TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gay Marrages
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »

Also Russia has rebublics and not provinces. I'm sure you knew that though, and chose to make yourself look stupid.

I didnt see any "pleading" from you either. US smacked you in the face and said "send some troops bitches" and you did because we told you to.

Also, besides "DUHHHHHHHHH", what would you say to the fact that the US dropping the Atom bomb on Japan was actually a warning to the Russians. Did Canada have nukes? Did the have the economy or the power to support such a research project? No. The russians did, however. The very EXISTENCE of the US has created the existence of Canada. You guys'd be fuckin GONE if we hadnt defeated the Brits.

You guys'd be GONE if we hadnt broken Russia before the ekranoplan idea had taken effect.

Little left wing Canadians are so funny! You have no idea of what the world is like.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe Also Russia has rebublics and not provinces. I'm sure you knew that though, and chose to make yourself look stupid.

You wouldnt know English if it wasnt for us either.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I didnt see any "pleading" from you either. US smacked you in the face and said "send some troops bitches" and you did because we told you to.

umm, we didn't send troops to iraq. Short term memory or what?

You have a very unique vision of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe umm, we didn't send troops to iraq. Short term memory or what? You have a very unique vision of the world.

Because Iraq is the only conflict...ever. Speaking of unique visions. Did you get yours from the back of a rainforest toad?

I can only think of one thing when talking with you orbax.

"there's no point in arguing with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

I'm done trying to drill even the slightest bit of a clue through your unimaginably dense skull.

good day.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe The next russian "provice". Hah. You did a great job saving Vietnam from the russian supported North.

It was actually a Russian & Chinese joint venture (Russians gave the supplies and the Chinese gave soldiers)...along with semi-corporation with Cambodia to provide the Ho Chi Minh Trail. All in all there were too many variables against the U.S. to pull out and win.

quote:

If America thought Canada was at a threat and needed to be protected then why put all the tanks and bases in Europe? Why not have a sinlge one in Canada? Your knowledge of history is truly lacking.

Most of the U.S. military deployments were in Europe because about 60-70% of the Soviet Army was in Eastern Europe at the time, so there was a suspicion that they would invade the rest of Europe. After the fall of the USSR, there were plans found in Moscow that there was actually a planned Soviet invasion of Europe...so much for hunches eh? The USSR did not to go after Canada because Canada was a strategic partner of the U.S. throughout WWII (remember the USSR swept through Eastern Europe to get to Germany, hence leaving control to the Soviets) and by the time the Cold War started NATO was established, which Canada is a member of. The U.S. had already created radar sites in northern Canada, and a Soviet movement on those sites would have sparked war instantly. Keep in mind also that the Soviets realistically had to go through Alaska first before moving into Canada. Even if the Soviets moved into Canada, they would have to worry about a strike from Alaska and a nuclear strike on Russia itself.

PHALPAX: There was never a documented instance where the americans went head to head with chinese units. The chinese/russians/cubans all had advisors over there, but that was the extent of their troop involvement. Perhaps you're thinking about the korean war where there was massive chinese troop involvement?

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax See, this is all very subjective when you start talking about "harm". Physical, emotional, spiritual, or societal. Depends on what aspect you want to look at it from. Also from what perspective. As in, does it cause harm from the gay persons POV? Probably not, what about from the state POV? Well, its kind of a PR disaster, and a real pain in the ass. How about from a television producer or a movie director? Now they have to put gays in movies or they are being "discriminatory". I think it (bundled along with every other politically correct agenda item) is destroying freedom of speech. THATS harmful. People screaming UNFAIR! represent gays! they tried to make LEX LUTHOR gay in a new Superman movie. It needs to stop. They are trying to pervert classic images (like that russian chechnya thing where the gamers put their game in the hands instead of fallen comrades) to get their message out. And yes, I hate it being done by gays, straights, liberals, conservatives, men, and women. Its disgusting. But they are 1 group, and I dont care if everyone else is doing it too, they are causing harm to the consititutional rights of Americans with this headlong plunge into "include us in everything you do". I call it annoying little brother syndrome.

You're right, I should have specified what type of harm I was on about. Our perspective might be different due to the countries we're from as well, in the US gay marriages being legalized might harm the state/cause a lot of controversy, but here I strongly suspect that it wouldn't be such a huge issue. Tasmania (The large Island at the bottom of Australia, it's actually a state of ours rather than a separate territory) just performed its first civil union, which basically grants gays all the rights a straight couple has. It came in about eighth on the nightly news, and barely rated a mention on the radio. It just wasn't seen as a big deal here.

The movie point is an interesting one, I agree with you 100% on this one though, it's a bit like the whole 'make sure there's a black man in every movie' craze. Its all very well to represent minority groups in movies, but wouldn't that just happen naturally? Directors shouldn't feel pressured into inserting specific ethnic groups or gays into pictures just for the sake of it. The focus should be on the plot of the movie imo.

Believe you me, I'm not (At least I hope I�m not) one of those people who go around preaching overt political correctness. That Chechnya thing pissed me off as well. I'd just like to see laws in place that allow gay couples to marry, or if you don't like that, a civil union. Call it whatever you want, just give them the same rights as heterosexual married couples.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe PHALPAX: There was never a documented instance where the americans went head to head with chinese units. The chinese/russians/cubans all had advisors over there, but that was the extent of their troop involvement. Perhaps you're thinking about the korean war where there was massive chinese troop involvement?

China still does not admit it sent soldiers to the Korean War either...they were officially called "volunteers", I'm sure there was Chinese "volunteers" in the Vietnam war also. But I think you and I both know that China had to be supplying more than just guns to the North Koreans, just on the logic that China was literally next door to North Vietnam and was a little TOO sympathetic for their cause. The circumstances are very similar when compared to the Korean War.

PHALPAX:

I agree that china and russia were providing massive monatry and equipment support to the north. However they did stop short of providing any tactical military units. I've read extensively on the vietnam war and never have i come across anything. I have read about isolated incidents where speical forces operating in cambodia/loas/north vietnam/ would come across russain/cuban/chinese advisors. The advisors were attached to north vietnamese units to teach more advanced tactics, weapons usage (with the more advances VDF sites, SAM sites, radar tracking AAA guns etc). If you can find a reputable source stating the chinese were involved in any kind of tactical engagement with the ARVN/ROK/or american troops i'd love to read about it.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe PHALPAX: I agree that china and russia were providing massive monatry and equipment support to the north. However they did stop short of providing any tactical military units. I've read extensively on the vietnam war and never have i come across anything. I have read about isolated incidents where speical forces operating in cambodia/loas/north vietnam/ would come across russain/cuban/chinese advisors. The advisors were attached to north vietnamese units to teach more advanced tactics, weapons usage (with the more advances VDF sites, SAM sites, radar tracking AAA guns etc). If you can find a reputable source stating the chinese were involved in any kind of tactical engagement with the ARVN/ROK/or american troops i'd love to read about it.

Honestly, I don't have any sources to confirm such allegations...it's more of a theory. The funny thing about theories is that they're not neither true nor false, unless proven otherwise. It's just that if I were the Chinese Premier at the time, I would at least provide some military personal besides advisors, maybe a Special Forces unit or two.

The fact remains however that China supplied the North Vietnamese with "stuff".....and I don't think China would ever have a little black book listing all the "stuff" it sent to North Vietnam, much like the U.S. telling the public what goes on at Area 51. So I guess we may never know the truth in its entirety.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe I've read extensively on the vietnam war and never have i come across anything.

Exaaaaaaaaaactly.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE] [quote]I support civil unions because they already exist, and no law needs to be rewritten under such circumstances. My two quotes, however, hardly contradicted each other - in fact, my entire argument (as well as Orbax), which everybody seems to be ignoring again, centers around the fact that those two do not contradict each other at all. Giving them the same rights as everyone else does not equal rewriting the law to give them special rights.

Digi, maybe it's different up in Canada, but up until very recently, in some US states same-sex sodomy was still illegal between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. Also the "civil unions" law in Vermont is a very recent happening. In my opinion, when someone says that homosexuals are already equal to everyone else (at least in the States and also many other countries), it's a bit like saying the Holocaust never happened, or the Native Americans were never raped, given blankets infected with smallpox, or massacred. It�s just a bit ludicrous. The laws outlawing same sex sodomy were historically used to discriminate against gays in the workplace and demean them elsewhere by branding them "criminals.� Anyways, my point is that the law was rewritten in order to rectify that injustice. Now, if you�d also consider abolishing the ban on same-sex sodomy by rewriting the law as giving �special rights� to a certain group of people over everyone else, there�s frankly no point in my continuing to write this. If your beliefs were consistent, as I�m sure they are, you�d also deplore laws such as those banning same-sex sodomy, or those mandating a higher sexual age of consent for homosexuals over heterosexuals. After all, those are �special� laws that clearly create a different moral standard for different groups of people, and not to mention restrict personal freedoms, and violate the right to privacy. Personally I'm not gay, so I can't speak from that viewpoint, but if everyone is more or less willing to compromise on this issue with so-called "civil unions," then I think that's perhaps for the best. I think it was you Digi who said that we need more studies done about the effects of a child growing up in a same-sex household, and I would agree with you there as long as the studies were not funded by some religious organization. I too think it�s reasonable to base public policy on science, however I stand by all my earlier statements. Also, if you want to fuck your sister, then by all means, I�m not going to stop you. :P

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Ive resorted to *clever* name calling, because you are obtuse and a moron. I dont spend time trying to correct you. Ever heard the saying of "casting pearls to swine"?

Lol, give it a rest the both of ya's.

quote:

and I know exactly whats happening in Africa. Its the aforementioned travelling priests. Its the fact that they refuse to wear protection, that prosititution is the only way for women to get by, the fact that they rub a plant in the womans vagina that removes all lubrication because they like it dry. Sex is rampant. Aids is rampant. No protection and total promiscuity. yeah...because I said that...nice try though?

This is true, and don't forget there is a stigma about AIDS and talking about it in that part of the world. Also, Western religious leaders such as the Catholics and Evangelicals also often tell the poor, uneducated, Third-World populace that contraception, such as the condom, is against God or even that it will help spread AIDS. Those religious groups who spread such misinformation are doing a disservice to those poor people who have already suffered enough. George W. Bush under pressure from the religious right also cut millions of dollars from the UN population fund that helps to fight AIDS in Third-World countries by distributing condoms (among other things):

quote:

UNFPA, Condemned by Bush Administration, Loses Additional $50 Million in U.S. International Family Planning Funds With a narrow majority, the House of Representatives voted to block $50 million in international family planning funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), based on the unsubstantiated argument that the program supports China's coercive population control policy. The Bush administration and some GOP lawmakers disparaged UNFPA�a program which provides millions of dollars to promote contraception, as well as safe birthing and child care practices for poor women in more than 150 countries�saying that it violates U.S. law by supporting China's "one child" policy, which they claim sometimes entails coerced or forced abortions. Yet UNFPA officials assert that the program does not promote abortion, and an investigative panel convened by Bush last year reported that there was no evidence that UNFPA promotes coerced abortions or involuntary sterilizations in China. Despite the panel's findings, the Bush administration withdrew $34 million from the program in 2002 and did not request any funding for the program in Bush's 2004 budget. As a result of the House vote, it appears that UNFPA will not receive any funding this year either. Source: Washington Post, "House Blocks Family Planning Funds," Juliet Eilperin, July 16, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Speaking of shortlived breeds. Bleeding heart liberals. If you think the US is gonna swing that way, enjoy whatever orgasms of liberalism you can get from it. Im predicting a re-election of Bush and more conservatives than ever. The only reason someone might think that US is going lib, is because libs wont shut their mouths about it. Conservatives, go to work, make their hundreds of thousands of dollars, and go home and watch the news where a whole bunch of people making 30 grand a year are screaming in the streets. and yes, that was a generalization. A good one. Because I live in an extremely affluent area, and the only people with liberal bumberstickers are driving total POS's and all the bush people are driving insanely nice cars.

Firstly, if you hadn't noticed by now, George W. Bush isn't a true conservative. He's already spent more in 3 years than Clinton did in 8, and has increased the size of government well beyond what Clinton did.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ative+case+Bush

quote:

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, writing last week for LewRockwell.com, agrees: "The unfortunate truth is that the Bush administration, aided by a Republican Congress, has increased spending more in three years than the previous administration did in eight. Federal spending has grown by more than 25 percent since President Bush took office." As Paul explains, the president no longer even uses conservative rhetoric.

Secondly I would go so far as to argue that, other than the abortion issue used to placate Pat Robertson�s ilk, Bush is no Christian because of his administration�s policies that have harmed millions of poor women in the Third World who are dying in childbirth and of AIDS, weakened most of our environmental laws putting the health of our Nation�s children at risk, and have created a regressive tax plan that only hurts those who can least afford to pay taxes. At least you admit Orbax that the conservative Republicans only cater to the rich elite (I'm not talking about the John McCain, Olympia Snowe kind of Republicans), whereas Right-Wing media mouthpieces such as Rush Limbaugh continue to lie to the American people about whom they truly represent.

Since you mentioned it, then I�m sure you know that the average family salary in the United States is around $30,000 a year. My family makes well over 3 times that much, but even with Bush's tax cut, our local taxes still went up because the conservative Republicans cut federal funding for local public schools, college tuition, health care etc. to pay for their massive tax cuts that favor people making over $250,000 a year. So yeah, we got a $500 check, but our other taxes increased by over twice that. The term "tax cut" is therefore simply a misnomer unless you make at least ~$250,000 a year. Actually, thousands of Americans in Texas alone still haven't gotten their promised child income tax credit (including our family). IMO it�s not even about how much money you have my friend, it�s about doing as Jesus said: Helping the least of your brothers. I�m not a religious man, and I believe in the separation of church and state in order to ensure against religious discrimination, but I admit that Jesus had a wonderful life philosophy that you'd do well to follow. Let's not hijack this thread with this issue however. Create a new one on the subject if you wish.


Anyways, I'm pretty much through with this debate. Good 'un guys.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Yes, that's really not such a bad idea. Abolish marriage (in the state sense - religious ones can still be performed), and simply give the benefits to those who already have children. Separation of church and state, really, it's perfect. In Judaism, married couples actually have two separate marriages - the legal marriage, and the Jewish marriage. The latter is simply a legally binding contract, without any government benefits. I don't make the policies, though.

This makes perfect sense to me as well, but we both know that marriages as sanctioned by the state will almost certainly never be repealed. Thus, here we are.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE] Aye, one can accomplish much in life with a little patience and a lot of yelling.

A lie repeated 10,000 times is still a lie. The only difference is that people will be more prone to believe it.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Digi, maybe it's different up in Canada, but up until very recently, in some US states same-sex sodomy was still illegal between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. Also the "civil unions" law in Vermont is a very recent happening. In my opinion, when someone says that homosexuals are already equal to everyone else (at least in the States and also many other countries), it's a bit like saying the Holocaust never happened, or the Native Americans were never raped, given blankets infected with smallpox, or massacred. It�s just a bit ludicrous. The laws outlawing same sex sodomy were historically used to discriminate against gays in the workplace and demean them elsewhere by branding them "criminals.� Anyways, my point is that the law was rewritten in order to rectify that injustice. Now, if you�d also consider abolishing the ban on same-sex sodomy by rewriting the law as giving �special rights� to a certain group of people over everyone else, there�s frankly no point in my continuing to write this. If your beliefs were consistent, as I�m sure they are, you�d also deplore laws such as those banning same-sex sodomy, or those mandating a higher sexual age of consent for homosexuals over heterosexuals. After all, those are �special� laws that clearly create a different moral standard for different groups of people, and not to mention restrict personal freedoms, and violate the right to privacy.

I can assure you that it's quite different in Canada, we've had the Pride parades for many years now and I can't recall any laws that even mention homosexuality, let alone discriminate against it.

Having said that, your examples of the Holocaust or Native Americans are flawed - just because a group was discriminated against in the past, does not mean they still are being discriminated against. The gay issue is more similar to the blacks who still whine that they're oppressed and that everything bad happens because they're black, despite the existence of affirmative-action policies which actually give them advantages because of their colour. The gays victimize themselves, complain that they're discriminated against, and pressure the world into thinking that they have to give them everything they want otherwise they're being "discriminatory." While it's perfectly normal for people to do this when they are victims, the problem is that they continue to do it when they are no longer victims in order to milk more privileges and perks out of it.

With regards to the specific "anti-sodomy" laws you are talking about, I agree that there were problems with those laws, but there is a distinct difference between the removal of those laws and the rewriting of marriage laws; mainly, that the original laws were specifically outlawing an action and making it a criminal offense, and were struck down because they were unconstitutional. There is no constitutional element being violated with marriage - it simply does not confer certain benefits on people who aren't in a position to receive those benefits - much like blind people applying for a vehicle permit or deaf people applying to the police force. Blind people can't see, deaf people can't hear, and homosexuals can't reproduce. These people were perhaps born with these characteristics or maybe acquired them later in life, and perhaps cannot change them, but we can't rewrite the rules to suit their specific needs.

quote:

Personally I'm not gay, so I can't speak from that viewpoint, but if everyone is more or less willing to compromise on this issue with so-called "civil unions," then I think that's perhaps for the best. I think it was you Digi who said that we need more studies done about the effects of a child growing up in a same-sex household, and I would agree with you there as long as the studies were not funded by some religious organization. I too think it�s reasonable to base public policy on science, however I stand by all my earlier statements. Also, if you want to fuck your sister, then by all means, I�m not going to stop you. :P

I think the civil unions are a good compromise. Unfortunately, the gay community does not seem to think that's enough - they want full-fledged marital benefits, and that's where this argument comes from. And of course the studies should not be funded by a religious organization.

And nobody will stop me if I want to fuck my sister, but they will stop me if I want to marry her.

Now, back to this one:

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Aside from the implication that someone could have an Easter egg as a life partner

Of course you realize that the analogy had nothing to do with the egg being a life partner or with Jack trying to marry the egg - it was simply an example of how some odd sexual behaviour should probably not warrant the rules being rewritten. The example didn't have any specific tie-ins with gay marriages.

quote:

there are a few things in your analogy that I take issue with. Firstly, homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. As far as I understand incest has serious medical implications, inbreeding generally results in all sorts of abnormalities, diseases, and defects. Homosexuality does not (Yes, one could argue that it can 'result in aids', but that's preventable, whereas I don't believe the complications that arise from inbreeding are). Admittedly that entire argument is based on the assumption that couples from the same family are going to have sex, but I think that's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, people rarely remain celibate.

I've never brought up the AIDS argument and I don't intend to use it now. What I will say, though, is twofold:
1. Incest may cause "harm", but I think we are all well-aware that the incest laws are based on a religious background, despite whatever health risks may also be involved. The fact that they prevent a bad thing from happening does not change their origin.
2. The ones harmed by incest are the children of said couple. While it's true that incest does confer a specific harm down the road, the harm is to the child which homosexuals can't produce at all. One might venture to say that no child is better than a deformed child, but in either case, it's the children that are integral to the whole issue. Since you stated that incest causes harm, you've already admitted that a married couple is expected to produce children - and since that's what the marital benefits are for, why provide them to gays?

quote:

I also think that the whole 'What next, bestiality?' argument has a bit of a floor, homosexuality is a relationship with another human being, another intelligent, consenting human being. Bestiality could be reasonably compared to rape, in my view.

While I'm not an expert on bestiality, I would venture to say that since animals have no emotional attachments to mating, they are always "consenting". However, if that explanation is too abstract for you, then let's consider another one: pedophilia. The children are technically "consenting", but the law says they aren't of age to do it - isn't this discrimination too? Should the law be changed to let a 30-year-old man marry a 10-year-old boy (or girl)?

And yes, we can all nit-pick at the various differences between homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and so on, but what's more important than the differences are the similarities: They are all abnormal (at least to some extent) sexual behaviours that largely can't be cured by the people performing them (rehabilitation rates for pedophiles are pretty low). If no harm comes as a result, then we should probably let them do their thing, but that does not logically lead to rewriting the marriage laws in order to accomodate their specific desires and confer upon them all the rights that are normally reserved for sexually "normal" couples (i.e. those that have a fighting chance of producing healthy offspring).

I am all for civil unions, specifically because it's a "compromise" and does not recognize gays as "equal" to heteros. They aren't equal. They can't produce offspring. That doesn't make their sexual act wrong, and if they want a legally binding contract and a way to express their love and commitment, that's fine - however, they definitely should not receive the benefits that are supposed to be there for the children.

Like Orbax said, it's the annoying little brother syndrome that bothers me the most. People take "rights" to an extreme in today's society - since when is marriage a constitutional right?

Want to know how much my family payed in taxes in 1998? ok so in one year we paid....*drum roll* 250 THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS. Fuck that. Im going to be Republican till the day I day to stop that shit.

Anyways

I agree that the Catholic Church is corrupt I dont think anyone here is going to be arguing against that hehe.

As to Bush's Conervativeness. He isnt liberal. and thats all I really care about. without getting way off topic, even though the US produces more atual help than any other nation on earth, the percentage is shamefully low. I get the feeling we could end most of the messed up stuff on earth if we wanted to...but itsnt that what we did in Iraq? Lets say we move in in force (non-military) to Africa and start setting up schools and how to use contraception bla bla. we would basically have to destroy their abusive ignorant culture to teach them. Would we be right? Hell yes. Would everyone think so? Doesnt matter we are US. But we have too many libs crying Moral Relativism for that.

The Sodomy laws were actually across the board. No one could do it. And I believe we have already said this, but, there should be a seperation of church and state and ecclesiastical laws should be removed and dealth with on the spiritual plain. Laws like murder, theft, adultery...those all are punishable for corporeal reasons, but, unfortunately Sodomy is just immoral, no real reason to ban it.

In case you didnt know*

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because when 3 angels came to visit lot and they were surrounded by men who demanded sex with the angels. God told Lot to take all the good people he knew to the safety of the mountains and have none of them look back. As they all ran away his wife turned around to look and was turned into a pillar of salt.

Thats makes no sense until you re-translate it. The way they used to get salt was by sunning salt water. The same word for Salt is for Vapor and Vaporize. Which means she stayed to watch the destruction and got vaporized. What would do that? Atomic explosion.

and they actually found both cities by tracing ancient trade documents back and in Sodom almost every single skeleton had syphillis. It was crazy. And it looked like a nuclear bomb had gone off. The entire city was just leveled. and only basements remained.

**************

dont care if you agree with that story, its just interesting and a nice background to this whole thing.

So yeah, they removed the ecclesiastical laws. It was after the injustice of it was brought to the attention of the courts. The supreme courts JOB is to change laws for the individual. But********the supreme court CANNOT be reached on a "im innocent" or "I deserve this" clause. The main way is done through a write of habeus corpus that states the body of the law as it is creates an unfair legal process.

Thus the Supreme court will either change the nature of the law (things like Miranda readings from the bastard Rapist who got off because he "wasnt aware of his rights") for the justice of the society to continue and send the person back for a retrial with the new law set or they will not change the ruling and the person is screwed. they do NOT change it because its a person or people asking them to.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe I don't live in the USA and I never will. The US is not Canadas protector, contrary to the views of some, nor has it ever been.

A Canadian...I can see why you speak the way you do.
But,in this case.Good, Just stay out of the US if you dislike it so much.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I don't have the exact statistic with me, but from memory around 50% of marriages end up in divorce. The 'forever' part isn't working, and to be honest, I can't see it ever working. I don't see why it's so important to preserve the 'institution' of marriage, it's just a human concept, and therefore there's a distinct possibility that it's fundamentally flawed. I think it's time that we took another look at (secular) marriage; I don't think that excluding gays is the right thing to do. I don't think it matters whether they are able to reproduce, gays have been around for a long time, and it isn't exactly a brand new phenomenon. Homosexuality does seem to have something to do with genetics (Feel free to post a credible study that rebukes that if you think I�m wrong). Just because they can't produce doesn�t necessarily make homosexuality 'wrong'. To answer your question about why males can't reproduce with each other. Simple, because they both have pen0rs. By the way Diginut, I�m looking forward to it.

Yes,I know about that statistic. But,Marriage is intended for a lifetime together. The vows state this. I've preformed at many weddings. It's a promise before God.It's not something to be slapping around. Marriage is very important,and very serious.

I don't think that whatever percentage of marriages that end should be thrown aside lightly. I don't think we should add onto the problem either. If you know what I'm saying.

There have also been many marriages that have lasted people,till death do them part.

I know homosexuality has been around a long time, The Bible speaks of it.

But, Most of what you and I have said are our beliefs,and opinions. I know for a fact though that it's not good for your health..It's been proven in science many times.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Nelly, you really need to learn to use copy and paste instead of posting in the same thread 3 times in a row. It's going to irritate people, even those on your side of the debate. I will cut up arctic's argument in good time... need to take a bit of a debating break.

I will post as much as I like,Thank you. It's easier if I personally post to each person.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 But, Most of what you and I have said are our beliefs,and opinions. I know for a fact though that it's not good for your health..It's been proven in science many times.

AHAHAHAH...show us this proof!
Stop spewing idiocy and stop talking to you parents about this.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King AHAHAHAH...show us this proof! Stop spewing idiocy and stop talking to you parents about this.

AID's, HIV, Need I say more? I can if you want.

CCD statistics show that the average lifespan of a gay man is into his 40's..... a Straight mans average lifespan is into his 70's. That tell you anything? It should. If not,You're completely blind.
I'm not spewing idiocy. So,I don't know what you're complaining about.
But, I can talk to my parents as much,or as little as I like. You can't command me. You are not my authority.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Yes,I know about that statistic. But,Marriage is intended for a lifetime together. The vows state this. I've preformed at many weddings. It's a promise before God.It's not something to be slapping around. Marriage is very important,and very serious. I don't think that whatever percentage of marriages that end should be thrown aside lightly. I don't think we should add onto the problem either. If you know what I'm saying. There have also been many marriages that have lasted people,till death do them part.

You are mixing up a civil marriage with a church marriage. Now, nobody is disputing that the church marriage may limit itself to heterosexual couples. As far as the civil marriage goes, as I've stated before, if two people want to get themselves officially listed as married, they should be allowed to do so. But, they should not get any financial benefits for it.

quote:

But, Most of what you and I have said are our beliefs,and opinions. I know for a fact though that it's not good for your health..It's been proven in science many times.

The fact that homosexuals often don't have the same quality of life is in no way connected to their sexual orientation, but rather to the secondary effects. Those effects include social prejudice, discrimination, and the fact that many of them are more promiscuous than straight individuals, and therefore more prone to sexual diseases. But, a homosexual person that has a single partner and is enjoying a tolerant environment has no more health problems than a straight individual does.

quote:

AID's, HIV, Need I say more? I can if you want.

AIDS (not AID's, as S stands for syndrome) is not related to a person's sexual orientation. In the begining phases of the disease spreading, the amount of homosexuals infected with AIDS was very high. This was not, however, because homosexuals are more prone to the disease, but rather because they lived promiscuous lifestyles, with many unprotected sexual partners.

quote:

CCD statistics show that the average lifespan of a gay man is into his 40's..... a Straight mans average lifespan is into his 70's. That tell you anything? It should. If not,You're completely blind.

Again, the two are not related. What was the projected lifespan of an average jew in 1940s? Pretty low, I guess. Does that mean jews are not as healthy as other races? No.

Now, Nellie, we are on the same side here, but come on, your arguments are often really close minded and fallacious, which really forces me to dispute them rather than to argue your (our?) point of view on this specific matter.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 AID's, HIV, Need I say more? I can if you want. CCD statistics show that the average lifespan of a gay man is into his 40's..... a Straight mans average lifespan is into his 70's. That tell you anything? It should. If not,You're completely blind. I'm not spewing idiocy. So,I don't know what you're complaining about. But, I can talk to my parents as much,or as little as I like. You can't command me. You are not my authority.

Please show me this PROOF.... where are the documents, the publications, the research methods, the sampling???????

You are spewing out BULLSHIT

I can comeon here too and say that Staright people have an age span up to 40 years old becuase they are also dying of HIV and AIDS.

Go and do some homework little one.... you obviously dont know what you are saying

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Please show me this PROOF.... where are the documents, the publications, the research methods, the sampling??????? You are spewing out BULLSHIT I can comeon here too and say that Staright people have an age span up to 40 years old becuase they are also dying of HIV and AIDS. Go and do some homework little one.... you obviously dont know what you are saying

I'm not spewing out Boviene excrement. I gave you what you asked for. I told you the CCD statistics.
You already know about AIDS,and HIV. I don't really need to elaborate. By the way,Come and on are seperate. They aren't one word..

The Statistics state that the average lifespan of a STRAIGHT man is into his 70's. You really need to open you eyes and read it.
Yes,I do know hetrosexuals have contracted AIDS,and HIV. But,it all stems from the homosexual lifestyle.If you wish for me to inform you on this. Just say the word.


lol again with the personal attacks. You really must be afraid of losing.:/

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.