Frist endorses ban on gay marriages.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Vinth and Gator sound like those people that say "I have friends that are black..."

*chuckles

if you only knew, but whatever floats your boat.

[VinceZeb]

If you can honestly sit there and tell me that gay marriage and straight marriage should be 100% equal under the eyes of the law, then you have internal mental problems.

Man and woman can have sex and have a kid.

Man and man, woman and woman can not have sex and produce a child.

I think that is pretty much self-explanatory.

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, one of my roomates happens to be black. I have lived with a different black guy in the past. Have you ever had any interaction with anyone who wasn't white?

[Mockery]

One of those cons is the inability not to get married.

Another classic Vinth statement. I see why you like Bush, you speak the same bizarre language.

This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship.

You're so ignorant it hurts my eyes to read anything you say.

And do you honestly believe Adam and Steve can raise a child on a median basis better than Adam and Eve?

No, I believe a good homosexual couple can raise a child just as well as a good straight couple. No better, no worse for either side.

Now get back under your rock.

[Mockery]

then you have internal mental problems.

As opposed to external mental problems? Your reputation for being the biggest fool on these boards just doesn't do you justice. One has to really look at the meat of your posts to see just how far your stupidity truly reaches.

[Gatorman]

I love how quickly my points were dismissed as if I said them. I'm sitting here in an office of 30 gay guys (two of which are paid lobbyiests working on this issue). The black thing is especially priceless, but I won't even go down that laughable path.

Yo, people, I'm telling you what the people involved in the debate are ACTUALLY SAYING, not what I even believe.

"Hey, Chris, JC, Rich, Steve, Bob, JG, Wes, Gary, this guy on the internet who is straight says that you gay guys don't know what you are talking about in regards to gay rights! What's that Bob? No, he doesn't know that you founded and were editor of the nation's largest homosexual newspaper. No, JG, he doesn't know that you helped author the legal brief for the State House on the gay-marriage ban issue."

*they are laughing at you

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Life is full of choices. If you chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, there are pros and cons to that lifestyle. One of those cons is the inability not to get married. This isn't a civil rights issue. People are BORN black. It is a genetic trait. I could right this second choose to be in a homosexual relationship. This whole debate started when a bunch of feel-good people decided that we would say that deviant behavior that goes against most religious pratices and the advancement (i.e. nature) of our species is a genetic trait, and not a choice.

And do you honestly believe Adam and Steve can raise a child on a median basis better than Adam and Eve?

It ISN'T a fucking CHOICE to be gay!! People are born weird. Simple as that. Same as somepne can be born with an extra toe or finger, or anything else, for that matter, they can be BORN GAY!!! Why the FUCK would anyone CHOOSE that kind of lifestyle? THEY CAN'T!! Vinth, your ignorance is suffocating me.

And anyway, why is it that religions condemn gays to "hell" (which, by the way, I do NOT believe in) even if they are just as nice and good as Gandhi himself? THAT pisses me off! (there were no emoticons that expressed my true anger. I think we need more...)

[Mockery]

Hey, Chris, JC, Rich, Steve, Bob, JG, Wes, Gary, this guy on the internet who is straight says that you gay guys don't know what you are talking about in regards to gay rights!

Incorrect (again). This straight guy on the internet says that you gay guys in the office don't speak for all gay people in the country.

I repeat:

While many homosexuals may not want to marry, there are plenty that do. And to ignore them and go "well, the ones in my office sure don't seem to care about marriage!" is just ignorant and a hasty generalization at best.

[Immortal Goat]

By the way, I know a gay guy at work that is going to be happily married in the next few months. He has to go to another state to do it, but they are in love, and they are going to live a married life. How is that wrong. Just because the person you love is of the same sex as you, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to spend your lives with them and have certain benefits if one of them were to die.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yeah, one of my roomates happens to be black. I have lived with a different black guy in the past. Have you ever had any interaction with anyone who wasn't white?

Per usual, you completely missed the point. I was referring to people, like you and Gator, that use their tacit affiliation with a particular group as a means to justify saying whatever they want while appearing to sound like they know what is going on.

You can Gator seem to think you know more about gay people simply because you happen to know some (wow! Like other people do not) and use that as a license to blanket them all with your statements. Good job.

[VinceZeb]

Mockery, now I know since you are from VA you believe your "enlightened" thinking makes you better than the rubes like Falwell, but I'm here to tell you that you are just another internet dumbass who has had too many people telling you that you have something meaningful to say.

Now, I supposedly said that the civil rights of minorities is different than of homosexuals. Well, dumbass, it is plain to anyone with an IQ above... well, 8, that it is different. I cant stand up right now and say I am black and all of a sudden by the power of Greyskull I will have a darker skin tone. Now, right now I could go in and make out with my roomate and say I have feelings for him, and society would see me as a gay man in a gay relationship. Now, that is called a CHOICE. You can choose not to be gay. I could choose to be a racist. I can choose to be a Democrat. I chould chose to be a Buddhist. But it is a CHOICE that I have to make and I have to live with the conquences.

You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to have choices and no conquences. You want to eat the tub of ice cream but not get the calories or the fat from it. People like you want protecting from thoughts and ideas that are seen to liberals as "progressive" and "liberal" but if someone attacks another man but he was thinking "opressive" thoughts while he does it, you want him to be punished for his thoughts as well as his actions! If it is something you agree with, it is ok. If it is something you hate, then it should be shunned.

But I am getting off track. Are you saying that I am ignorant because I said that I could enter a homosexual relationship in a second? Well, because I could make that choice, that means I could enter that relationship. I know choices and responsability is hard for you and your special ed class you have assembled to understand, but the choice to be gay is a choice. If they want to have sex, let them. But marriage is a big no no.

And if you think a good homosexual couple can raise a child just as well as a good straight couple... well... you are very, very misguided.

When Thom and George are raising their little girl, which one is going to explain to the girl about menstruation and getting a training bra?

When Louis and Janice are raising their little boy, who is going to take him to his father/son picnic?

Please answer those questions, and leave death/divorce out of it.

[Vibecrewangel]

Yes. Being gay is a choice. Clearly that's why my first crush was on another girl. Clearly, the fact that I have always been more attracted to women was a choice. Yes. At 7 or 8 years old, I was SOOOOOO sexually aware that I made a choice to like girls instead of boys.
I didn't even start to notice boys until high school. Up until that point it was always other girls I liked.
Now, I'm a greedy bitch. I like them both. Though I am happily monogomous (sp) with a wonderful guy, he appreciates the fact that we can go out and check out chicks together.

Gator - perhaps you missed my point. Just because some don't want to get married does not mean that all of them don't. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as straight people?

Vince - So, a couple that has fertility problems should not be allowed to marry because they can't produce a child without medical/scientific help right?

Love is love.
Attraction is attraction.
Who are "you" to tell me how I can and can't feel about another consenting adult?

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

If they want to have sex, let them. But marriage is a big no no.

And if you think a good homosexual couple can raise a child just as well as a good straight couple... well... you are very, very misguided.

When Thom and George are raising their little girl, which one is going to explain to the girl about menstruation and getting a training bra?

When Louis and Janice are raising their little boy, who is going to take him to his father/son picnic?

Please answer those questions, and leave death/divorce out of it.

WHY is marriage a "big no no"? What makes you so much better than gay people that you are able to marry, but they cannot? And if you bring that "It is against God's law" shit into this, then you have even less of a mind than I thought.

Oh, by the way, Louis would take their son to the picnic, since Louis is a man's name. I think you might have meant LOUISE, but since you are a dumbfuck, I will forgive you this time.

[Gatorman]

hold on, hold on. I'm not trying to blanket anyone as I CLEARLY stated that "and this is my office, not all gay people everywhere, so back off" in my post. See it, right there? Mmkay then. End of discussion.

I DO think that the large number of gay people involved in my life, and being a very real observer of the sub-culture gives me a great perspective on the situation. I also think that working with people actively involved in the legal aspect of the debate gives me a unique insight that I wanted to share.

This is their opinion, not mine. No one even responded to my opinion.

Furthermore, my secretary is 'married' to his boyfriend, so I have that perspective as well. As I said, I find the age diffentiation to be quite interesting.

I do not share all of Vince's opinions. I just noted that he made a valid point that was quickly derided, so I jumped in on that point. Don't be a Gator-playa hata, ya hatas.

[Vibecrewangel]

Vince - you could go out and make a choice to enter a homosexual relationship, but unless the FEELINGS and ATTRACTION were real then YOU are not a homosexual.
Those people that have the feelings and the attractions have ALWAYS felt that way. They are homosexual. It was not a choice.



And you're right, a loving gay couple could not possibly raise a child better than an abusive straight couple. I mean, really there are no other factors involved besides gay and straight. You can't possibly judge each case separately because straight = good parents and gay = bad parents.

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by Gatorman

Don't be a Gator-playa hata, ya hatas.

God, I hate people that talk like this.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

God, I hate people that talk like this.

me, too. that's why I have a sense of humor about it. Hata.

[Mockery]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Mockery, now I know since you are from VA you believe your "enlightened"

I'm from New York you ass. And what does where a person lives have anything to do with the validity of their statements? Tool...

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Now, right now I could go in and make out with my roomate and say I have feelings for him, and society would see me as a gay man in a gay relationship.

You mean right now you could go to your roomate and lie, yes you could. You can't force those kind of feelings for somebody, either you love them or you don't.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to have choices and no conquences.

And you want to make sure there are as many consequences for "that thar dirty faggot" who threatens what you believe should be a legal marriage.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

But marriage is a big no no.

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

When Thom and George are raising their little girl, which one is going to explain to the girl about menstruation and getting a training bra?

Yeah, just because they're male means they can't explain these things. That's why there's absolutely no male gynecologists out there. Men can't learn about the female body.

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

When Louis and Janice are raising their little boy, who is going to take him to his father/son picnic?

Yeah! Keep them women out of our sports! They should be in the kitchen damnit!



Your arguments are as hollow as your skull.

[Dole]

'You can choose not to be gay. ' -thats absolute fucking bullshit. No-one chooses to be gay.

[Immortal Goat]

For Shizzle, Dizzle.

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by Dole

'You can choose not to be gay. ' -thats absolute fucking bullshit. No-one chooses to be gay.

Wow, someone who defies Vinth and is RIGHT!! This has never happened before!

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

For Shizzle, Dizzle.

*chuckles


In other news, I happened to read this related op/ed this morning. I haven't decided what I think yet:

The fact of the matter is that gays and lesbians themselves do not threaten the institution of marriage. They should not be blamed or made scapegoats for the weakening of thefundamental institution of marriage.

Men and women, husbands and wives by the millions, who care more for Mercedes-Benzes and four-car garages than for teaching their children values and helping with their homework, have done a fine job of that, thank you. Live-in heterosexual lovers who want the benefits of marriage without the responsibility or the costs, and who have no more regard for the well-being of children of a former marriage than they do for their boyfriend or girlfriend's Weimaraner, have done more to destroy this vital institution than all the gays and lesbians could ever hope to do even if they tried.

However, the institution of marriage is in danger, and if it goes under, one of the fundamental underpinnings of Western civilization crumbles. How our society responds to demands by gay and lesbian groups that individual homosexual couples be recognized as lawfully married will in fact largely determine whether Western civilization continues to employ the family as one of its fundamental building blocks. Insofar as laws define -- or should define -- all institutions in our society, it ought to be, then, a question of lawful definition we consider.

I believe the issue must be looked at in this light, and from this narrow perspective because we are a nation of laws. Laws are based -- should be based, must be based -- on reason and common sense. Posing the debate in this manner also detaches -- or should detach -- us from the emotion necessarily appended to any discussion of homosexuality or heterosexuality.

If in fact, as it has been so defined since time immemorial, "marriage" as a legal term and concept (which it is) means the "legal union of one man and one woman." If we then were to suddenly decide, because of political pressure, let's say, to "redefine" it to mean the "legal union of any one person with any other person," which is necessarily the manner in which advocates of same-sex marriage would have to do, then we have "redefined" marriage out of existence. It would mean nothing.

It is this slippery slope of open-ended, and therefore necessarily pointless redefining of terms that is the real danger to the legal institution of marriage, if we allow it to mean something other than what it always has meant -- the lawful union of one man and one woman. It would be like all of a sudden deciding to redefine an "automobile" to mean something other than a self-propelled vehicle on four wheels, for example. You could do it -- after all, it's just words -- but obviously the newly defined "thing" wouldn't be an automobile as everyone has always understood it.

If, in fact, it is the goal of homosexual rights advocates to obtain rights and privileges similar to those afforded by our society to men and women seeking a lawfully recognized union, then let's have a debate over that, and let society make its decisions at the state or local government level. But let's not, in the process of addressing one issue, create a monumentally larger one that would necessarily befall us if, in trying to fit a homosexual relationship into a long recognized and historically sound heterosexual relationship. Let's not define "marriage" out of existence in an effort to define whatever parameters society may or may not decide it wants or needs for same-sex relationships. Remember, this is not a zero-sum game.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Smyrna, was chief sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage Act," which allows states not to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.


06.26.03

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Mockery, now I know since you are from VA you believe your "enlightened" thinking makes you better than the rubes like Falwell, but I'm here to tell you that you are just another internet dumbass who has had too many people telling you that you have something meaningful to say.

So people in St. Louis are smarter? Amazing!

The bolded quote is priceless, Vinth. How long do you spend looking in the mirror every day trying to convince yourself that YOU have anything meaningful to say?

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

So people in St. Louis are smarter? Amazing!

The bolded quote is priceless, Vinth. How long do you spend looking in the mirror every day trying to convince yourself that YOU have anything meaningful to say?

Vinth is such a He loves

[Vibecrewangel]

Gator - Do you beleive that society changes over time? That things that were once a standard change as people change? Shouldn't we as a nation change to accomodate this new age? Or do you really think we should try desparately to cling to past ideals that don't fit with modern times?

Marriage is not what it used to be. I look at my generation (I'm gonna be 30 at the end of this month) and I see a sad state of affairs. Starter marriages. Open marriages. Divorce. Kids getting married. Kids having kids. Parents that have "days off" from their kids.
Family just doesn't mean as much any more.

I find it interesting that as a kid I remember having family dinner. We sat at the table and had dinner as a family. Now, most apartments don't have room for a table and chairs, and the ones that do generally have a computer set up in that area instead. It seems like such a small thing, but I find it to be a wonderful example of how far the family unit has fallen.