Gay marriage

[hecter]

Gay are giving people AID's. When a friend tells him to stop being gay the gay guy buys a hooker and tries it out. He gives her AID's. Thats how it's being spread.


Less Gays= Less AID's

Wow... You're a total idiot... Or I missed your sarcasm...

Is he? Whilst I'm not going to pretend that this serves as an argument against gay marriage in any way, and his equation may not be entirely correctly formulated, isn't the basic fact that we can thank the gay population for AIDS true?

No. We can thank idiots who don't "wrap it up" for spreading AIDs, along with other STD's and STI's.
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
This seems pretty sure that it originated from Africa from monkeys.

[william18]

What's the benifets if we allow gay marriage?

[Napoleon Ier]

What's the benifets if we allow gay marriage?

Good question...and one to which I simply haven't been given an answer.

[reminisco]

and besides, there have been a bunch of girls that begged me to give them anal.

a bunch is an unspecified number. and yes, it is rather rare. but those girls that love anal, REALLY love anal. i don't understand it. i don't really like giving it, and it seems to put the girl in a not insignificant amount of pain.

and i'm not proud of it, but i was a bit of a male slut as a young man. i snapped out of it relatively quickly (i.e. before turning 23), but not before breaking a few more hearts than i care to admit.

[Napoleon Ier]

and besides, there have been a bunch of girls that begged me to give them anal.

a bunch is an unspecified number. and yes, it is rather rare. but those girls that love anal, REALLY love anal. i don't understand it. i don't really like giving it, and it seems to put the girl in a not insignificant amount of pain.

and i'm not proud of it, but i was a bit of a male slut as a young man. i snapped out of it relatively quickly (i.e. before turning 23), but not before breaking a few more hearts than i care to admit.

Bragging about sexual conquests on a risk forum. I mean, it's just...no. Alright? Just no.

[Snorri1234]

What's the benifets if we allow gay marriage?

Good question...and one to which I simply haven't been given an answer.

Yeah, neither have I heard the benefits if we allow people of different colours to marry, or the benefits for setting the slaves free.

[SolidLuigi]

What's the benifets if we allow gay marriage?

Good question...and one to which I simply haven't been given an answer.

You are looking at this wrong. No one should have to PROVE any benefits or what not to anyone. They are people, and they have a right to the pursuit of happiness. William or Nappy, I assume you guys don't want people determining whether you can be ALLOWED to marry the woman you want to based on how it benefits other people in the society, THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR MARRIAGE. So why should you guys be able to decide on if two men who love each other can get married based on how it benefits you? Sounds pretty selfish to me.

Your logic is the same as a slave owner back in the mid 1800's asking himself "What are the benefits if we allow blacks freedom?" It wouldn't benefit the slave owner at all, but that doesn't mean shit because those slaves have a moral right to their freedom. The slave owner shouldn't have the power of allowing or not allowing someone their freedom, just like you two and others shouldn't have the power of allowing or not allowing two adults to get married.

[reminisco]

a bunch is an unspecified number. and yes, it is rather rare. but those girls that love anal, REALLY love anal. i don't understand it. i don't really like giving it, and it seems to put the girl in a not insignificant amount of pain.

and i'm not proud of it, but i was a bit of a male slut as a young man. i snapped out of it relatively quickly (i.e. before turning 23), but not before breaking a few more hearts than i care to admit.

Bragging about sexual conquests on a risk forum. I mean, it's just...no. Alright? Just no.

okay, most importantly, i wasn't bragging. that's pretty clear in the post.

and this is in a thread about Gay Marriage, which gets rather graphic at points. i haven't been very specific OR graphic. i've been using clinical language rather than slang to get my points across.

i think you just have a bone to pick with me.

[Napoleon Ier]

What's the benifets if we allow gay marriage?

Good question...and one to which I simply haven't been given an answer.

Yeah, neither have I heard the benefits if we allow people of different colours to marry, or the benefits for setting the slaves free.

You make a valid point. Perhaps not quite what I'd call philosophically sound i in terms of the interracial analogy, however, it certainly isn't entirely uninteresting to consider what you're saying.

People like snorri seem to suggest that marriage as a mark of social recognition (and do correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting you here) must be accorded to gays because:

1/Gays should have equal rights,

2/Marriage shouldn't necessarily have a societal function, any such purpose served by it is a pure incidentality.

Is this an accurate representation (and note I've tried to the best of my ability to present your views without choosing to rebutting them before I can say what they are) of your stance?

[reminisco]

Yeah, neither have I heard the benefits if we allow people of different colours to marry, or the benefits for setting the slaves free.

You make a valid point. Perhaps not quite what I'd call philosophically sound i in terms of the interracial analogy, however, it certainly isn't entirely uninteresting to consider what you're saying.

People like snorri seem to suggest that marriage as a mark of social recognition (and do correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting you here) must be accorded to gays because:

1/Gays should have equal rights

2/Marriage shouldn't necessarily have a societal function, any such purpose served by it is a pure incidentality.

Is this an accurate representation (and note I've tried to the best of my ability to present your views without choosing to rebutting them before I can say what they are) of your stance?

actually, it's simpler than what you posit, Napoleon.

it's more a common belief that if we, as US citizens are supposed to be living in a free and open society, than it should be free and open for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

granted, it's probably a safe assumption the framers of the Constitution weren't thinking about gay marriage when composing the document, but we as interpreters of the law and citizens under it ought to apply the ideals extant to modern premises. Considering women have been voting (in national elections) for less than a hundred years in the USA, applying the ideals of the Constitution will likely be an ever ongoing practice.

[william18]

What's the benifets if we allow gay marriage?

Good question...and one to which I simply haven't been given an answer.

You are looking at this wrong. No one should have to PROVE any benefits or what not to anyone. They are people, and they have a right to the pursuit of happiness. William or Nappy, I assume you guys don't want people determining whether you can be ALLOWED to marry the woman you want to based on how it benefits other people in the society, THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR MARRIAGE. So why should you guys be able to decide on if two men who love each other can get married based on how it benefits you? Sounds pretty selfish to me.

Your logic is the same as a slave owner back in the mid 1800's asking himself "What are the benefits if we allow blacks freedom?" It wouldn't benefit the slave owner at all, but that doesn't mean shit because those slaves have a moral right to their freedom. The slave owner shouldn't have the power of allowing or not allowing someone their freedom, just like you two and others shouldn't have the power of allowing or not allowing two adults to get married.

The reason is because there ARE benefits if I marry a women for the community. So we should let them because they want to? What about the people who don't want it? Should we neglect the majority just because our community isn't accustomed to the gay's needs?

[OnlyAmbrose]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

[reminisco]

The reason is because there ARE benefits if I marry a women for the community. So we should let them because they want to? What about the people who don't want it? Should we neglect the majority just because our community isn't accustomed to the gay's needs?

well, william, they aren't marrying the COMMUNITY. they're marrying each other.

why do you care so much about someone else's personal business?

this is what i don't understand about people who are worried about gay marriage bringing about some kind of huge tragedy/disaster... What is it to them? why is this such a big issue?

up to this point, the number of coups upon the government attempted by the vast army of homosexuals: zero. and it's not because they're all sissies. it's not because they've been waiting patiently to ambush you and wipe their 'gay' all over your sleeve.

it's because they're honestly trying to live out their lives same as the rest of the human race. of course there are bad ones, just like every demographic. of course there are ridiculous ones, etc. but what's it to you?

if it really is a moral failing, as many conservatives think it is, then why not just pity the gays, since they are clearly disabled? and if we pity them, then we should let them go ahead and get married.

really, i have a hard time reasoning out the question of gay marriage to anything BUT their desire to be recognized as married as just. the only way to come to a conclusion of their desire being detrimental to society at large or morally reprehensible is to put on my hate-monger goggles and start quoting Deuteronomy or Leviticus unscrupulously.

[Neoteny]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

I think, were that the case, any sort of privileges given to married couples by the government should be rescinded. Then there would be no real reason for gays to push for legislation to get married; that would be a social structure that would need to be addressed. As is, marriage is not a purely religious institution, and, because of the governmental involvement, should not be restricted to any one group. So I don't think the solution is as simple as you make it.

[comic boy]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

I made the same point about 700 posts ago, if a church wishes not to marry same sex couples then it certainly shouldnt be forced to. Gay couples are entitled rightly to a civil union and any benefits that may entail, but marriage does have religious overtones and one shouldnt expect to run a rail through those.

[Guiscard]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

Then you deny Atheists marriage too.

[Neoteny]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

Then you deny Atheists marriage too.

I imagine that follows logically. And we have a history of being dicks...

[Napoleon Ier]

It seems to me most people posting in this thread have a genuine confusion or lack of understanding of their own position.

I suppose the two essential questions, as in any debate, but particularily important in this one, are :

1/How do we define the terms involved (in the occurence, gay and marriage).

2/Is your position on the matter falsifiable (the number of times gay activists have said to me "...and nothing you say about anything will change my mind..."...)?

Of course, neither of these two questions are easy to reach a consensus upon, and I'm sure much talking will need to be done about exactly what we mean by "marriage" in a societal context, for example.

I'll offer a brief response to Ambrose: Unfortunatley this isn't a question of "let gays do what they want and stop the government interfereing with their lives", since we are talking about the government (and by extension, in some respects our society) actually giving recognition to a homosexual family unit.

You can contest this through your potentially differing answer to 1/, but then you're faced with a rather empty meaning being applied to the term "marriage".[/list]

[OnlyAmbrose]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

Then you deny Atheists marriage too.

I don't propose denying anybody marriage, I'm proposing that the government has no right to define marriage one way or the other. The idea of a "marriage amendment" is absurd in a secular state, because the entire argument for it is based on the idea that homosexuality is immoral. The only argument you can make for its immorality stems from churches, and as such no such argument can be made in a secular state.

[soka]

marriage is a religious law

so why is government enforcing a religious law ?
church vs state....
leave it up to religions to decide who can get married

[SolidLuigi]

The reason is because there ARE benefits if I marry a women for the community.

Good for you. To me marriage isn't about how I can help the community. It's about me making a promise to the person I love, to be with them forever, in sickness and heath, good and bad, and with no one else. That is my belief, if your belief is that it is about helping the community, that's fine also. Neither of us has a right to restrict each other from getting married because we have different beliefs on the reasons for it.

So we should let them because they want to?

Yes! That is what America is supposed to be about. If a random guy can go to Vegas and meet a stripper and marry her in the same night because he wants to, why can't 2 people of the same sex that have been in a relationship for years can't?

What about the people who don't want it? Should we neglect the majority just because our community isn't accustomed to the gay's needs?

What about them? There are plenty of people in this country that still want black and white segregation, there are plenty that still think women shouldn't be able to vote. At one time they were the majority, but people take along time to actually think about a topic objectively and with reason.

[reminisco]

there are plenty that still think women shouldn't be able to vote.

well, to be fair, soon after women got the right to vote, Prohibition started.

coincidence or FULL BLOWN XX CHROMOSOME-WIDE CONSPIRACY?

you decide!

[william18]

The reason is because there ARE benefits if I marry a women for the community.

Good for you. To me marriage isn't about how I can help the community. It's about me making a promise to the person I love, to be with them forever, in sickness and heath, good and bad, and with no one else. That is my belief, if your belief is that it is about helping the community, that's fine also. Neither of us has a right to restrict each other from getting married because we have different beliefs on the reasons for it.

So we should let them because they want to?

Yes! That is what America is supposed to be about. If a random guy can go to Vegas and meet a stripper and marry her in the same night because he wants to, why can't 2 people of the same sex that have been in a relationship for years can't?

What about the people who don't want it? Should we neglect the majority just because our community isn't accustomed to the gay's needs?

What about them? There are plenty of people in this country that still want black and white segregation, there are plenty that still think women shouldn't be able to vote. At one time they were the majority, but people take along time to actually think about a topic objectively and with reason.

No I don't revolve around the fact of helping the community when I think about marriage. Just using communities as part of my argument.

[Napoleon Ier]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

Then you deny Atheists marriage too.

Not necessarily if you're a Roman Catholic, but I remember going here before and you just refused to understand the (fairly basic) underlying concepts (I mean, heck, they even teach them at gcse). If ever you feel like a primer on the theological metaphysics behind the Sacraments though, do ask me or Ambrose, it may be useful for your understading of the wider context of teh Krusades. Eh?

[OnlyAmbrose]

There's a really easy answer to this controversy.

Marriage is a matter of churches. America is founded on the idea of a secular state, in which church and state are separate. Therefore, the state should have no say in who can get married and who can't. Certainly the federal government shouldn't, in any case.

Then you deny Atheists marriage too.

Not necessarily if you're a Roman Catholic, but I remember going here before and you just refused to understand the (fairly basic) underlying concepts (I mean, heck, they even teach them at gcse). If ever you feel like a primer on the theological metaphysics behind the Sacraments though, do ask me or Ambrose, it may be useful for your understading of the wider context of teh Krusades. Eh?

Ask Napoleon, actually, I'm leaving in an hour for a weekend trip, and the week thereafter I won't have time to devote to a long dialog on the topic.