Gay Marriage

got videos?

 

No, not at all.

 

Well, I don't really care much for you at all, if you want to know the truth.

 

LOL.> i have to vent lol>> DONT PEOPLE FUCKING KNOW THAT JUST BECAUSE GAYS ARENT ALLOWED TO MARRY DOESNT MEAN THEY WONT BE GAY>> JESUS CHRIST>> THIS SHOULDNT BE AN ISSUE>> IS THERE A LAW SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE BIBLE>> FUCK this WE ARENT ALL EQUAL SO THAT MAKES U.S BULLSHIT>> JESUS CHRIST JESUS>> THIS SUBJECT MAKES ME MAD>> GAYS< WOMEN>> WE ALL NEED EQUAL RIGHTS>> JESUS HAHA

peace
chickens

 

this thread is really good for a debate...anyone who is on a debate team and talking of this subject can come here to gather info...

 

According to Online 'IQ Tests' I am a 'Genius' with an IQ of 138 LMAO!

Oh BTW... they invited me to pay 9.95 USD to learn more about my Special 2.23% of the population 'Genius'.

(Should I tell them I more or less 'Guesstimated' at the Hexagon Questions?)

I bet even the Liberal-Lefties in here could score near the 'Gifted' Category on these things... even if they are watching the Daily Show at the same time. (I dont recommend doing so if Rob Courdrey is one hehe)

http://www.iqtest.com/prep.html

 

I'm assuming you mean me, and have no idea where you got that idea.

 

not of being in love

I used to be in love with the girl that in now just my best friend. She knows it too. But i knew nothing would ever come of it, so I had to just let that go and get over her in that way. We never had a physical relationship...never had a relationship, but that doesn't change that I loved her, and back then, could see myself sharing the rest of my life with her.

After moving on I finally met a man I felt more love for who loves me back, and now I'm going to spend the rest of my life with him.

 

back at ya buddy

 

Think about it.

Either you are born with a slightly changed physiology
or, as you insist you are 'Normal'.

Now what does that say about Heterosexuals.
In particular those who are 'revolted' by the idea of sleeping with the same gender?

You must be implying there is something wrong with them.
You must believe they have a psychological problem or are not 'properly seeing the situation' like you claim to be doing?

Dont just answer 'No'.
Think about the implications of your claim and then explain why Heterosexuals are not interested in gay sex - and you are?

 

I don't know, it's not important to me to know that. Why should I care? I am normal, so are heterosexuals, so are homosexuals. I don't see the problem, never have, even before I realized I was attracted to women. I love chocolate, some people are revolted by that. Why? I don't know, we were born different. I know it's not the same thing really, but to me it's really just as unimportant.

 

Supposing there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (which is of course absurd) how can gays be afforded the rights if what I have posted earlier is true Cookiez?

 

What you posted earlier is pure drivel OSF, and I have a feeling that you know it is.

Not all staight people want to get married, does that mean that denying all straight americans the right to marry is okay since not ALL of them want it?

A right is the freedom to pursue an option whether or not you as an individual choose to or not.

I have the right to worship the christian god
I choose not to exercise that.
Does that mean that right is no longer a valid one for others?

 

It was only a matter of time before someone mentioned that not all people of a group who have a certain right desire that right.

I was banking on it.

Your opposition is based on the idea that people can choose to exercise rights that are already awarded them. My argument is not based on such a claim. Such opposition confuses the dilemma.

The dilemma is awarding rights that are not guaranteed. It is not a dilemma that suggests that the awarding of rights should mirror your choice to exercise a particular right.

If there is a rational argument that can be made against the right for same-sex marriage that can be adopted by a member of the homosexual community, that is adopted by one of the members, than no agency can be granted.

That is unless we redefine agency. (To do so is to manipulate, and rights granted based on manipulation should not be accepted).

The opposition to my position should come from an argument that there are no ‘rational’ arguments against homosexual unions that can be made by any particular member of the group.

Of course, I have banked on that, and considered as many arguments against gay marriage as I can. There do exist ‘rational’ arguments against gay marriage. There are gay persons who adopt such positions. Thus no agency can be had. If no agency can be had than rights can only be granted on an individual basis . (You see that I have no opposition to the right if it is granted on an individual basis).

BUT...

The implications of granting rights on an individual basis creates problems in society that might no be able to be ignored. An application of this idea might do more harm to the collective than good. If this is the case, then rights must not be granted to the individual. As the Lockeian principles that introduced the basic notion of ‘rights’ to American society will be rendered meaningless. Rendering ‘rights’ useless ... well I don’t know if I have to argue the implications of this.

Suffice to say that rights can not be awarded on the basis that you have the ability to choose to exercise a right you have already been awarded.

 

To much fussing and fighting going on, but why?

I am 100% heterosexual, I find the thought of another man in intercourse disgusting. However I realise there are people that feel differently, and care very much for the same gender, and I respect their rights and think they should be able to do whatever a normal couple would be able to do, although I dont think they should be able to adopt children.

 

Yeah foster homes and orphanages are much better for children than same-sex parents.

 

There are waiting lists of Man-Woman Married Couples looking to adopt children.

In any case, I think we have good reason to believe children need a Father and a Mother.
Thinking otherwise seems desperately Naive to me.

 

1.) Those waiting lists are for infants not 9 year olds...

2.) I think we don't have enough data to say that man-woman married couples would be better parents than man-man or woman-woman married couples.

 

I think its well understood .. even 'Axiomatic', that the ideal situation for a child is a Father and a Mother.
I cant imagine anyone, especially a Child Care Professional suggesting otherwise.

The previous poster mentioned adoption, not foster parents.
In that case, a Man and Woman Foster Parent set is better than a 'Same Gender' couple Foster Parents.
For the same reason that the former is a Father and a Mother.

Kids need both.

 

This idea is flawed. Many blacks, in the time of segregation, did not really care if, or even want to be integrated. They only wanted equal rights, but did not mind the idea of separate but equal. A fairly recent example is Nina Simone, "You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality." My Grandma had to work two jobs, at a time when women rarely worked one. She only ever wanted to be a homemaker. To this day, she still thinks it is a tragedy that women have to work outside the home. Women's lib continued, however, without the consent of my Grandma. My great-uncle was born the son of an Indian Chief. He could have stayed on the reservation, and been the successor to the chief. Instead, he drives a truck for Food Lion. The Indian Reservation still exists, and no more rights have been taken away from it, nor is it any less legitamate because of my uncle leaving. It is absurd to think that you must have 100% support from a particular group in order for rights to be granted.