http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11731577

Senator Chris Buttars believes that gay people are the greatest threat to American. He is no stranger to saying outlandish things as stated in the article he made a racially insensitive remark in the past that drew the ire of the NAACP.

Sigh.

Sometimes I feel like I live in the dark ages.

While I don't agree with their lifestyle I feel like they deserve the same basic rights as everyone else. Things like adoption which I remember being an issue is something I can not conceivably see working out.

Terrorists? Fuck 'em. They just want to kill us! ;)

He is a state senator, so this is hardly shocking coming from Utah.

Another point is does this guy honestly believe that gay people are the greatest threat? He must not pay attention because greedy corporations, politicians, and extremist pose a greater threat then gay people by a country mile.

What about gay zombies?

What about gay zombies?

It's not a choice. They died that way.

I look forward to this thread being bumped in a year when this guy is caught in a “wide stance” situation.

Sigh.

Sometimes I feel like I live in the dark ages.

+1

I look forward to this thread being bumped in a year when this guy is caught in a “wide stance” situation.

LOL. Too true...too true. Although I doubt we have to wait a year.

ohhhhh...this guy is a real nutbag

While I don't agree with their lifestyle I feel like they deserve the same basic rights as everyone else. Things like adoption which I remember being an issue is something I can not conceivably see working out.

Judgments aside anyone see an issue with these 2 sentences being side by side?

lol

looks like the comment cost him his Judiciary Committee Chairmanship

I've always seen the negative connotatins given to gay relationships as somewhat backward in this day and age to be honest.

Someone being gay doesn't hurt anyone and if it feels right for them then more power to them imho, I see it much like religion - don't push it at me if its not my bag then its my chocie, but so long as it doesn't hurt anyone then you're ok to do it if it makes you happy ...

PS - With regards to gay people adopting, surely its better to be raised by two loving gay parents than grow up without any? ... yeah its not 'traditional', so what.

I've always seen the negative connotatins given to gay relationships as somewhat backward in this day and age to be honest.

Someone being gay doesn't hurt anyone and if it feels right for them then more power to them imho, I see it much like religion - don't push it at me if its not my bag then its my chocie, but so long as it doesn't hurt anyone then you're ok to do it if it makes you happy ...

PS - With regards to gay people adopting, surely its better to be raised by two loving gay parents than grow up without any? ... yeah its not 'traditional', so what.

Ohhh but it'll make the kids gay MV!!! OMG...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! :rolleyes:

stupidest argument ever. unfortunately it's so insidious...i think the only way to really disprove it may be to wait for the first generation of kids who were raised by gay parents and do a survey of their sexuality

Judgments aside anyone see an issue with these 2 sentences being side by side?

Basic rights and adoption do not go hand and hand in my opinion. While it is possible for two gay men to raise a boy, how difficult and confusing would that be for the young man? Not only that, there are other issues that could possibly arise which could complicate matters.

For me I have no problem with gay people wanting and receiving basic rights(then again what is basic rights and who decides it) its just the adoption thing has a ton of road blocks.

Then again that's just me.

Basic rights and adoption do not go hand and hand in my opinion. While it is possible for two gay men to raise a boy how difficult and confusing would that be for the young man? Not only that their are other issues that could possibly arise which could complicate matters.

For me I have no problem with gay people wanting and receiving basic rights(then again what is basic and who decides it) its just the adoption thing has a ton of road blocks.

Then again that's just me.

I find that to be a poor argument. I think there are enough terrible hetero parents (see octuplet woman, Brit Spears, Madonna, Bragelina) in the world, I think that anyone who is responsible and caring and has a financially sound and loving home would be a better parent in the long run.

Would there be some challenges sure, but is this any different than swinger parents, or BDSM parents? As long as that stays in the bedroom and they do everything responsibly as parents, how is it different?

Basic rights and adoption do not go hand and hand in my opinion. While it is possible for two gay men to raise a boy how difficult and confusing would that be for the young man? Not only that their are other issues that could possibly arise which could complicate matters.

For me I have no problem with gay people wanting and receiving basic rights(then again what is basic and who decides it) its just the adoption thing has a ton of road blocks.

Then again that's just me.

understood that its just one person's opinion, just wondering how you draw the line in your own heart between being for equal 'basic' right for humans and then have an exception to the rule?

Gays aren't the greatest threat to America, liberals are. The biggest threat is gay liberals!

It's not an easy decision and I have given this subject a lot of thoughts it just the raising kids thing that bothers me. I see way to many road blocks, not to say a drunkard of a mother wouldn't pose the same road blocks. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea, is probably the best answer I can give.

It's not an easy decision and I have given this subject a lot of thoughts it just the raising kids thing that bothers me. I see way to many road blocks, not to say a drunkard of a mother wouldn't pose the same road blocks. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea, is probably the best answer I can give.

but how else are you and your significant other going to raise children? :confused:

What about gay zombies?

What about gay nazi zombies?

What about gay nazi zombies?

No threat. They just end up kicking their own ass.

but how else are you and your significant other going to raise children? :confused:

Your mother should have swallowed.

Usually (not always), it's the person who is the most vocal about being against something, is doing it themselves...

I think we should treat all zombies equally.

Ohhh but it'll make the kids gay MV!!! OMG...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! :rolleyes:

stupidest argument ever. unfortunately it's so insidious...i think the only way to really disprove it may be to wait for the first generation of kids who were raised by gay parents and do a survey of their sexuality

There are have already been many small studies in the last 2 decades and with the exception of a few poorly designed studies, the vast majority show no detrimental long term outcomes from being raised by gay parents. The majority of studies show no effect at all on sexuality of the child. The biggest short term detrimental outcome is a higher rate of fighting usually from kids teasing, but remember some of these studies are from a decade or two ago when Gay and Lesbian lifestyles were less accepted than today. There are larger studies currently ongoing as well.

Personally, I'd much rather see a child raised in a healthy (like any group - there are plenty of unhealthy ones as well) gay family than a generally broken foster care system.

There are have already been many small studies in the last 2 decades and with the exception of a few poorly designed studies, the vast majority show no detrimental long term outcomes from being raised by gay parents. The majority of studies show no effect at all on sexuality of the child. The biggest short term detrimental outcome is a higher rate of fighting usually from kids teasing, but remember some of these studies are from a decade or two ago when Gay and Lesbian lifestyles were less accepted than today. There are larger studies currently ongoing as well.

Personally, I'd much rather see a child raised in a healthy (like any group - there are plenty of unhealthy ones as well) gay family than a generally broken foster care system.

I agree with the good doctor.

I can't fathom how anyone could ever be against 2 loving parents, or even a single gay parent raising a child in a loving and nurturing enviorment. I myself am adopted and often wonder what my life would have been like had my parents not given me this wonderful opporitunity.

I also have a cousin who is a lesbian. Her and her partner have 2 adopted children. They give the kids a great home and family structure these kids would have never gotten. To boot both kids are black which one could say creates further confusion and it doesn't. These kids are everybit as normal as any other kids I have ever met.

I think where kids get confused is when there is a lack of communication. If the parents are honest and upfront with their children so the kids can ask questions about their situation I think that would fix any confusion or conflict.

There are have already been many small studies in the last 2 decades and with the exception of a few poorly designed studies, the vast majority show no detrimental long term outcomes from being raised by gay parents. The majority of studies show no effect at all on sexuality of the child. The biggest short term detrimental outcome is a higher rate of fighting usually from kids teasing, but remember some of these studies are from a decade or two ago when Gay and Lesbian lifestyles were less accepted than today. There are larger studies currently ongoing as well.

Personally, I'd much rather see a child raised in a healthy (like any group - there are plenty of unhealthy ones as well) gay family than a generally broken foster care system.

thanks Doc. obviously I wasn't aware of said studies. Good to hear (although IMHO not surprising)

This seems obvious (and I think EF's studies reinforce it), but heck they're people on this board (Bubba, SFL amongst others) who would disagree based on their own ill-conceived notions. How does one bring them to logic?

The biggest short term detrimental outcome is a higher rate of fighting usually from kids teasing, but remember some of these studies are from a decade or two ago when Gay and Lesbian lifestyles were less accepted than today. There are larger studies currently ongoing as well.

Have there been any studies comparing the higher rate of fighting with other "themes" with regard to kids being "different"? Like is there a statistically significant increase when compared to kids wearing glasses and being teased, wearing braces, stuttering when talking, etc.?

IOW, do kids who have gay parents fight more often than kids who get teased for other things?

Have there been any studies comparing the higher rate of fighting with other "themes" with regard to kids being "different"? Like is there a statistically significant increase when compared to kids wearing glasses and being teased, wearing braces, stuttering when talking, etc.?

IOW, do kids who have gay parents fight more often than kids who get teased for other things?

Great questions. I don't know the answers to those off the top of my head, but I suspect that they haven't been answered yet.

I had glasses and I used to fight like a mofo.

In 6th grade I punched a 2nd grade girl in the stomach cuz she called me 4 eyes. Then I ended up wrestling with the 75 year old principal when he tried to restrain me.

I had glasses and I used to fight like a mofo.

In 6th grade I punched a 2nd grade girl in the stomach cuz she called me 4 eyes. Then I ended up wrestling with the 75 year old principal when he tried to restrain me.

Wow. You not only beat up women you also beat on the elderly.

Wow. You not only beat up women you also beat on the elderly.

All he needs to do is beat up on the handicapped for the triple crown of jackassery.

Did the principal give him herpes?

Hmm DT I am sure that can be chalked up too youth so I was merely poking innocent fun.

Hmm DT I am sure that can be chalked up too youth so I was merely poking innocent fun.

lol it's cool. we pretty much laugh about it now. not my finest hour though.

This seems obvious (and I think EF's studies reinforce it), but heck they're people on this board (Bubba, SFL amongst others) who would disagree based on their own ill-conceived notions. How does one bring them to logic?


Logic is an inconvenience for the intolerant.

My opposition to gay marriage is the same as it is for many other situations. I simply believe marriage to be a religious right and not a public one. Unfortunately, because of the advantages of being married (in a variety of situations) there is obviously a legitimate beef. Of course, the only way to solve my problem is to eliminate any advantages to being married at all and make marriage totally the decision of the churches of the country. If they decide not to have gay marriage, that is their right. If they decide to, then so be it. Would make everything a heck of a lot easier to take.

His name is Buttars, which is pretty funny.


I'm just amazed that he would say racially insensitive things, being that Utah is the birthplace of Jazz music.

My opposition to gay marriage is the same as it is for many other situations. I simply believe marriage to be a religious right and not a public one. Unfortunately, because of the advantages of being married (in a variety of situations) there is obviously a legitimate beef. Of course, the only way to solve my problem is to eliminate any advantages to being married at all and make marriage totally the decision of the churches of the country. If they decide not to have gay marriage, that is their right. If they decide to, then so be it. Would make everything a heck of a lot easier to take.

Marriage is a word - there are both religious and legal marriages.

It is the right of a religion to deny a religious marriage within that religion it is NOT a right of the religious to deny anyone a legal marriage and the benefits which go with it imho.

To legislate or decide otherwise is a bit silly imho - it'd be a bit like allowing Christians to dictate to Moslems how their marriages operate, just because one religious group is more numerous than other shouldn't allow them to dictate things outside of their religion imho.

When religion starts dictating to non-believers bad things often happen as has been proved time and time again throughout history, repressing people is a great way to turn people against a religion.

When religion starts dictating to non-believers bad things often happen as has been proved time and time again throughout history, repressing people is a great way to turn people against a religion.

I agree with you there Marc. Imagine the uproar that would be caused if non believers or different believers tried to legislate their ideals into the catholic church or the mormon church or some other established religion.

Marriage is a word - there are both religious and legal marriages.

It is the right of a religion to deny a religious marriage within that religion it is NOT a right of the religious to deny anyone a legal marriage and the benefits which go with it imho.

To legislate or decide otherwise is a bit silly imho - it'd be a bit like allowing Christians to dictate to Moslems how their marriages operate, just because one religious group is more numerous than other shouldn't allow them to dictate things outside of their religion imho.

When religion starts dictating to non-believers bad things often happen as has been proved time and time again throughout history, repressing people is a great way to turn people against a religion.

Which is why if you eliminate any of the benefits to being married, you solve the problem. I realize this will never happen so we will no doubt have this as in issue for years to come.

Judgments aside anyone see an issue with these 2 sentences being side by side?

Fortunately my wife's cousin (who is gay) was able to get married this year, and they have also adopted a little girl. So it appears to be working out here.

I think there are enough terrible hetero parents (see octuplet woman, Brit Spears, Madonna, Bragelina) in the world, I think that anyone who is responsible and caring and has a financially sound and loving home would be a better parent in the long run.

What did those in bold do that is at all comparable to the two not in bold? I'm confused.:confused: :confused: :confused:

His name is Buttars, which is pretty funny.


I'm just amazed that he would say racially insensitive things, being that Utah is the birthplace of Jazz music.
:lol:

I'm just amazed that he would say racially insensitive things, being that Utah is the birthplace of Jazz music.

Uh, what?

I think somebody flunked music history.

I tink some1 mis uh jok

I never knew Jazz was gay.

Now it makes sense -- I never could figure out why he followed Will all the way from West Philadelphia to Bel Air.

In 6th grade I punched a 2nd grade girl in the stomach cuz she called me 4 eyes. Then I ended up wrestling with the 75 year old principal when he tried to restrain me.

Obviously Patriots fans are the biggest threat to America...

Of course, the only way to solve my problem is to eliminate any advantages to being married at all and make marriage totally the decision of the churches of the country. If they decide not to have gay marriage, that is their right. If they decide to, then so be it. Would make everything a heck of a lot easier to take.

The other solution is to, you know, give the rights to everyone.

The other solution is to, you know, give the rights to everyone.

but if you do that, the terrorists lose

Which is why if you eliminate any of the benefits to being married, you solve the problem. I realize this will never happen so we will no doubt have this as in issue for years to come.

(looks around to ensure his wife isn't about)

You mean there are benefits to being married? ...

(runs off giggling ;) )

The other solution is to, you know, give the rights to everyone.

If I believed everyone had the right it would be. Under my religion, being gay is a sin in God's eyes. I am not going to be anybody's judge and jury because I'm not without sin either. God will judge everyone eventually under my beliefs and if he judges in my favor, I will be joyous and if he judges in their favor then who am I to have a problem with it? The rights will eventually be given to everyone and from a national point of view with the Constitution, etc. it has to happen. However, I disagree with it because of how I've been taught. The only way for me to reconcile that is to eliminate all state benefits for marriage for everyone to make marriage strictly a religous practice. Again...I realize this will never happen.

If I believed everyone had the right it would be. Under my religion, being gay is a sin in God's eyes. I am not going to be anybody's judge and jury because I'm not without sin either. God will judge everyone eventually under my beliefs and if he judges in my favor, I will be joyous and if he judges in their favor then who am I to have a problem with it? The rights will eventually be given to everyone and from a national point of view with the Constitution, etc. it has to happen. However, I disagree with it because of how I've been taught. The only way for me to reconcile that is to eliminate all state benefits for marriage for everyone to make marriage strictly a religous practice. Again...I realize this will never happen.

With the understanding that, what marriage is, is what you've been taught, if you could put your religious beliefs aside for a second, I am curious as to why religion should have the monopoly on "marriage" or even the term marriage?

I'm pretty sure that "Marriage" has been around longer than christianity and it was not invented by christians. So, I guess I just don't understand the undue ownership of marriage by christianity, or any religion for that matter.

The scumiest people in the country are at it again.

Counterdemonstrators drive off hate group in Flight 3407 protest : Latest Local News : The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/586891.html?imw=Y)

The other solution is to, you know, give the rights to everyone.

His solution, though, is probably better in terms of church/state issues, IMO. Though not everyone would agree with issues involving the disestablishment clause and then only honoring marriages that the dominant religions back (ie, no gay marriages, no polygamy, etc.)

I just think that the legal concept of marriage should be done away with it. Call it a civil union that every partnership can get (with the benefits). If you want to call it a marriage (or if a religion does), it would be in spirit only.

I always found it interesting how religious groups have tried to make it a man-women thing/it's a sin to God, when marriage has evolved through history as business arrangement between families/partners and a variety of reasons for marriage. Royal families would marry other royals (or even family). They usually lacked religious reasoning for marriage.

The scumiest people in the country are at it again.

Counterdemonstrators drive off hate group in Flight 3407 protest : Latest Local News : The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/586891.html?imw=Y)



I love this town.

I just think that the legal concept of marriage should be done away with it. Call it a civil union that every partnership can get (with the benefits). If you want to call it a marriage (or if a religion does), it would be in spirit only.

I always found it interesting how religious groups have tried to make it a man-women thing/it's a sin to God, when marriage has evolved through history as business arrangement between families/partners and a variety of reasons for marriage. Royal families would marry other royals (or even family). They usually lacked religious reasoning for marriage.


The religious side of the argument has nothing better to argue with than "its a religious establishment" so they roll with what they have. Ignoring the fact that Marriage has been around far longer than any religion has.

As for removing all benefits for everyone being simpler or more beneficial I beg to differ. It would be economically impossible to eliminate the benefits of marriage in this country based on simple taxation issues alone.

The vast majority of the country would suddenly owe a tax debt every year instead of getting a refund. It would be a calamity.

It is FAR simpler and easier to allow everyone the same rights and privileges under the law instead of discriminating based on a religious doctrine.

I just think that the legal concept of marriage should be done away with it. Call it a civil union that every partnership can get (with the benefits). If you want to call it a marriage (or if a religion does), it would be in spirit only.

Everyone looks at me crazy when I suggest this- basically create a legal standing called "civil union" and have it replace marriage in legal/tax terms in this country.

Marriages would, of course, fall under this. Also, gay marriage/civil union would fall under this. However, we're talking about gay unions in the same sense of marriage, not in the sense of "civil unions" now- meant for long term, can have divorce- split property, etc.

This would completely remove religion from the argument. It basically represents the legal benefits that our social contract gives of staying together long term- it has nothing to do with religion.

SI

The only reason people look at you crazy is because politically it'd die within seconds ;).

His solution, though, is probably better in terms of church/state issues, IMO. Though not everyone would agree with issues involving the disestablishment clause and then only honoring marriages that the dominant religions back (ie, no gay marriages, no polygamy, etc.)

I think the idea of eliminating all rights associated with marriage sounds better to people than it would in the real world. I think it's because most people don't realize all the rights associated with marriage. When one spouse is in a coma, most people want the other spouse to able to make life and death decisions rather than some bureaucrat or doctor. If a spouse dies without a will (probably due to some unexpected tragedy), the other spouse should inherit the estate without litigation that would risk another beneficiary being named. If a marriage goes bad and a divorce results, it makes sense for the spouse who stayed at home to care for the kids to be compensated from the marital property. When someone is a federal employee, most people would want the spouse to be eligible for the health care plan (particularly if the spouse doesn't work). If someone is in the military dies in a war, most people want the spouse to receive the death benefit. Although this might be slightly more controversial, I think most people want a spouse to receive leave from work to care for a seriously ill spouse without being fired. If one spouse dies in a car wreck with a drunk driver, most people want the surviving spouse to able to able to sue for wrongful death. Although people are a bit down on immigration these days, I still think most people want to be able to marry non-citizens without the worry that those non-citizens will be deported.

There are a ton of rights that America wants to be associated with marriage. It's not just about tax-filing status. Talking about removing any recognition of marriage by the state would fundamentally change our society in ways that would cause a lot of negative consequences.

This would be why the gods invented civil unions ;).

If I believed everyone had the right it would be. Under my religion, being gay is a sin in God's eyes. I am not going to be anybody's judge and jury because I'm not without sin either. God will judge everyone eventually under my beliefs and if he judges in my favor, I will be joyous and if he judges in their favor then who am I to have a problem with it? The rights will eventually be given to everyone and from a national point of view with the Constitution, etc. it has to happen. However, I disagree with it because of how I've been taught. The only way for me to reconcile that is to eliminate all state benefits for marriage for everyone to make marriage strictly a religous practice. Again...I realize this will never happen.

You are merging the two types of marriage. Legal and religious. Legal marriages are put in place for a number of reason that benefit society and the individuals as a whole. It gives your spouse certain legal rights when you die or are sick. It benefits both individuals financially and allows people to live more prosperously. There were other benefits in the past that are no longer relevant, but the fact is that legal marriage is simply a contract. No different than the contract you take on when buying a home, car, or business.

I don't see how religion plays any role in this discussion. There is nothing in the benefits of legal marriage that require believing in talking snakes and people made of ribs. This is simply a legal contract that helps make people's lives easier. Allows loved ones to make medical decisions for someone. To be able to visit their spouse in a hospital. Or to take over their possessions when they die. I'd feel bad for you if you truly felt God was opposed to two individuals signing a legal contract at City Hall to make their lives a little easier.

Religious marriage is a different story. People can do what they please there. I don't see how a gay couple being able to file a joint tax return would have any effect on you or your life.

I'm pretty sure that "Marriage" has been around longer than christianity and it was not invented by christians. So, I guess I just don't understand the undue ownership of marriage by christianity, or any religion for that matter.

Absurd! The Earth is only 6,000 years old and that time you speak of certainly didn't exist and was just a clever rouse put forth by the devil to fool us all.

It's not an easy decision and I have given this subject a lot of thoughts it just the raising kids thing that bothers me. I see way to many road blocks, not to say a drunkard of a mother wouldn't pose the same road blocks. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea, is probably the best answer I can give.

I don't see how you can dictate who is allowed to raise children based on potential ridicule the kids may receive when growing up. A drunk or violent parent isn't a fair comparison as they are actively hurting the child. A loving gay couple should pose no threat to the child outside of ignorant people who will judge them.

Your arguments are not much different than from those made toward interracial marriage. People said that it wasn't right and that children of interracial couples would be thrust into lives of unwanted scrutiny. That ignorance has subsided and biracial individuals don't seem to have much trouble adjusting to our society. In fact, they can even grow up to be President.

This seems obvious (and I think EF's studies reinforce it), but heck they're people on this board (Bubba, SFL amongst others) who would disagree based on their own ill-conceived notions. How does one bring them to logic?

I don't think it's obvious at all, and I am glad that people are undertaking studies to settle this. With scientific support (assuming these studies are generally accepted by the scientific and medical community), I am a lot more comfortable with the notion of gay couples adopting than without them.

If I believed everyone had the right it would be. Under my religion, being gay is a sin in God's eyes. I am not going to be anybody's judge and jury because I'm not without sin either.

And we go down the same argument that's been had since the beginning of the USA. Luckily Freedom of Religion doesn't mean that it's a Christian country that allows others the freedom to practice their own religion under Christian laws, rules, regulations and allowance. Luckily separation of church and state means that the government isn't built on any religious foundation other than that which is simply tradition or custom (which I have problems with too). Religious and legal dont mix, or shouldnt here....maybe in Pakistan, or Afghanistan they would argue it should....you know, under Sharia law.

Everyone looks at me crazy when I suggest this- basically create a legal standing called "civil union" and have it replace marriage in legal/tax terms in this country.

Marriages would, of course, fall under this. Also, gay marriage/civil union would fall under this. However, we're talking about gay unions in the same sense of marriage, not in the sense of "civil unions" now- meant for long term, can have divorce- split property, etc.

This would completely remove religion from the argument. It basically represents the legal benefits that our social contract gives of staying together long term- it has nothing to do with religion.

SI

+1

this has been my solution since day 1 of this whole thing. it's the most elegant compromise. and i can't see an argument against it. is a gay couple filing a joint tax return because they have a civil union affecting your "religiously blesssed marriage" with your wife? Really? You want to try to tell me that with a straight face?

Honestly, the only reason people have to object to this solution is because they're bigots. Pure and simple.

I don't see how you can dictate who is allowed to raise children based on potential ridicule the kids may receive when growing up. A drunk or violent parent isn't a fair comparison as they are actively hurting the child. A loving gay couple should pose no threat to the child outside of ignorant people who will judge them.

Your arguments are not much different than from those made toward interracial marriage. People said that it wasn't right and that children of interracial couples would be thrust into lives of unwanted scrutiny. That ignorance has subsided and biracial individuals don't seem to have much trouble adjusting to our society. In fact, they can even grow up to be President.

I have given my position and have stated that its something I haven't be able to get comfortable with. There are positives and negatives I happen to feel the potential negatives could be very bad. How is this similar to interracial marriage? The children produced in that marriage will belong to the parents the same is not true for gay couples. (Although it is possible.)

If gay people were afforded the same rights as marriage people I wouldn't be bothered. If they want to adopt children and are given the right to do so(they might already be able too) I wouldn't protest the decision of the court. I would wonder in silence if this is the best decision, unlike those who were oppose to interracial dating who tried to make laws and hurt people.

I have given my position and have stated that its something I haven't be able to get comfortable with. There are positives and negatives I happen to feel the potential negatives could be very bad. How is this similar to interracial marriage? The children produced in that marriage will belong to the parents the same is not true for gay couples. (Although it is possible.)

If gay people were afforded the same rights as marriage people I wouldn't be bothered. If they want to adopt children and are given the right to do so(they might already be able too) I wouldn't protest the decision of the court. I would wonder in silence if this is the best decision, unlike those who were oppose to interracial dating who tried to make laws and hurt people.

Actually, you have given your position but not really explained/justified it in any way. You ambiguously state that it "makes you uncomfortable" and some other silliness, and now it seems you feel like the biggest obstacle is "not owning" the children or something.

People who oppose gay adoption feel like the children will be raised gay and without morals/values. People used to feel that way about mixed marriages (of any kind) and more. I have some cousins-in-law that are lesbians and one of them was inseminated and they are raising a beautiful little boy and may have another. If they were denied the right to adopt, while many of the rednecks and indigents in Atlanta maintain that right simply because they are straight (and clearly would provide a worse environment), then it truly is discrimination.

I have given my position and have stated that its something I haven't be able to get comfortable with. There are positives and negatives I happen to feel the potential negatives could be very bad. How is this similar to interracial marriage? The children produced in that marriage will belong to the parents the same is not true for gay couples. (Although it is possible.)

So by not "belonging" to the parents - that must mean you're against all adoption in general then? Since those kids don't "belong" to the parents?? Right??


If gay people were afforded the same rights as marriage people I wouldn't be bothered. If they want to adopt children and are given the right to do so(they might already be able too) I wouldn't protest the decision of the court. I would wonder in silence if this is the best decision, unlike those who were oppose to interracial dating who tried to make laws and hurt people.

“Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.”


Recognize that quote?

So by not "belonging" to the parents - that must mean you're against all adoption in general then? Since those kids don't "belong" to the parents?? Right??

If that's what you got from that... I think you and others are just reaching. It was a rebuttal to Rain Maker and I was showing the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage. The children produced from interracial marriage share the same DNA as their parents therefore are not adopted.



“Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.”


Recognize that quote?

So if the courts rule for gay marriage I should protest against it? I wouldn't because I believe if they have the legal right they have every right to exercise it. I wouldn't protest at all I would just wonder to myself.

If that's what you got from that... I think you and others are just reaching. It was a rebuttal to Rain Maker and I was showing the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage. The children produced from interracial marriage share the same DNA as their parents therefore are not adopted.





So if the courts rule for gay marriage I should protest against it? I wouldn't because I believe if they have the legal right they have every right to exercise it. I wouldn't protest at all I would just wonder to myself.


I don't think I'm reaching. We all understand the biological difference between biological children of interracial marriage and adopted children of gay marriage. But we're not comparing them on that basis. We're comparing them on the basis of discrimination. But when you start talking about the kids "belonging" to the parents as if that has something to do with how legitimate it is, it does lead one to the conclusion that you must feel all adoptions are "less legitimate."

As for the quote -

My point was more that if by not actively making laws to enable this subset of people to have rights you are ipso facto denying them rights then you are one of the "vitiating inactive of those who are good."

Honestly I'm still trying to piece together what your stance on gay rights in general is, because at some points you sound somewhat progressive and okay with things, but then at some point it's almost like you'll hit your limit.

I think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else.

- I am not comfortable with the idea of gay people raising children but I will not protest it. I can feel whatever way I want too because it is not illegal or immoral to feel any way.

All this thread is about someone who said gays where the greatest threat and I am not sure how we have come to this.

Feelings certainly can be immoral.

Feelings certainly can be immoral.

That is subjective.

No it isn't. Saying your particular feeling is immoral may be subjective, but saying feelings can be immoral isn't.

I think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else.

- I am not comfortable with the idea of gay people raising children but I will not protest it. I can feel whatever way I want too because it is not illegal or immoral to feel any way.

All this thread is about someone who said gays where the greatest threat and I am not sure how we have come to this.

Okay. *nods*

Question re: your point of view.

Everyone else has the right to raise children right? Even that octuplet-mom in California (who is clearly nutso). And they're watched over by whatever state department (children and family services, or whatever it's called where you are). And if the parents screw up or provide a bad environment the kids are removed. So if you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else, why not this? Why stop at this point?

Partial equality is just a "prettier" term for inequality.

No it isn't. Saying your particular feeling is immoral may be subjective, but saying feelings can be immoral isn't.

If you say something like I feel like Tuesday is the best day. Isn't that subjective because I might feel like Friday is the best day.

Okay. *nods*

Question re: your point of view.

Everyone else has the right to raise children right? Even that octuplet-mom in California (who is clearly nutso). And they're watched over by whatever state department (children and family services, or whatever it's called where you are). And if the parents screw up or provide a bad environment the kids are removed. So if you think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else, why not this? Why stop at this point?

Partial equality is just a "prettier" term for inequality.

You're trying to change how I feel about something at this point. If I had an answer I would give a better one then what I have already given. Nothing against you DT but I am tired of this discussion because it seems to have just become another let's shit on Noop party.

Sure, but if I say I feel that all the n@&$^s should be strung up and their women fed to dogs, I think we can agree that's immoral whether or not I actually do it.

Sure, but if I say I feel that all the n@&$^s should be strung up and their women fed to dogs, I think we can agree that's immoral whether or not I actually do it.

Wow. I hope you get some help.

If I believed everyone had the right it would be. Under my religion, being gay is a sin in God's eyes.

See this is what I hate about those that take religion completely at it's word. I'm Christian but I'm also able to think for myself. Fortunately in my religion I'm told I can't think for myself. Also I'm told that all gods creatures are loved. And I don't let any idiot interpret the bible for me, nor do I let anyone else tell me how I'm supposed to think. And I'm willing to understand that the bible is a book, put together long ago that isn't fact but more of a guide. Also I understand that are a large number of things in the bible that we no longer accept as the rule of the land but some have conveniently decided to accept other parts as absolute truth.

DaddyTorgo -

You're wanted in the WW thread. :)

You're trying to change how I feel about something at this point. If I had an answer I would give a better one then what I have already given. Nothing against you DT but I am tired of this discussion because it seems to have just become another let's shit on Noop party.

Not trying to shit on you. Just trying to understand, and yes...probably change the way you feel, or at least make you see the illogic in your stance.

As for removing all benefits for everyone being simpler or more beneficial I beg to differ. It would be economically impossible to eliminate the benefits of marriage in this country based on simple taxation issues alone.



I know we've touched this base before in the Prop 8 thread, personally I don't see how it's economically impossible. IMO I don't think there should be any tax benefits of being married or having. Each person takes from the pot and each person, including the parents of children need to put into the pot for as many people as they are taking out, it's only fair.

I have given my position and have stated that its something I haven't be able to get comfortable with. There are positives and negatives I happen to feel the potential negatives could be very bad. How is this similar to interracial marriage? The children produced in that marriage will belong to the parents the same is not true for gay couples. (Although it is possible.)


You are so far off base here.

I know it wasn't your intention, but as someone who is adopted the insinuation is insulting to me that adopted children are any less true children to their parents then biological ones.

If the parents have strong values adopted children will be raised in the same manner or better then biological children. Who concieved and carried you means absolutly nothing to how you are raised and who you turn into.

The new RNC chair clarifies the Republican position:

GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn't something that you just kind of like, "Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage." [...]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What's the difference?

But of course it has nothing to do with bigotry.

You are so far off base here.

I know it wasn't your intention, but as someone who is adopted the insinuation is insulting to me that adopted children are any less true children to their parents then biological ones.

If the parents have strong values adopted children will be raised in the same manner or better then biological children. Who concieved and carried you means absolutly nothing to how you are raised and who you turn into.

Keep reading.

If that's what you got from that... I think you and others are just reaching. It was a rebuttal to Rain Maker and I was showing the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage. The children produced from interracial marriage share the same DNA as their parents therefore are not adopted.





question.

My lesbian cousins partner was artificial inseminated, whats your argument for that?

Wow. I hope you get some help.

See, feelings can be immoral.

question.

My lesbian cousins partner was artificial inseminated, whats your argument for that?

It's their kid.

If I believed everyone had the right it would be. Under my religion, being gay is a sin in God's eyes.

I'm pretty sure that the Bible says that having sex with your wife during her period is a sin too. And cutting your hair and beard. And eating pork. And eating shrimp and lobster are abominations too.

The "being gay is a sin" argument really has to go, because the verses that claim it is a sin sit right next to the ones I mention above.

Keep reading.

I did and you never explained yourself.

The fact they share DNA means zero. I know alot of fucked up kids raised by their biological parents.

I'm sorry, but it is sad that you feel adopted kids have less of a bond with their parents.

I don't comment on what it is like to be black, maybe you shouldn't comment on what it is like for adopted kids.

It's their kid.

so then it's OK to raise them right?

So what is the difference between that and them adopting a kid?

I did and you never explained yourself.

The fact they share DNA means zero. I know alot of fucked up kids raised by their biological parents.

I'm sorry, but it is sad that you feel adopted kids have less of a bond with their parents.

I don't comment on what it is like to be black, maybe you shouldn't comment on what it is like for adopted kids.

I am not comfortable with gay adoption. I never said biological parents are better parents or anything. Rain Maker was making a case about interracial marriages and how the kids were treated. My point was the children share the same DNA as their parents therefore they are not adopted so why use that example.

so then it's OK to raise them right?

So what is the difference between that and them adopting a kid?

DNA

so then it's OK to raise them right?

So what is the difference between that and them adopting a kid?

I think they should raise them gay. Since that's what it's immoral, they might catch the gays. (sorry had to lighten things up)

I am not comfortable with gay adoption. I never said biological parents are better parents or anything. Rain Maker was making a case about interracial marriages and how the kids were treated. My point was the children share the same DNA as their parents therefore they are not adopted so why use that example.

Are you comfortable with interracial adoption? How about inter-religion adoption?

Are you comfortable with interracial adoption? How about inter-religion adoption?

I believe in Jesus and Budda.

I'm pretty sure that the Bible says that having sex with your wife during her period is a sin too. And cutting your hair and beard. And eating pork. And eating shrimp and lobster are abominations too.

The "being gay is a sin" argument really has to go, because the verses that claim it is a sin sit right next to the ones I mention above.

At least it gets a little run in the Bible I read tho I disagree with the church's stance on gays as misinterpretation of the Bible, similar to above. Hell, the other "third rail" topic of religion these days, abortion, isn't even mentioned in the Bible unless you really liberally interpret some passages. Pointing that out is always fun- the conversation goes something like this:

Homer: Your mother has this crazy idea that gambling is wrong. Even though they say it's okay in the bible.
Lisa: Really? Where?
Homer: Uh... Somewhere in the back.


SI

DNA

ok, then why didn't you just say you are against adoption?

I mean obviously having the same DNA as someone means you will be raised better.

ok, then why didn't you just say you are against adoption?

I mean obviously having the same DNA as someone means you will be raised better.

Jesus loves you.

Jesus loves you.

Why are you dancing around the questions about adoption? I've counted at least 4 times people have asked you about your feelings on adoption and you have failed to answer any of them.

I am not against adoption I thought I said that already. I am not comfortable with gay adoption.

I am not against adoption I thought I said that already. I am not comfortable with gay adoption.

I'll ask this one more time then, because I'm really interested where you draw the line.

What about interracial adoption?

I'll ask this one more time then, because I'm really interested where you draw the line.

What about interracial adoption?

I have no problem with adoption. I am not comfortable with gay adoption. How is this not clear to you?

I am not against adoption I thought I said that already. I am not comfortable with gay adoption.

but you are OK with a lesbian who is artificialy inseminated raising their child. When I asked you what the difference is you said DNA.

So if a gay person can raise a child that is biologicaly theirs why can't they adopt a child and raise it?

Based on your responses it seems to me the problem you have isn't with gays, it's with adoption.

but you are OK with a lesbian who is artificialy inseminated raising their child. When I asked you what the difference is you said DNA.

So if a gay person can raise a child that is biologicaly theirs why can't they adopt a child and raise it?

Based on your responses it seems to me the problem you have isn't with gays, it's with adoption.

False. Jesus loves you.

I have no problem with adoption. I am not comfortable with gay adoption. How is this not clear to you?

So for the record you are perfectly fine with interracial adoption?

So for the record you are perfectly fine with interracial adoption?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Cool, at least we've come this far.

Cool, at least we've come this far.

Was already there. Jesus loves you and so does Allah.

Back to the topic at hand.

Gays aren't at all a threat to America. If anything intolerance and especially that idiot pastor are the greatest threats. And of course zombies.

Was already there. Jesus loves you and so does Allah.

I'm more of a Buddha and Jesus fan myself.

I believe in Jesus and Budda.

You realize Buddhism preaches our bodies are vessels for our souls and gender doesn't matter since we are all trying to accumulate enough karma to be reborn as something better in out next life?

So really the fact someone is gay shouldn't matter at all.

You realize Buddhism preaches our bodies are vessels for our souls and gender doesn't matter since we are all trying to accumulate enough karma to be reborn as something better in out next life?

So really the fact someone is gay shouldn't matter at all.

I don't practice Buddhism but okay.

This Jesus dude sounds gay. I wouldn't want to be one of his children -- well, only if he was my biological father.

This Jesus dude sounds gay. I wouldn't want to be one of his children -- well, only if he was my biological father.

Bullshit Jesus is the exception because he died for my sins and if he wanted to be my daddy he can damn well be so.

I'm surprised no one made a parody thread...

"Gays 'gayest threat to America'".

Figured I might as well come out of the lurking "closet" and make my first post in a gay thread.

What I cannot understand is the problem with gay adoption. Are there actually people who think that the kid will turn out gay being raised by a gay couple? And if a study is done some time in the future that proves one child "turned" gay because they were adopted by a gay couple, does it really matter? It's not like the kid is a serial killer. I find the argument that gay adoption may make a child gay to be the ultimate discrimination.

Is it because the parents may molest the child? Last time I checked it appears the sexually oppressed priests and fucked up losers are the ones doing that shit. Sure it is possible, but no more possible than the "normal" couple that adopts with bad intentions.

This post is not meant to 'Poop on Noop'. I just can't understand peoples view on this subject. Because the bible tells us so? Maybe it's because i'm agnostic at best/worst, whichever way you view it. I don't call anything a sin, to me things are just right or wrong. And not allowing gay marriage/adoption is wrong, IMHO.

And by the way. No, I am not gay. Nor does it hurt when I pee, and 99.9% of the time ED does not effect me.

I am not comfortable with gay adoption. I never said biological parents are better parents or anything. Rain Maker was making a case about interracial marriages and how the kids were treated. My point was the children share the same DNA as their parents therefore they are not adopted so why use that example.

because both are examples of "unions" that are/were viewed as "immoral" at one point

No, I am not gay.
Are you sure? I mean you do like the Cowboys? ;)

By the way I welcome you out of the closet!

The new RNC chair clarifies the Republican position:



But of course it has nothing to do with bigotry.

Well at least there's no danger of the Bigoted...err...Republican...Party competing for my vote anytime soon

What about straight couples adopting gay kids?

What about straight couples adopting gay kids?


That is way beyond the line in the sand.

It's obvious that the gay kid would turn the straight couple gay.

What about gay pets?

My little boy-dog has a doggy-girlfriend and sometimes the doggy girlfriend (who is bigger than him...he's a lil terrier) hops up behind him and tries to hump him like she's the man.

My question is - should we be worried?

Is the fact that their dog is a transsexual and our dog is bisexual going to screw up everybody??

My little boy-dog has a doggy-girlfriend and sometimes the doggy girlfriend (who is bigger than him...he's a lil terrier) hops up behind him and tries to hump him like she's the man.

My question is - should we be worried?

Is the fact that their dog is a transsexual and our dog is bisexual going to screw up everybody??

Your children may turn gay, or you may as well. Make sure you always use antibacterial soap as well as purell.

Your children may turn gay, or you may as well. Make sure you always use antibacterial soap as well as purell.


do I need one of those little face-mask thingies that doctors wear?

do I need one of those little face-mask thingies that doctors wear?

Unfortunately those do little to protect you from the small particles of gay.

LMAO

I'm more of a Buddha and Jesus fan myself.

And we all know why you like Buddha.

I'm confused about Noop's stance. Gays shouldn't adopt because they don't share the same DNA and interracial children out of interracial marriages are ok because they share DNA. However, adoptions by straight couples are ok (but they don’t share the same DNA). The Lathum example of his lesbian family member getting an artificial insemination is ok because it’s the same DNA.

I'm confused about Noop's stance. Gays shouldn't adopt because they don't share the same DNA and interracial children out of interracial marriages are ok because they share DNA. However, adoptions by straight couples are ok (but they don’t share the same DNA). The Lathum example of his lesbian family member getting an artificial insemination is ok because it’s the same DNA.

But Noops not comfortable with it, just like I'm not comfortable with the jeans I'm wearing today. Not to mention that Jesus, Allah, and Buddha love you. Or something like that.

Unfortunately those do little to protect you from the small particles of gay.

What better? Small particles of gay or small particles of zombie gay?

But Noops not comfortable with it, just like I'm not comfortable with the jeans I'm wearing today. Not to mention that Jesus, Allah, and Buddha love you. Or something like that.

Don't forget Brahma.

What better? Small particles of gay or small particles of zombie gay?

I prefer vegetarian zombies. Because all they want are......




GRAINS! GRAINS!

:party::party::party::party::party:

What if the grains are gay?

Don't forget Brahma.

You know that actually is a pretty good beer... They don't really sell it here like they used to though.

Gays aren't the greatest threat to America, they aren't even A threat.

Materialists are the greatest threats. (In the dictionary sense, not the philosophical sense)

pizza

Well at least there's no danger of the Bigoted...err...Republican...Party competing for my vote anytime soon

Interestingly enough, in exit poll after exit poll, about 20% of gay voters vote Republican.

Interestingly enough, in exit poll after exit poll, about 20% of gay voters vote Republican.

Yeah, and that really baffles me. I guess those are the highly-successful rich gays who are more concerned with their finances than their civil rights though.

One of the leading producers of gay porn contributed heavily to McCain's campaign.

Interestingly enough, in exit poll after exit poll, about 20% of gay voters vote Republican.

Those are just happy people, not homos.

because both are examples of "unions" that are/were viewed as "immoral" at one point

"were"?

Let me guess, next you tell us how Sen. McCarthy was a member of the HUAC, right? ;)

Those are just happy people, not homos.

Heh, the thought of people not quite understanding the question did cross my mind. I mean, election season really isn't that far from Christmas & look how many people don their gay apparel at that time of year.

"were"?

Let me guess, next you tell us how Sen. McCarthy was a member of the HUAC, right? ;)


hahaha

I have given my position and have stated that its something I haven't be able to get comfortable with. There are positives and negatives I happen to feel the potential negatives could be very bad. How is this similar to interracial marriage? The children produced in that marriage will belong to the parents the same is not true for gay couples. (Although it is possible.)

Your stance here makes it seem like you're against adoption. Interracial and gay marriage are similar in the sense that the same exact arguments are being used. How it defies "traditional marriage" and how it "hurts kids". You could literally swap gay with interracial in some of the speeches and have the same thing.

But what are these potential negatives that you see. Many who oppose it seem to point out how horrible it would be. What are these?

I'm pretty sure that the Bible says that having sex with your wife during her period is a sin too. And cutting your hair and beard. And eating pork. And eating shrimp and lobster are abominations too.

The "being gay is a sin" argument really has to go, because the verses that claim it is a sin sit right next to the ones I mention above.

Can anybody else quote me out of context in this thread? Cracks me up. People take what I say and eliminate the part where I state but I'm not without sin and I'm not going to be anybody's judge/jury. That part just gets dropped though because people feel they have to prove some point.

Can anybody else quote me out of context in this thread? Cracks me up. People take what I say and eliminate the part where I state but I'm not without sin and I'm not going to be anybody's judge/jury. That part just gets dropped though because people feel they have to prove some point.

I don't think anyone took you out of context but your view is the reason why religion can be so silly to me. People choose to treat it like a buffet where they select what sins they think are abominations and what ones are OK for them to commit because Jesus died for them and God will forgive. Its hypocrisy at it's finest.

I don't think anyone took you out of context but your view is the reason why religion can be so silly to me. People choose to treat it like a buffet where they select what sins they think are abominations and what ones are OK for them to commit because Jesus died for them and God will forgive. Its hypocrisy at it's finest.

grrrr i hate hypocrites

Can anybody else quote me out of context in this thread? Cracks me up. People take what I say and eliminate the part where I state but I'm not without sin and I'm not going to be anybody's judge/jury. That part just gets dropped though because people feel they have to prove some point.

I think the point we are trying to make is that the church you choose and those that run it are the ones that pick and choose which sins are sins today as well as which sins are sins tomorrow.

The new RNC chair clarifies the Republican position:

But of course it has nothing to do with bigotry.

The scary thing about some Republicans who argue the "traditional marriage" narrative is our real history of marriage. Traditional marriage in this country was between a white man and white woman. Women were not given any rights, not allowed to divorce and not allowed to file police reports against their husbands. They could not own or inherit the land of their spouse. They were treated as sex slaves who could be beaten for not having dinner ready on time.

That is "traditional marriage" in our country. The irony in his statement is that Mr. Steele would not be allowed to marry if we kept those traditional values he so glowingly speaks of.

Can anybody else quote me out of context in this thread? Cracks me up. People take what I say and eliminate the part where I state but I'm not without sin and I'm not going to be anybody's judge/jury. That part just gets dropped though because people feel they have to prove some point.
It's not out of context, it's the relative hypocrisy by some in the Church. It is fair to ask why Christians strongly oppose gay marriage but not working on the Sabbath. It seems as though people of your faith pick and choose which sins are important and which aren't. By singling out gays and that one sin, it appears more about being a bigot than respecting God's wishes. I'd have more respect for those protesting it on a religious basis if they also protested other sins carried out on a daily basis.

Amish ftw.

Interestingly enough, in exit poll after exit poll, about 20% of gay voters vote Republican.

Interestingly enough, this same 20% of gay voters are sado-masochists.

I agree with people who say we need traditional marriage in this country. We should do it how the ancient Egyptians did marriage.

Its ok to "Poop-on-Noop" Its a fetish of his.

I agree with people who say we need traditional marriage in this country. We should do it how the ancient Egyptians did marriage.

As a follower of Zoroaster, I have always felt that allowing the Greeks to co-opt marriage was the downfall of civilization.

Its ok to "Poop-on-Noop" Its a fetish of his.

:eek:

are you just saying that for obvious reasons??

:)

:popcorn:

As a follower of Zoroaster, I have always felt that allowing the Greeks to co-opt marriage was the downfall of civilization.

don't fuck with Zoroaster man! Duncan MacLeod did with Ahriman and it almost got him killed!

:eek:

are you just saying that for obvious reasons??

:)

:popcorn:


If by "obvious reasons" you mean that day you told me your shower was a disgusting mess after Noop visited....Then yes?

The scary thing about some Republicans who argue the "traditional marriage" narrative is our real history of marriage. Traditional marriage in this country was between a white man and white woman. Women were not given any rights, not allowed to divorce and not allowed to file police reports against their husbands. They could not own or inherit the land of their spouse. They were treated as sex slaves who could be beaten for not having dinner ready on time.

That is "traditional marriage" in our country. The irony in his statement is that Mr. Steele would not be allowed to marry if we kept those traditional values he so glowingly speaks of.
Wait, that's not what traditional marriage is anymore... Shit no one tell my wife!

don't fuck with Zoroaster man! Duncan MacLeod did with Ahriman and it almost got him killed!

Yeah, but, really, that was pretty much when the series jumped the shark and it was time to kill it off. I mean, for multi-parters and season finales, we went from multiple run-ins with Horton and the Hunters to a great villain in Kalas to Methos to the Watchers War to the Four Horsemen. And they follow it up all of those really good plots with that crap? It was all downhill from there...

SI

Yeah, but, really, that was pretty much when the series jumped the shark and it was time to kill it off. I mean, for multi-parters and season finales, we went from multiple run-ins with Horton and the Hunters to a great villain in Kalas to Methos to the Watchers War to the Four Horsemen. And they follow it up all of those really good plots with that crap? It was all downhill from there...

SI

Oh I completely agree. Fucking great series though. Fucking great.

In fact, I own it on DVD

My parents were from South Africa, but they had to leave...for obvious reasons.

Oh I completely agree. Fucking great series though. Fucking great.

I agree, it was definitely one of my favorites in high school. I'd still watch it today if they still had it on more than occasionally on some stations.

SI

I don't think anyone took you out of context but your view is the reason why religion can be so silly to me. People choose to treat it like a buffet where they select what sins they think are abominations and what ones are OK for them to commit because Jesus died for them and God will forgive. Its hypocrisy at it's finest.

Which is exactly what I'm not saying. My point is that my sins are just as bad as the sin of being gay and I am not the one to put any kind of degree of this sin is worse, etc. That's God's job. What I do believe though is that a marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman...period.

On the flip side, I have no problem with gay couples wanting the same benefits as married couples because it is without question discrimination and unconstitutional. What I don't want is their marriage to be considered the same as mine in my religion's eyes and I don't think my religion should be forced to recognize a couple as married. If another religion wants to marry them and recognize it, then so be it.

I don't find anything hypocritical about that at all.

As for gay couples adopting children...while I have a problem with it simply because I don't believe it's the way God intended it, I feel confident that God would much rather have a child in a household that will provide love, structure, etc. for that child than in another one that is a garbage life and gives the kid no future. I think most people have issue with the fact not that a kid will be gay in that situation but that the kid may grow up without Christianity.

Since when did being gay make someone automatically not a Christian?

Since when did being gay make someone automatically not a Christian?

Would you want to belong to a religion that won't accept you? Hence, why I used the term "may".

Which is exactly what I'm not saying. My point is that my sins are just as bad as the sin of being gay and I am not the one to put any kind of degree of this sin is worse, etc. That's God's job. What I do believe though is that a marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman...period.
That might be the case with your particular christian sect - but various other religions and indeed christian sects are open to gay marriage* and indeed some have gay clergy** today.

Thus saying that only one particular 'definition' of marriage should be allowed seems illogical to me - how can we know which religious sects definition is right and should be the one chosen as the definition to utilise.

Surely its better to accept that marriage is a term used to define a long term commitment to a relatioship whether man + man, man + woman, woman + woman, whether religion is involved or not.

This is the definition used for years, if you wish to clarify your particular marriage as being in the eyes of God - then by all means term it a '<insert sect here> Marriage' or similar ....

*BBC - Religion & Ethics - Same-sex marriage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/samesexmarriage.shtml)
**http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2155865.ece

My parents were from South Africa, but they had to leave...for obvious reasons.

Well played sir.

Your religion wouldn't have to accept gay marriage as equal to hetero marriage. I'm also sad that you believe gays can't be Christian.

Surely its better to accept ... etc

Apparently that highlighted word doesn't mean what you think it means. There's nothing "surely" about what you claimed that I can see.

Your religion wouldn't have to accept gay marriage as equal to hetero marriage. I'm also sad that you believe gays can't be Christian.

They certainly can be. However, I would guess a majority are not.

Which is exactly what I'm not saying. My point is that my sins are just as bad as the sin of being gay and I am not the one to put any kind of degree of this sin is worse, etc. That's God's job. What I do believe though is that a marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman...period.

On the flip side, I have no problem with gay couples wanting the same benefits as married couples because it is without question discrimination and unconstitutional. What I don't want is their marriage to be considered the same as mine in my religion's eyes and I don't think my religion should be forced to recognize a couple as married. If another religion wants to marry them and recognize it, then so be it.

I don't find anything hypocritical about that at all.

As for gay couples adopting children...while I have a problem with it simply because I don't believe it's the way God intended it, I feel confident that God would much rather have a child in a household that will provide love, structure, etc. for that child than in another one that is a garbage life and gives the kid no future. I think most people have issue with the fact not that a kid will be gay in that situation but that the kid may grow up without Christianity.

you keep saying religion and I generally agree with what you say in that your religion can define it any way it wants, recognize whatever it wants, and dance around and pat some people on the back and not others. Were cool with all of that. your club can kick whomever it wants out now if youre taking government money or getting subsidies or special privileges for being such a club, like at Augusta than...oh wait, I digress.

What you fail to recognize is that your religion isn't the one that is handing out the 'rights' of said deed or sin or event or classification. It is government so I would ask:

"Do you agree that in government's eyes anyone married should get the same rights as being that of being married?"

you keep saying religion and I generally agree with what you say in that your religion can define it any way it wants, recognize whatever it wants, and dance around and pat some people on the back and not others. Were cool with all of that. your club can kick whomever it wants out now if youre taking government money or getting subsidies or special privileges for being such a club, like at Augusta than...oh wait, I digress.

What you fail to recognize is that your religion isn't the one that is handing out the 'rights' of said deed or sin or event or classification. It is government so I would ask:

"Do you agree that in government's eyes anyone married should get the same rights as being that of being married?"

Not that easy of a question because I don't believe gays should be married. Do I believe that in the government's eyes a gay couple that has been designated as a union should have the same rights as those married traditionally? Without question, yes.

Would you want to belong to a religion that won't accept you? Hence, why I used the term "may".
In fairness, women weren't exactly recognized much by early Christians either. Neither were the mentally retarded (and still aren't to this day in some parts). Scientists and mathematicians weren't accepted much either.

Christianity has a long history of going from not accepting a group to accepting them at a later date. So to say that Christianity "won't" accept homosexuality is presumptuous.

Not that easy of a question because I don't believe gays should be married. Do I believe that in the government's eyes a gay couple that has been designated as a union should have the same rights as those married traditionally? Without question, yes.

While I disagree with you and your opinion, Im fine with it in your club and moreso a reason why I dont want to be a part of it.

That being said, when you start to push your religious doctrine into government action, rulings, and doctrine I have a much much more serious problem because you're affecting others.

When Judaism or another religion wants to 'marry' people and the next state over recognizes said marriage I hope you dont claim to have a claim ont he actual word 'marriage' itself.

Which is exactly what I'm not saying. My point is that my sins are just as bad as the sin of being gay and I am not the one to put any kind of degree of this sin is worse, etc. That's God's job. What I do believe though is that a marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman...period.

On the flip side, I have no problem with gay couples wanting the same benefits as married couples because it is without question discrimination and unconstitutional. What I don't want is their marriage to be considered the same as mine in my religion's eyes and I don't think my religion should be forced to recognize a couple as married. If another religion wants to marry them and recognize it, then so be it.

I don't find anything hypocritical about that at all.

As for gay couples adopting children...while I have a problem with it simply because I don't believe it's the way God intended it, I feel confident that God would much rather have a child in a household that will provide love, structure, etc. for that child than in another one that is a garbage life and gives the kid no future. I think most people have issue with the fact not that a kid will be gay in that situation but that the kid may grow up without Christianity.

While your sins are just as bad as "being gay", the good news is that it's just a bunch of made up stories written thousands of years ago to help control people and explain things science had not discovered at the time. You'll end up going to the same place that the gay guy down the street will when you die.

Apparently that highlighted word doesn't mean what you think it means. There's nothing "surely" about what you claimed that I can see.

What I was trying to indicate if that its illogical to pick one definition of marriage as the 'correct' one simply because one group of people like that definition within their religion.

I apologise for using the word 'surely' if you felt it biased the arguement, but I simply can't see a logical reasoning behind a group getting so het up about a word which has always had a fairly open meaning continuing to be used in that manner.

Christianity has a long history of going from not accepting a group to accepting them at a later date. So to say that Christianity "won't" accept homosexuality is presumptuous.
Thats one of the things I was also trying to point out - many Christian churches are openly accepting homosexuals already throughout the world.

(the two links I posted were about gay priests and gay marriages within such churches)

While your sins are just as bad as "being gay", the good news is that it's just a bunch of made up stories written thousands of years ago to help control people and explain things science had not discovered at the time. You'll end up going to the same place that the gay guy down the street will when you die.

Only time will tell.....

Would you want to belong to a religion that won't accept you? Hence, why I used the term "may".

I always wonder the same thing about the Log Cabin Republicans.

During these discussions, I can never tell what faces more intolerance: homosexuality or religion.

It's easy to bash religion in this context but look in the mirror - you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing the other side of doing.

During these discussions, I can never tell what faces more intolerance: homosexuality or religion.


Let's see. Religious folks are getting talked down to. Homosexual folks are being denied things available to everybody else.

I'm not sure who faces more intolerance either.

Your religion wouldn't have to accept gay marriage as equal to hetero marriage. I'm also sad that you believe gays can't be Christian.

Just curious. In your world can a pedophile be Christian? How about an adulterer? How about a thief? And by Christian, I don't mean someone who is considered so simply because he/she sits in a pew on Sunday in a building ostensibly built to worship the Christian God, because there are a lot of people who do that who aren't Christians in the biblical sense.

I apologise for using the word 'surely' if you felt it biased the arguement, but I simply can't see a logical reasoning behind a group getting so het up about a word which has always had a fairly open meaning continuing to be used in that manner.

No apologize needed really. My objection to the use of the word "surely" lies with the subtle, and quite possibly even unintentional, use of a such a definite term when the situation obviously doesn't have a universal opinion ... otherwise the subject wouldn't be any where near as contentious. In this case, there's no shortage of definitive conclusions that have been reached, it just happens that there's more than one of them.

From a philosophical standpoint, I don't see how a gay person could WANT to be Christian. It's condemned in both the OT and the NT, regardless of what the priests of the various "progressive churches" may say.

Let's see. Religious folks are getting talked down to. Homosexual folks are being denied things available to everybody else.

I'm not sure who faces more intolerance either.

I don't give a shit who marries who and I find the tone obnoxious. I don't think many minds get changed that way, and its the kind of condescending sentiment that fans the flames of religious fundamentalism.

From a philosophical standpoint, I don't see how a gay person could WANT to be Christian. It's condemned in both the OT and the NT, regardless of what the priests of the various "progressive churches" may say.

There's a lot of things that are condemned in the bible. It doesn't matter though, Christ accepts all.

(I'm not a Christian, though I went to Sunday School as a kid).

Just curious. In your world can a pedophile be Christian? How about an adulterer? How about a thief? And by Christian, I don't mean someone who is considered so simply because he/she sits in a pew on Sunday in a building ostensibly built to worship the Christian God, because there are a lot of people who do that who aren't Christians in the biblical sense.

Although I wasn't in this original subplot, I'd like to take a shot an answering that question if you don't mind, because the way you've phrased really provides a great opportunity for expressing my own two cents on that aspect.

The distinction I draw on what is/isn't would be is whether they view those things are areas where their actions need improvement or if they claim them to be acceptable. In regard to how different denominations within Christianity deal with gay issues specifically, their claims ring extremely hollow with me if they argue that it's acceptable behavior. On the other hand if they deal with members from the standpoint of helping them overcome their sin then I don't know how that's any different than any of the examples you mention.

I don't give a shit who marries who and I find the tone obnoxious. I don't think many minds get changed that way, and its the kind of condescending sentiment that fans the flames of religious fundamentalism.

I don't disagree with you. But it's a topic that gets people angry, just like sports, politics, etc. It is what it is.

Religious folks are getting talked down to. Homosexual folks are being denied things available to everybody else.

Sorry Gh, but that's utter bullshit. And it may be the one outright lie that is repeated most often in order to try to fool the sheeple.

They are not being denied a damned thing. They have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. When two heterosexuals are allowed to marry people of the same gender (for tax reasons let's say) but homosexuals are not afforded the same opportunity then they're being denied something. Until then, the claim is nothing more than false propaganda.

Its ok to "Poop-on-Noop" Its a fetish of his.

No my fetish is arguing with a middle aged man who believes his way is the right way.

There's a lot of things that are condemned in the bible. It doesn't matter though, Christ accepts all.


The NT should have been just two paragraphs long:

"No matter what you do, all will be forgiven so long as you accept Jesus, the son of God, in to your heart and repent whatever sins you've made.

Oh, and this Jesus dude suffered a HELL of a lot of pain to set this deal up for you with his dad. Believe me. You should feel awfully guilty about that."

:D

Although I wasn't in this original subplot, I'd like to take a shot an answering that question if you don't mind, because the way you've phrased really provides a great opportunity for expressing my own two cents on that aspect.

The distinction I draw on what is/isn't would be is whether they view those things are areas where their actions need improvement or if they claim them to be acceptable. In regard to how different denominations within Christianity deal with gay issues specifically, their claims ring extremely hollow with me if they argue that it's acceptable behavior. On the other hand if they deal with members from the standpoint of helping them overcome their sin then I don't know how that's any different than any of the examples you mention.

I must disagree with you on this point. In my view, true Christianity is a transformative religion. Not to say people are immediately made perfect, because that just isn't going to happen for any of us in this life.

However, the Bible teaches Christians to "renew their minds" and "conform" to Christ and not the world. None of the sins I mentioned are unforgivable, however, people who continue to habitually participate in them after "conversion", or feel no remose or shame for doing so, I certainly would question the sincerity of their Christianity.

Sorry Gh, but that's utter bullshit. And it may be the one outright lie that is repeated most often in order to try to fool the sheeple.

They are not being denied a damned thing. They have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. When two heterosexuals are allowed to marry people of the same gender (for tax reasons let's say) but homosexuals are not afforded the same opportunity then they're being denied something. Until then, the claim is nothing more than false propaganda.

OK, forgetting marriage, how about adoption? No matter what the wording on the various state's laws on adoption, you can't deny that they are targetting gay couples.

OK, forgetting marriage, how about adoption? No matter what the wording on the various state's laws on adoption, you can't deny that they are targetting gay couples.

Ultimately the well being of the child seems to be the likely charge of most agencies. Given that I cannot find any circumstance where placing a child in such an environment is a good thing, I imagine that most of the cases that you call discrimination I'd simply call exercising good judgment.

I must disagree with you on this point. ... however, people who continue to habitually participate in them after "conversion", or feel no remose or shame for doing so, I certainly would question the sincerity of their Christianity.

{scratches head}

Where did we disagree. I swear your last sentence seems to be saying what I was trying to say.

Sorry, guess I misread your post. Been a looong day. :)

Ultimately the well being of the child seems to be the likely charge of most agencies. Given that I cannot find any circumstance where placing a child in such an environment is a good thing, I imagine that most of the cases that you call discrimination I'd simply call exercising good judgment.

I'm not talking about individual cases, I'm talking about overall adoption laws. For example, Arkansas bans anyone from adoption who is "co-habitating outside of a valid marriage". Utah is the same. Mississippi prohibits couples of the same gender. In plenty of other states it's listed as "not clear".

Regardless of whether you personally consider it good judgement, it's discriminating against same-sex couples.

Ultimately the well being of the child seems to be the likely charge of most agencies. Given that I cannot find any circumstance where placing a child in such an environment is a good thing, I imagine that most of the cases that you call discrimination I'd simply call exercising good judgment.

can you find circumstances where it's a bad thing?

can't you find circumstances where placing them in a hetero home is a bad thing?

can't you find circumstances where placing them in a hetero home is a bad thing?

Yeah. My mother was a social worker for 20 years. If you guys want some horror stories, believe me, I've got some.

can you find circumstances where it's a bad thing?

Any circumstance where that lifestyle is in play is a "bad thing" afaic. It's unacceptable and should never be presented in any other fashion. We aren't likely to find much common ground on that, but that's where I am with it & we both know the likelihood of either of us moving on it.

But I didn't want to ignore that question while answering the other one, which is perfectly valid.

can't you find circumstances where placing them in a hetero home is a bad thing?

Absolutely. And they shouldn't be placing children in those homes either. Do they misfire & do so? Sure, human error or just plain incompetence. But hopefully they aren't so negligent as to miss on cases where the unacceptable situation is equally as obvious. If so, then we're back to needed to clean house on organizations who fail at their task so completely.

Sorry Gh, but that's utter bullshit. And it may be the one outright lie that is repeated most often in order to try to fool the sheeple.

They are not being denied a damned thing. They have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. When two heterosexuals are allowed to marry people of the same gender (for tax reasons let's say) but homosexuals are not afforded the same opportunity then they're being denied something. Until then, the claim is nothing more than false propaganda.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I had the right to marry the person I loved, she happened to be a woman - tick one for hetero's.

A gay person might not have the right to marry the person they loved, cross one for gay people.

As such its a bit unfair to say they have the same rights as anyone else.

imho It'd be a bit like only allowing one religion within a country then saying that isn't persecuting someone from another religion because they have every right to follow the 'allowed' religion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


Yep, as is the case in threads like these sometimes.

The NT should have been just two paragraphs long:

"No matter what you do, all will be forgiven so long as you accept Jesus, the son of God, in to your heart and repent whatever sins you've made.

Oh, and this Jesus dude suffered a HELL of a lot of pain to set this deal up for you with his dad. Believe me. You should feel awfully guilty about that."

:D

I think the "guilt" sentence is Catholicism while if you take that sentence out, you have Protestants (mostly). Man, that would have been a lot easier to memorize in school.

SI

The distinction I draw on what is/isn't would be is whether they view those things are areas where their actions need improvement or if they claim them to be acceptable. In regard to how different denominations within Christianity deal with gay issues specifically, their claims ring extremely hollow with me if they argue that it's acceptable behavior. On the other hand if they deal with members from the standpoint of helping them overcome their sin then I don't know how that's any different than any of the examples you mention.

I wold argue similarly but differently - in that I have yet to find a christian church which obeys all the rules and regulations in the bible because some are contradictory and some simply illogical ... for this reason Christianity is very much a 'pick your flavour' religion where people settle into a church which suits their opinions and interpretation of the bible*.

Some churches choose to decide that gay people are cool these days, others are cool with eating pork .... you picks your choice and you run with it.

(personally speaking I think none of em are quite 100% correct but I'm pretty sure God doesn't really care and for that reason alone I try not to get over excited about the differences myself ... ;) )

*If you doubt this then try:
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Now I get the picture you're against gay marriage but I doubt you're after culling them out of the population? .... there you go, you've chosen a specific biblical rule to dodge, welcome to the club :D

*If you doubt this then try:
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Now I get the picture you're against gay marriage but I doubt you're after culling them out of the population? .... there you go, you've chosen a specific biblical rule to dodge, welcome to the club :D

Don't be so sure.

Seriously.

This is JIMGA we're talking about. I think you might have made a bad assumption ;)

SI

Sorry Gh, but that's utter bullshit. And it may be the one outright lie that is repeated most often in order to try to fool the sheeple.

They are not being denied a damned thing. They have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. When two heterosexuals are allowed to marry people of the same gender (for tax reasons let's say) but homosexuals are not afforded the same opportunity then they're being denied something. Until then, the claim is nothing more than false propaganda.


That's like saying, "Whites Only" and then claiming that, "Hey, we didn't say black people couldn't do it. We just said whites only."

Now I get the picture you're against gay marriage but I doubt you're after culling them out of the population?

Doggone it, both KWhit & SI beat me to the rather obvious punchline.

Don't sell KWhit short, either- he beat me to the punch ;)

SI

That's like saying, "Whites Only" and then claiming that, "Hey, we didn't say black people couldn't do it. We just said whites only."

Again, I have no choice but to call bullshit. That's a nice little argument that might play well with a home crowd but there's zero relationship between the the two scenarios. Again, you can easily construct one with the same actors (just as I did) but currently none exists.

Again, I have no choice but to call bullshit. That's a nice little argument that might play well with a home crowd but there's zero relationship between the the two scenarios. Again, you can easily construct one with the same actors (just as I did) but currently none exists.

So just be clear...you are saying that homosexuals are NOT being discriminated against because there's no laws or whatever, saying that they can not marry someone of the opposite sex? If so, you don't see the apples to oranges comparison you are trying to make?

The argument isn't about gay people wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex, the argument is about gay people wanting to marry someone of the same sex. By inacting laws or admendments to a constitution saying that only men can marry women and women can only marry men, IS discriminating against people who do not fit that mold.

No different than when there were laws saying that whites could only marry whites. It's that people now have gotten smatter and know that it's not PC to be overtly bigoted and they cleverly ommit things like, what a persons sexual preference must be in order to get married.

You change the wording of the admendment to California's constitution on marriage to "Marriage is defined as between a heterosexual man and woman" from "Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman". That would have been thrown out from the start and would have never been on the ballot. Come on, we are all smart enough to know that by just saying only a man and woman can get married, we really know the meaning of that is to exclude gay people.

If I am completely not understanding what you are saying, I apologize.

My wife and I often talk about how someone "doesn't realize they're on Colbert". This happens at least once a week on the show. Someone- an agent or advisor- explains to the guest some mistaken impression about how he's a conservative with a little satire and they expect one thing, trying to have a really serious conversation. And then he whips out something they say and twists it all around to an extreme and the guest looks at him like he's serious and crazy. Those are the people who "don't realize they're on Colbert".

Some people need to realize "they're talking to JIMGA" :D

SI

My wife and I often talk about how someone "doesn't realize they're on Colbert". This happens at least once a week on the show. Someone- an agent or advisor- explains to the guest some mistaken impression about how he's a conservative with a little satire and they expect one thing, trying to have a really serious conversation. And then he whips out something they say and twists it all around to an extreme and the guest looks at him like he's serious and crazy. Those are the people who "don't realize they're on Colbert".

Some people need to realize "they're talking to JIMGA" :D

SI

If we could only hear peoples voice tone in regards to what they type... :)

Again, I have no choice but to call bullshit. That's a nice little argument that might play well with a home crowd but there's zero relationship between the the two scenarios. Again, you can easily construct one with the same actors (just as I did) but currently none exists.
They are very similar. The rhetoric is the same. You're telling a group of people in this country that they are not allowed to do something that others are. Just as you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, people in our country's past have said it's between a white male and white woman.

The man/woman thing is inconsequential. It is not the government's responsibility to tell you who to love. A gay person can't change who they fall in love with anymore than a heterosexual male. It's in their genes, not unlike the genes that determine our height, hair color, and skin pigmentation. To discriminate against any of those would be just as bigoted.

Maybe RendeR can give some you guys the reach around.

And in today's news, from my own country:

Christian group says gay couples use children as trophies | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25105081-29277,00.html)

Christian group says gay couples use children as trophies


A CHRISTIAN group has told a New South Wales Parliamentary inquiry gay people are using children for symbolic gains in pursuing their right to adopt.
<!-- // END article intro ************************************** --><!-- // article corpus ************************************** -->The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) told the Standing Committee of Law and Justice's inquiry into adoption by same sex couples that children should ideally be raised by a mother and father.

The Parliamentary inquiry follows a request from Community Services Minister Linda (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=29277&as=news&ac=ninews2&q=Community Services Minister Linda)Burney to look at altering the NSW Adoption Act (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=29277&as=news&ac=ninews2&q=NSW Adoption Act)to allow same-sex couples to adopt.

Under NSW law, a single gay person can adopt a child but their partner is not legally recognised as a parent. The lobby's submission, which was scrutinised by committee members from all sides of politics, said a homosexual relationship did not provide a stable environment for a child.

"Research shows that the most stable relationship is a married heterosexual relationship and that's where there is the least promiscuity," ACL spokesman Lyle Shelton (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=29277&as=news&ac=ninews2&q=Lyle Shelton)told the inquiry.

The move to legalise adoption by same-sex couples was ideologically driven by gay activists, Mr Shelton said.

"Not content with having discrimination removed, (they) are now pursuing symbolic gains and holding up children as trophies for their own agenda," he said.

Labor MP Amanda Fazio challenged the group's views on homosexual promiscuity, saying one quarter of children to married couples are not fathered by the husband.

"If you're going to use promiscuity as a basis for denying people the right to adoption, then how are you going to apply that across the board ... to the heterosexual community?" Ms Fazio asked.

"It seems to me that's just an attempt to smear gay men in their attempts to gain the right to adopt."

Liberal MP John Ajaka also questioned the group's stance on protecting the nuclear family.

"Not all children today are raised by a mother or father. Many are raised ... by one parent only. Many are raised by a grandmother and a grandfather," Mr Ajaka said.

"You've got children who have been adopted by a single person and that person may be gay or lesbian.

"How can you put that together with your concept that the normal family is a man and a woman in a loving relationship when that really does not exist today."

My favourite part is under-lined. "Not content with having discrimination removed". This is a fun line.

"Not content with having discrimination removed, women now want to earn the same as men"
"Not content with having discrimination removed, black people now want to run for president"

:D

And in today's news, from my own country:

Christian group says gay couples use children as trophies | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25105081-29277,00.html)


My favourite part is under-lined. "Not content with having discrimination removed". This is a fun line.

"Not content with having discrimination removed, women now want to earn the same as men"
"Not content with having discrimination removed, black people now want to run for president"

:D


Shouldn't they be trying to recruit more people rather than trying to drive people away? After all, a dollar is a dollar and in these tough economic times, who cares if it's a gay dollar or a straight dollar?

Shouldn't they be trying to recruit more people rather than trying to drive people away? After all, a dollar is a dollar and in these tough economic times, who cares if it's a gay dollar or a straight dollar?

Hate and bigotry is actually a great way to bring people closer to the group. I'd imagine that donations go up everytime they get attention like this.

During these discussions, I can never tell what faces more intolerance: homosexuality or religion.

It's easy to bash religion in this context but look in the mirror - you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing the other side of doing.

Yup.

Yup.

Damn those gays, saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed to live together, adopt children and are going to burn in hell for eternity.

I understand your point. People can be intolerant assholes about many things. Religion is definitely one of them. And there are always two sides for every argument. But I think you are missing the point just a little bit here.

Damn those gays, saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed to live together, adopt children and are going to burn in hell for eternity.


When will the time come that gays stop trying to legislate their way of life onto christians? I mean, come on, enough is enough. I can't even begin to tell you how many christian lives have been destroyed because of all the gayness that goes on in todays world.



Hate and bigotry is actually a great way to bring people closer to the group. I'd imagine that donations go up everytime they get attention like this.

Now that I think about it, that does not surprise me the least.

And in today's news, from my own country:

Christian group says gay couples use children as trophies | National Breaking News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25105081-29277,00.html)


My favourite part is under-lined. "Not content with having discrimination removed". This is a fun line.

"Not content with having discrimination removed, women now want to earn the same as men"
"Not content with having discrimination removed, black people now want to run for president"

:D

I do love how theyre admitting to the discrimination though. Kind of sets fire to this thread. Im tired of having to have that couple minutes at the beginning of school where we have to endure people having their moment of gayness.

In fairness, women weren't exactly recognized much by early Christians either. Neither were the mentally retarded (and still aren't to this day in some parts). Scientists and mathematicians weren't accepted much either.

Christianity has a long history of going from not accepting a group to accepting them at a later date. So to say that Christianity "won't" accept homosexuality is presumptuous.

It's funny but the devout Christian's on here keep ignoring these points that a couple of us have mentioned. They appear to continue to conveniently accept that someone in their church can change theses things on a whim whenever they want.

So just be clear...you are saying that homosexuals are NOT being discriminated against because there's no laws or whatever, saying that they can not marry someone of the opposite sex? If so, you don't see the apples to oranges comparison you are trying to make?
[quote]

You can dislike my position all you want but I'm not the one trying to turn apples into oranges here.

[quote] the argument is about gay people wanting to marry someone of the same sex.

Which isn't/shouldn't be permitted, as marriage is one each from the two different genders.

By inacting laws or admendments to a constitution saying that only men can marry women and women can only marry men, IS discriminating against people who do not fit that mold.

What part of tough fucking shit isn't getting through here? It may not suit their preference but it's notdiscriminatory, they have precisely the same right as everyone else. If they choose not to exercise it that's their decision.

No different than when there were laws saying that whites could only marry whites.

To borrow this, just to make clear what I was trying to say before, the example you raise here is also not remotely discriminatory as long as all races/ethnicities/whatever have the same restriction. Saying blacks only marry blacks but putting no restriction on any other races, creed, color, whatehaveyou, that's discriminatory. Or people 6' tall can only marry people under 5' tall, which is discriminatory unless you say everyone has to marry someone 1' shorter than them. Saying same to same across all may not suit everyone's taste but it isn't discriminatory in even the slightest manner, and frankly attempts to claim that it is really start to wander into claiming a blue sky is polka dotted. You can say it until the cows come home but it doesn't make it true.

Now I really don't particularly mind the polka dot sky crowd all that much in & of themselves, if that's what they want to believe & it helps them sleep at night I'll just shrug. But when they start trying to force everyone else to call it polka dotted too, it's cute for about half a minute in a you're-stark-raving-insane sort of way then it becomes incredibly annoying and then it just pisses people off. And real remaining question is whether eventually people who know better will finally just say "whatever" and go along with this nonsense in order to shut up the nutjobs or if they eventually piss off enough people that they discover what a touch of discrimination really looks like.
Unfortunately I don't really have much confidence in the latter as we seem to be a society that leans toward tolerating the intolerable more often than not, but time will tell I suppose.

It's funny but the devout Christian's on here keep ignoring these points that a couple of us have mentioned. They appear to continue to conveniently accept that someone in their church can change theses things on a whim whenever they want.

Maybe it's because you yourself (and others) try to lump Christians into one big convenient category. Ever think that Christians might be "different" individuals with 'different" thoughts on "different" things? We also may interpret things differently. Yet, this doesn't happen with anything else in society.

Shocking, I know.

I think that's why I comment in these threads. What you and some people whom think like you on these boards fits into this category of "Christian" is a stereotype of Christians based on charachteristics you think we all share. That stereotype is no less offensive than other stereotypes to me (at least personally).

Damn those gays, saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed to live together, adopt children and are going to burn in hell for eternity.

I understand your point. People can be intolerant assholes about many things. Religion is definitely one of them. And there are always two sides for every argument. But I think you are missing the point just a little bit here.

Well, my comment was the point that those who critcize Christians for blanketedly blocking/disliking gays are criticizing Christians in itself a blanketedly disliking way.

In combination with my other post above, some people are criticizing "Christians" as a group for stereotyping homosexuals where they don't see their own activity as unfair stereotyping in and of itself.

There's not "two" sides to every argument, but rather hundreds and hundreds of different points of view. Why we try to lump them together in an A vs. B argument is beyond me.

Well, my comment was the point that those who critcize Christians for blanketedly blocking/disliking gays are criticizing Christians in itself a blanketedly disliking way.

There's not "two" sides to every argument, but rather hundreds and hundreds of different points of view. Why we try to lump them together in an A vs. B argument is beyond me.

FWIW, I agree it's an offensive stereotyope, but this would be a more legitimate argument if not for the fact that invariably, someone cites Christianity as their reasoning for "blocking/dislking gays" in the first place.

During these discussions, I can never tell what faces more intolerance: homosexuality or religion.

It's easy to bash religion in this context but look in the mirror - you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing the other side of doing.

Really, they're trying to deny equal rights to christians? Can you give me some examples? I was unaware of any movement to deny christians any rights held by nonchristians.

Really, they're trying to deny equal rights to christians? Can you give me some examples? I was unaware of any movement to deny christians any rights held by nonchristians.

but but...in Jon's world it's not discrimination because the gays have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like hetero people do. It would only be discrimination (in his mind) if we said "gay people cannot marry anybody."

At least I think that was the crux of his post above. Which is...frankly...tbh...the words for how asinine that are, I'm not sure they exist.

the words for how asinine that are, I'm not sure they exist.

Sums up pretty well how I feel every time I hear the absurd claim that gays are being denied equal access to marriage. It's that polka dot sky thing and I honestly cannot fathom how anyone fails to see that. Then again, I'm not convinced how many don't see it versus how many are in denial about the truth because it doesn't suit them. I have to be unconvinced about that, otherwise I'd have even graver concerns about the state of sanity in this country than I already do and I really don't need the additional depression of that.

Sums up pretty well how I feel every time I hear the absurd claim that gays are being denied equal access to marriage. It's that polka dot sky thing and I honestly cannot fathom how anyone fails to see that. Then again, I'm not convinced how many don't see it versus how many are in denial about the truth because it doesn't suit them. I have to be unconvinced about that, otherwise I'd have even graver concerns about the state of sanity in this country than I already do and I really don't need the additional depression of that.


Probably because most people don't get tied down to the minutia of the language when forming opinions of issues. The issue is one group of citizens can marry the ones that they love and one group can't and that's the discrimination that's happening. Of course, if someone loves sheep he's discriminated against but so what, no one can marry sheep. It's not that difficult unless you really try to take an exceedingly technical view of the language of the issue and are really really culling the issue for a particular justification of a particular agenda. I'm betting most people aren't doing that.

Really, they're trying to deny equal rights to christians? Can you give me some examples? I was unaware of any movement to deny christians any rights held by nonchristians.

It's not "Christians" in general who are trying to deny equal rights, but those individuals in power who use Christianity as a baton to whack their agenda in our society.

Just like a few rotten apples shouldn't make all fruit bad, a few people who associate themselves with the Christian faith but have power to make social changes based on their own personal beliefs.

It's not "Christians" in general who are trying to deny equal rights, but those individuals in power who use Christianity as a baton to whack their agenda in our society.

Just like a few rotten apples shouldn't make all fruit bad, a few people who associate themselves with the Christian faith but have power to make social changes based on their own personal beliefs.

There is a semblance of truth to that. There are certainly Christians who don't use their faith as a baton to whack society over the head with their agenda. Unfortunately they don't tend to draw as much press as the whackjobs who are using it as a baton, so you can understand how when one starts getting involved in discussions one can fail to be seperate the good from the bad and just lump everything together for the sake of timeliness or being lazy if nothing else.

That's why I don't believe in painting everyone with a broad brush, but rather investigating a little more and finding out about the person in question.

That's why I don't believe in painting everyone with a broad brush, but rather investigating a little more and finding out about the person in question.

That's why I didn't single out individual christians but the group. You can't be part of a group though that promotes an agenda and get a free pass because it's not your agenda. You have to take the bad with the good in a case like that. I'm not willing to do that which is why I'm not a christian. I follow the teaching of christ for the most part and don't feel uncomfortable with most christians or christian discussions but I'd never want to be associated with what that group believes in. I'll agree that most christians don't either but for whatever reasons ( burning in hell is a damned good reason if you believe in that )they choose to associate and vote with those that do.

I do wonder though why organized churches are that important to christians. Jesus didn't form a church, he made it real easy, "For wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

That's not only easy but practical because you don't get so much power hungry people in small groups. We saw what JC thought about the temple in his day. It doesn't seem much has changed since then on that score. SHURG.

That's why I didn't single out individual christians but the group. You can't be part of a group though that promotes an agenda and get a free pass because it's not your agenda. You have to take the bad with the good in a case like that. I'm not willing to do that which is why I'm not a christian. I follow the teaching of christ for the most part and don't feel uncomfortable with most christians or christian discussions but I'd never want to be associated with what that group believes in. I'll agree that most christians don't either but for whatever reasons ( burning in hell is a damned good reason if you believe in that )they choose to associate and vote with those that do.

I do wonder though why organized churches are that important to christians. Jesus didn't form a church, he made it real easy, "For wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

That's not only easy but practical because you don't get so much power hungry people in small groups. We saw what JC thought about the temple in his day. It doesn't seem much has changed since then on that score. SHURG.

Wowsers. You sound exactly like me on this score. Freaky.

My whole view on the church as an institution is colored by history - it's an institution that rose to prominence during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages as a way for a group of people to ensure their survival and relative prosperity during difficult times.

Mind you I'm not saying that was everybody's motive for joining the church then, but it certainly had to be a powerful subconscious motivator ("well i can go toil in the fields and get injured and die or starve, or i can go sit in a monestary and chant a bunch and live off the tithe") for many folks, and probably to some degree a conscious motivator to those higher-up.

And now it's all about continuing to maintain their position and relevance. If everybody Christian realized they didn't need the Pope, then OMG, he might need to actually get a job and give up his gorgeous apartment (that's an oversimplification, but it makes the point).

Wowsers. You sound exactly like me on this score. Freaky.

My whole view on the church as an institution is colored by history - it's an institution that rose to prominence during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages as a way for a group of people to ensure their survival and relative prosperity during difficult times.

Mind you I'm not saying that was everybody's motive for joining the church then, but it certainly had to be a powerful subconscious motivator ("well i can go toil in the fields and get injured and die or starve, or i can go sit in a monestary and chant a bunch and live off the tithe") for many folks, and probably to some degree a conscious motivator to those higher-up.

And now it's all about continuing to maintain their position and relevance. If everybody Christian realized they didn't need the Pope, then OMG, he might need to actually get a job and give up his gorgeous apartment (that's an oversimplification, but it makes the point).


Forget the apartment, he'd have to give up THE POPEMOBILE!!!!

that's true. and the swank hats!

that's true. and the swank hats!

We really do think too much alike as my first thought was to mention the hats but the popemobile sounded cooler.

JIMGA -

Gay marriage bans are discrimination, plain and simple. You insist on looking at it from the point of view that they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. But that's not the issue.

Sexual discrimination is against the law with regard to entering into contracts. Government-recognized marriage is nothing but a contract. So we can construct a simple scenario very easily that shows that bans on gay marriage are, in fact, sexual discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.

Take John, Jane, and James. Let's say Jane wishes to enter into the marriage contract with John. That is fine and is allowed. Now let's say James wishes to enter into the marriage contract with John. That is not allowed. We have two separate parties that wish to enter into a contract with a third party (John). One of them is allowed to do so and one of them is not. The only difference between the two parties as it relates to the contract's legality is their sex. That is sexual discrimination. Obviously John gets to choose which of the two he wants to enter into the contract with. However, the same thing applies from his perspective. He is allowed to enter into the contract with Jane but not with John only because John is male.

That's all there is to it. It's not that complicated. I used to be against gay marriage being legal on the basis of government interest in the institution of marriage. The government's biggest interest in promoting marriage should be procreation and the continuation of the society. Gay marriage does not serve to promote that. However, our laws specifically forbid sexual discrimination. Therefore, under our current law, bans against gay marriage are illegal. We could change the law, which is a different discussion. But that's the way it currently is.

JIMGA -

Gay marriage bans are discrimination, plain and simple. You insist on looking at it from the point of view that they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. But that's not the issue.

Sexual discrimination is against the law with regard to entering into contracts. Government-recognized marriage is nothing but a contract. So we can construct a simple scenario very easily that shows that bans on gay marriage are, in fact, sexual discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.

Take John, Jane, and James. Let's say Jane wishes to enter into the marriage contract with John. That is fine and is allowed. Now let's say James wishes to enter into the marriage contract with John. That is not allowed. We have two separate parties that wish to enter into a contract with a third party (John). One of them is allowed to do so and one of them is not. The only difference between the two parties as it relates to the contract's legality is their sex. That is sexual discrimination. Obviously John gets to choose which of the two he wants to enter into the contract with. However, the same thing applies from his perspective. He is allowed to enter into the contract with Jane but not with John only because John is male.

That's all there is to it. It's not that complicated. I used to be against gay marriage being legal on the basis of government interest in the institution of marriage. The government's biggest interest in promoting marriage should be procreation and the continuation of the society. Gay marriage does not serve to promote that. However, our laws specifically forbid sexual discrimination. Therefore, under our current law, bans against gay marriage are illegal. We could change the law, which is a different discussion. But that's the way it currently is.

thanks for taking the time to go through that Huck. I wanted to, I just couldn't really justify spending the time to do it.