Conquer Club

There should have had never 5 pages here, as it does not requires any debating. Of course marriage between 2 humans is right, isn't it?

Like Norse's pointed out, I am pretty sure, due to studies, that they are borned this way, and they cannot change, even if they wanted too.


If you want to forbid Homosexuals to get married, you should also forbid everyone who had a problem at the time of their births: From mental problems, to beeing borned with 4 fingers instead of 5....In 1 hand, for the smartless ones

And why is it even that talked about? Heard one of my friends, who was strongly against this subject before ( Had quite a talk with her before she realised ) that says gays have too much publicity, becaue of their differences....


If one guy hadn't stood up and closed his mouth instead, this wouldn't even be talked about. 1 guy saw this as wrong, and people followed him around. You know, kinda like religion: 1 guy stood up saying this is how the world goes, and everyone followed him.

Norse wrote:I said "yes" grudgingly, not because I think that all gays are evil, but because I would prefer to call it a civil-partnership, with similiar marraige rights, but without the actual name.

I think it has been scientifically proven that gay people are biologically born this way, and I have come to the thinking that it would be simply unfair not to allow them to the same benefits as married couples.

However. I am vehemently against "gay awareness" and "gay sex education" within schools.

Why not call it a marriage?

And why not include gay sex in sex education? (As in, there are some people who like people of the same gender and then explain how to do that in a safe way. Besides, everything gay people do is already done by heterosexual couples too, so there is actually no need to make a distinction.)

if you encourage gay marriages it will make our countries look bad

brooksieb wrote:if you encourage gay marriages it will make our countries look bad

......

umm no....

Snorri1234 wrote:
Why not call it a marriage?

You know, it's strange, but I just do not feel as though marraige, I suppose a very religous term, though not exhaustively religous, would be tastefully used in a partnership that is forbidden by said religion.

I know, I know, I'm the biggest fooking anti-christ when it comes to Christianity, but I just wouldnt feel comfortable using this term for such a partnership.

And why not include gay sex in sex education? (As in, there are some people who like people of the same gender and then explain how to do that in a safe way. Besides, everything gay people do is already done by heterosexual couples too, so there is actually no need to make a distinction.)

Now, this is where you and me are going to fall out (or more accuratley, where Im going to rip out your bowel, and squeeze it's putrid remains over your pleading face).

I am not sure of your orientation, not that this point matters. But I'm pretty sure that those who are of homo persuasion, even from an early age are all too familiar with the hustle and bustle of gay sexual activity.

I, in my all-knowing wisdom, will make a bold statement here, and say that homosexuals, in general, are alot less sexually niave as heterosexuals are. Now, with this born into mind, I do not see it neccassary in the slightest to educate young children of the graphic nature of homo-sex. I'm sure that we can all agree that it is slightly less tasteful than hetero sex, in that taking phallic objects in ones mouth or bottom does not appear on the mind as swimmingly as, say, a heterosexual missionary embrace.

Before you spout off "nernerner tehy arent going to show them teh porno nernerner", it opens a very dark corridor of imagination, to otherwise untainted children.

To be honest, I couldnt give a flying f*ck what anyone gets up to in their bedrooms, but laying the foundations of a fairly wayward point of view onto young children is in my mind repulsive.

Gay people will be gay, and "learn the ropes" within their own communities when they are ready to, this should not mean children will need to have this born into mind.

Besides, I would not feel comfortable that my child is exposed to this, the whole idea of this is wrong.

Heimdall wrote:plus Jesus was gay

No but seriously, it's true. I read it in the bible.

Norse wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:
Why not call it a marriage?

You know, it's strange, but I just do not feel as though marraige, I suppose a very religous term, though not exhaustively religous, would be tastefully used in a partnership that is forbidden by said religion.

I know, I know, I'm the biggest fooking anti-christ when it comes to Christianity, but I just wouldnt feel comfortable using this term for such a partnership.

But marriage isn't a religious term. A marriage is recognised by the government as a marriage, even though they don't see it as a religious thing.
I mean, you don't have to go to church to get married. The ceremony many people go through is merely for fun, as the only actual thing you have to do for the state to recognise your marriage is going to the townhall and signing the papers and stuff like that. The church has no involvement.

I am not sure of your orientation, not that this point matters. But I'm pretty sure that those who are of homo persuasion, even from an early age are all too familiar with the hustle and bustle of gay sexual activity.

Well the same could be said about heterosexuals, as I knew about sex way before I learned about it highschool.
And you forget that many kids are not entirely sure about their preference untill later, after sex ed.

I, in my all-knowing wisdom, will make a bold statement here, and say that homosexuals, in general, are alot less sexually niave as heterosexuals are.

Quite a claim to make without any data to back that up.
I would guess homosexuals are merely less naive later in life. Untill, say, about age 14/15 I doubt they will be much more experienced and aware of the risks.

Now, with this born into mind, I do not see it neccassary in the slightest to educate young children of the graphic nature of homo-sex. I'm sure that we can all agree that it is slightly less tasteful than hetero sex, in that taking phallic objects in ones mouth or bottom does not appear on the mind as swimmingly as, say, a heterosexual missionary embrace.

Before you spout off "nernerner tehy arent going to show them teh porno nernerner", it opens a very dark corridor of imagination, to otherwise untainted children.

I can't say I've ever been traumatized by gay sex, even though I've learned about gay sex in sex ed. But I've been educated about anal and oral sex there too, so maybe I'm the exception and all my friends are obsessed by it.

But they're not.
See, what you are learning these kids is that homosexuality is normal. Kids will fantasize about sex when they will, and whether or not you expose them to things they are not turned on by frankly doesn't matter. The basic thing you learn is that people like different things and that it is completely natural to like that.
Besides, the purpose of sex ed is also educating kids about the risks of sex. And I think homosexuals need to be aware of those too, don't you think?

To be honest, I couldnt give a flying f*ck what anyone gets up to in their bedrooms, but laying the foundations of a fairly wayward point of view onto young children is in my mind repulsive.

Gay people will be gay, and "learn the ropes" within their own communities when they are ready to, this should not mean children will need to have this born into mind.

Besides, I would not feel comfortable that my child is exposed to this, the whole idea of this is wrong.

So you're a fan of letting kids know nothing about homosexuality from a neutral source but instead let them be educated by "that bum down the street who always scream gays are going to hell" and the Internet?

Snorri1234 wrote:But marriage isn't a religious term. A marriage is recognised by the government as a marriage, even though they don't see it as a religious thing.
I mean, you don't have to go to church to get married. The ceremony many people go through is merely for fun, as the only actual thing you have to do for the state to recognise your marriage is going to the townhall and signing the papers and stuff like that. The church has no involvement.

Indeed. I will be getting married by Justice of the Peace.

Should this be illegal?

Snorri1234 wrote:
But marriage isn't a religious term. A marriage is recognised by the government as a marriage, even though they don't see it as a religious thing.
I mean, you don't have to go to church to get married. The ceremony many people go through is merely for fun, as the only actual thing you have to do for the state to recognise your marriage is going to the townhall and signing the papers and stuff like that. The church has no involvement.

we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just cannot justify calling it marriage, given my said reasons.

Well the same could be said about heterosexuals, as I knew about sex way before I learned about it highschool.

Excellent! So we agree. Leave sex where it belongs: not in schools. The same goes for gay sex.

And you forget that many kids are not entirely sure about their preference untill later, after sex ed.

I wouldn't know. However, are you saying that maybe introducing this homo-ed into classes may be a good thing for helping mixed-up youth become gay?

Quite a claim to make without any data to back that up.

This is laughable.

What kind of data could back up a claim like this? It is called intuition and knowledge, something I have vast, superior amounts of.

Maybe you will just have to take my word for it.

I would guess homosexuals are merely less naive later in life. Untill, say, about age 14/15 I doubt they will be much more experienced and aware of the risks.

Right, so what risks are there that every bloody child in the land needs to know about gay sex?

seriously, what you are implying is ludicrous.

I can't say I've ever been traumatized by gay sex, even though I've learned about gay sex in sex ed. But I've been educated about anal and oral sex there too, so maybe I'm the exception and all my friends are obsessed by it.

That is fucked up.

Seem, you are livinmg proof, my friend, as to what this does to a young mind.

So you're a fan of letting kids know nothing about homosexuality from a neutral source but instead let them be educated by "that bum down the street who always scream gays are going to hell" and the Internet?

Erm, I'm not from the USA, people here in Britain are fairly tolerant.

However, I think the root of your own contention lays in an unbeknown place to me, I will never understand why you think this is a good idea.

I am more interested now in raising my old question of "what do liberal men have to hide?"

yup.

Me and my boyfriend want it legalised.

Norse wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:
But marriage isn't a religious term. A marriage is recognised by the government as a marriage, even though they don't see it as a religious thing.
I mean, you don't have to go to church to get married. The ceremony many people go through is merely for fun, as the only actual thing you have to do for the state to recognise your marriage is going to the townhall and signing the papers and stuff like that. The church has no involvement.

we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just cannot justify calling it marriage, given my said reasons.

For the United States government, which despite all the allusions to it not being so is actually a secular government, to not allow gay marriage is quite frankly unconstitutional.

If you feel that "marriage" is only for a man and a woman so be it, you are of course entitled to that view. However, it simply cannot be allowed to stand that the reasons for not allowing gay marriage on a governmental level have a religious base.

For the people who disagree with me, I ask you to imagine a government which makes its decisions based on a set of beliefs you have not only no affiliation with but find contrary to your way of life. I'm not talking issues like welfare or taxation, I'm talking about personal matters that no one has any right to dictate except for you yourself.

Fieryo, go back and re-read pls

KthxBye

Norse wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:
But marriage isn't a religious term. A marriage is recognised by the government as a marriage, even though they don't see it as a religious thing.
I mean, you don't have to go to church to get married. The ceremony many people go through is merely for fun, as the only actual thing you have to do for the state to recognise your marriage is going to the townhall and signing the papers and stuff like that. The church has no involvement.

we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just cannot justify calling it marriage, given my said reasons.

No we can't agree to disagree, because what you're basing your reasoning on is not what most countries are based on.
My governments (and yours too) isn't based on religion. It's why gay marriage is allowed here, and is called marriage. You're totally entitled to your viewpoint, but you're forgetting it's not only you here. You have every right to call gay marriage not a marriage, but the government doesn't.
If you were saying only you wouldn't call it a marriage, then I apologise though.

Well the same could be said about heterosexuals, as I knew about sex way before I learned about it highschool.

Excellent! So we agree. Leave sex where it belongs: not in schools. The same goes for gay sex.

Huh, I'm talking about sexual education, which involved teaching kids about what sex actually is. Ofcourse parents should play a role, but we can't depend on them solely for it.
How would all kids learn about condoms and shit if schools didn't teach it?

I wouldn't know. However, are you saying that maybe introducing this homo-ed into classes may be a good thing for helping mixed-up youth become gay?

No, what I'm saying is that many gay kids don't know about their feelings until later in life. They're not going to be swayed suddenly by learning about gay sex, but it does help them accept gay sex as something natural in people.
I don't think it's a good idea to make kids bigots by ignoring gays and laying a foundation for anti-gay mentality.

This is laughable.

What kind of data could back up a claim like this? It is called intuition and knowledge, something I have vast, superior amounts of.

Maybe you will just have to take my word for it.

Well the data I'm referring to is studies that show gay people are less sexually naive about sex. Really, it's not that hard.

I bet there are countless kids who don't know any other gay people so aren't very knowledgeable about gay sex. The "gay community" isn't a seperate group like, for instance, the pakistanis in your country. The problem is that homosexuality is still a taboo in many places and groups, and the kids growing up in such an environment are just like all other kids.

I just cannot take your word for it when the consequences of it being false are bad. Bad like really fucking bad with aids and all the stuff that happens when kids don't know about sex.

Right, so what risks are there that every bloody child in the land needs to know about gay sex?

seriously, what you are implying is ludicrous.

Well... there is this thing called AIDS, which is pretty bad. Along with all other STDS!
Kids need to know that you can get that from anal and oral sex too, so you just have to teach them about that too.

And when you include those frightening mental images, it's really no big deal to include a couple of lines about how some people prefer to have sex with people of the same gender.

That is fucked up.

Seem, you are livinmg proof, my friend, as to what this does to a young mind.

Yes indeed. It would've been much better if noone ever taught me you can get aids and other stds from oral/anal sex too!

But are you saying that, because I don't view gay sex as evil and dirty, I'm somehow twisted? Because if that's what you're saying, I can only laugh at the sillyness.

Erm, I'm not from the USA, people here in Britain are fairly tolerant.

However, I think the root of your own contention lays in an unbeknown place to me, I will never understand why you think this is a good idea.

I'm not from the USA either, but still I don't see the fucking harm in teaching children that sometimes people of the same gender can feel attracted to each other too. God forbid they learn that oral sex is sex too!

Nickbaldwin wrote:Me and my boyfriend want it legalised.

When you say it like that I assume that you are a boy (gay). If not then: my bad.
But I think that is great, Gay people should have the right to choose marriage for themself. There are two things that should be left out of politics: Religion and sex.
Allow Gay people to be married but dont force the church to have them married in a church. If the church is modern and can follow the world and not get stuck in the middle age then maybe gay people getting married in the church will be common.
A great day that will be.

Seriously snorri, I cannot talk to people like you.

We are on totally different mental wavelengths, try speaking to friends of your own age about these issues. I am not in the mood for banging my head against the wall and chasing my tail.

Norse's comments have made me wonder just one thing:

Is sex ed in Britain really like its portrayal in The Meaning of Life?

What's contained within the meaning of life?

Norse wrote:What's contained within the meaning of life?

You've never seen Monty Python's the Meaning of Life?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Pyth ... ng_of_Life

YOU TUBE LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDoQFcQEpOQ

Norse wrote:Seriously snorri, I cannot talk to people like you.

We are on totally different mental wavelengths, try speaking to friends of your own age about these issues. I am not in the mood for banging my head against the wall and chasing my tail.

So I just talked to my friend on MSN. Seems to me he isn't traumatized about knowing gays have sex too!


Because we both fucking accept that being gay is natural and not something to shield your kids from. I had a healthy relationship for 1,5 years with a lovely girl from age 17, and it wasn't that I constantly kept thinking about gay sex and the terrible experiences I have with it which I just haven't and f*ck!!!!!!!! I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO GOT TRAUMATIZED BY LEARNING GAY PEOPLE HAVE SEX! It just fucking isn't true. You can't "catch the gay" and marriage isn't religious. Seriously, just look at your viewpoints and ask yourself if they aren't just inspired by indoctrination that gay sex is a bad thing.

Your cop-out is ridiculous, I know we're on different wavelenghts. What I'm trying to show is that your wavelenght is false, like people who think creationism is scientifically valid.

'fraid not.

ah well.

Probably not though.

However, sex ed in Britain was basically, for me, an old lady coming in and speaking pointedly towards girls, in a round-about way about how men are a bunch of cunts.

But eh, they'd have found it out sooner or later anyway.

Norse wrote:'fraid not.

ah well.

Probably not though.

However, sex ed in Britain was basically, for me, an old lady coming in and speaking pointedly towards girls, in a round-about way about how men are a bunch of cunts.

But eh, they'd have found it out sooner or later anyway.

I edited with a Youtube Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDoQFcQEpOQ

btownmeggy wrote:

Norse wrote:What's contained within the meaning of life?

You've never seen Monty Python's the Meaning of Life?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Pyth ... ng_of_Life

HAHAHAHA that is my favorite movie. and hopefully not, that would be scary as hell.

Whats wrong with a kiss?

Greven wrote:Whats wrong with a kiss?

Ahaha! One of the best lines of any movie.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Norse wrote:Seriously snorri, I cannot talk to people like you.

We are on totally different mental wavelengths, try speaking to friends of your own age about these issues. I am not in the mood for banging my head against the wall and chasing my tail.

So I just talked to my friend on MSN. Seems to me he isn't traumatized about knowing gays have sex too!


Because we both fucking accept that being gay is natural and not something to shield your kids from. I had a healthy relationship for 1,5 years with a lovely girl from age 17, and it wasn't that I constantly kept thinking about gay sex and the terrible experiences I have with it which I just haven't and f*ck!!!!!!!! I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO GOT TRAUMATIZED BY LEARNING GAY PEOPLE HAVE SEX! It just fucking isn't true. You can't "catch the gay" and marriage isn't religious. Seriously, just look at your viewpoints and ask yourself if they aren't just inspired by indoctrination that gay sex is a bad thing.

Your cop-out is ridiculous, I know we're on different wavelenghts. What I'm trying to show is that your wavelenght is false, like people who think creationism is scientifically valid.

Snorri, what I suggest to you, is either go back and re-read what I have stated, reading between the lines, possibly getting off of your little soap-box and opening your eyes to the reality of the situation. You can try to put words in my mouth to suit your little cause if you wish, this does not bother me, as anyone who has half a brain in their head may have been able to comprehend what I was saying.

See, the problem with chatting to people like you, is that it is literally like trying to talk to a brick wall, there is only an echo, the same old echo that does not change. I'm guessing that you are probably a below average intelligence 17 year old.

Now, what I suggest to you, getting back onto my point, was that you can either try to read between the lines, or go through the rest of your life being an infuriatingly monotonous brick. I am not in the mood for a "round the merri-go-round" disscussion with a child.

Go and speak to someone else about it.