General Chat / San Francisco Allows Gay Marriages

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.

[font="Arial"]
Quaralation master! Did I spell that right?
[/font]

fucking homophobes. Bush sucks. I hope he gets raped by gay people. 

That's kind of funny because even though you're kind of supporting gay marriage and whatever, you're stereotyping what homophobics think homosexuals are; a bunch of perverts and rapists. But that's besides the point. I'm suprised this hasn't happened sooner in SF, but it isn't a shock that it would be one of the fisrt places to support it. It makes me wanna move.

Metal, that's completely beside the arguement.
It doesn't change the fact that they are still human beings.
They still deserve to be treated equally.

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.

So your saying that you will never accept a blowjob? I'm pretty sure the mouth is not meant to have a penis shoved in it either, but I don't hear you complaining about that. The point is that what two consenting adults do with each other and where they stick their sexual organs is none of your concern or business, because (now listen closely)...IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU! If this is your only argument, is lesbianism ok then? I'm also pretty sure many married heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse, as well as many heterosexual men enjoying anal stimulation. Oh well, we all know you're an idiot.

I don't even know why I feel so strongly about this. I'm not gay. I don't have many friends or aquaintences that were gay. I'm not really interested in hearing what gay people do. So, I don't know why I feel so damn strongly about this.

Maybe its the fact that all my life I read books in english class about how bad slavery and the early 19th century was in America for blacks. Maybe it's because I read books about the holocaust. But when I was a little kid, I would always tell myself "wow, back then was so fucked up. Something like that would never happen here." You can go ahead and tell me the purposes of the rectum all you'd like, but to me its descrimination. Gay people aren't any less people than heterosexuals, and they shouldn't be given less rights.

Maybe its the fact that people are playing offense against this. If you asked me a year ago if gay marriage was gonna be a huge campaign issue, I'da said no. And if it was gonna be a campaign issue, I would've been sure that it was because of the gay community demanding rights. No, those who are trying to "defend marriage" made them an issue. I'll never understand how people view letting adults have legal rights as a threat.

I don't know why I feel so passionately about this. But when people try to make discrimination part of my constitution in my country, its just plain offensive.

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?

The children won't even be "fucked up", either.

This is proven by experience(on my part, I'll explain further on) and scientific tests.

I have adult friends who are perfectly fine, normal, all that stuff that have had gay parents, and when I've asked about it, they've said it didn't affect them at all.


The reason for this would be that even though the young child would see opposite sex couples that have kids, he/she would grow up with the gay couple as the parents and by growing up with that, not know any different, to an extent. It's like growing up being a certain way or having certain things, you don't know any different, and thus far, it will not "fuck you up".

Metal - what about the monotremes? WHAT ABOUT THE POOR FUCKING MONOTREMES?

[font="Arial"]
mon·o·treme
n.

A member of the Monotremata, an order of primitive egg-laying mammals restricted to Australia and New Guinea and consisting of only the platypus and the echidna.
[/font]

Not only do they have to piss/shit/fuck with the same hole, they have to give birth with it too!

Where are their rights, eh?!

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.

God that was horrible. I hate hicks..

I'm sorry to disagree with the majority, but I agree with Aero completely and don't find him being one-sided or a bigot.

I really must say that I'm quite offended by those of you who have been saying that religion sucks and down with Christianity (be it those choice of words or not, some of you have clearly made your case). While this situation is best dealt with religion aside, it's impossible to leave it out. First off, how dare any of you put down a religion just because you disagree with it. That's being extremely hypocritical. You hate that there are people that put down homosexuality just because they disagree with it, but you find it ok to put down their religions just because you disagree with that? Sorry, that's really contradictory.

This country was formed under a religion. Read the pledge of allegiance. "One nation under God." While many people find it to be inappropriate when there is a separation of church and state, you have to remember that there were some people key in this nation's formation that were Christian. Hate it or not, it's the truth, and we can't go back in time to change it.

Marriage is a sacred institution that has always been a man and a woman since history was first recorded. Were there gay people back in the beginning of human history? I'm sure there were, but marriage wasn't offered to them either. You all seem so set on letting gays marry, yet you don't realize what marriage has been through the centuries.

I find marriage to be very sacred and not something to be fooled around with. I'm a Christian, and I disagree with homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I am homophobic. I've got plenty of homosexual friends at school.

Is there something wrong with civil union for gays? It seems to me that many want the added benefits that married couples get. I'm sorry, but cry for that then. Fight for a change in that, but don't change what marriage is.

It's also quite pathetic to see you compare this to slavery. There is a difference between not letting people get added benefits (that married couples get) and people who had to listen to every word their master's said, who were beaten countless times, and who worked everyday. How dare you compare those two things! There are homophobic people out there, but if you even try to tell me that gays are in constant pain because they are forced to work all the time, listen to what straight people say to do, and are beaten every single day, I'll laugh at you.

Finally, I think a lot of those that support letting gays marry are immature. How many of you can say that you've supported homosexuals getting married ever since you knew what a gay person was? Not many of you, I'm sure. But when you disagree with a president and want him out of office, you decide to bring up everything you can to take him out. That's just sad. You only disagree with something when you can benefit from it in the end. Most of you who are straight and support this change in the definition of marriage are just being selfish and don't seem to care about these people.

Where were you last year? The year before that? What about 20 years ago? 50? What if this controversy hadn't occurred today? Would you be fighting tomorrow? The day after? What about a week from today?

I'm never going agree with gays' sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean I discriminate against them. So don't try and tell me that I'm a bad person just because I disagree with you.

-Freak

I really must say that I'm quite offended by those of you who have been saying that religion sucks and down with Christianity (be it those choice of words or not, some of you have clearly made your case).  While this situation is best dealt with religion aside, it's impossible to leave it out.  First off, how dare any of you put down a religion just because you disagree with it.  That's being extremely hypocritical.  You hate that there are people that put down homosexuality just because they disagree with it, but you find it ok to put down their religions just because you disagree with that?  Sorry, that's really contradictory.

I find the Church's stance on homosexuality to be completely contradictory to the teaching that everyone is loved by God, no matter what. I cannot possibly stand behind an organization that is so incredibly blind to their own ignorance. They can't sit there and tell me God loves everyone, but homosexuals are 'wrong' for the way they are, and that they are condemned to hell. That doesn't work at all, and goes against Jesus's teachings that the gate to heaven is open to all those that live good lives. Why is it that an organization can choose to condemn certain practices and ways of life in the name of God be permitted to do so? Certainly He would not want anything to do with a corrupt organization such as that? I want nothing to do with something like that, because I can decide for myself what is right and wrong, and I certainly don't need priests breathing down my neck because I've supposedly 'sinned'. I can believe in God without all that needless garbage thrown at me by the Church, thank you very much. I'd much rather make my own mind up about it than have opinions superimposed upon me. Which leads to another issue with baptising babies, but that's a whole other issue.

The issue of marriage does not coincide with the religious sense of it. Homosexuals don't want the Church to allow religious marriages between couples, they want equality before the government as a couple. So why is it that, once again, organizations like our government have the rights to ban marriages like that for the 'greater good' of society? They aren't killing anyone, they aren't going to abolish heterosexual marriages, so what's the big deal? You can't ever have a separation of church and state. One's religious affiliation, and any affiliation for that matter, will dictate any rulings and decisions made on behalf of our country. Everyone is biased in one way or another, and it most certainly is Bush's religious affiliation that is dictating his negative approach toward this, everyone else is no different. In a largely Christian nation it'd be really hard to find a vast majority of people who think banning homosexual marriages is discrimination, although I think there'd be a sizeable amount. But, even though democratically that is the right thing to do, to go with the 'will of the majority', does it truly make banning gay marriages okay?

The point is that what two consenting adults do with each other and where they stick their sexual organs is none of your concern or business, because (now listen closely)...IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU!

Well, I guess that is why gay people have so many diseases. I'm not saying that regular people don't get diseases but alot of the shit starts right there. I actually wouldn't prefer a blow job which I think is wrong as well. I have to kiss that mouth. I don't want to kiss my dick. I think lesbians are wrong too. Anal sex is wrong anyways but it is gay males who do it the most. But this isn't my main argument. Just a statement saying one of the reasons it is wrong. My whole argument would take up this whole page which I do not feel like typing.

It doesn't change the fact that they are still human beings.
They still deserve to be treated equally.

Turtleman is fat. He treats us like shit. But we treat him like shit for the fact that he is fat and he treats us like shit. But he is still a human being.

This country was formed under a religion.  Read the pledge of allegiance.  "One nation under God."  While many people find it to be inappropriate when there is a separation of church and state, you have to remember that there were some people key in this nation's formation that were Christian.  Hate it or not, it's the truth, and we can't go back in time to change it.

Separation of church and state is one of the founding principals of your country. Unfortunately, it seems to me that it isn't always practiced as it should be. If I were a non-Christian American, I would find the references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance to be very offensive. That however, is another story and not the issue here. What is the issue with this argument is that what worked 200 years ago does not necessarily fly now. The fact that founders of your country were Christian would seem completely irrelevant to this topic in my opinion.

Marriage is a sacred institution that has always been a man and a woman since history was first recorded.  Were there gay people back in the beginning of human history?  I'm sure there were, but marriage wasn't offered to them either.  You all seem so set on letting gays marry, yet you don't realize what marriage has been through the centuries.

Again, why do you assume that something that has been an institution for centuries must be valid and acceptable today. It's called progress. If marriage in America were solely a religious activity, you may even have a reasonable argument, but it is no longer solely a function of the church. You do not have to believe in god to enter a contract of marriage in the U.S., so excluding gays on this basis cannot be an argument. When gay marriages are legalized, each individual faith should be allowed to decide what their stance on this issue is.

Is there something wrong with civil union for gays?  It seems to me that many want the added benefits that married couples get.  I'm sorry, but cry for that then.  Fight for a change in that, but don't change what marriage is.

It's not a matter of changing what marriage is, it's a matter of expanding the definition so it is inclusive of any two people who want to enter into a contract of love and sharing. Would it not be easier to legislate what the definition of marriage is to include all people as opposed to having a separate set of laws based on someone's sexual orientation

It's also quite pathetic to see you compare this to slavery.  There is a difference between not letting people get added benefits (that married couples get) and people who had to listen to every word their master's said, who were beaten countless times, and who worked everyday.  How dare you compare those two things!  There are homophobic people out there, but if you even try to tell me that gays are in constant pain because they are forced to work all the time, listen to what straight people say to do, and are beaten every single day, I'll laugh at you

It was not a comparison in terms of the gravity of the crimes against humanity, it was a comparison to point out the national ideals change, and that the time has come for this change. It was also a comparison to point out that a government should have the best interests of all its citizens at heart, and in my opinion allowing gay marriages hurts no one, but denying them is discrimination at it's basest level. However, the fact that many gay people in professions such as teaching, still must hide their sexuality, to protect themselves, in my opinion is a very serious crime against humanity.

Finally, I think a lot of those that support letting gays marry are immature.  How many of you can say that you've supported homosexuals getting married ever since you knew what a gay person was?  Not many of you, I'm sure.  But when you disagree with a president and want him out of office, you decide to bring up everything you can to take him out.  That's just sad.  You only disagree with something when you can benefit from it in the end.  Most of you who are straight and support this change in the definition of marriage are just being selfish and don't seem to care about these people.

Are you suggesting that supporting gay marriages is only a rebellious act against Bush? How is having an opinion on a human rights issue like this selfish or immature. Perhaps not everyone voicing an opinion on the issue has always felt this way, but as you get older and MORE mature, you can also gain knowledge of such issues and your viewpoints are allowed to grow and change over time. I really don't think I've read anything in this thread that would make me think that people are basing their opinions on anything but their moral integrity. It's also not an issue of caring about 'these people', it's an issue of the fabric of our society and doing the right thing.

Where were you last year?  The year before that?  What about 20 years ago?  50?  What if this controversy hadn't occurred today?  Would you be fighting tomorrow?  The day after?  What about a week from today?

Huh? Because you weren't talking about something last year, or your ancestors weren't 50 years ago you can't be discussing it and expressing your opinion today? Because someone didn't support gay marriages last year (for reasons ranging from apathy to ignorance to immaturity) means you aren't allowed to have an opinion about it today. You think we'll all change our minds about this tomorrow, next week or next year? I don't think so. Recent events in San Francisco have brought this issue to the forefront at the moment and people are expressing their opinions about it. This does not invalidate their views.

I'm never going agree with gays' sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean I discriminate against them.  So don't try and tell me that I'm a bad person just because I disagree with you.

I have news for you. If you deny them the right to engage in a marital contract when straight people have that right, you discriminate against them. I'm not saying you're a 'bad' person, but I do say your views on this issue are discriminatory.

Well, I guess that is why gay people have so many diseases. I'm not saying that regular people don't get diseases but alot of the shit starts right there. I actually wouldn't prefer a blow job which I think is wrong as well. I have to kiss that mouth. I don't want to kiss my dick. I think lesbians are wrong too. Anal sex is wrong anyways but it is gay males who do it the most. But this isn't my main argument. Just a statement saying one of the reasons it is wrong. My whole argument would take up this whole page which I do not feel like typing.

What revelance does your 'argument' pose to the topic? It isn't a matter of homosexuality itself being morally right or wrong. It's about the equality of rights, and if married heterosexuals recieve benefits, why should homosexuals be refused that? They should be entitled to everything that hetersexuals recieve - there shouldn't be any double standard because they are 'different'.

Are you suggesting that supporting gay marriages is only a rebellious act against Bush?

Yes, for some. Notice how some of these posts all call Bush a bigot in one form or another. For some, its because they think he needs to do something about this. For others, it's a building of feelings towards him. I know that for those not that are not residents of the US, this cannot apply to them, and I wasn't trying to make it seem that way.

Huh? Because you weren't talking about something last year, or your ancestors weren't 50 years ago you can't be discussing it and expressing your opinion today? Because someone didn't support gay marriages last year (for reasons ranging from apathy to ignorance to immaturity) means you aren't allowed to have an opinion about it today. You think we'll all change our minds about this tomorrow, next week or next year? I don't think so. Recent events in San Francisco have brought this issue to the forefront at the moment and people are expressing their opinions about it. This does not invalidate their views.

I'm just going to use a random person for an example here, and I'm not picking anyone out. Let's say they feel strongly about this issue today and want it changed. It's funny how they would have to wait for others to do something before they would get involved.

You're welcome to voice your opinion now, and I for one wouldn't want to stop that. But regardless of why, if this is such a big deal now, how come it wasn't in the past and it takes something like what is going on in San Francisco to make you speak out. Were you too scared (not refering to you directly Toon) to do anything before, or were you just impartial?

Finally, you can say I'm discriminating, but I don't see how you can say that and not think I'm a bad person. I'm sure you do now, but I don't care. This is a controversial issue, in which neither side will ever agree completely, but honestly, do you see either side really taking steps to make things fair?

I'm all for giving gays the benefits that married couples have. But marriage is something sacred that I believe should only be shared between a man and a woman, and that's really due to my religious beliefs. Your opinion of me doesn't matter at all in this, so just leave it out.

---------------------

And John, I don't think you really know as much about your church as you think. I'm not Catholic, but I go to a Catholic High School. The church teaches that there really is a difference between homosexuality and being a homosexual. The church doesn't condemn one to hell just because they are gay, but they consider the act of gay sex a sin. They don't condemn people to hell because they don't have that right. God is the only one who can do that.

And John, I don't think you really know as much about your church as you think.  I'm not Catholic, but I go to a Catholic High School.  The church teaches that there really is a difference between homosexuality and being a homosexual.  The church doesn't condemn one to hell just because they are gay, but they consider the act of gay sex a sin.  They don't condemn people to hell because they don't have that right.  God is the only one who can do that.

The Church has always condemned people, practices and numerous other things. Regardless of them having the right to condemn people, it seems as though throughout history, they've brought it upon themselves to make decisions for everyone and enforce them. Countless people were murdered by the Catholic Inquisition because they were deemed heretics, which the Church defines by itself. They certainly condemned Muslims as 'infidels' and went crusading after the Holy Land, in the 'name of God', killing innocent people because they believed differently. Granted, today it wouldn't be as extreme, the Church still does define its own condemnations.

But, alas, that is not really revelant to the topic.

Finally, you can say I'm discriminating, but I don't see how you can say that and not think I'm a bad person. I'm sure you do now, but I don't care. This is a controversial issue, in which neither side will ever agree completely, but honestly, do you see either side really taking steps to make things fair?

Good people can be misguided by what they are taught. I honestly don't think you're bad or evil, just that you have been severely misguided and mislead about what homosexuality is and whether it is right or wrong. This is an example of how religion can be a negative influence on our society. Don't get me wrong, I do see religion as providing many benefits, but sometimes religion is used to espouse negative viewpoints. It's very easy to hide behind the protective veil of religion. Also, how do you reconcile the fact that many Christian faiths are allowing homosexual unions and homosexual ministers? How come these faiths are wrong about gay people and yours is right? I also am curious about what steps you think those who are for gay marriage could take to make things fair? How is this situation unfair for those who are against gay marriage?

Finally, you cannot say that because this is the first time you've read a post by someone here about this issue that they haven't supported it in the past. These boards are a very small microcosm of the real world. I am posting here because I hate to see this kind of discrimination, how much support I've leant to this issue in my personal life is another matter. I for one am not a band wagon jumper and have had strong feelings about human rights issues for much of my adolescent and adult life.

Also, for the record...I have many family members who have a stronger opinion about gay people and their rights than you and have had this argument many times in the past. This is not a new issue for me to address and thankfully, at least a few of my relatives have listened and grown and now support some of the issues they used to argue against. I know you're not likely to change your mind, all I ask of anyone is that you examine the issues, put yourself in another's shoes and make an informed decision as to what you think is right or wrong. If this helps you open your mind, great! Maybe gay people can move to the front of the proverbial bus sooner than later.

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.

oh oh, i'm being discriminated against. I should have the right to say what ever i want, just like everyone else. To say I don't have any valid points is irrelivent because you don't really know what your talking about, do you?



If you want to bring religion into this then lets do it. In the Bible it specifically notes that God created man and woman to replenish the earth and have joy in their posterity (again something that gays cannot do on their own between themselvs, outside help must be brought in). That particular statement imfers that children are to be brought into this world by a man and a woman, regardless of wether they would be good parents. It is also noted that it is not who we are but what we do that determins our final destination (which no religion actually knows what those will be or how it will be carried out.) Wether you like it or not the founding fathers of this nation practiced judeo/christian principles, which is very obvious in the founding documents. I'm sure if they were around today they would still try and maintain those principles. The term "seperation of church and state" came about becuase those who came here, for the most part, were driven from thier oragins by religious persecution. There has never in world history been an explosion of different religions as there were with the creation of this country. I will put religion aside now and go back to my main arughment. You cannot change rules and definitions in order to make your position valid thereby becomeing unaccoutable to consequenses. With out consequences there cannot be rules, and with out rules there is chaos. Also, to say homosexuals are being denied rights is absolutly wrong, if you disagree then you don't understand marriage. The only right I get from being married is I get to file my taxes jointly, whoopeeee! There are no more rights given that i couldn't get, so why do gays want that (when they can already have that benifit by haveing a civil union.

I am posting here because I hate to see this kind of discrimination, how much support I've leant to this issue in my personal life is another matter. I for one am not a band wagon jumper and have had strong feelings about human rights issues for much of my adolescent and adult life.

Discrimination is always here, and always will be, it can never end in this world because we are ALL different. A crusade to stamp it out is laughable. Barring the exsistance of clones, i just don't see it happening. Oh, and don't use "progress" as an excuse to validate law breaking. As far as you going to the "bestiality card", you proved my point. You are disriminating based on someones preference which thereby invalidates your whole arughment that we shouldn't discriminate based on someones choice. Granted i don't see a bucnh of people from the kennel club raceing to city hall to protest, but i can say that it WILL happen and if we let the definition change once, well then we better leave the door open for everybody and everything.



my main points are still as follows:

1. Marriage is Marriage, it is a definition upheld by law and should not be changed just to validate ones choice in life.
2. Breaking a law because you don't "feel" it isn't right is ridiculous, we have a system of law for a reason.
3. Majority rule is what this country's law was based on, it is everything. To have a small group of individuals change something so inherently important as marriage destroys our constitution, which was "By the people for the people".



Again, I must say i am not against Gays, even though I do not believe it is correct. I do believe in choice, so long as it is within the boundaries set by sociaty, and i have the right to exercise choice within those boudries. If America chooses to allow Gay Marriage then so be it, but if it as a majority says no (no matter the philosophies that send it in that direction) then so be it.

Welcome to the beginning of the end of the morals of this country and the world as a whole.