General Chat / San Francisco Allows Gay Marriages

So do you hold the same contempt for people who never have children because they can't, won't or never get the chance?

Surely they're just as bad...

...excellent point, perhaps, that there is no principle being applied in dialogue nor decision. I believe it was Herbert Spencer who said something like 'nothing will hold a man in ignorance like contempt prior to investigation' and really, the only people benefitting from this rancour are those who would oppress personal search.

I have reservations about gay marriage, believing marriage to be a sacred choice for procreation and pragmatically, that if sex were not so pleasurable we would have been extinct long ago. As such, my own conflict and I've used this 'issue' to look at my prejudice, thinking now that all things must flower before examining the fruit.

It may have been against two laws, and a civil disobediance act, but GLAAD and the NGLTF have warned about this sort of stuff happening so people might want to get ready for it.

I think it's great because we [the gays] shouldn't be restricted full and proper marriage based on sexual orientation, and I think it's a step in the right direction.

lol critic you are funny for defending stuff

Why is it now that I can not make a post anymore with people not believing that I am gay (which is the truth, if anyone would bother to talk to me and take what I say truthfully) or bashing it? Not to mention that I find it immature of anyone who does in the first place, but enough on that.

I don't care what happens, it's their lifestyle that they chose and I can live with that.

Well logic has finally prevailed!

...excellent point, perhaps, that there is no principle being applied in dialogue nor decision. I believe it was Herbert Spencer who said something like 'nothing will hold a man in ignorance like contempt prior to investigation' and really, the only people benefitting from this rancour are those who would oppress personal search.

actually it's not a great point. I have many married friends that have tried unsuccesfully to have kids, and i don't hold them in contempt at all. The fact is it's not their sexual orientation holding them back, it's a medical thing.

For the ones who are gay it's natural.

that's just an opinion. Until there is evidence to the fact that "gays are born gay" then you can't use that rebuttle. My mother in law ,as i said, recently came out that she was gay and is claiming she has been all her life. If that is true than having a marriage and three kids was a huge mistake for her. They have done studies on children regarding there sex and their activities and there are definate patterns twards certain tendancies (ie, boys played with trucks, and girls went straight for the baby dolls.).


I don't know what causes the change in individuals to become gay, but to say your discriminated against or have lost rights (which by the way no gay can explain what "right" they have actually lost) is really silly, especially in this PC world we live in.

The fact is it's not their sexual orientation holding them back, it's a medical thing.

Exactly, why should sexual orientation determine the rights a person is given? It's completely irrevelant.

Until there is evidence to the fact that "gays are born gay" then you can't use that rebuttle.

the problem is that nobody knows what a child is, or is not, born with. we assume that unconcious things, like breathing, or blinking, we're born with, but there isn't any conclusive evidence to prove that, and their probably never will be.

however, there have been studies to test 'instinctual' behavior, and how it varies between the various sexual orientations. say, forcing somebody to blink, and documenting how they blinked. most of these studies, that i know of (and their aren't many, mind you), have represented defined, but not conclusive, differences between the different orientations.

interestingly, straight women are the most abnormal. or, in other words: gay men, straight men, and gay women all have similar results, while straight women have very different results.

anywho...

marriage began as a religious institution, and should have remained one. and if any legal merrit is to be applied to marriage, then anyone who is married by a religion (possibly barring cults, and things of that nature) should be granted the legal rights containted therin, regardless of anything, regardless of everything.

that's just an opinion.  Until there is evidence to the fact that "gays are born gay" then you can't use that rebuttle. 

Well, thats great, but the theory that gay people are sinfully choosing to be gay is also an opinion, and I'm not the one using an opinion to deny someone equal legal rights.

I don't know what its like to be gay, but I'd assume that for them its basically like I am attracted to women, its natural. The only problem for them is that society tells them that their natural feelings are "wrong".

but to say your discriminated against or have lost rights (which by the way no gay can explain what "right" they have actually lost)

What right have they lost? How about the right to legally marry someone they love and are committed to.

The religious thing. I dont give a fuck who churches want to marry. Hell, if they only want to marry same race couples, fucking go for it. A supreme court justice, dissenting as the supreme court overturned state bans of interracial marriage claimed in his dissenting statement that "God intended to keep the races seperate. He put different races on different continents for a reason." And something about Adam and Eve both being the same race.

I am reminded of this when I see people holding up signs that say "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Well, dumbass, God obviously made BOTH adam and eve and adam and steve, because if adam and steve didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this debate right know.

What right have they lost? How about the right to legally marry someone they love and are committed to.

boy, i didn't see that in my "what rights do you have?" handbook. Last I check there was a rule in the book in California that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It's not a right but a privilage so to speak. Gays, if they so choose, can participate in marriage so long as they go by the defined terms. You can go expanding the terms or changeing definitions just to fit your desires, if that is done than we are in for a lot of confusion.

marriage began as a religious institution, and should have remained one.

I am going to disagree with that. I think it's more of a question like, "what came first the chicken or the egg?". sure we have biblical references of the first "coupleing" between a man and a woman, but were they married or was that inferred after the first known record of an official marriage?

Well, thats great, but the theory that gay people are sinfully choosing to be gay is also an opinion,

I said nothing of "sinfull" as i'm trying to keep religion out of this (becasue that seems to be the most common group opposing this), it's a choice to have a gay relationship, and that is not an opinion.

dude, you are saying all this stuff about marraige not being a right, and if they choose, they should enter a heterosexual marriage.

How would you feel if the government told you that you couldn't marry the person you loved? I'm sure you would just be quiet, or maybe you would choose to marry someone else that the government would let you.

Since we are keeping religion out of it, lets talk about government marriages. They grant legal rights, like for example the right to make medical decisions a/b your spouse. Insurance benefits for a partner. And marriage, in the non-religious sense, is good. It protects the most vulnerable members of society (young and old), is a stable economic unit, and increases the happiness of those involved...good for society.

Yea, duh, its a choice to enter a gay relationship, but other than "you say so", why the hell shouldn't they?

eh... i dont mind gays as long as nothing shoved up me or in me and i dont see anything in public

Now, was that really necessary?

What right have they lost? How about the right to legally marry someone they love and are committed to.

boy, i didn't see that in my "what rights do you have?" handbook. Last I check there was a rule in the book in California that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It's not a right but a privilage so to speak. Gays, if they so choose, can participate in marriage so long as they go by the defined terms. You can go expanding the terms or changeing definitions just to fit your desires, if that is done than we are in for a lot of confusion.




I am going to disagree with that. I think it's more of a question like, "what came first the chicken or the egg?". sure we have biblical references of the first "coupleing" between a man and a woman, but were they married or was that inferred after the first known record of an official marriage?




I said nothing of "sinfull" as i'm trying to keep religion out of this (becasue that seems to be the most common group opposing this), it's a choice to have a gay relationship, and that is not an opinion.

Your name wouldn't happen to be Ken, would it?


Because I was listening to a talk-show on the radio the other night and this guy had the exact same stance/thoughts as you.


And shortdude, was that really neccesary?

How would you feel if the government told you that you couldn't marry the person you loved?

the same way i would feel if i had a Viper and was told i could only go 65 MPH, oh wait; Or if i really loved my dog and was told I couldn't marry her, oh wait. I have no problem with civil unions, it meets the criteria set by the homosexual community, but they want more than that.

They grant legal rights, like for example the right to make medical decisions a/b your spouse.

That's not really true, These same "rights" are granted to anyone who makes that clear in a will or by designation. This whole "i can't visit my lover in the hospital" is B.S. because it's based on any given hospital to make that decision and most hospitals don't really care.

No may name is not Ken, but i do know a lot of people that have the same opinions about this as I do.

the same way i would feel if i had a Viper and was told i could only go 65 MPH, oh wait; Or if i really loved my dog and was told I couldn't marry her, oh wait.

That's just a garbage argument...comparing homosexuality to bestiality is demeaning. What two consenting adults choose to do is not comparable in any way shape or form. As for speed limits, they are imposed for public safety, how does gay marriage affect public safety.

Putting this whole issue to a vote is also not a solution. Since when does the public decide what is an acceptable practice or not. If this were the case you may still have slavery as the majority of people in the 1800's would've voted to keep it. It is up to government to see the right path and take it regardless of public sentiment. It's called cultural progress. 100 years from now I see western culture looking back on a time when gays were discriminated against and not allowed basic human rights with disbelief. Go ahead and live with your baseless discriminatory arguments, but the time has come for this.

Denying gay people the right to be legally bonded with all the rights, privileges and designations of straight people serves no purpose but to designate them as abnormal and outside the scope of acceptable human practices. This should no longer be the case. I still find it sad that this could be, would be and is an issue. I hope that in all this discussion, perhaps one person opens up their mind and sees this issue for what it is, discrimination of the worst sort. This is all just very sad.

I may not completely understand homosexuality, why people are, and why people are against it, but I do know one thing.

This is America, the home of the free, and whether you like gay marriages or not, I think they should be allowed the right to marry. Who are we to tell them they can't be married if they love eachother, they aren't hurting anyone.

Moral, immoral, sin, not a sin, fucked up, not fucked up, it doesn't matter, it isn't hurting anyone but themselves, if that, so I see no reason to deny them the rights we've given to every other human being in this country.

And don't give me this bullshit about how you can't have children, we do not have a shortage of children. Six billion people on this planet, thats plenty, too many if you ask me. And if a gay couple wants to adopt a kid from a third world country whos a victim of this overpopulation crisis, go ahead and let em!

You may say the kids gonna be fucked up growing up with two daddies, but I say, fuck that atleast he grows up fed rather than starving to death in Haiti or Ethiopia. I'd much rather have the kid be a little tweaked and alive than starve to death at age 3, wouldn't you?

And I've also heard the argument that they are wasting sperm, not creating new life but still getting the pleasure out of sex. Fuck you, argue that once you put down your FHM, Playboy and Maxim and quit jackin off in your bathroom and blowin millions of little Suzies and Bobbies into your toilet bowl. Like the man George Carlin said "not every ejaculation deserves a name."

So honestly, shut the fuck up and live with it, their gonna get married, there gonna love eachother, and they are gonna be happy whether you like it or not. Let em live in peace without being harassed by idots who are afraid of their own dick. Think of all the racists out there, they don't like minorites but you know what, they put up with em. Minorities get treated with freedom whether racists like it or not. And your being no better than them when you harass them and tell them their evil sinners and the like.

So in conclusion, they aren't hurting you, so don't go try and hurt them.

[font="Arial"]
I was reading your posts Aero trying to think of something to say back and I relized you are the most vauge writer whos literature I have ever read.

Do us all a favor and devolpe your arguments and don't just leave yourself hanging.

And guys, go listen to the song "People are people" by Depeche Mode may put something fucking sense in your head, and by guys I mean Aero.
[/font]

I'm sorry but the purpose of the buttocks is not to have things pushed into it. Its purpose is to push things out of it. It is for getting rid of the remains of what you have digested. No, its not an organ for pleasure (which sick people make it to be) and reproduction. Now the vagina and penis are made for pleasure (in this case true love with the one you love. Not some whore) and reproduction. It also contains the bladder. But the bladder is seperated from where sperm or...umm... excuse my lack of really cool names that make you look smart... pussy juice (omg) shoot out. Those 2 organs are for the male and female to use in sexual intercourse together and when the time comes to urinate. They aren't made for the same sex. But the buttocks has no extra tube. It has one. And it is used to digest and its only job is to be used to digest. It's not made for reproduction and love making.

Now all this goes with alot of other things I have to say but that would be really long and no one would read it and it would be a waste of my time to type it up. Maybe it might not even make too much since. Oh well.