dpattle Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I live in Ohio, where it is currently illegal for gay's to get married...that seems like a govt issue to me. Also it's a religious issue because the concept of marriage came from religion, likewise they have the right to refuse service to someone. Actually, no. It's neither a "religious [nor] governmental issue". The fact is that there really is no "religious" impediment to gay marriage, nor can gays be denied the right to "marriage" by any government with operates under any form of constitutional law based upon human rights. [hide=]You think you got it bad?My school blocks Neopets.Those dirty bastards try to keep me from feeding my Ixi. Ha![/hide]Important Slayer Drops: masks-8, leafbladed sword, gmaul-3Important treasure trail rewards: zammy page 1(3), rune kite g, zammy crozier, sara mitre, sara dhide, rune helm h1, guth page 4(2), zammy full helm, guth legs(3), sara chaps, guth page 3, zammy legs(2), and sara full helm, zammy pl8, zammy page 2, rune cane, sara page, sara crozier, zammy crozier, guth coif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmanpur3 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I personally am against homosexuality. There i said it. Now don't get me wrong, i do NOT hate homosexuals or despise them in any way, i just think "that part of their life" is wrong. I'm glad someone shares my viewpoint. I'm also against being black, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not racist, I just think "that part of them" is wrong. :roll: As in i'm against the act, but not the people. As in i wouldn't do what they do but i wouldn't not pick a guy for teams just because he's homo. If you don't understand that, then idk what else to say, or why you don't for that matter. Idc what they do, but i am against it, but do not discriminate against them as people. Its really not that hard to comprehend. :wall: The question at hand isn't "would or wouldn't you do homosexual acts?" but rather "do you think homosexuality is right or wrong?". Now just because you won't personally do something doesn't mean you consider it wrong, so why not just say "I don't think homosexuality is wrong, but I myself would never partake in it"? And if you actually do think it's wrong, give us reasons why (so we can then go on to explain why your reasons are silly). Honestly, saying you're personally against homosexuality because you won't partake in homosexual activities is like me saying I'm against people eating chocolate because I personally think it's disgusting. May the presents of our lord and savior, Santa, be with you this holiday season!First annual Clausmas - 2009 December 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blyaunte Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I am not homosexual. I find two men having sex to be somewhat...Offsetting...But I really don't care if two gays want to get together in a room on the other side of the country. I fail to see why anyone here should care. But, you like to watch two women do it, right? -.- Um, no. Stop putting words in my mouth. Why don't you actually read my posts instead of making [developmentally delayed] assumptions? Right -- that's what you're saying now ... :lol: Did you know that, while Leviticus made commentary about man-on-man action being an "abomination", he didn't actually say anything bad about girl-on-girl? A coincidence? I wonder ... You do realize I support gay marriage, right? Read some of my posts, like I said. Yeah, I know -- I just like giving you the gears because it's fun and I am bored ... ;) And could it possibly be because women had little/no rights back then, aka thousands of years ago? The Israelites were no doubt a patriarchal society. Quite right -- women were considered second class beings in those days -- third class if you include donkeys ... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattle Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I personally am against homosexuality. There i said it. Now don't get me wrong, i do NOT hate homosexuals or despise them in any way, i just think "that part of their life" is wrong. I'm glad someone shares my viewpoint. I'm also against being black, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not racist, I just think "that part of them" is wrong. :roll: As in i'm against the act, but not the people. As in i wouldn't do what they do but i wouldn't not pick a guy for teams just because he's homo. If you don't understand that, then idk what else to say, or why you don't for that matter. Idc what they do, but i am against it, but do not discriminate against them as people. Its really not that hard to comprehend. :wall: The question at hand isn't "would or wouldn't you do homosexual acts?" but rather "do you think homosexuality is right or wrong?". Now just because you won't personally do something doesn't mean you consider it wrong, so why not just say "I don't think homosexuality is wrong, but I myself would never partake in it"? And if you actually do think it's wrong, give us reasons why (so we can then go on to explain why your reasons are silly). Honestly, saying you're personally against homosexuality because you won't partake in homosexual activities is like me saying I'm against people eating chocolate because I personally think it's disgusting. I said i'm against it, and i had to make the other comment because for some reason people think because you're against something, you hate everyone that does that thing. I also said why i'm against it in earlier posts...don't feel like restating soz. [hide=]You think you got it bad?My school blocks Neopets.Those dirty bastards try to keep me from feeding my Ixi. Ha![/hide]Important Slayer Drops: masks-8, leafbladed sword, gmaul-3Important treasure trail rewards: zammy page 1(3), rune kite g, zammy crozier, sara mitre, sara dhide, rune helm h1, guth page 4(2), zammy full helm, guth legs(3), sara chaps, guth page 3, zammy legs(2), and sara full helm, zammy pl8, zammy page 2, rune cane, sara page, sara crozier, zammy crozier, guth coif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blyaunte Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I live in Ohio, where it is currently illegal for gay's to get married...that seems like a govt issue to me. Also it's a religious issue because the concept of marriage came from religion, likewise they have the right to refuse service to someone. Actually, no. It's neither a "religious [nor] governmental issue". The fact is that there really is no "religious" impediment to gay marriage, nor can gays be denied the right to "marriage" by any government with operates under any form of constitutional law based upon human rights. Actually -- it's currently against the "The Defense of Marriage Act" -- however it is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the USA. DOMA is on Obama's repeal listing, and I would imagine it won't survive his first term. As far as religion providing the "concept" of marriage goes -- you are plainly mistaken. Originally, marriage was little more than a business arrangement between families. Religion was brought into it much later ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotishobbit Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 And could it possibly be because women had little/no rights back then, aka thousands of years ago? The Israelites were no doubt a patriarchal society. Quite right -- women were considered second class beings in those days -- third class if you include donkeys ... :rolleyes: Actually Israeli culture held women in higher standards than most think. Lineage, for example, has always been traced through the mother not the father. >< We are getting off topic. So please no more dissing my religion. :evil: Thank you Jopie for my wonderful Signature ^.^Buckle-Up it makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattle Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I live in Ohio, where it is currently illegal for gay's to get married...that seems like a govt issue to me. Also it's a religious issue because the concept of marriage came from religion, likewise they have the right to refuse service to someone. Actually, no. It's neither a "religious [nor] governmental issue". The fact is that there really is no "religious" impediment to gay marriage, nor can gays be denied the right to "marriage" by any government with operates under any form of constitutional law based upon human rights. Actually -- it's currently against the "The Defense of Marriage Act" -- however it is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the USA. DOMA is on Obama's repeal listing, and I would imagine it won't survive his first term. As far as religion providing the "concept" of marriage goes -- you are plainly mistaken. Originally, marriage was little more than a business arrangement between families. Religion was brought into it much later ... OH boy. 1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. 2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. How is this a against the act? Ohio doesn't infact recognize any relationships b/w persons of the same sex as a marriage. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Hmm, interesting or what? [hide=]You think you got it bad?My school blocks Neopets.Those dirty bastards try to keep me from feeding my Ixi. Ha![/hide]Important Slayer Drops: masks-8, leafbladed sword, gmaul-3Important treasure trail rewards: zammy page 1(3), rune kite g, zammy crozier, sara mitre, sara dhide, rune helm h1, guth page 4(2), zammy full helm, guth legs(3), sara chaps, guth page 3, zammy legs(2), and sara full helm, zammy pl8, zammy page 2, rune cane, sara page, sara crozier, zammy crozier, guth coif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blyaunte Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 And could it possibly be because women had little/no rights back then, aka thousands of years ago? The Israelites were no doubt a patriarchal society. Quite right -- women were considered second class beings in those days -- third class if you include donkeys ... :rolleyes: Actually Israeli culture held women in higher standards than most think. Lineage, for example, has always been traced through the mother not the father. >< We are getting off topic. So please no more dissing my religion. :evil: My apologies -- I have great respect for Judaism ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotishobbit Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 ^^ Sorry I live in the bible belt I get easily offended for some reason > Thank you Jopie for my wonderful Signature ^.^Buckle-Up it makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmanpur3 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I said i'm against it, and i had to make the other comment because for some reason people think because you're against something, you hate everyone that does that thing. I also said why i'm against it in earlier posts...don't feel like restating soz. Ok, if you're saying you're against it because you personally wouldn't partake in homosexual activity...then I'm flat out going to say that's [developmentally delayed]ed. May the presents of our lord and savior, Santa, be with you this holiday season!First annual Clausmas - 2009 December 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blyaunte Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I live in Ohio, where it is currently illegal for gay's to get married...that seems like a govt issue to me. Also it's a religious issue because the concept of marriage came from religion, likewise they have the right to refuse service to someone. Actually, no. It's neither a "religious [nor] governmental issue". The fact is that there really is no "religious" impediment to gay marriage, nor can gays be denied the right to "marriage" by any government with operates under any form of constitutional law based upon human rights. Actually -- it's currently against the "The Defense of Marriage Act" -- however it is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the USA. DOMA is on Obama's repeal listing, and I would imagine it won't survive his first term. As far as religion providing the "concept" of marriage goes -- you are plainly mistaken. Originally, marriage was little more than a business arrangement between families. Religion was brought into it much later ... OH boy. 1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. 2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. How is this a against the act? Ohio doesn't infact recognize any relationships b/w persons of the same sex as a marriage. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Hmm, interesting or what? You're missing the point. Sure, gay marriage is "disavowed" but it's not like the American government is making homosexual unions "illegal" by rounding up gay couples and putting them into concentration camps. It's not even a misdemeanor. DOMA is a ridiculous and superfluous Act -- nothing more. BTW -- did you know that inter-racial marriages were once banned, by laws similar to DOMA, as set out by the U.S. government. At one time, depending on the colour of your skin, you could likewise be denied living accommodation in certain areas of the U.S. Even if you had the money, you weren't allowed to live in certain neighbourhoods -- nor could you marry someone who's skin colour was different than yours. Ridiculous stuff, isn't it? Tell me, should your government be allowed to tell you where you can live and work? Should it have the power to decide who you should and should not marry? Would you really want to live in a country that has a government that would deny you these rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Would you really want to live in a country that has a government that would deny you these rights? You mean like almost every nation on Earth? The United States is unique in that we allow unparalleled freedom to our citizens. Even "oh so superior" nations like England, France, and Canada still have SEDITION laws on the books. Some even still allow for bills of attainder. This is a hotly debated issue in America, and eventually it will likely be a new freedom for people to enjoy. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Isn't the Smith Act an American sedition law in all but name? He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Isn't the Smith Act an American sedition law in all but name? It's a law that can't be enforced. Essentially a blue law except weaker. Nobody has been prosecuted under that law for more than 50 years. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raven_gaurd0 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Laws that are in effect but can't be enforced...Mmm, sounds like the Prohibition Act to me. I've seen over time that America likes to pass laws it really can't or won't enforce. Like the Platt Amendment of 1901. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Laws that are in effect but can't be enforced...Mmm, sounds like the Prohibition Act to me. I've seen over time that America likes to pass laws it really can't or won't enforce. Like the Platt Amendment of 1901. Something completely different. Prohibition was passed by popular demand and then removed for the same reason. :P The reason the Smith Act is not enforced is not that it CAN NOT be enforced like the Prohibition, but that nobody really cares to do it. It's on the books but nobody has even bothered to enforce it because it's not constitutional. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raven_gaurd0 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Heh. I think if you went through all the books you'd find plenty of stupid laws that nobody would care to enforce. Like, in Georgia, (at least, I believe it's Georgia) it is illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustPokemon Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 If I see a same sex married couple, I just think of it being as wrong as an interracial married couple (of different colours, I mean). But you just have to live with it. If you love someone who's the same sex as you, or different colour than you, then I guess thats fine. Its not really other people's business. Although it can get pretty disturbing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainy_Day Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 If I see a same sex married couple, I just think of it being as wrong as an interracial married couple (of different colours, I mean). But you just have to live with it. If you love someone who's the same sex as you, or different colour than you, then I guess thats fine. Its not really other people's business. Although it can get pretty disturbing... Love in its many forms is disturbing? Right. I understand that we live in times where people have issues with homosexuality, but with interracial couples? Goodness, I thought the world long since overcame that obstacle many years ago. I wouldn't even bat an eye lid if I say an interracial couple, nor if I saw a homosexual couple. Live and let live as it were. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)RIP Michaelangelopolous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 If I see a same sex married couple, I just think of it being as wrong as an interracial married couple (of different colours, I mean). But you just have to live with it. If you love someone who's the same sex as you, or different colour than you, then I guess thats fine. Its not really other people's business. Although it can get pretty disturbing... Love in its many forms is disturbing? Right. I understand that we live in times where people have issues with homosexuality, but with interracial couples? Goodness, I thought the world long since overcame that obstacle many years ago. I wouldn't even bat an eye lid if I say an interracial couple, nor if I saw a homosexual couple. Live and let live as it were. He's allowed to have his opinion. Actually, his post made a very valid point at demonstrating the need for tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 oddly, he hit on an interesting point even if his opinion seems archaic. In some small way interracial marriage and gay marriage are similair. Wait, Im not saying they are the same my point is that interracial marriage is slightly unusual, perfectly fine in no way objectionable, but slightly unusual. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingkapugen Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Homo=wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agunimon979 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Homo=wrong LOL i love how you summarize 98 pages of topic into "not-even-a" sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingkapugen Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 :thumbsup: tyvm it takes alot of time and skill It dosent take 98 pages =/ penis + penis = wrong vagina + vagina=wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 :thumbsup: tyvm it takes alot of time and skill It dosent take 98 pages =/ penis + penis = wrong vagina + vagina=wrong Personal opinion - Reasonable logic = Dumb post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now