Gay marriages

[narc]

[crookedking]

narc asked for my hand in marriage, but i denied him.

i can't imagine what kind of pictures he'd take of me.

[The_acidhouse]

People fear change.
Change is inevitable.


What does that tell you about fear?

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

People fear change.
Change is inevitable.


What does that tell you about fear?

Oh aren't you the nitty gritty of witty. Fear doesn't describe my reaction to this change, disgust is probably more acurate, but then, we are all free to make choices. Instead of just copping out throwing about absurd throw away one liners that have no grounding in intellectual debate, why don't you try and adress some points and see if you can point out them to be contrary to some grounded logic?

Wait I know, you are for a group that once preached tolerance as their mantra. Yet afterwords when social delusion allows the homosexual movement to not be considered as such a minority, the pleas for tolerance is replaced with the same disdain previous generations had for this once very obvious minority. Therefore you still fear the change of being humble and tolerant once your movement picks up speed. Now maybe you could address the issue of hypocracy by democracy, though I doubt you'd want to come off your cloud to do so. I'd be happily surprised if you were actually here not just to toot your own horn.

[The_acidhouse]

So what, basically you are a biggot?

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Fear doesn't describe my reaction to this change, disgust is probably more acurate, but then, we are all free to make choices.

[acidic_liquid]

Just to add:
Global has a new reality series coming named:
My Fabulous Gay Marriage

OOOOH how fun!

Seriously, why would you want to go on that show?

[acidic_liquid]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Oh aren't you the nitty gritty of witty. Fear doesn't describe my reaction to this change, disgust is probably more acurate, but then, we are all free to make choices.

Hmm wait, are you saying homosexuality is a choice?

[wum]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

So what, basically you are a biggot?

Encarta defines this word as intolerant. And in the disapproving context that you use it, I ask why should you tolerate something that's damaging to society?

[The_acidhouse]

And how exactly is allowing gay marriage damaging to society? Are you a sociology student doing a master's thesis on this? Probably not. I think if you were you would clearly see that those countries which have allowed gay marriage are clearly in tact.

And again I ask, why are you on this board?

Originally Posted by wum

Encarta defines this word as intolerant. And in the disapproving context that you use it, I ask why should you tolerate something that's damaging to society?

[wum]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

And how exactly is allowing gay marriage damaging to society? Are you a sociology student doing a master's thesis on this? Probably not. I think if you were you would clearly see that those countries which have allowed gay marriage are clearly in tact.

And again I ask, why are you on this board?

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/660zypwj.asp

[The_acidhouse]

I fail to see how this is true:
"Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher."

I highly doubt there is any statistical evidence that shows even a minor increase in the reduction in marriage caused by gay marriage. In fact, this article clearly shows there was a trend to begin with. If I had to guess, I'd say the major factor that reduces the level of marriage is the drop in religious customs of people. Perhaps we should ban atheism?

Moreover, I fail to see how a lower marriage rate, or how raising children out of wedlock is 'ruining society'? Places all over the western world have had declining marriage rates for years and last time I checked the world hasn't yet ended.

Interesting source by the way. I wonder what those conservatives neo-reaganists would think about other issues like drug use at raves.

Again, what are you doing on this board?

Originally Posted by wum

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/660zypwj.asp

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

So what, basically you are a biggot?

No, actually you are. You misunderstood what my disgust goes to, but seeing how you impose your beliefs instead of having tolerance and ask real questions, I don't expect much from you. You fail to debate, and so your point is nullified. Go home and stick some shit up your ass, loser.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

Hmm wait, are you saying homosexuality is a choice?

Yes, all sexual preference is a choice. IT IS A CHOICE, BECAUSE WE CHOOSE TO ACT ON IT!

Seeing how encouraged we are to have sex in this society today, I can see how you have a problem understanding this. However if you were raised in a buddhist monestary for example, the choice would be very apparent. We can control the uses of our senses with our minds, if your will is strong enough, you can command your impulses. The sexual energy can be commanded, and doing so can lead to great benefit. If you would like to know more, I suggest you look into the process of raising the "kundalini".

[The_acidhouse]

Wum: Before I read the link before I was basically thinking the same thing. It appears that like your source, you fail to consider the difference between a causal variable or a non-causal variable.
If you can show me statistical evidence based on Ztests or ANOVA tables, showing undisputable evidence maybe it would be easier to convince others.

Here's the link:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/docume...sp?doc_id=1443
[quote]First, Mr. Kurtz confuses (either accidentally or purposefully) issues of cause and effect. His main strategy throughout his article is to suggest that continuing increases in the rates of domestic partnership is conclusive proof that gay marriage has had a negative impact on society. Certainly, it is true that, over the past several decades, many couples in Scandinavia have chosen to live their lives together without actually going to city hall or church and signing official marriage documents – thereby living together as what we would call ‘domestic partners’ – permanent partners without a marriage certificate. This trend began decades ago, starting in the 1960’s, and has continued to grow (both in Scandinavia and all other western countries, including the U.S.).[quote]

[The_acidhouse]

So, do you vote conservative too?
And for the record: i'm a top.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Go home and stick some shit up your ass, loser.

[wum]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

I fail to see how this is true:
"Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher."

I highly doubt there is any statistical evidence that shows even a minor increase in the reduction in marriage caused by gay marriage.

Sex and marriage used to be one. With the relaxing of morals and now with the gaying up of marriage, its meaning is all but lost. Just read the article more thoroughly :)

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

Moreover, I fail to see how a lower marriage rate, or how raising children out of wedlock is 'ruining society'?

please tell me you're kidding.

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

Places all over the western world have had declining marriage rates for years and last time I checked the world hasn't yet ended.

Interesting source by the way. I wonder what those conservatives neo-reaganists would think about other issues like drug use at raves.

Again, what are you doing on this board?

just here to kick it

[The_acidhouse]

Oh, and for the record - please don't take it personally - I just find it difficult to debate w/ pseudo-intellectuals since their level of understanding is typically based on emotion as opposed to logic.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

You fail to debate, and so your point is nullified. Go home and stick some shit up your ass, loser.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

So, do you vote conservative too?
And for the record: i'm a top.

Sorry I don't fall into your neatly catagorized labels, I am my own person. I don't vote liberal or conservative, because I know both votes are a write off, I guess your too dumb to get that. Political ideology will never determine policy, both are as corrupt as ever. The disgust I have, is that gays of your variety aren't satisfied being gay and having the same legal status as straights. That would determine we are equal under law, and that I am for. Instead you impose your moral beliefs by re-writing definitions to suit YOUR needs not ALL needs. You should try respecting people's rights as TOLERANCE, not complete acceptance, otherwise, I repeat, it's hypocracy by democracy.

No go on with your BIGOTRY (yes it is you, not me, look up it's definition you intolerant worm) and your self deluded circular arguing. To any true intellectual, you have lost the debate before you started, because you haven't started.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

Oh, and for the record - please don't take it personally - I just find it difficult to debate w/ pseudo-intellectuals since their level of understanding is typically based on emotion as opposed to logic.

This is just rhetoric so you can get out of arguing your point which is already nullified. That's why you can't even state one point of mine as being logically contrary, just one. I already have done so for many of yours. You fear true debate, and for the record, you fail to be even pseudo-intellectual yourself, you are just an ignorant self deluded homo.

[The_acidhouse]

Alright fine, breeder.. let's debate then..
What exactly do you wanna debate?

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

This is just rhetoric so you can get out of arguing your point which is already nullified. That's why you can't even state one point of mine as being logically contrary, just one. I already have done so for many of yours. You fear true debate, and for the record, you fail to be even pseudo-intellectual yourself, you are just an ignorant self deluded homo.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

Alright fine, breeder.. let's debate then..
What exactly do you wanna debate?

Finally!

:)

Glad you made it to reality, but for starters, the onus is on you. Why don't you read some of my previous claims in this thread (there is no shortage), and see if you disagree with me on anything I wrote? At that point, present a rebutal on why my claim(s) won't hold ground as goes cause and effect. To save time I'll give you an example.

There is a spiritual belief (very ancient, read: not just for the last 2000 years) that honors the union of a man and woman as becoming one flesh in it's divine form. This movement wants to take away the rights of this expression by clumping the homosexual union as being one and the same. One and the same for legal status is reasonable, but why impose spiritual beliefs? Because even if you don't see the movement as doing that, there are many tolerant religious folks out there that will feel this way, it throws your whole bigotry clause out the window.

[acidic_liquid]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Yes, all sexual preference is a choice. IT IS A CHOICE, BECAUSE WE CHOOSE TO ACT ON IT!

Seeing how encouraged we are to have sex in this society today, I can see how you have a problem understanding this. However if you were raised in a buddhist monestary for example, the choice would be very apparent. We can control the uses of our senses with our minds, if your will is strong enough, you can command your impulses. The sexual energy can be commanded, and doing so can lead to great benefit. If you would like to know more, I suggest you look into the process of raising the "kundalini".

Sexual PREFERENCE is NOT a choice. I did not wake up one day and say, "WOW, I think I'll be gay today." I did not wake up and say, oh I think I'll go for guys. Don't argue with me on this.

YES, acting upon it or not is a choice. I understand what you mean by society imposing sex and no one can really control these urges anymore, however, these are two entirely different things. Did your powerful arguing and logic skills fail you this time? I can't help it if men have appeal to me and not women. I can think about men, and have urges and I can choose not to act on them. Does this make me straight? NO. It's not your actions that make you gay, it's your preference.

There's even discoveries of a 'gay' gene.
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm

I thought the things you've said until now was actually decent. This claim just makes no sense.

[The_acidhouse]

How is not being able to marry the person you love = to having the same legal status?
How are we re-writing anything? The 1982 Charter (of R&F) clearly states that the government must not discriminate - this is simply an extension of our rights under the Charter.

And i'm not sure what you mean by hypocracy by democracy.. But the charter is NOT democratic. It's very difficult to ammend - and for good reason.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

The disgust I have, is that gays of your variety aren't satisfied being gay and having the same legal status as straights. That would determine we are equal under law, and that I am for. Instead you impose your moral beliefs by re-writing definitions to suit YOUR needs not ALL needs.

[acidic_liquid]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

How is not being able to marry the person you love = to having the same legal status?
How are we re-writing anything? The 1982 Charter (of R&F) clearly states that the government must not discriminate - this is simply an extension of our rights under the Charter.

And i'm not sure what you mean by hypocracy by democracy.. But the charter is NOT democratic. It's very difficult to ammend - and for good reason.

I think he's a closet homophobe and he's justifying this by saying the gays are attacking the straight ppl's rights.

[The_acidhouse]

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I wouldn't be surprised. Especially w/ that whole "you can control it" rant he has going on..

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

I think he's a closet homophobe and he's justifying this by saying the gays are attacking the straight ppl's rights.