interesting read on gay marriage

[Grapesoda]

never occurred to me to think about the issue in these terms before. however I think I agree.
---
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110508.php3

Affirmative Action and Gay ‘Marriage’

By Thomas Sowell

The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"— especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

When arbitrary numerical "goals" or "quotas" under affirmative action are not met, the burden of proof is put on the employer to prove that he did not discriminate against minorities or women. No burden of proof whatever is put on the advocates of "goals" or "quotas" to show that people would be equally represented in jobs, colleges or anywhere else in the absence of discrimination.

Tons of evidence from countries around the world, and over centuries of history, show that statistical disparities are the rule, not the exception— even in situations where discrimination is virtually impossible.

Anonymously graded tests do not show the same results from one group to another. In many countries there are minorities who completely outperform members of the majority population, whether in education, in the economy or in sports, even when there is no way that they can discriminate against the majority.

Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself is a slick political ploy. The time is long overdue for the voting public to see through it.

Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing— riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

[TheSenator]

Thomas Sowell is a conservative. So, hence he would have to be against the "gays".

Kind of disturbing that he is using the "pedophile" argument.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Thomas Sowell is a conservative. So, hence he would have to be against the "gays".

Kind of disturbing that he is using the "pedophile" argument.

I didn't read that as against gays. I read that as a definition of 'marriage' set by community standards and tested by time being challanged.

the gays are actually asking that the definition of marriage be set aside and marriage then be redefined to suit their needs. so what's to stop MBLA from doing the same thing? what's to stop the 'Mormons' from doing this and getting a constitutional amendment to redefine marriage?

the reality is with Disney and several other large corporations allowing domestic partners, isn't that the same as a marriage? what a marriage provides is protection for health and legal concerns. that has nothing to do with religion in my mind. so why a marriage? why not domestic accountability regulations instead?

see the difference now?

[Darkland]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

I didn't read that as against gays. I read that as a definition of 'marriage' set by community standards and tested by time being challanged.

You might want to re-read it...

"The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"? especially "equal rights."

"Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

"The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined? and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?"

"Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different."

"None of us has a right to other people's approval."

[TheSenator]

Gays are born gay.

Polygamist choose to have more than one wife.

Gays are discriminated because of who they are, just like a black person.

Polygamy is a fucking choice.

Man on dog sex is a choice.

Thomas Sowell is a conservative scumbag still holding on to ideas that fail.
Conservatism is dead. The ideas of conservatism divide this great nation.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

Why not for pedophiles?

how come i knew this analogy was coming?

[cherrylula]

Pedophiles get married every day. But they usually stay "in the closet."

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Darkland

You might want to re-read it...

"The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"? especially "equal rights."

"Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

"The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined? and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?"

"Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different."

"None of us has a right to other people's approval."

yes I read that, and your point?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Gays are born gay.

Polygamist choose to have more than one wife.

Gays are discriminated because of who they are, just like a black person.

Polygamy is a fucking choice.

Man on dog sex is a choice.

Thomas Sowell is a conservative scumbag still holding on to ideas that fail.
Conservatism is dead. The ideas of conservatism divide this great nation.

I disagree, I do not think Sowell is a scum bag and I can see that you resort to 'name calling' when intellect is called for... not a very positive way to move forward in my book $.02

[AmeliaG]

First of all, I'm just going to point out that that argument is completely illogical. I am fervently for gay marriage being legal and I'm pretty opposed to affirmative action. I do not think Prop 8 was intended to stop California from have quota requirements where, if not enough same sex marriages took place, then heterosexuals would have to start marrying same sex partners. Quotas and special privileges have absolutely nothing to do with the argument in favor of equal rights to get married.

I think that most sexual tastes and behavior are a combination of nature, nurture, self-discipline, and self-indulgence. Some people are naturally more attracted to the same sex and some to the opposite. Some people's life experiences reinforce one taste or the other. Some people feel they should resist certain urges and some do not. This is the same for urges all the way from occasional masturbation to sexually-motivated serial murder. It is all a combination of how one is born, how one has lived, and, yes, choice.

Some people are born with a taste for pedophilia or serial killing or rape and some people's life experiences reinforce or dial back those tastes.

As a society, we need to have laws against pedophilia, serial killing, and rape because those harm other people.

As a society, marriage is a good thing, whether or not it produces children. I think the government should actually exclusively affirm civil unions, as the legal portion is relevant to the world of law, but the spiritual portion should be in the realm of personal choice and religion. That said, society benefits when there are people in it who feel a part of it and feel they have what to lose if they stray outside it. The government gets more money from married people too.

Some people are naturally more monogamous or some are. Despite the irony factor of the Mormon church backing Prop 8, I actually kind of understand how they might be pissy if America was moving towards accepting gay marriage but not polygamy.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

First of all, I'm just going to point out that that argument is completely illogical. I am fervently for gay marriage being legal and I'm pretty opposed to affirmative action. I do not think Prop 8 was intended to stop California from have quota requirements where, if not enough same sex marriages took place, then heterosexuals would have to start marrying same sex partners. Quotas and special privileges have absolutely nothing to do with the argument in favor of equal rights to get married.

I think that most sexual tastes and behavior are a combination of nature, nurture, self-discipline, and self-indulgence. Some people are naturally more attracted to the same sex and some to the opposite. Some people's life experiences reinforce one taste or the other. Some people feel they should resist certain urges and some do not. This is the same for urges all the way from occasional masturbation to sexually-motivated serial murder. It is all a combination of how one is born, how one has lived, and, yes, choice.

Some people are born with a taste for pedophilia or serial killing or rape and some people's life experiences reinforce or dial back those tastes.

As a society, we need to have laws against pedophilia, serial killing, and rape because those harm other people.

As a society, marriage is a good thing, whether or not it produces children. I think the government should actually exclusively affirm civil unions, as the legal portion is relevant to the world of law, but the spiritual portion should be in the realm of personal choice and religion. That said, society benefits when there are people in it who feel a part of it and feel they have what to lose if they stray outside it. The government gets more money from married people too.

Some people are naturally more monogamous or some are. Despite the irony factor of the Mormon church backing Prop 8, I actually kind of understand how they might be pissy if America was moving towards accepting gay marriage but not polygamy.

'I think the government should actually exclusively affirm civil unions, as the legal portion is relevant to the world of law,'
** I agree with this statement

'but the spiritual portion should be in the realm of personal choice and religion'
** I agree and what consenting adults do in their homes with each other in none of my business, and I shouldn't have to be confronted with it, and I shouldn't be forced to vote on it.


and I agree with sowell in that the definition of marriage is the 'union between man and woman under the eyes of g_d' this has nothing to do with being gay or not. it's simply the definition of the word marriage. should a special interest group be allowed to redefine the English language and force us to accept those new definitions?

[Darkland]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

yes I read that, and your point?

My point is, if you don't think that article is against gays, your comprehension skills suck.

"Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage." Why is it fraud? Pretty clear to me by this a one alone where his beliefs lie.

"The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined— and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?" Hmmm, sounds like to me he is lumping gays within the same company as pedophiles.

"Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different." This one is quite obvious as well...

"None of us has a right to other people's approval." No one says gays want "approval"

The whole article comes off to me that gays have no right to even ASK for their rights in society let alone have the right to even expect to be allowed to marry.

Law and definitions within those laws change meaning all the time with no one ever batting an eye. But lets really only care about it when a law tied to religious dogma gets challenged. I find the hypocrisy of our society almost shameful. Lets make sure we take God out of the schools, anthems, etc. when it suits us, but if a gay couple wants married then the God they wanted to cut out now vitalizes their moral compass.

If you can not see this author is not in favor of gay marriage and the hypocrisy of it maybe you should just stop thinking and study my avatar.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

what a tard Utah gave up polygamy just in 1890 and the ONLY reason was because the US Congress would not let Utah become a state until it did so. Utah didn't give it up because they became enlightened or something. In fact in many rual areas of Utah it is still practiced openly. In many parts of the wordl men can have several wives. And I'm sorry I find something hypocritical that most of the gay bashing states and their anti-gay marriage bans are the very same states where one can LEGALY marry your 15 year old first cousin.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Darkland

My point is, if you don't think that article is against gays, your comprehension skills suck.

"Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage." Why is it fraud? Pretty clear to me by this a one alone where his beliefs lie.

"The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined? and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?" Hmmm, sounds like to me he is lumping gays within the same company as pedophiles.

"Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different." This one is quite obvious as well...

"None of us has a right to other people's approval." No one says gays want "approval"

The whole article comes off to me that gays have no right to even ASK for their rights in society let alone have the right to even expect to be allowed to marry.

Law and definitions within those laws change meaning all the time with no one ever batting an eye. But lets really only care about it when a law tied to religious dogma gets challenged. I find the hypocrisy of our society almost shameful. Lets make sure we take God out of the schools, anthems, etc. when it suits us, but if a gay couple wants married then the God they wanted to cut out now vitalizes their moral compass.

If you can not see this author is not in favor of gay marriage and the hypocrisy of it maybe you should just stop thinking and study my avatar.

what I think is Sowell believes is that being gay is a personal issue, not a societal issue, and I agree with that.

whether you or someone else is gay is of no interest to me on any level. why should I be forced to accept you as gay or even concern myself that you are? why must I be confronted with someone else's sexuality?

I can also tell you that I am one of the very few content shooters here that shoot both gay and straight scenes, and the reason for that is because homosexuality has no impact on me what so ever.

and one other thing I do know for sure is that you consider abusive discourse to be the equivalent of intelligent discussion, I can assure you sir, that you are wrong about that.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by GatorB

what a tard Utah gave up polygamy just in 1890 and the ONLY reason was because the US Congress would not let Utah become a state until it did so. Utah didn't give it up because they became enlightened or something. In fact in many rual areas of Utah it is still practiced openly. In many parts of the wordl men can have several wives. And I'm sorry I find something hypocritical that most of the gay bashing states and their anti-gay marriage bans are the very same states where one can LEGALY marry your 15 year old first cousin.

all that may be true however it doesn't change the definition of the word marriage: the union between and man and a woman. although this definition is being challenged at this time by the gay coalition.

I think gays and anyone else that wants to should be allowed to form civil union, however I'm not so sure they should be called marriages, that's all I'm saying

[Darkland]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

and one other thing I do know for sure is that you consider abusive discourse to be the equivalent of intelligent discussion, I can assure you sir, that you are wrong about that.

I do not, but I apologize.

Originally Posted by bm bradley

all that may be true however it doesn't change the definition of the word marriage: the union between and man and a woman. although this definition is being challenged at this time by the gay coalition.

I think gays and anyone else that wants to should be allowed to form civil union, however I'm not so sure they should be called marriages, that's all I'm saying

Why do you believe the definition can't be ammended, it obviously does not hold the same societal impact it once did. After all almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce and the legal definition did not originally support it yet it was amended and continues to be practiced.

"Marriage: A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage...

...Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties."



Why do you believe gays should not be married, besides current definition and religious dogma?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Darkland

I do not, but I apologize.



Why do you believe the definition can't be ammended, it obviously does not hold the same societal impact it once did. After all almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce and the legal definition did not originally support it yet it was amended and continues to be practiced.

"Marriage: A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage...

...Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties."



Why do you believe gays should not be married, besides current definition and religious dogma?

did I say anything about religion? I just think that gays should stop pushing their life style on others. do I go around trying to force my sexual preferences on others? no, I don't.

I think gays and others should be allowed the legal protections assigned to a civil union. I don't necessarily believe it should be called a marriage.

one aspect of all this you turn a blind eye to is the religious groups... they have rights too you know. whether we agree or not...

they have the right to be married and not have homosexuals trying to force acceptance of the gay lifestyle upon them. just as sowell states.

why must I be, or anyone else be forced to accept homosexuality? must I be forced to accept eating pussy if I disagree with that? (I don't BTW) must I be forced to accept 'your' personal sexual preferences by constitutional amendment?

what I'm in agreement with is being gay is not a social issue, it's a personal issue and should stay personal between consenting adults AND porn websites of course

you probably don't remember this, the gays forced Disneyland to allow them to kiss and hold hands in the park etc... Disneyland is for kids... why should kids be forced to watch gays act out in public?

if 2 guys decide to go home and sodomize each fine, where's the issue with that, right? if 2 guys decide to tongue fuck each other down the throat in front of children at Disneyland that's another thing altogether isn't it?

if the same 2 guys want a civil union how does that concern me? if those 2 guys decide to force me to change the constitution then they have forced their sexuality on me and forced me to approve of their actions, which are not my concern in the first place. this is where I agree with sowell.

why must the gays take something from others to feel acceptance for themselves? this is the real issue that I see. why can't they just leave the poor religious boobs alone, get civil unions and go on about life?

the core issue is almost like the gays are trying to force legislation into religion, a marriage is 2 separate segments. the ceremony which can be religious and usually is and the civil aspect that changes the legal statues of the couple.

[Darkland]

Thanks for clearing that up. You don't wish your vision of proper decency to be infringed even to the point of infringing anothers.

Who are you or anyone to say homosexuality is even wrong or something decadent? All behaviour gets classified somewhere in history as to what is acceptable and unacceptable to the point of religious incorporation which even bleeds over into society outside religion.

There has been homosexuality since before the definition or the word and precedes language and written history. The animal kingdom also has homosexual individuals.

Let us not also over look the scientific fact that in some gay individuals their genetic makeup dictates sexual preference of which they have no choice.

I do not find homosexual displays in public to be "indecent" because someone SAYS it isn't natural. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to say it is just as natural as relationships between a man and woman.

I don't see how you claim they are shoving it in anyones faces. When humans are supressed for being human I sure the fuck hope someone stands up and says, "ENOUGH!"

What if your kid was gay? You gonna tell him it is okay to be gay, but only within the confines of their house?

Originally Posted by bm bradley

why should kids be forced to watch gays act out in public?

Your so right... Display of affection is "acting out" if your homosexual but perfectly normal if you are not.

Originally Posted by bm bradley

one aspect of all this you turn a blind eye to is the religious groups... they have rights too you know

Actually I do not, I was raised in the church for 18+ years. There is NO tolerence in religious groups but they expect the world when it comes to tolerence of them.

[camperjohn64]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Gays are born gay.

And pedophiles are born pedophiles. Why shouldn't they be allowed to rape 9 year olds? And not just rape them, but rape them with your moral and legal approval?

Equal rights for gays must mean equal rights for pedophiles too.

[bausch]

Jesus, I am straight and I would never want to get married. Why ANYONE wants to get married ever is beyond me... Not all women even want to get married either you know, some WANT to be single forever. Living alone is the best, having your own space, no one to irritate you and bother you, eat your food, use your toilet paper, make your house messy...

[bausch]

Oh and btw I don't care about the financial benefits etc of being married. The negatives outweights the pros. I would actually PAY MONEY to not have to be married.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

And pedophiles are born pedophiles. Why shouldn't they be allowed to rape 9 year olds? And not just rape them, but rape them with your moral and legal approval?

Equal rights for gays must mean equal rights for pedophiles too.

YOU=RETARD

Um hey moron, first of all a GROWN gay male can CONSENT to another grown gay male fucking him in the ass. A 9 year old CAN NOT consent to having sex.

The fact you equate gaynes with pedophillia proves youa re a moron and frankly should get you a ban here if I was mod since you technically broke the board rules.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

you probably don't remember this, the gays forced Disneyland to allow them to kiss and hold hands in the park etc... Disneyland is for kids... why should kids be forced to watch gays act out in public?

And I can show you many people that would say why should thier kids have to watch a black man and a white woman kiss in public? Hell sometimes I see old people kissing. That's gross. That should be banned too. Fact is there are PLENTY of places in the world where freedom is denied. Since you obviously hate freedom choose one of those places and move there. I can 100% guarantee you if you listed every place where gay people would not be seen out in public displaying affection for each other there is not ONE of those places you would choose to live in. Think about that.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

did I say anything about religion? I just think that gays should stop pushing their life style on others. do I go around trying to force my sexual preferences on others? no, I don't.

No one is forcing the gay lifestyle on you at all. All that they are asking is that you allow them to marry.

What ever happened to ?Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? - Or does that only refer to straight men and straight women?

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

what I think is Sowell believes is that being gay is a personal issue, not a societal issue, and I agree with that.

whether you or someone else is gay is of no interest to me on any level. why should I be forced to accept you as gay or even concern myself that you are? why must I be confronted with someone else's sexuality?

Let me guess. You believe that gays are in this by choice and that their problems with society can be solved by simply using their dick the way mother nature intended.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

did I say anything about religion? I just think that gays should stop pushing their life style on others. do I go around trying to force my sexual preferences on others? no, I don't.

I think gays and others should be allowed the legal protections assigned to a civil union. I don't necessarily believe it should be called a marriage.

one aspect of all this you turn a blind eye to is the religious groups... they have rights too you know. whether we agree or not...

they have the right to be married and not have homosexuals trying to force acceptance of the gay lifestyle upon them. just as sowell states.

why must I be, or anyone else be forced to accept homosexuality? must I be forced to accept eating pussy if I disagree with that? (I don't BTW) must I be forced to accept 'your' personal sexual preferences by constitutional amendment?

what I'm in agreement with is being gay is not a social issue, it's a personal issue and should stay personal between consenting adults AND porn websites of course

you probably don't remember this, the gays forced Disneyland to allow them to kiss and hold hands in the park etc... Disneyland is for kids... why should kids be forced to watch gays act out in public?

if 2 guys decide to go home and sodomize each fine, where's the issue with that, right? if 2 guys decide to tongue fuck each other down the throat in front of children at Disneyland that's another thing altogether isn't it?

if the same 2 guys want a civil union how does that concern me? if those 2 guys decide to force me to change the constitution then they have forced their sexuality on me and forced me to approve of their actions, which are not my concern in the first place. this is where I agree with sowell.

why must the gays take something from others to feel acceptance for themselves? this is the real issue that I see. why can't they just leave the poor religious boobs alone, get civil unions and go on about life?

the core issue is almost like the gays are trying to force legislation into religion, a marriage is 2 separate segments. the ceremony which can be religious and usually is and the civil aspect that changes the legal statues of the couple.

You misunderstand the issue. It is the religious fanatics and bigots who want to change the California state constitution.

Some very competent American judges decided that the California state constitution protected the rights of homosexuals who wish to marry. The people who brought up the whole changing the constitution thing were the ones opposed to gay marriage. Prop 8 was to change the constitution. Permitting gay marriage would merely uphold the California state constitution as it originally stood.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

You misunderstand the issue. It is the religious fanatics and bigots who want to change the California state constitution.

Some very competent American judges decided that the California state constitution protected the rights of homosexuals who wish to marry. The people who brought up the whole changing the constitution thing were the ones opposed to gay marriage. Prop 8 was to change the constitution. Permitting gay marriage would merely uphold the California state constitution as it originally stood.

okay, I'll go with that... kinda funny how some of the people posting in this thread think I'm against gay marriage, I'm not. I'm 'possibly' only against calling it a marriage

I have no opinion on homosexuality personally I'll put it like this: the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. and I'm pretty much totally opposed to religion however, the religious have their rights too

I only posted the editorial because I thought it was an interesting 'slant' on the issue. as a matter of fact I even titled the thread 'interesting read on gay marriage'

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Rochard

No one is forcing the gay lifestyle on you at all. All that they are asking is that you allow them to marry.

What ever happened to ?Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? - Or does that only refer to straight men and straight women?

I only posted the editorial because I thought it was an interesting 'slant' on the issue. as a matter of fact I even titled the thread 'interesting read on gay marriage'

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by GatorB

And I can show you many people that would say why should thier kids have to watch a black man and a white woman kiss in public? Hell sometimes I see old people kissing. That's gross. That should be banned too. Fact is there are PLENTY of places in the world where freedom is denied. Since you obviously hate freedom choose one of those places and move there. I can 100% guarantee you if you listed every place where gay people would not be seen out in public displaying affection for each other there is not ONE of those places you would choose to live in. Think about that.

look you're very confused. I posted a thread: 'an interesting read on gay marriage' and suddenly I'm a repression bigot? gee I'm sorry I have a wide range of interest and like intellectual pursuits. I promise I'll get one fucking idea and NEVER EVER EVER (and I'll make sure it agrees with you and everything YOU believe in) and never ever ever change it

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Let me guess. You believe that gays are in this by choice and that their problems with society can be solved by simply using their dick the way mother nature intended.

bad guess

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

And pedophiles are born pedophiles. Why shouldn't they be allowed to rape 9 year olds? And not just rape them, but rape them with your moral and legal approval?

Equal rights for gays must mean equal rights for pedophiles too.

well I'm not sure that's correct, however Muslims can do anything they want

[Juicy D. Links]

Gays should be able to marry.

Air3k and I are going to Massachusetts and we're registered at Amazon.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Darkland

Thanks for clearing that up. You don't wish your vision of proper decency to be infringed even to the point of infringing anothers.

look you're completely fucked up here, are you just looking for a place to vent?

I have no interest in homosexuality one way or the other. I'm totally indifferent to the whole thing. I posted a thread: 'an INTERESTING read on gay marriage'

I did NOT post a thread 'fuck homos and everything they want to do or believe in for goddamn ever'

I find sowell and interesting mind. I pursue varying intellectual views as an interest of mine. dude I'm a fucking content shooter.... gay and straight... I'm probably the most open minded person you'll ever meet.

Actually I do not, I was raised in the church for 18+ years. There is NO tolerence in religious groups but they expect the world when it comes to tolerence of them.

sorry to hear that, explains a lot. best wishes with that

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

Gays should be able to marry.

Air3k and I are going to Massachusetts and we're registered at Amazon.

1 question: who's the top

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

And pedophiles are born pedophiles. Why shouldn't they be allowed to rape 9 year olds? And not just rape them, but rape them with your moral and legal approval?

Equal rights for gays must mean equal rights for pedophiles too.

the logic is strong with this one.

the difference is, because your highschool drop out education wont let you see it, is that two people who love each other getting married is not the same as raping someone against their will.

But you cant tell the difference can you? LOL

rape involves violating someone elses rights, marrying two people does not violate your rights or anyone elses. it validates, theirs.

[camperjohn64]

Originally Posted by GatorB

And I can show you many people that would say why should thier kids have to watch a black man and a white woman kiss in public? Hell sometimes I see old people kissing. That's gross. That should be banned too. Fact is there are PLENTY of places in the world where freedom is denied. Since you obviously hate freedom choose one of those places and move there. I can 100% guarantee you if you listed every place where gay people would not be seen out in public displaying affection for each other there is not ONE of those places you would choose to live in. Think about that.

So forcing someone to fuck against their will is not ok, but forcing someone to watch gays kissing aginst their will is? And forcing CHILDREN to accept gays kissing is also ok and something Disney must accept too?

This logic only shows that gays are just adult pedophiles.

>>>that two people who love each other getting married is not the same as raping someone against their will.

And if the 9 year old consents? So then it's ok? Yup, pedophile.

[Fletch XXX]

i will not even debate you, calling gay people pedophiles on this forum should get you banned.

[Darkland]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

sorry to hear that, explains a lot. best wishes with that

Yes, it explains why I can see it from a perspective you never could. It has been that many years + since I broke my ties, so I don't see your point. Best wishes for what?

Maybe you meant one thing but some of your statements sure sounded like another. Especially the whole homosexuals "acting out" in public and your insistence they are throwing their lifestyle in everyone's faces. If anything it is the other way around or we wouldn't even be here discussing this.

[camperjohn64]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

i will not even debate you, calling gay people pedophiles on this forum should get you banned.

I am just making the analogy to generate emotion, and demonstrate how "regular" people see it.

Aparently I hit a nerve.

[Darkland]

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

I am just making the analogy to generate emotion, and demonstrate how "regular" people see it.

Aparently I hit a nerve.

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

So forcing someone to fuck against their will is not ok, but forcing someone to watch gays kissing aginst their will is? And forcing CHILDREN to accept gays kissing is also ok and something Disney must accept too?

This logic only shows that gays are just adult pedophiles.

>>>that two people who love each other getting married is not the same as raping someone against their will.

And if the 9 year old consents? So then it's ok? Yup, pedophile.

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

And pedophiles are born pedophiles. Why shouldn't they be allowed to rape 9 year olds? And not just rape them, but rape them with your moral and legal approval?

Equal rights for gays must mean equal rights for pedophiles too.

Ignorance breeds Intolerance and Intolerance breeds Hate...

Way to keep the hate alive... Nice job!

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by Darkland

Ignorance breeds Intolerance and Intolerance breeds Hate...

Way to keep the hate alive... Nice job!

the people who hate gays are as ignorant as the racists who hate blacks.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Gays are born gay.

you mean absolutely 100% of the time with no exceptions, a chick who decides she wants to have sex with mostly females is "born gay"?


really?

[camperjohn64]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

the people who hate gays are as ignorant as the racists who hate blacks.

But it's ok to hate people that hate gays?

You guys are so getting owned in this thread...

[Fletch XXX]

Back to thread topic:

I hope more gay people stay single, so they keep looking up other men online!

http://www.fletchxxx.com/male_personals.html ;)

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

rape involves violating someone elses rights, marrying two people does not violate your rights or anyone elses. it validates, theirs.

how about this one, say you like hard core metal music. the poka club forces a law that requires a poka band play at every concert. by your argument that would validate their rights.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

But it's ok to hate people that hate gays?

You guys are so getting owned in this thread...

I don't hate gays... BUT this is very funny

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Darkland

Maybe you meant one thing but some of your statements sure sounded like another. Especially the whole homosexuals "acting out" in public and your insistence they are throwing their lifestyle in everyone's faces. If anything it is the other way around or we wouldn't even be here discussing this.

so in your opinion richard simons was born the way he is and can't help behaving the way he does?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Back to thread topic:

I hope more gay people stay single, so they keep looking up other men online!

http://www.fletchxxx.com/male_personals.html ;)

I bet you get a lot of CHRISTIAN traffic

[Darkland]

Originally Posted by bm bradley

so in your opinion richard simons was born the way he is and can't help behaving the way he does?

Hmmm, I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with his behaviour.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Darkland

Hmmm, I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with his behaviour.