Gay marriage.

Me too. I thought it was going to be one of those 10 pagers.
But yeah, I was thinking about sex at the time.
Eh… but still, as a minor, I think these restrictive laws are just too big-brother ish.

I didn’t put any innuendo about gaping holes?
Huh? I was merely saying that I’m bad at arguments, the other day this guy (republican) clowned me so badly on my views on taxes that I could’ve cried.

I don’t understand how people could stand to have sex with their own sex, but yeah, REAL love is between two minds and has nothing to do with the body at all… and it’s the love that marriage celebrates.

Really its the republicans that are pushing this. I know that the democrats do oppose it, but they are much less likely to act on it. For the same reason why they think abortion is wrong, but they think it is more important to give a woman the right to choose. One thing about being a more liberal party like the democrats is the fact that you get more freedom when it comes to stuff like gay unions and abortions.

2/3 of the states would have to ratify the amendment, and I very highly doubt that will happen. I don’t know if it is true or not, but I think the courts can strike down something in the constitution if it is unjustified which this seems like it could be called that.

This really reminds me of my graduation in 2003. There was a picket line in front of my graduation because our class president was gay and black and got a big scholarship. And of course the people protesting were all from a religious group.

I live about 40 miles north of Tulsa in the middle of nowhere in the woods. The nearest village (of about 200 people) is about 7 miles from me. I’m about 11 miles from Oologah Lake.

With the cabin here as our home base, dh and I (and later our 3 kids) traveled and lived all over the US. We also lived in Aruba for a few months. If I could go back to live in any of those places, it would be Anaconda, Montana.

What part of OK do you live in, HR?

Re: Dems vs. Rep…A democrat will do more for us as a general population by accident than a republican will do for us on purpose.

:cool:

As a general rule that is true. However as things apply to the gay marriage the democrats are not taking the right path on this one. Most opting for civil unions rather than marriage.

democrats and republicans are almost indsituingishable, honestly… Oklahoman democrats… if they can be even called that, are just as bad as the stereotypical conservative Republican.

I mean sure they have their differences but I mean… Kerry himself is against gay marriage, he just doesn’t want to make any laws against it… from what I gather.

and I live near Tulsa as well.

I don’t know what he personally believes but, that is what he is saying in his campaign.

Sadly, this is true. However, we live in the buckle of the bible belt and that shadows everything.

Kerry may not be wonderful, but he is from the party we need and who wants 4 more horrific years of Bush? :bored:

:tongue:

57% of Oklahomans, that’s who.

electoral-vote.com/
God it’s way too close… it’s going to be another stolen/cheated election if the polls stay this way…

do we have any good people running for house/senate (by good I mean like… liberalish… friendly toward gays, porn, gambling, lotto, and drugs?)

hey holy reality and green eyes, thats so cool how close we live. i live in bartlesville. and greeneyes it sounds like you live in like talala or winginan.

The driving force behind the whole "no Gay marriage " thing, is the fact that the very religion that does all the marriage stuff is Christianity, which has clearly made it’s opinion clear (even if they don’t think it’s an opinion…).

But it’s stupid, it’s not fair that politics are being driven by Christianity. What if I’m not Christian? I’m not, in fact. So how is that fair to me?

Let’s face it, the only reason this gay thing is an issue is because of the teachings of Christianity. If they weren’t taken into account, then this would’ve ended a long time ago. Because this is no different than not allowing two people of a different race not to marry.

And so… I think it’s obvious that politics should get the hell out of religion(literally, lol). That means getting out of the marriage business completely, and making civil unions have all the rights and benefits that marriages currently have, and allowing gay and bi people to do so as well. Marriage can be left as a private affair, since it is really nothing more than a piece of a religion that happens to be in the majority.

Before anyone says it, it’ll be a mighty cold day when someone is allowed to marry a lamp, just to recieve the benefits. No, we are not on a downward spiral. This civil union will still be defined as “a union between two human adults”. No one will be able to screw with the system (any more than it already is screwed with…).

Just my 2 cents

so i’m not sure, are you saying they should get unions, not marriages, or if they find an instutition that will marry them ( a court, an unorthodox church) that marriage is fine.

it should be the people they go to to marry them’s choice of whether they want to or not?

so i’m not sure, are you saying they should get unions, not marriages

Yes, but good ones.

or if they find an instutition that will marry them ( a court, an unorthodox church) that marriage is fine.

They can do whatever they want, but the Civil Union would be what gives them all the benefits.

“it should be the people they go to to marry them’s choice of whether they want to or not?”

If what you mean is the person doing the ceremony deciding whether a couple can get married, then that’s their business.

If they weren’t going to do it now, they won’t be doing it even if the gov decides it’s ok.

Actually marriages were performed long before religious institutions started doing them.

The problem with getting out of marriages altogether and have civil unions is that there are specific rights and privileges which are conferred to a married couple. These rights and privileges have been tested in the courts over decades. To switch over to civil unions for all, including same sex couples, would be a lot more problematic than just changing the current law.

Zow! :eek: I did not know this!

In that case, religion should get the hell out of politics! :content:

politics? yes, lets talk politics :happy:

Republican Virgina Congressmen … yes, Congressman, has resigned after allegations that he has been calling gay dating services for sex.

you can listen to it for yourself here: blogactive.com/

Don’t confuse this with the recent outing of New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey. This is a whole new and fresh story.

It makes me curious if the gay community’s worst opposition is the closet cases themselves … for fear they will be “outed” and embarrassed.

Marriage superceeds all rights. Once you are married your spouse decisions superceeds your own parents, or any other family member. This doesn't happen with civil unions.

The opposition argues that marriage is an institution for procreation. This is a false representation since many married couples can’t or choose not to have children. … and many people that “can’t” have children usually adopt … which gays can also do. … and also some gays have children from previous relationships.

People make the mistake of bringing sex into question when they discuss homosexuals. It has nothing to do with sex or desire, but it involves “love.” People do no choose who they fall in love with. Even straight people do not choose who they fall in love with. Love is unmistakable and undeniable. If two people really love each other they will be together. Marriage is a commitment between two people to be faithful to each other forever… it is not a promise to have sex and children. blah, I’m ranting from nowhere, and just felt like saying that.

Since the US seems to get all the steam, I thought it would be fun to investigate other countries.

In India homosexuality is against the law and strictly looked down upon. Some people claim that the society in India is not close to accepting it enough to make it not illegal.

In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.

(the below statements have not been investigated to be as fact)

The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.

In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband’s lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.

There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex for the first time… Reason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden for virgins to marry.

But if your not homosexual then there’s no problem. Just simply say your not homosexual and that will be that.

I don’t get it…what is the big controversy? And why don’t the gay people have the same rights as everyone else?? I think a 4 year old could look at this issue for 2 seconds and come to the conclusion that theres no reason why they shouldn’t have all the same rights as everyone, and a lot of reasons they should…we live in the united states don’t we? It’s stupid, black rights…women’s rights…don’t they see the obvious trend/pattern here? Stop wasting time on that and just say yes gay people be happy! Then they could pay attention to all that war stuff and important stuff and stop dwelling on pointless stuff that only effects part of the people. :eh:

Well, it looks like I’ve got my work cracked out for me here.
cracks his knuckles

Let’s start at the beginning:

Firstly, I’d like to point out that homosexuals are not an ethnic group. There is no “gay gene,” contrary to popular homosexual propaganda. This was proven scientifically several years ago.
Also, there is a difference between “social intercourse” and “sexual intercourse,” especially considering that sexual relations are not permitted in most public (i.e. social) places.
Also, note that, while discriminatory does appear to be used with its usual, negative connotation, that is not necessarily the case; discrimination is simply the creation of a clear distinction, a distinguishment, as it were.

Moving on, let’s consider a dictionary definition of marriage:

  1. a. the legal union of man and woman as husband and wife
    b. the state of being married; wedlock

Yes, many modern dictionaries include a definition for same-sex marriages, but that’s strictly a modern political issue. For comparison, there was a short time in the past during which the word “pagan” was sometimes used to refer to an atheist; that doesn’t make the definition right, but that’s how it was used at the time.
Anyway, as I was saying, protection of the sanctity or security or whatever of marriage need not be a political or religious or spiritual issue; it could easily become linguisitic or logistic or scientific. Hence, legally defining marriage as what it is is not necessarily wrong.

On to children…
It has been stated that many modern married (heterosexual) couples choose to not have children. While I agree that they have a legal right to do so, I also hold that it is their own, personal problem.
It has also been stated that some modern married (heterosexual) couples are incapable of having children. This, however, is a biological/physical problem, unlike homosexuality, which is a mental problem. Specifically, homosexuals choose to be so, whereas the individual(s) in the heterosexual couple had no choice about becoming sterile.
It was also brought up that homosexual groupings can adopt children. This is a political issue twofold. Firstly, there are many orphans that never find a home, and so, for the sake of relieving the workers, and allegedly for the sake of the children, they give them to any home that can squeak by any barriers to their adopting children. Secondly, since it has become unpopular over the past few decades to act against homosexuality, those who create laws to determine who may or may not adopt children have not established any provisions to confirm homosexuality as a severe psychological disorder.

Many hospitals prevent close friends from visiting. In this case, also, he was the other boy’s boyfriend, but often, even if the victim were straight, his girlfriend would not be allowed to visit in a similar scenario.
And you say that it’s not like he was an axe murderer, however:

  1. Do we know that?
  2. He may as well have been.

Basically, it is a logical protocol, since many individuals can claim to be close friends of the patient (that’s why many hospitals only allow those who can prove that they are related, or those other visitors authorized by the close family). I mean, the local bag-lady could claim that she knows the guy who was just wheeled in off of the ambulance; that doesn’t mean that she does, or, even if she did, that she would be allowed in there.

Oh, sure, group them all together. You make the gay haters sound as bad as the gays when you say it like that.

You should realize that it’s only “over 1/3rd” if the US has >1500 AND <1512 local newspapers. You haven’t shown that at all.

OK, now I’m just disappointed. I used to like Canada, and Italy, and especially Scotland. sigh
This makes me almost as depressed as when DV went down.

You sort of answered your own question there, DM. Homosexuals are intrinsically unhappy. They delude themselves into thinking that they are happy. However, I must refuse to argue this sub-point any further. I once tried to argue to someone (about a hypothetical scenario about a world in which the Matrix existed) as to why the people living in the matrix, who believed themselves to be happy when learned and free, were unhappy. We ended up having to agree to disagree, since it’s mostly a matter of opinion as to whether someone deluded into happiness is happy or not.

Again, it’s a political situation. If and when the politics of the world are repaired, this will no longer be a problem.

Other than in relation to your poor grammar and spelling skills, I agree with you. It is quite a shame that homosexuals and their co-conspirators/sympathizers have to blaspheme the names of love and sex in this fashion.

  1. Homosexuals have not always existed. Homosexuals did not exist before humans existed, at the very least. However, in case you make some sort of false accusations against someone else, I also add the following statement: Homosexuals did not exist before creatures with gender existed.
  2. “gay people will always exist”: GODS, I HOPE NOT! (and I don’t mean “gods” in a worshipful manner so much as to add emphasis)

No, but I also chose not to kill my mom this afternoon, and I chose to feed my cat today. I don’t see much of a point to this.

First of all, any creatures, other than dolphins or humans, that “have homosexual orgies for fun”…well, they aren’t doing that. Dolphins are the only animals, besides humans, that have been shown to have sex for fun. And, unless you’ve found a way to communicate with those other animals, you have no way of accurately saying that they’re doing it for fun.
Besides that, many such reports are falsified, meant to stir up sentiment in favor of homosexuals.

Now, there is another, related point that I'd like to argue, but that I won't, since it's technically my opinion/belief system, but I'm going to put it out here right now as food for thought: To the extent that non-human animals can become homosexual, it is very likely the result of the psychic pollution generated by human homosexuals. Essentially, their homosexuality is polluting the rest of the planet. What you choose to do with this idea, should you choose to believe it, is strictly up to you. On one extreme, you could decide that all homosexuals must die, lest they continue to contaminate us further. On another extreme, you could decide to let entropy take its course, and allow the homosexuality to spread evenly across the planet and throughout the biosphere. On yet another extreme, you could try to graph all known occurrences of homosexual behavior to determine the core location of a homosexual, psychical anomaly. Moderately, you could just decide to add to yourself some extra shielding, specifically against these problems. [quote="infection0"] As for gay people, we don't have a right to deny them a marriage or any of the privleges bestowed on married people. Marriage is a worldwide symbol of the love between two people. [/quote] OK, I think that people are being ironic here, but that's probably just because I understand what "love" means. "Marriage is a worldwide symbol of the love between two people." Love, of course, is the combination of all emotions, and is unable to be felt by homosexuals. Of course, with marriage symbolizing love, it would by ironic, if not entirely hypocritical, to allow homosexuals anything called "marriage." [quote="Technodreamer"] Do old women, past their reproduction capabilities, become "lesser"? No. [/quote] OK, now you're just trying to be tedious. Of course old women are not lesser. It has long been a tradition to revere one's elders, for the knowledge and wisdom that they possess. Even when the occasional elder becomes senile, tradition and trend dictate that we treat them with the same respect as one who does not. Of course, this is much less true today, with elders being tossed aside into nursing homes and such, especially when they become intolerant or spiteful, but still... [quote="Technodreamer"] I wont condem anyone for their activities. (Unless it was rape, forced incest, child sex or animal rape) [/quote] That's great, just great. Here's my own, personal version: I won't condem anyone for their activities, unless they include: rape, incest, petifilism, bestiality, homosexuality, assault, battery, murder, theft, racism, invasion of privacy, destruction of property, defacement of property, or hypocrisy (actually, I'm sure that there are others, but I can't think of any more ATM). Hmm, is it just me, or does it look like I have more morals than you? [quote="Tomas"] Funny how a country that call themself the land of free, can deny such basic rights to certain people... [/quote] First: opinion: homosexuals aren't people Second: fact: Technically, marriage isn't a basic right (although it is a rather basic (i.e. simple) rite). Permission for a man and a woman to mate: that's a basic right. Permission for them to enter a contractual agreement that terminates either upon divorce or upon death: that already sounds more complicated, eh? Third: factoid: Y'know, there are quite a few places (especially in the U.S.A.) that don't recognize handfastings. Maybe we should work on that before trying to commit crimes against humanity. [quote="Garlic"] Now, if one of these homosexuals hits on me though I will go Jeffory Dahmer on them and eat there asses and have sex wit there corpse. [/quote] As long as by "eat there asses" you meant "beat their asses," I'll ignore the necrophilic part of that statement. [quote="milod789"] Yea gay people chose to be gay! They choose to subject themselves to violence, ridicule, and being ostracized in many communities. Does that really make sense to you? If thy could choose differently don’t you think they would? [/quote] OK, about that bit of sarcasm: You know that that isn't the most logical thing in the world to state. I, for one, openly hate homosexuals, and with very good reason, even though I know that the political situation is against me. There are quite a few entities that choose to do things that aren't popular. I have actually held quite a few such beliefs, including anti-homosexuality and atheism (while amongst liberal Abramics, specifically). I could continue to list such cases, but I'm in something of a hurry. Remind me later and I'll say some more. [quote="Jack"] Since when penis and penis dont match?And vagina to vagina?Gods,who are you Demon to say that? The person interested is the one to say about her/his tastes. They even might like dogs,birds and whatever they can think of.......and as long as theres no harm done....thats noones business. Btw.....vagina and vagina matches togheter perfectly....just watch it sometime,maybe you can be convinced:) take care:) [/quote]

Of course, I remember seeing that. The vagina elongated in a strait fashion and entered into the other vagina. Then, it ejected new, magically-created sperm into the second vagina, causing the owner of said second vagina to become pregnant with a - YOU’RE OUT OF YOUR MIND, you dip$#!t!

Well, that pretty much covers the first page, and I’m about to watch Futurama - shut up…
I’ll be back at some future point with my statements on the second page. My post is plenty long (and certainly took long enough to type), so you have plenty around which to try to wrap your apparantly-feeble minds.

OK, I’m quickreplying here to say that I don’t know how to do quotes on ld4all. I used that format that worked back on DreamViews, which I miss very much. Tell me the right format, and I’ll go through and fix it myself later.

[size=75][color=red][/color][/size]
EDIT: the correct format includes quotes around the name " "

[quote="DreamAddict"]
with a name
[/quote]

If a name is not used, it doesn’t require quotes.

[quote]
without a name
[/quote]

[size=75][color=red][/color][/size]