Gay Marriage

Homosexuality is CONSENSUAL. Fucking babies isn't. GOD.

Watch out, Photo, the next thing you know, jiimaan will accuse you of being a "radical feminist" with all those "lies and false legitimacy" Really, he argues with womyn the same as he does with gay people. Well basically, with anyone he can't get in the sack, I think, and that covers womyn and gay men. LOL!

Love ya, Photo!!!!

 

Is there a reason why you're stalking me? I don't find this funny at all.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle, and many of the people who are involved in it, were coerced into it.

As indicated in the link about "lesbian feminism," homosexuals recruit and indoctrinate others into their lifestyle in order to gain dominance over those they hate--heterosexuals.

Homosexuality is very much about power and control.

 

Homosexuality is much more accurately called an ethos, (The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement), and not a lifestyle, (How people live, how they spend their money, and how they allocate their time. It is concerned with consumers overt actions and behavior.)

I can't speak for all homosexuals, but it sure didn't take much, if any, coercing for me. I was ready and willing. Anita Bryant tried the coercion defense against homosexuality in the 70's. She had very similar arguments to yours, including: "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nailbiters." Perhaps you should look up Anita Bryant and her save our children campaign. At least you would have a reference...

Damn nailbiters...

 

LOL!!!

Thanks for the tip, Maggie! I was familiar with jiimaan, but too dense to realize it was iiaajmn!

 

Not entirely but a big part of it. To put this crap in a textbook reinforces the notion that that is the only acceptable partnership.
That IMHO is propaganda.

On top of that. All these defense of marriage acts we see popping up have nothing to do with really defending marriage any more than the TABORs have anything to do with actually giving taxpayer's any more rights. They both are fanatical right wing republican instruments to control people in an unconstitutional manner What the hell are they defending marriage against? They are denying marriage to a huge segment of our populous. Besides that how many of them are in lifelong unions themselves? So many of the very people who are writing this crap have had multiple marriages or are their divorces made null from this putting them into polygamy or maybe bigamy?

Bunch of hypocrites....

 

Sounds like you are receiving all of your information from some anti gay hate mongering brochures. Of everyone I have known who has been gay lesbian or bisexual I have met one who could have been thought of as coerced into it & that is questionable. He was just introduced at an early age from what he told me.

I have met many more who were afraid or otherwise brainwashed into thinking that it was wrong to feel the way they do so attempted to deny it to even themselves for years. Many of them made grandiose protests against GLBT people & issues before they finally accepted that themselves for who they are. Can you say that you chose to be heterosexual? If you made a choice to be I'd say that you are a gay in denial. You don't choose this any more than you choose your eye color. You also can't be coerced into feelings of love, that is just plain ridiculous.

Power & control?? LOL Maybe for those into S& M but there are far more heterosexuals into that than there are gays from what I've seen. Traditional marriage is more like about power & control with it's placing women as chattel of their husbands.

 

I would say it is more likely that people were "coerced" into being straight.

 

Actually, speaking of hypocracy, I find it interesting that you quote Thomas Jefferson about tyranny; I think that he'd be very much opposed to gay marriage, and he'd rightly view the "gay rights" movement as fundamental threat to the rights and freedoms of the American citizen.

 

Actually, no I don't. I base my opinions on what I know is the truth. In our society, what people really are affraid of is the truth, because the truth is definite and often cruel. The truth that humans have but a short time on this planet, that life can be cruel and miserable and ultimately has no meaning is difficult to understand, so humans have concocted religion in order to mollify reality and give themselves a sense of purpose. The homosexual lifestyle is pretty much the same; it's part of the hedonistic lifestyle that it is all the rage in the Western World; a hedonistic lifestyle that is the primary factor in why our society is the most materialistic, consumeristic, wasteful and environmentally distructive in human history.

No, I'm heterosexual because that is the way that humans are supposed to be.

No, actually traditional marriage is very much a natural thing whereby a man and a woman come together in order to procreate and work together to raise their offspring. I'd be cautious about considering women to be "chattel" because this has more to do with feminist interpretation than reality. Yes, because our society was patriarchal because it derived it's beliefs from the Bible, but women were hardly as oppressed as feminists claim. It may sound cliched but it is true: marriage is the cornerstone of our society, and always has been; in order for society to remain stable and functional, marriage has to be an amicable partnership; if this has not been the case, as you claim, then our society would have disintigrated long ago, just as it's disintegrating now.

 

This is the first truthful thing you said in this thread thus far. Indeed, homosexuals can be bigoted just like other people, that is because they ARE just like other people.

A lot of men who are extremely anti-homosexual are actually homosexuals in denial. Just a random fact. Good day.

 

The reason you will never see this is because so many of the 2 faced hypocrites who write laws like this have been through more than one marriage themselves. Another very plausible reason is that there is a lot of money made by lawyers in divorces. If there is big bucks made in anything for the fat cats it will never be addressed.

 

Originally Posted by iiaajmn
Seriously, buddy, I'm not Christian, but you can't honestly say that Christians are "narrow minded" and imply that homosexuals are somehow broad-minded and accepting of other people's beliefs and opinions. That's just such a crock. Homosexuals are no less prone to being narrow-minded and bigoted.
This is the first truthful thing you said in this thread thus far. Indeed, homosexuals can be bigoted just like other people, that is because they ARE just like other people.

A lot of men who are extremely anti-homosexual are actually homosexuals in denial. Just a random fact. Good day. hailtothekingbaby



I will say this, homosexuals, in my experience are generally more accepting, and broadminded than Christians. I don't know for sure why, but I would guess it is a result of their intimate knowledge of how it feels to not be accepted. I have met narrowminded gays, of course, and broadminded Christians, but both were the exception. This is just my experience.

 

i do not understand why people say there is a separation of church and state when there clearly isn't. why people say we are all equal in everything when we clearly are not. did any of you know that up untill 1977 when a law was passed it was illegal for interacial couples to get married? in 1977 it was made legal for those in interacial relationships to get married and yet we still will not allow samesex partners to marry. that sucks.

 

I totally agree.
In Canada, in 1960, a law was passed that recognized Native Canadians as being 'persons', and thereby allowed them to vote.
Of course before that, they were totally allowed to die for Canada in WWII, and many did.
When the survivors got back to Canada, they weren't even allowed in the bars.

It is all hatred. Like the crap Brocktoon spouts. hate based propoganda.

 

where do you see a separation of church and state not being applied? Surely i hope you dont mean with gay marriage...

 

From the hate speech that passes as sermons to the sexuality reprogramming (think concentration) camps. We have fools leading our country that think that sexuality is a choice & have no concept of safer sex, some of which think that AIDS is somehow a good thing or at least something from on high to preform some sick form of moral cleansing. There even are people here who have had their minds so filled with anti-gay thoughts that they are incapable of logical reasoning if it disagrees with their small view of reality.
There are still schools that look the other way if a child is being beaten up by fellow students who think the victim is GLBT.
If you are anything but the cookie cutter version of what these creeps think is "normal" you are subject to terrorization. It doesn't even matter if you are whatever they accuse you of as long as they think you are gay or lesbian or transsexual they will bully, tease, & abuse the victim. Fag bashing is considered good sport still today in far too many places by far too many homophobic insecure dim-wits.

 

huh? what i mean is that the government says that there is a separation of church and state by not forcing students to pray in school and what not...but as for taking "under god" and judging who can marry and who can't under bible codes...basically they are hypocrites...i am for gay marriage...if i have the right to marry everyone else should...it is not fair.

 

"Under god" is hardly an establishment of religion.

Bible codes? Many people just think gay marriage is wrong..religious or not. But again, thats hardly an establishment of religion.

The establishment clause is the most wrongly interpretated clause in probably history. Morals that people learn from religion has absolutely nothing to do with separation of church and state....

 

89% of all percentages are made up on the spot.

 

This is simply not true.
The part where you pretend that Natives were somehow 'not recognised as persons'.
You might have made that up OR you are playing word games.

The Indian Act created a different class of citizenship in Canada (and still does).
Natives under the Indian act had different rights.
In Canada their are TWO different types of citizens, each with their own rules.

Yes, Native Canadians had the right to volunteer for WW2 and did a helluva good job defeating Hitler and rescuing Jews.

Yes they did kill terrorists who wanted to take over the world.
Many died trying.
This is heroic because if Canada (them) did not stop Hitler - they would not have anything but concentration camps and NO Indian Act and Special Status to worry about at all.

How dare you describe them as 'Survivors' you condescending racist?
They are called, Hero's, Victors and the Triumphant Warriors who are the reason you have the freedom to talk freely like this in the first place.

YOU are the 'survivor' because of THEIR success and victory.

Please explain where you think the 'hatred' is?
Then explain why its 'like' anything I have stated?

Also.. please clarify what and where the 'Propoganda' is?

Was it the part where you pretended Natives were not 'Persons'?