Special Rights based on Sexual Orientation and a Lifestyle

Page 2 of 8 [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

26 Apr 2008, 1:46 am

Fred2670 wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to point out to any STRAIGHT aspies (are there any here?) that just because this thread has and this board seems to have a hardcore homosexual slant, doesnt mean you have to be gay. You dont have to tolerate acts that violate the laws of god or nature just because this form of heathen debauchery suits some fudge packin' jack tart with a big stretched out mouth. (see I can call names too)

I have to assume that there are those here among us who would use Aspergers (or peoples lack of friends, social ties, whatever) to take advantage and attempt some "conversion" or sick and twisted "male bonding".. so watch your ass. You can get women. You dont have to settle for hairy cheeks.

So, When will you come out of the closet?


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

26 Apr 2008, 1:59 am

oscuria wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Gay marriage does not exist. It cannot. There's no such thing.


Yes it does. It exists in several states and several countries.


It doesn't.

Well, if he is actually serious, I think he might have a certain definition of marriage, that being a man, a woman and children, other than then it cannot be considered marriage, which some people against it actually think that, so that is why the saying it doesn't exist, acording to their definition, but legaly it exist in some countries.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

26 Apr 2008, 2:35 am

greenblue wrote:
oscuria wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Gay marriage does not exist. It cannot. There's no such thing.


Yes it does. It exists in several states and several countries.


It doesn't.

Well, if he is actually serious, I think he might have a certain definition of marriage, that being a man, a woman and children, other than then it cannot be considered marriage, which some people against it actually think that, so that is why the saying it doesn't exist, acording to their definition, but legaly it exist in some countries.


Thank you. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to catch on. :lmao:



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

26 Apr 2008, 2:42 am

Sargon wrote:
I suppose the topic title was meant to elude to this current debate, although it could easily be applied to other things. Anyways, can someone remind me why it is even the government's business to be involved at all in the marriage department?


That is my point! It isn't the government's business. And people should not be granted extra rights because they are male/female, gay/straight/bisexual, married/single/divorced/widowed, have children or don't. People are all equal, and their decisions and positions in life should not determine their value to society or the number of right they have.



IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

26 Apr 2008, 2:44 am

oscuria wrote:
greenblue wrote:
oscuria wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Gay marriage does not exist. It cannot. There's no such thing.


Yes it does. It exists in several states and several countries.


It doesn't.

Well, if he is actually serious, I think he might have a certain definition of marriage, that being a man, a woman and children, other than then it cannot be considered marriage, which some people against it actually think that, so that is why the saying it doesn't exist, acording to their definition, but legaly it exist in some countries.


Thank you. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to catch on. :lmao:


I understood your point, I am just reitertating that it is incorrect. Dictionary definitions change, and they now include Gay Marriage, look it up.

If you want to play word games, Gay also means happy, so it you say that "Gay Marriage" means a happy marriage, in that instance you may be correct, their is no happy marriages :)



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

26 Apr 2008, 2:57 am

IdahoAspie wrote:
Sargon wrote:
I suppose the topic title was meant to elude to this current debate, although it could easily be applied to other things. Anyways, can someone remind me why it is even the government's business to be involved at all in the marriage department?


That is my point! It isn't the government's business. And people should not be granted extra rights because they are male/female, gay/straight/bisexual, married/single/divorced/widowed, have children or don't. People are all equal, and their decisions and positions in life should not determine their value to society or the number of right they have.


If my opinion is of any importance to the discussion may I add that:

Homosexuality is seen as depraved because it is caused by desire. Where in some cultures sex is only allowed when a couple is married and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, homosexuality, and their want in marrying each other, will be viewed as a corruption both in spirit and to society. The necessity of marriage is to rear children. Now in the west we are used to seeing couples having sex outside of marriage, broken marriages, adultery, children out of wedlock etc. No lie that this happens in all societies, but to some people marriage is held very sacred and not to be ridiculed. That is to hold the values of a family highest and the carnal desires lowest.

Homosexuals do not have it the best, but I don't see any reason to believe in homosexuals being allowed to marry each other. A homosexual couple cannot have children, therefore it cannot be a family. Seeing a homosexual couple in arms would be very taboo.

Now you can say "Well, what if it's a heterosexual couple." In my opinion, I too would agree that it's not something that should be seen in public, but not as bad as two of the same sex. It all has to do with what is best for society and the image one wants to show.



Oh well. I'm not in any position to change the laws, so whatever.



Fred2670
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 305
Location: USA

26 Apr 2008, 3:18 am

Odin wrote:
Oh, and you are a bigot.


thats fine as long as I get to be a hetero bigot

you dont know what you're missing susie
you probably dont have enough to satisfy
a woman anyway

Oh thats right you are a woman


_________________
ALT+F4=Life


Fred2670
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 305
Location: USA

26 Apr 2008, 3:24 am

greenblue wrote:
So, When will you come out of the closet?


just as soon as your sister needs some air


_________________
ALT+F4=Life


Fred2670
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 305
Location: USA

26 Apr 2008, 3:28 am

Bluesummers wrote:
Deal with it already. Hate is baggage, let it go.


No hate here
only intolerance

touch me and aids gets
splattered everywhere


_________________
ALT+F4=Life


Fred2670
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 305
Location: USA

26 Apr 2008, 3:45 am

Belfast wrote:
I happen to be hetero but I don't take credit for that.
I could just as easily have been born homosexual.


Youve been lied to
(can you prove otherwise?)

Homosexuality isnt a condition..
its a cop out for dudes who cant get chicks

"Oh Im fat" or "Oh Im ugly" or "Oh I cant get laid"
"Oh I guess I'll do whatever I can..????
Sick Sad Wrong. Stay the hell away from my kids.

Jesus and Darwin agree
Wake up be a man


_________________
ALT+F4=Life


Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

26 Apr 2008, 4:42 am

Anubis wrote:
Fred2670 wrote:
There are some pretty messed up things in this
country but nothing yet as bad as taxpayers
funding homosexuality.. Thank God.


Thank God that most people don't think like you.


+1 :thumleft:


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I


IdahoAspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 726

26 Apr 2008, 4:49 am

oscuria wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
Sargon wrote:
I suppose the topic title was meant to elude to this current debate, although it could easily be applied to other things. Anyways, can someone remind me why it is even the government's business to be involved at all in the marriage department?


That is my point! It isn't the government's business. And people should not be granted extra rights because they are male/female, gay/straight/bisexual, married/single/divorced/widowed, have children or don't. People are all equal, and their decisions and positions in life should not determine their value to society or the number of right they have.


If my opinion is of any importance to the discussion may I add that:

Homosexuality is seen as depraved because it is caused by desire. Where in some cultures sex is only allowed when a couple is married and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, homosexuality, and their want in marrying each other, will be viewed as a corruption both in spirit and to society. The necessity of marriage is to rear children. Now in the west we are used to seeing couples having sex outside of marriage, broken marriages, adultery, children out of wedlock etc. No lie that this happens in all societies, but to some people marriage is held very sacred and not to be ridiculed. That is to hold the values of a family highest and the carnal desires lowest.

Homosexuals do not have it the best, but I don't see any reason to believe in homosexuals being allowed to marry each other. A homosexual couple cannot have children, therefore it cannot be a family. Seeing a homosexual couple in arms would be very taboo.

Now you can say "Well, what if it's a heterosexual couple." In my opinion, I too would agree that it's not something that should be seen in public, but not as bad as two of the same sex. It all has to do with what is best for society and the image one wants to show.



Oh well. I'm not in any position to change the laws, so whatever.


None of your statements agree with the facts. Marriage is not for rearing children. Otherwise the law would not allow infertile people to marry, and people would not stay married after their children left. Nor would they divorce in the middle of child rearing.

Marriage has historically been to establish women as property of their husbands. Since we no longer view women as property or servents to their husbands, this view is also obsolete.

Your view seems to be one only limited to the 1920-1960s of the United States.

Homosexuality is not viewed as depraved behavior but only to a minority of people. Homosexuality serves the same purpose of as heterosexuality, just without the risk of children.



Fred2670
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 305
Location: USA

26 Apr 2008, 8:21 am

IdahoAspie wrote:
Homosexuality is not viewed as depraved behavior but only to a minority of people. Homosexuality serves the same purpose of as heterosexuality, just without the risk of children.


Who told you this?
Do you honestly believe it?


_________________
ALT+F4=Life


Confused-Fish
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 946
Location: trapped in a jar

26 Apr 2008, 10:20 am

MissConstrue wrote:
Fred2670 wrote:
There are some pretty messed up things in this
country but nothing yet as bad as taxpayers
funding homosexuality.. Thank God.


Not this crap. Ignorance = Discrimination

There are some messed up things in this world but how does homosexuality count if they are 2 consenting adults that do no harm to eachother or others. I have a cousin who's gay and he does pretty well for himself. I'm pretty sure people don't always pick their orientation just to be ridiculed by people who look down on it like yourself.


i think he's talking about if homosexual's were to get benefits (income support or something like that) from the government just for being homosexual. or maybe i just didn't understand the first post?

if i did understand it then no of course they shouldn't, equality is what it is.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

26 Apr 2008, 11:07 am

oscuria wrote:
IdahoAspie wrote:
Sargon wrote:
I suppose the topic title was meant to elude to this current debate, although it could easily be applied to other things. Anyways, can someone remind me why it is even the government's business to be involved at all in the marriage department?


That is my point! It isn't the government's business. And people should not be granted extra rights because they are male/female, gay/straight/bisexual, married/single/divorced/widowed, have children or don't. People are all equal, and their decisions and positions in life should not determine their value to society or the number of right they have.


If my opinion is of any importance to the discussion may I add that:

Homosexuality is seen as depraved because it is caused by desire. Where in some cultures sex is only allowed when a couple is married and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, homosexuality, and their want in marrying each other, will be viewed as a corruption both in spirit and to society. The necessity of marriage is to rear children. Now in the west we are used to seeing couples having sex outside of marriage, broken marriages, adultery, children out of wedlock etc. No lie that this happens in all societies, but to some people marriage is held very sacred and not to be ridiculed. That is to hold the values of a family highest and the carnal desires lowest.

Homosexuals do not have it the best, but I don't see any reason to believe in homosexuals being allowed to marry each other. A homosexual couple cannot have children, therefore it cannot be a family. Seeing a homosexual couple in arms would be very taboo.

Now you can say "Well, what if it's a heterosexual couple." In my opinion, I too would agree that it's not something that should be seen in public, but not as bad as two of the same sex. It all has to do with what is best for society and the image one wants to show.



Oh well. I'm not in any position to change the laws, so whatever.


This post just oozes the Naturalistic fallacy.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

26 Apr 2008, 11:08 am

Fred2670 wrote:
Odin wrote:
Oh, and you are a bigot.


thats fine as long as I get to be a hetero bigot

you dont know what you're missing susie
you probably dont have enough to satisfy
a woman anyway

Oh thats right you are a woman


I'm a straight man, moron.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life