bigoted

[TyRoss]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
I was discussing this issue with a friend online one day and he accused me of pushing the gay agenda. Well, as a gay man, let me say I have never heard of a gay agenda. If there is one, why didn't I get a copy? I must have missed the memo.

So, since I didn't get the memo, I'll make up my own. Here it is, one gay boy from the Midwest's take on the gay agenda.

1. We want special rights. Yes, that's right. After all this talk about gay men and women wanting special rights, we do. We want the right to hold our partner's hand in public without fear of retaliation. We want the right to hold public office. We want the right to bring our partners to company Christmas parties. We want the right to join the military and serve in the defense of our nation. We may not choose to exercise all these rights, but we want them there in case we do choose to exercise them at some time.

2. We are for family values. Now this is a hot-button issue for many. But, let me tell you something. Being gay is not an affront to family values. We would like to raise our sons and daughters in a family where they are loved, taken care of, and treated well. Gay parents do not breed gay children. Our children are just as likely to be gay as the children of any straight couple. Just ask the gay people you know how many have straight parents. I know I do.

3. We want to think about sex. As human beings it is natural to think about sex. Everyone does. Male, female, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, gay, or straight, we all think about sex. For years mass media has portrayed heterosexual couples do everything known to man, and some not known, in public entertainment. However, when a gay kiss is shown on a popular show, we are accused of "forcing our sexuality down the public's throats." Talk about your ironic phrasing. Very few understand what the lack of positive gay role models and positive representations of gay relationships does to the gay youth in this country. They feel alone, unwanted, and on the outside of any social scenario they could foreseeable become a part of.

4. We want a gay lifestyle. For years I have heard about a gay lifestyle. What is it? More importantly, what demented heterosexual is hoarding it? Whoever he or she is, they should give it up. It has our name on it after all. Buying a retirement condo on a golf course in Boca Raton is a lifestyle. Being gay is a life.

So, there you have it; my take on the gay agenda. Unless the original copy of the agenda is hidden away in Barney Frank's filing cabinet, you are going to have to settle for mine. I may have missed the memo, but I didn't miss the meeting.


:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

[TyRoss]

Originally posted by Switzer
See....

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~ccorrado/my%20pictures/black%20swim%20trunks.jpg

these are gay married guys.Thats what you'll see in South Africa

Then why are there 5 of them? :p

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by zamphir66
My understanding is that the book of Leviticus is a set of commands for the Levites to assist them in regaining their land. homosexual behavior would hinder population growth, therefore it was called an abomination. furthermore, the commands found in Lev. should not be extrapolated to today. if all of them were, well let's see:

*Ladies, when you're on your period, you have to go and live in a shack around back, b/c you're unclean.
*Guys, do not cut your hair or shave your beards, cuz that's sinful too.
*all of the Catholic priests who sinned need to bring a clean bull without defect to the north side of the altar, as a burnt offering.


I must agree. Yes, it says in the book of Leviticus that "if a man lie with another man like he lie with a woman, he has committed an abomination and shall surely be put to death. However, it also says, just a few pages earlier in the same book of Leviticus, that it is an abomination to wear clothing of more than one kind of material. It is an abomination to eat pork. It is the same damnable abomination to eat shellfish.

So, following that logic it stands to reason that:
Poly-Cotton is a sin.
Red Lobster is the Devil's playground.
The road to Hell is paved with bacon.

I'll make all the extreme homophobes a deal. You take the sausage out of your mouth, I'll take the sausage out of mine. ;)

[Doomsday]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil


I'll make all the extreme homophobes a deal. You take the sausage out of your mouth, I'll take the sausage out of mine. ;)

I seriously just lost my appetite.

[Lackey]

I hope this ammendment doesn't pass, me and my brother have been wanting to get married for the longest time. :(

[TyRoss]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
I'll make all the extreme homophobes a deal. You take the sausage out of your mouth, I'll take the sausage out of mine. ;)

:lol:

You're really what this thread needed :D

[cg124]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
I must agree. Yes, it says in the book of Leviticus that "if a man lie with another man like he lie with a woman, he has committed an abomination and shall surely be put to death. However, it also says, just a few pages earlier in the same book of Leviticus, that it is an abomination to wear clothing of more than one kind of material. It is an abomination to eat pork. It is the same damnable abomination to eat shellfish.

So, following that logic it stands to reason that:
Poly-Cotton is a sin.
Red Lobster is the Devil's playground.
The road to Hell is paved with bacon.

I'll make all the extreme homophobes a deal. You take the sausage out of your mouth, I'll take the sausage out of mine. ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[thebtskink]

Hahahaha...

[PsychoMike]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
I'll make all the extreme homophobes a deal. You take the sausage out of your mouth, I'll take the sausage out of mine. ;)
:lol: :lol:
I was waiting for you to come back and find this thread.

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by PsychoMike
:lol: :lol:
I was waiting for you to come back and find this thread.


It took sonjablue telling me about this thread to get me back. But, I am back. Thank you for support :)

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by TyRoss
:lol:

You're really what this thread needed :D


*takes a bow* Why thank you! :)

[droidguy1119]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
1. We want special rights. Yes, that's right. After all this talk about gay men and women wanting special rights, we do. We want the right to hold our partner's hand in public without fear of retaliation. We want the right to hold public office. We want the right to bring our partners to company Christmas parties. We want the right to join the military and serve in the defense of our nation. We may not choose to exercise all these rights, but we want them there in case we do choose to exercise them at some time.


So...if you want special rights, is it unfair to give you a different process than "marriage" as a union? I am really not homophobic, but I am against gay marriages, because I think marriage is something else.

I dunno why the thought bugs me and yet "gay union" doesn't.

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by droidguy1119
So...if you want special rights, is it unfair to give you a different process than "marriage" as a union? I am really not homophobic, but I am against gay marriages, because I think marriage is something else.

I dunno why the thought bugs me and yet "gay union" doesn't.

The problem with labeling the process as a "civil union" as opposed to a marriage is that it downplays the importance of the whole reason we want to be together. I would want to marry my boyfriend for the same reason that a straight man would want to marry his girlfriend. It is about love. Labeling us as having civil unions instead of marriages is just another way to condescend to homosexuals. It is almost like the government coming out and saying "Oh, let’s just let the gay people pretend to be married. Isn't it cute?" Sounds like the way they would talk to children. Furthermore, the history of our nation has shown, time and time again, that separate is rarely, if ever, equal. It is just another way to make gay people stand out in this country as different. We aren’t different. We are just like everyone else. The only exception being that we are persecuted because of the gender of the person we go to bed with at night.

No straight person, however accepting of homosexuality they may be, can fully understand what it is like. Imagine waking up, every single day, and having to look yourself in mirror with a voice in the back of your head saying; “Today, someone is going to hate me. Today, someone is going to change their opinion of me for the worse. This is not being done because of who I am, what I do, or the quality of my character. I will be hated because of the gender of the person I sleep with tonight.” No one should ever have to go through that pain.

[droidguy1119]

Maybe not "civil unions"...

I see your point, but unfortunately, I can't get around that marriage has always been (for me) a union of a man and a woman -- do you take this man, do you take this woman -- and I don't feel that it should change.

As for the last part...:( I don't know what to say.

[rayzor09]

deleted

[rayzor09]

The above was a joke.

[droidguy1119]

...an uncalled for one...

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by droidguy1119
Maybe not "civil unions"...

I see your point, but unfortunately, I can't get around that marriage has always been (for me) a union of a man and a woman -- do you take this man, do you take this woman -- and I don't feel that it should change.

As for the last part...:( I don't know what to say.


I can understand how you feel. Although I disagree with you, I don't hold your opinions against you at all. It seems, to me, that what we disagree on the most is what word to attach to the process of joining two people together.

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by Doomsday
Mel Gibson is a huge Catholic. The Catholic church teaches that the act of homosexuality is evil and impure. Notice how I said "act" and not just "homosexuality." They teach that if you're gay, that's your thing and thats the way you live, no problems. If you act on it however (anal sex) then that is a sin and is evil. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Mel Gibson HATES gays, but he finds the act of homosexuality evil.

But the bible says "... nor the homosexuals inherit the kingdom of heaven".

[droidguy1119]

Dude, rayzor...shut up.

As to Capricorn...I guess maybe that's it. I dunno. Marriage just seems like one custom to do one thing, and man and woman has always been part of the definition.

Glad you don't hold that against me. :)

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by TyRoss
Then why are there 5 of them? :p

Polygamist.

[CapricornDevil]

droid - No worries. I have never held people's opinions against them. We all have our opinions and are entitled to them. I only start to hold things against people when they don't respect that I am entitled to my opinions as well.

[CapricornDevil]

Also, I do plan on getting married someday. Whether it is legally recognized or not, I will have a wedding. This wedding will be more for me and my partner than for anyone else.

[droidguy1119]

Everyone is, always, and that used to be a given...*sigh*

[Knerys]

Originally posted by WDTSF
I hope John Kerry becomes president before the amendment is passed (it would take a long time). Kerry said on the Today show this morning that while he shares a relatively similar view on gay marriage as Bush, he thinks it's ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment that bans it. Kerry believes that Bush is really just doing this as an effort to distract voters from his screw-ups as the election draws nearer. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen, but the point is that if Kerry is elected he will put a stop to the passing of this ridiculous amendment.

So vote for John Kerry!:) The more I here about Kerry the more I like him. I might actally get to vote for someone that I want in office this time instead of the best of what there is.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by rayzor09
Polygamist.


I hope that becomes legal too. :)

[Lackey]

Originally posted by WDTSF
I hope John Kerry becomes president before the amendment is passed (it would take a long time). Kerry said on the Today show this morning that while he shares a relatively similar view on gay marriage as Bush, he thinks it's ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment that bans it. Kerry believes that Bush is really just doing this as an effort to distract voters from his screw-ups as the election draws nearer. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen, but the point is that if Kerry is elected he will put a stop to the passing of this ridiculous amendment.

So vote for John Kerry!


That's very true that this is an effort to distract from the administrations current "screw ups"
I also want Bush out of office... he should've never been there in the first place.

but Bush's opinion and this ammendment is at the bottom of the list of things I find wrong with the Bush administration.
And if Kerry does get voted in, there not much he can do to stop this ammendment from passing, that's up to Congress.

[CapricornDevil]

You are right that this is up to congress. I just hope that congress is (and I know this is a lot to ask of elected officials) intelligent enough to realize the long term ratifications of passing such an amendment.

[thebtskink]

The amendment will never go through. It needs 38 states to ratify, and I think we can all easily count 13 states that won't.

[JimmyDean]

10 bucks says Jesus would've cared less if gay people wanted to get married ;)

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by thebtskink
The amendment will never go through. It needs 38 states to ratify, and I think we can all easily count 13 states that won't.

Thank you for the clarification on congressional policy. I didn't realize it took so many states to ratify an amendment (shows how long it has been since my freshman Poly-Sci 100 class). Knowing that it takes 38 states makes me worry a lot less.

Thank you. :)

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
10 bucks says Jesus would've cared less if gay people wanted to get married ;)

or Buddha, or Krishna, or Kali, etc. ;)

[Doomsday]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
10 bucks says Jesus would've cared less if gay people wanted to get married ;)

I REALLY beg to differ.

[CapricornDevil]

oh, its ok, you don't need to beg.

[CapricornDevil]

What blows my mind about this whole thing is people's attachment to religious ideals in order to back their position. The fact of the matter is that no matter what religion you follow, this is not a question of faith. What this is a question of, on the other hand, is human rights. Although the predominant amount of Americans are Christian, Christianity does not have a moratorium on ethical decision making. I, for one, am not Christian. Does this mean that I go around saying that governmental policy needs to be dictated according to my spiritual beliefs? No. Neither should the Christians in the country. Being the dominant religion does not make you the right religion.

This is in no way meant to insult Christians or Christianity. What it is meant to do is demonstrate that equal rights are not spiritually based, they are secularly based.

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by Doomsday
I REALLY beg to differ.

As much as I'd ate to agree with doomsday (;)), I differ also.

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by Lackey
I hope that becomes legal too. :)

Holy crap! Somebody backs me up! But unfortuanately I'm not fond of polygamy... it's disrespectful to their spouses, but it's none of my business.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by thebtskink
The amendment will never go through. It needs 38 states to ratify, and I think we can all easily count 13 states that won't.

well that's still cutting it pretty close... but I'm just curious, which 13 are you referring to?

[Lackey]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
Thank you for the clarification on congressional policy. I didn't realize it took so many states to ratify an amendment (shows how long it has been since my freshman Poly-Sci 100 class). Knowing that it takes 38 states makes me worry a lot less.

Thank you. :)


Yeah, that's one reason why I think these people pushing for this ammendment are setting their sights too high...

it's sort of difficult to get an ammendment through... but an Act, those get through easily.
The Constitution has been raped so many times with Acts flying right through Congress....in some cases without its members even reading the bill.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by rayzor09
Holy crap! Somebody backs me up! But unfortuanately I'm not fond of polygamy... it's disrespectful to their spouses, but it's none of my business.


so does that mean you don't want to get married to me :confused: :(

[PsychoMike]

Originally posted by Knerys
The more I here about Kerry the more I like him. I might actally get to vote for someone that I want in office this time instead of the best of what there is.

:shock: Knerys might vote for a Liberal Democrate. Whats this world coming to? ;)

Back on topic. I'm not sure what 13 states definitely won't vote for this admendment but I'm sure Massachuttes is one of them. Before it goes to the states, however; It has to pass 2/3 of congress 67 senators and 291(?) from the house. This seems to be a partisian issue so I don't belive many Democrats will vote for it. Bush dosen't seem to have the numbers to get this to pass.

[thebtskink]

Originally posted by Lackey
well that's still cutting it pretty close... but I'm just curious, which 13 are you referring to?

Vermont
Mass.
R.I.
NY
Connecticut
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Washington
Oregon
California
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Illinois
Minnesota
Iowa
Maryland
Delaware
Most likely Florida

[zamphir66]

in 200+ years, only 16? amendments have been made to the constitution. and two of those cancel each other out. its far from easy.

[JimmyDean]

We all know Jesus was a liberal now ;)

And 15 bucks says the big J would happily be Capricorn's best man if he hadn't... well, you know... erm, died.

[PsychoMike]

Originally posted by zamphir66
in 200+ years, only 16? amendments have been made to the constitution. and two of those cancel each other out. its far from easy.

Actually there have been 27 admendments (including the 10 in the bill of rights). The most recent was passed in 1992.

[pixiness]

And, point of fact anyone in the presidential office DOES have the power to stop an amendment. If nothing else, he can voice his objections against it. Funny thing about being president - people tend to listen to you whether you're right or wrong. Influence sways a lot of opinions in this country, particularly from the highest position in the land. "Gee, if the president says it's bad maybe I should think it's bad too."

[thebtskink]

Originally posted by PsychoMike
Actually there have been 27 admendments (including the 10 in the bill of rights). The most recent was passed in 1992.

Yeah well the bill of rights was right off the bat, so what he's saying is pretty much accurate.

[Knerys]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
10 bucks says Jesus would've cared less if gay people wanted to get married ;) Actually Jesus would have wanted no one to get married.

[Knerys]

Originally posted by PsychoMike
:shock: Knerys might vote for a Liberal Democrate. Whats this world coming to? ;)
Hey I have nothing against democrats. I just tend to have more republican veiws on certain matters. This one I do not.


I just try to look at the person, not their politcal party.

[thebtskink]

Originally posted by Knerys
Actually Jesus would have wanted no one to get married.

God only knows how much marriage screws us all up. ;)

If two people that are in love want to get married, become monogamous and ruin their lives, more power to them! :p

[Knerys]

And there you have it! :funny:

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by Knerys
Actually Jesus would have wanted no one to get married.

What? Is this a joke?

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by JimmyDean
We all know Jesus was a liberal now ;)

And 15 bucks says the big J would happily be Capricorn's best man if he hadn't... well, you know... erm, died.

I don't know if I would want Jesus as my best man. The whole "water into wine" thing at the reception might steal my thunder. Plus he would want us all to sit on one side of the table, we would have to listen to his "this is my body" speech, and I doubt he would be willing to sport a tux. ;) But hey, who knows, maybe he knows how to cut loose. Can Jesus waltz?

[Knerys]

Originally posted by rayzor09
What? Is this a joke? Actually no heh. His idea was that no one should have sex and all people should give themselves wholely to god. He did'nt belive in any unions of any kind. After his death the apolstes reformed the relgion a bit as to not make it so exetreme. Plus no sex, no future generation to teach.

[CapricornDevil]

I say we should all just marry each other. One big wedding.

"Do you 7 billion+ citizens of Earth take one another to be lawfully wedded spouses?"

[Catshe]

yes I do

[CapricornDevil]

As do I.


Yeah, Catshe and I are married now. :)

Oh, You are in a pub with a fag and a pint? Can I be that fag? ;)

[Knerys]

I do as well!

*waits or CC*

[Colorado Cajun]

CC is here and since I'm a legal man of the cloth I now pronounce Knerys and I man and wife all legal like :D

[CapricornDevil]

Woohoo!! Our marriage is growing. :)

[CapricornDevil]

Wait...CC...I think you just married yourself and knerys to catshe and myself. This is a "group thing" wedding here.

[Knerys]

And we have a minister to legalized it lol.

[CapricornDevil]

Cool. Anyone else want to join our marriage?

[Colorado Cajun]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
Wait...CC...I think you just married yourself and knerys to catshe and myself. This is a "group thing" wedding here. no no no I'd get sued lol You and Catshe are married and Knerys and I are

the rest has to be done under the table with lots of bribes coming my way:D

[CapricornDevil]

More cheap women work as a bribe?

[Kyle Katarn]

I wanna join in the marriage - 'I do!' :D

Originally posted by CapricornDevil

Oh, You are in a pub with a fag and a pint? Can I be that fag? ;)

:eek: :D Only you CD, only you.... :lol:

[CapricornDevil]

Originally posted by Kyle Katarn
I wanna join in the marriage - 'I do!' :D



:eek: :D Only you CD, only you.... :lol:

First - Welcome to our wedded bliss

Second - Yes, only me. As it was meant to be. :)

[Colorado Cajun]

Originally posted by CapricornDevil
More cheap women work as a bribe?
but of course it's now a done deal:D

[JustAnAlias]

BOOOO to gay marriage and Rosie O'donnel I say.