Zzarchov said:Ok, with Gay marriage, It should be allowed or disallowed by determining what the real issue is.
1.) That the government has no right to interfere in a religious institution.
Valid arguement, however this isn't anti-gay marriage arguement as many faiths allow for gay marriage. Also following this logic you are either going to have to allow Polygamy (practiced in more faiths than not) OR are going to have to have the government stop granting marriage liscences and attaching any legal signifigance to being married.
2.) It cannot lead to children.
ALSO a VERY VERY valid arguement. However, following this path one would also have to ban women after menopause from getting married, and ban people who are sterile from being married. Im not being snide, Children are an important part of society and this is an all seriousness a good arguement, but it may have consequences that are callous and cruel. (Sorry you're infertile Susie, but that means you can never be married / Tough luck jack, you can't have kids, looks like no sex for you, ever..unless your a horrible sinner who wants to breach your faith)
3.) Homosexuality is morally wrong.
Fair arguement...but fully think out what other things are morally wrong, that used to be illegal but now aren't. If you revert homosexuality to being a crime , open the floodgates to premarital sex being illegal again, hell being the wrong faith aint far behind..Until the 1970's it was illegal to be a mormon in missouri. Now you may say "being wrong aint a crime", but unless its legally wrong, you have no grounds to use it against someone in a purely legal context.
Kelzie said:A little anatomy 101 for both of you. Women do not urinate out of their vagina. Do I need to post a diagram?:roll:
Kelzie said:I understand where you were going with this. But I don't think any of these are fair arguments. If marriage only happened in a church, than the government couldn't interfere. But is doesn't. And banning a type of marriage because it can't produce kids is a horrible point. We're not breeding factories. The descision to have kids is personal, and should have no connection on who you are going to spend the rest of your life with.
Again, I see where you were going with this, but I don't think validating these claims as fair is going to help.
HTColeman said:No, we are more like cattle... but not very good to eat.
Kelzie said:You guys are both nuts.
galenrox said:I know, close enough though. The urethra's like a matter of centimeters.
HTColeman said:No diagram necessary, a picture might help though...JUST KIDDING! I couldn't resist, sry.
Kelzie said:Neither are cattle :shock:
Kelzie said:Perv. There's lots of pictures on line. Go look. That is, if your parents have taken off the Net Nanny.
ooo burn
HTColeman said:GASP! Blasphemy! I am appalled to see such words on a respectable sight such as this. Cattle are very good to eat, maybe not as healthy as broccoli, but very good nonetheless.
HTColeman said:You are referring to the devil's internet, aka porn, I am above such material, don't you see my crown? I am king.
Kelzie said:Yeah if you like a little mad cow disease with your hamburger. Mmmm. Eat up.
Kelzie said:Oh so that's what it's for. I thought you were subtly throwing your weight behind monarchy...
YamiB. said:Churches have already been told by the government that it does not have a monopoly. While many churches would not marry two people depending on their faiths the government would not do this.
If Churches didn't agree they wouldn't have to marry homosexual couples. Last I heard there are still a few Churches that will not perform interracial marriages and many Churches refuse to perform interfaith marriages.
I don't see what's wrong with transsexuals, but I'll agree that some of the stuff going on at Gay Pride parades is inappropriate. I was just pointing out that homosexuals are not unique in this type of behavior.
Are you going to address the rest of my post?
vergiss said:Oi, Navy Pride - if gays can "convert" to heterosexuality, do you think you could convert to homosexuality?
Assuming you haven't already done so, of course.
galenrox said:yeah, but you implied that if I ****ed her in the ass she would **** on my ****.
Alright, I'll do that in less vulgar terms
you implied that if I made love to her in the butt she would poo on my penis.
So a little sex ed for you:
If all the girls that you've had sex with have peed on you in the process, that's not normal.
Navy Pride said:I am implying that the anus is a very dirty place for someone to put his penis and you are not able to procreate by doing that........I am saying one the main ways the AIDS virus came to be in this country was because of anal intercourse between gay males.......
I am implying that the vagina in the act of sexual intercourse is the normal way to procreate.............
I don't know how to make it any clearer to you without getting to graphic........
HTColeman said:don't you see my crown? I am king.
HTColeman said:As long as I have the crown as my avatar, I am royalty. As royalty I can make any statement I please, and it should be accepted as fact, no question.
Plain old me said:Sorry old boy but the crown doth not maketh the royalty...the interbreeding, adultery and 61p a year from the taxpayer do.
:2ukflag: God Save the Queen :2ukflag:
NavyPride said:We had a Colonel here in Washington State in the National Guard recently who wss married for 35 years, had grown children and got a divorce and converted to the gay lifestyle.....Now I know what your going to say is that this person was gay all along and just came out of the closet so I will beat you to it......
Actually no one knows for sure if that is true or not.............
Gandhi>Bush said:So are you against oral sex?