Post by: dudeman456 on February 21, 2005, 05:09:00 PM
That and he smokes pot, but will not admit it,(like thats the only thing he has ever done).
This "release" is probally to stop people from wondering about Jeff Gannon
hahahaha
I would love to become a republican, and live in a totally different world than everybody else.
Post by: EmperorPsiblade on February 21, 2005, 06:10:00 PM
What a load of BS...
The ONE thing I like about Bush is that he doesn't like gay marriage, don't take that away from me!
Post by: Foe-hammer on February 21, 2005, 07:35:00 PM
QUOTE(dudeman456 @ Feb 22 2005, 12:15 AM)
In recent "secret" tapes . . . .
Oh, oh "secret tapes"! I believe it! Quoting from the Inquierer.
Post by: K98 on February 21, 2005, 08:54:00 PM
Post by: Shoue on February 21, 2005, 09:21:00 PM
Post by: dudeman456 on February 21, 2005, 09:43:00 PM
Google must be mistaken
So is the Jeff Gannon thing fake too?
Post by: gcskate27 on February 21, 2005, 10:47:00 PM
Post by: damam on February 21, 2005, 10:56:00 PM
QUOTE(Bush)
"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
I rather liked the reasons bushes stated for not talking about smoking pot. Clinton did a lot of harm in not realizing that he is a role model in areas of sex and illicit drug use.
Really the only story I see here is that one of Bushes trusted circle members betrayed them. Other than that, didnt you really already know all of this about bush anyways?
Post by: brandogg on February 21, 2005, 11:21:00 PM
Post by: Arvarden on February 22, 2005, 06:46:00 AM
Bush or Christain fanboy's?
Post by: cbabbman on February 22, 2005, 06:53:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Feb 22 2005, 12:02 AM)
Quotes taken fromt the New York Times - just slightly more credible ;)
I rather liked the reasons bushes stated for not talking about smoking pot. Clinton did a lot of harm in not realizing that he is a role model in areas of sex and illicit drug use.
Really the only story I see here is that one of Bushes trusted circle members betrayed them. Other than that, didnt you really already know all of this about bush anyways?
QUOTE(Bush)
"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
I rather liked the reasons bushes stated for not talking about smoking pot. Clinton did a lot of harm in not realizing that he is a role model in areas of sex and illicit drug use.
Really the only story I see here is that one of Bushes trusted circle members betrayed them. Other than that, didnt you really already know all of this about bush anyways?
OK, using that logic, I suppose that every kid is going to be looking at this administration and figuring that while drugs are bad, lying is just alright with them...
so... we raise a generation of liers... so much for returning good moral values to the white house...
This administration is the most corrupt and pathetic excuse for anything that I have ever seen...
Post by: SKoT on February 22, 2005, 10:04:00 AM
QUOTE(dudeman456 @ Feb 22 2005, 04:49 AM)
Damn I forgot that, Republicans do not believe in facts.
Google must be mistaken
So is the Jeff Gannon thing fake too?
Google must be mistaken
So is the Jeff Gannon thing fake too?
holy shit you are a moron.
Post by: damam on February 22, 2005, 10:07:00 AM
QUOTE(cbabbman)
OK, using that logic, I suppose that every kid is going to be looking at this administration and figuring that while drugs are bad, lying is just alright with them...
so... we raise a generation of liers... so much for returning good moral values to the white house...
This administration is the most corrupt and pathetic excuse for anything that I have ever seen...
so... we raise a generation of liers... so much for returning good moral values to the white house...
This administration is the most corrupt and pathetic excuse for anything that I have ever seen...
Let me post it again and let you re-read it this time emblolding the areas you clearly missed.
QUOTE
"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
And since you could not understand it the first time I will tell you what happened.
He didnt lie - he refused to answer the question.
This is something I am sure a lot of parents can relate too as well. I have done nearly every drug known to g-d, but I am never going to tell my kid that for the exact same reason.
QUOTE(Arvarden)
He used his anti gay stance in his re-election to win votes? If Bush is for Civil unions who is running the US?
Bush or Christain fanboy's?
Bush or Christain fanboy's?
He has always said he wanted to keep marriage between a man and a women, civil unions are different. His stance hasnt changed from 1998. Again this is nothing new, nor is it a lie or misrepresentation.
Post by: Tony42077 on February 22, 2005, 10:51:00 AM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Feb 22 2005, 05:53 AM)
ive yet to hear a good reason against gay marriage other than people dont like it... :rolleyes:
To me, there is one main reason that a lot of people don't support gay marrige. When you think about it, there aren't too many "advantages" financially, almost none. I'm not sure about a spouse's insurance coverage, maybe that would be covered by civil unions. A federally recognized same-sex marrige would give it legal legitimacy in the court's eyes.
The main reason I am against gay marrige, is because they would be able to adopt children easier. No gay marrige can produce children between the two partners, making adoption their next alternative (lesbians would nave an easier time trying to make a baby, with a little help). Giving the multi-year waits that straight couples have to go through to adopt a child, legal gay marriges would put them on the same priority of the straight couple.
You can say all you want that "these gay couples will love these children just as much as the straight couples would" all you want, but life is tough enough without having to deal with fact that you have 2 mommies or daddies.
Bush (as all Christians should) does not dislike gay people, he just doesn't agree with the way that they live their lives. His opposition to gay marrige reflected his beliefs, and the beliefs of the majority of his supporters. Give the gays all of the rights that are afforded to straight people, biding by the laws of nature. A constitutional "man-woman marrige only" ammendment would keep marrige sacred (some people consider it a sacrament).
Post by: Arvarden on February 22, 2005, 11:51:00 AM
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 22, 2005, 12:07:00 PM
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 22, 2005, 12:09:00 PM
Post by: damam on February 22, 2005, 02:11:00 PM
QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Feb 22 2005, 05:50 AM)
The main reason I am against gay marrige, is because they would be able to adopt children easier. No gay marrige can produce children between the two partners, making adoption their next alternative (lesbians would nave an easier time trying to make a baby, with a little help). Giving the multi-year waits that straight couples have to go through to adopt a child, legal gay marriges would put them on the same priority of the straight couple.
You can say all you want that "these gay couples will love these children just as much as the straight couples would" all you want, but life is tough enough without having to deal with fact that you have 2 mommies or daddies.
You can say all you want that "these gay couples will love these children just as much as the straight couples would" all you want, but life is tough enough without having to deal with fact that you have 2 mommies or daddies.
Idealy, it would be best if a child is raised by a mother and a father. Their are few psychologoists who disagree with this. However, the state of adoption is such that if you are not adopted at a very young age, you probably wont get adopted at all. This means that you will skip around from boarding hall to foster care all you adolescent life with people who really couldnt care less for you.
What I want to ask is this - isnt a stable, loving gay couple better than the state?
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 22, 2005, 03:07:00 PM
QUOTE
I have done nearly every drug known to g-d, but I am never going to tell my kid that for the exact same reason.
I'm sorry, but it's so funny to me that you talk about using every drug ever, but you wont spell out god.
I mean, goddamn girl.
How do you know it's tougher to live with 2 mommies or daddies?
Have you? Or do you know anyone that has? Or are you just basing that off of nothing?
I think it would have been awesome. The big thing these days is to be different. As long as you don't live south of the Mason-Dixon line you'd probably be a hero.
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 22, 2005, 03:15:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Feb 22 2005, 10:13 PM)
I think it would have been awesome. The big thing these days is to be different. As long as you don't live south of the Mason-Dixon line you'd probably be a hero.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on February 22, 2005, 04:25:00 PM
-
I converted to christianity from atheism (i was raised an atheist) about a year after I stopped doing drugs (and a lot of other things). Quitting drugs and cleaing up my life was unrelated to my conversion.
But I have said all this before so I wont say anymore
I dont, personally.
Yes actually - 4 different people
1)I have two cousins who's father (my uncle) divorced his wife when they were about 6 and 4, and started what has now become a string of homosexual partners lasting anywhere from 1 to 2 years. They spent every summer with their "Dad and daddy of the summer" They are both some of the most screwed up adults I know of.
2)One of my dearest friends from college mother did the same thing when she was 9. And her mother got full costody of her when she moved to another state. She was basically raised from the age of 10 on with two mommies. She has quite a few problems with men that i and none of my other friends seem to have and she has been seeing a shrink for several years. But all and all she turned out ok.
3)Then I have another friend, through my husband, whos mother realized she was a lesbian while she was pregnant with her. She has two had two momies all her life as far as she is concerned. She never knew her father growing up (because her mother did not want her too - she knows him now), has very low self esteem, and is married to a creep who was actually cheating on her while she was in labour with their daughter. Yet she still wont leave him. She is pretty screwed up as well.
I will mention here that despite my own vicarious experience with being raised by homosexual parents (which is pretty bad), I make room for the possiblity that it is better than haveing no parent at all. That opens the door for adoption - which was the reason for my question.
My husband is a Psychiatrist, and he has talked often about the need for a role model of both sexes while growing up. It is also a consensus in the field despite the propaganda that the gays put out. I said ideally a child would have both. Often this is not the case. Sometimes a parent dies while the child is being born or during pregnancy and the child has no way of ever knowing their parent. And it is from these cases where people like my husband have studied the impacts these events have on a adolescents growing up. It does have an impact on the development of a child when they do not have both role models in their house.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 22, 2005, 04:28:00 PM
-
Owned.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 22, 2005, 07:00:00 PM
-
We can't all be raised in the perfect nukuler (fun) family, as you've said above. However, you can expect the same results in the developement of a child raised by same sex parents as you would in a child raised by only one parent. If you wont let gays raise a kid, how can you let just one parent raise a kid? It doesn't make sense.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 22, 2005, 07:04:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on February 22, 2005, 04:25:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Feb 22 2005, 10:13 AM)
I'm sorry, but it's so funny to me that you talk about using every drug ever, but you wont spell out god.
I mean, goddamn girl.
I mean, goddamn girl.
I converted to christianity from atheism (i was raised an atheist) about a year after I stopped doing drugs (and a lot of other things). Quitting drugs and cleaing up my life was unrelated to my conversion.
But I have said all this before so I wont say anymore
QUOTE(Maximumbeing)
How do you know it's tougher to live with 2 mommies or daddies?
Have you?
Have you?
I dont, personally.
QUOTE(Maximumbeing)
Or do you know anyone that has?
Yes actually - 4 different people
1)I have two cousins who's father (my uncle) divorced his wife when they were about 6 and 4, and started what has now become a string of homosexual partners lasting anywhere from 1 to 2 years. They spent every summer with their "Dad and daddy of the summer" They are both some of the most screwed up adults I know of.
2)One of my dearest friends from college mother did the same thing when she was 9. And her mother got full costody of her when she moved to another state. She was basically raised from the age of 10 on with two mommies. She has quite a few problems with men that i and none of my other friends seem to have and she has been seeing a shrink for several years. But all and all she turned out ok.
3)Then I have another friend, through my husband, whos mother realized she was a lesbian while she was pregnant with her. She has two had two momies all her life as far as she is concerned. She never knew her father growing up (because her mother did not want her too - she knows him now), has very low self esteem, and is married to a creep who was actually cheating on her while she was in labour with their daughter. Yet she still wont leave him. She is pretty screwed up as well.
I will mention here that despite my own vicarious experience with being raised by homosexual parents (which is pretty bad), I make room for the possiblity that it is better than haveing no parent at all. That opens the door for adoption - which was the reason for my question.
QUOTE(Maximumbeing)
Or are you just basing that off of nothing?
My husband is a Psychiatrist, and he has talked often about the need for a role model of both sexes while growing up. It is also a consensus in the field despite the propaganda that the gays put out. I said ideally a child would have both. Often this is not the case. Sometimes a parent dies while the child is being born or during pregnancy and the child has no way of ever knowing their parent. And it is from these cases where people like my husband have studied the impacts these events have on a adolescents growing up. It does have an impact on the development of a child when they do not have both role models in their house.
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 22, 2005, 04:28:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 22, 2005, 07:00:00 PM
QUOTE
My husband is a Psychiatrist, and he has talked often about the need for a role model of both sexes while growing up. It is also a consensus in the field despite the propaganda that the gays put out. I said ideally a child would have both. Often this is not the case. Sometimes a parent dies while the child is being born or during pregnancy and the child has no way of ever knowing their parent. And it is from these cases where people like my husband have studied the impacts these events have on a adolescents growing up. It does have an impact on the development of a child when they do not have both role models in their house.
We can't all be raised in the perfect nukuler (fun) family, as you've said above. However, you can expect the same results in the developement of a child raised by same sex parents as you would in a child raised by only one parent. If you wont let gays raise a kid, how can you let just one parent raise a kid? It doesn't make sense.
Post by: Tony42077 on February 22, 2005, 07:04:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Feb 22 2005, 09:17 PM)
The state of adoption is such that if you are not adopted at a very young age, you probably wont get adopted at all. This means that you will skip around from boarding hall to foster care all you adolescent life with people who really couldnt care less for you.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 22, 2005, 07:06:00 PM
-
Most of us would, because most of us are assholes. I would also make fun of that kid if he were poor (not really, proving a point) though. Should we not let poor people have kids either cause the kids might face ridicule?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 22, 2005, 07:24:00 PM
-
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 22, 2005, 07:06:00 PM
Post by: Tony42077 on February 22, 2005, 07:24:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Feb 23 2005, 02:06 AM)
We can't all be raised in the perfect nukuler (fun) family, as you've said above. However, you can expect the same results in the developement of a child raised by same sex parents as you would in a child raised by only one parent. If you wont let gays raise a kid, how can you let just one parent raise a kid? It doesn't make sense.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 22, 2005, 07:43:00 PM
-
Come now, that's not basic science at all. They weren't meant to reproduce no, but each has the capability to raise a child, why should it be any different together?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: The unProfessional on February 22, 2005, 09:08:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wattman on February 22, 2005, 10:46:00 PM
-
I hate to tell you but there are gay animals.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 12:05:00 AM
-
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 22, 2005, 07:43:00 PM
QUOTE
realize that they and their partner we're not meant to reproduce and raise children- basic science
Come now, that's not basic science at all. They weren't meant to reproduce no, but each has the capability to raise a child, why should it be any different together?
Post by: The unProfessional on February 22, 2005, 09:08:00 PM
Post by: Wattman on February 22, 2005, 10:46:00 PM
QUOTE
I don't hate gay people or anything like that but I don't think what they are doing is right. There is a reason for there being a male and a female, even animals understand that.
I hate to tell you but there are gay animals.
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 12:05:00 AM
QUOTE(Wattman @ Feb 23 2005, 05:52 AM)
I hate to tell you but there are gay animals.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wattman on February 23, 2005, 12:25:00 AM
-
Here you go
Also I've seen two male dogs getting it on.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 12:50:00 AM
-
Post by: Wattman on February 23, 2005, 12:25:00 AM
QUOTE
Oh really, name one...
Here you go
Also I've seen two male dogs getting it on.
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 12:50:00 AM
QUOTE(Wattman @ Feb 23 2005, 07:31 AM)
Also I've seen two male dogs getting it on.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wattman on February 23, 2005, 01:05:00 AM
-
So then souldn't the same thing be said for single parents.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: chalosf on February 23, 2005, 01:13:00 AM
-
Yes there are couples who are screwed up and mess up there kids lifes. But I can guarantee you that a kid raised buy a gay couple has a VERY HIGH (like 99.9%) rate of having issues in life becuase they are being raised in an UN NORMAL enviroment. No matter how you put it, you can't tell me a child that grows up with a gay parents is a good idea. I'll jsut drop it becuase this is going no where.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wattman on February 23, 2005, 01:27:00 AM
-
99.9%? I'm sure thats dead-on accurate. The only reason a kid would end up "messed up" would be because of kids like you who would ridicule them for being from an "un normal" household. BTW, abnormal is the word you are looking for.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: pepsik on February 23, 2005, 02:33:00 AM
-
animals are gay in nature, they are rare but it happens. these are the most recent news articles on the subject.
Teen pregnancy/high divorce rate, alcholism, television and an under regulated corporate agenda are the things that are harming the "family values" that people speak of. There are other things, the overzealous drive for money, exchanging quality time with their children inorder to afford next years beamer. The job market seems to be concentrated in areas where no one lives by, so more people nowadays spend more time commuting than they do with their children.
Any parent is an oppurtunity orphans should get, they may be screwed up and a little shy because they live with two uncles, but I don't think kids raised by gay couples go around stealing cars and breaking into peoples homes. Morally flawed vs. Morally devoid is the way you should think about it. Neither solution is ideal but one does outweigh the other.
I work with a few gay people and they would only like gay marriage because of the insurance problems. Most of these gay people are opposed to it because the men are to over the top. Think about gay divorce court with two beauty queens.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on February 23, 2005, 10:03:00 AM
-
You quoted me, so I thought you were refering to my quote - my bad
If given the option between taking a baby orphan and giving it to a gay couple, a single parent, or a "nuclear" family (all other important things being equael): Who would you give it too? Wouldnt the child be better off with the nuclear family? I think so. What I am talking about is optimizing a childs life as much as possible. You seem to want just give them out to anyone who will take them.
That is definitely true for all of my friends that were raised with a gay parent.
I think that it is starting to change. More mothers are sacrificin materialistic wants and becoming stay at home Mothers, and more dads are sacrificing promotions for family time. I havent seen any data on it, but it does appear to be a trend atleast in my area of the country.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: SKoT on February 23, 2005, 10:21:00 AM
-
Post by: Wattman on February 23, 2005, 01:05:00 AM
QUOTE
I still think gay people should net be allow to adopt, it just complicates things, causes confussion, and possibly screws kids up.
So then souldn't the same thing be said for single parents.
Post by: chalosf on February 23, 2005, 01:13:00 AM
Post by: Wattman on February 23, 2005, 01:27:00 AM
Post by: pepsik on February 23, 2005, 02:33:00 AM
animals are gay in nature, they are rare but it happens. these are the most recent news articles on the subject.
Teen pregnancy/high divorce rate, alcholism, television and an under regulated corporate agenda are the things that are harming the "family values" that people speak of. There are other things, the overzealous drive for money, exchanging quality time with their children inorder to afford next years beamer. The job market seems to be concentrated in areas where no one lives by, so more people nowadays spend more time commuting than they do with their children.
Any parent is an oppurtunity orphans should get, they may be screwed up and a little shy because they live with two uncles, but I don't think kids raised by gay couples go around stealing cars and breaking into peoples homes. Morally flawed vs. Morally devoid is the way you should think about it. Neither solution is ideal but one does outweigh the other.
I work with a few gay people and they would only like gay marriage because of the insurance problems. Most of these gay people are opposed to it because the men are to over the top. Think about gay divorce court with two beauty queens.
Post by: damam on February 23, 2005, 10:03:00 AM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Feb 22 2005, 02:06 PM)
Totally directed at Tony, but whatever.
You quoted me, so I thought you were refering to my quote - my bad
QUOTE(Maximumbeing)
We can't all be raised in the perfect nukuler (fun) family, as you've said above. However, you can expect the same results in the developement of a child raised by same sex parents as you would in a child raised by only one parent. If you wont let gays raise a kid, how can you let just one parent raise a kid? It doesn't make sense.
If given the option between taking a baby orphan and giving it to a gay couple, a single parent, or a "nuclear" family (all other important things being equael): Who would you give it too? Wouldnt the child be better off with the nuclear family? I think so. What I am talking about is optimizing a childs life as much as possible. You seem to want just give them out to anyone who will take them.
QUOTE(Unprofessional)
Not only that, but a straight baby being raised by homosexual parents must have some adverse effects on the child's sexuality. I'm not saying it'll make them gay, but it will more than likely cause sexual/emotional disorders. It's surprisingly easy to fuck a kid up sexually for life.
That is definitely true for all of my friends that were raised with a gay parent.
QUOTE(pepsik)
Teen pregnancy/high divorce rate, alcholism, television and an under regulated corporate agenda are the things that are harming the "family values" that people speak of. There are other things, the overzealous drive for money, exchanging quality time with their children inorder to afford next years beamer. The job market seems to be concentrated in areas where no one lives by, so more people nowadays spend more time commuting than they do with their children.
I think that it is starting to change. More mothers are sacrificin materialistic wants and becoming stay at home Mothers, and more dads are sacrificing promotions for family time. I havent seen any data on it, but it does appear to be a trend atleast in my area of the country.
Post by: SKoT on February 23, 2005, 10:21:00 AM
QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Feb 23 2005, 02:30 AM)
How do you know that you can expect the same results in the developement of a child raised by same sex parents as you would in a child raised by only one parent? There is a HUGE difference between being raised by a single parent, and a same-sex partner. If you don't think that gays would instill a different set of moral values, then you are naive. No one that has commented on this string has been raised by a same-sex union, so none of us really know how it is.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: SKoT on February 23, 2005, 10:25:00 AM
-
Post by: SKoT on February 23, 2005, 10:25:00 AM
QUOTE(chalosf @ Feb 23 2005, 08:02 AM)
hahaha..If you best argument is Dogs that fuck each other then all you are saying gay people are together only to fuck, in that case I agree with you..Dogs only fuck each other for fucking, has nothing to do with mating or reproducing, like I said there is a reason why there are males and females, so they can mate and reproduce, if not why wouldn't there only just be one sex?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on February 23, 2005, 11:02:00 AM
-
I assume you are speaking through the experience of having multiple inter-species sexual realtionships and having found that only dolphins came back to you for more.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: mr_chips on February 23, 2005, 11:38:00 AM
-
lmao!!!
as for this animal gayness thing, who's to say the animals weren't just confused? and how about the neutering of dogs, doesn't that have some effect on their sexual impulses?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 12:32:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on February 23, 2005, 11:02:00 AM
QUOTE(SKoT @ Feb 23 2005, 05:31 AM)
humans and dolphins are the only animals that enjoy sex.
I assume you are speaking through the experience of having multiple inter-species sexual realtionships and having found that only dolphins came back to you for more.
Post by: mr_chips on February 23, 2005, 11:38:00 AM
as for this animal gayness thing, who's to say the animals weren't just confused? and how about the neutering of dogs, doesn't that have some effect on their sexual impulses?
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 12:32:00 PM
QUOTE(SKoT @ Feb 23 2005, 05:27 PM)
wow how ignorant.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 02:52:00 PM
-
Post by: Tony42077 on February 23, 2005, 02:52:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 23 2005, 09:36 PM)
I guess you havn't thought of the concept "foster parents". And how do you know everyone wants babies? Not everyone is like you.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Ween311 on February 23, 2005, 02:56:00 PM
-
Then why does my dog always try to hump everything that moves...Legs, furniture, kids toys, other dogs, cats....the list goes on and on.
I think most everything that reproduces sexually, likes sex, otherwise what would motivate them to procreate. You might have been talking about casual sex but even then, I don't think that statement about humans and dolphins being the only animals that enjoy non-procreational sex is true. I think there are a lot of primates thad have casual sex also.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on February 23, 2005, 03:51:00 PM
-
Actually the foster program in America isnt really all that great
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 23, 2005, 03:52:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 24, 2005, 02:11:00 AM
-
All kidding aside, the ONLY problem I had with a gay "marrige" or "civil union" or whatever you want to call it, is adopting kids. I don't give a shit what ceremonies they want to have, possible tax and insurance assistance, or anything like that. They can live in the joy of their of their ultra gayness.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 24, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
-
Explain to me why I should be thankful, much less care?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 24, 2005, 11:27:00 AM
-
Post by: Ween311 on February 23, 2005, 02:56:00 PM
QUOTE
humans and dolphins are the only animals that enjoy sex.
Then why does my dog always try to hump everything that moves...Legs, furniture, kids toys, other dogs, cats....the list goes on and on.
I think most everything that reproduces sexually, likes sex, otherwise what would motivate them to procreate. You might have been talking about casual sex but even then, I don't think that statement about humans and dolphins being the only animals that enjoy non-procreational sex is true. I think there are a lot of primates thad have casual sex also.
Post by: damam on February 23, 2005, 03:51:00 PM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 23 2005, 09:36 AM)
"Take your thumb out of your ass and read the post you qouted. My point was that no one wants to take in that 13 year old inner city kid- gay or straight. Everyone wants babies."
I guess you havn't thought of the concept "foster parents". And how do you know everyone wants babies? Not everyone is like you.
I guess you havn't thought of the concept "foster parents". And how do you know everyone wants babies? Not everyone is like you.
Actually the foster program in America isnt really all that great
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 23, 2005, 03:52:00 PM
Post by: Tony42077 on February 24, 2005, 02:11:00 AM
All kidding aside, the ONLY problem I had with a gay "marrige" or "civil union" or whatever you want to call it, is adopting kids. I don't give a shit what ceremonies they want to have, possible tax and insurance assistance, or anything like that. They can live in the joy of their of their ultra gayness.
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 24, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
Post by: Tony42077 on February 24, 2005, 11:27:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 24 2005, 11:13 AM)
There are more things to worry about than some gay bloke, woman adopting children.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on February 24, 2005, 11:53:00 AM
-
this is highly contradictory...
why cant same sex people who want to adopt do the same thing? they want to raise children thats why and when people are refused permission to do something for no good reason, they get upset and fight back, hence the whole debate...
your arguments are just flawed... just say "i find gays gross" and be done with it...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 24, 2005, 12:11:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 25, 2005, 12:56:00 PM
-
Total speculation based on nothing. Maybe this world would be better if people weren't judged by sexual orientation?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: pepsik on February 25, 2005, 01:30:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on February 24, 2005, 11:53:00 AM
QUOTE(old quote: tony @ page2)
If you don't think that gays would instill a different set of moral values, then you are naive. No one that has commented on this string has been raised by a same-sex union, so none of us really know how it is
this is highly contradictory...
QUOTE(old quote: tony @ page2 part2)
Why can't they change the lives of people by helping to feed and clothe the homeless? Or volunteer with other groups to change the world for the better? No, they want to raise a baby in the style of their life to become "fulfilled".
why cant same sex people who want to adopt do the same thing? they want to raise children thats why and when people are refused permission to do something for no good reason, they get upset and fight back, hence the whole debate...
your arguments are just flawed... just say "i find gays gross" and be done with it...
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 24, 2005, 12:11:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 25, 2005, 12:56:00 PM
QUOTE
Besides if the kid could choose, you think they would choose a gay couple? I don't think so
Total speculation based on nothing. Maybe this world would be better if people weren't judged by sexual orientation?
Post by: pepsik on February 25, 2005, 01:30:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Feb 25 2005, 08:02 PM)
Total speculation based on nothing. Maybe this world would be better if people weren't judged by sexual orientation?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 25, 2005, 02:02:00 PM
-
or actions?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 27, 2005, 10:58:00 AM
-
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 25, 2005, 02:02:00 PM
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 27, 2005, 10:58:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 24 2005, 06:13 AM)
Homophobes will always try and find an excuse to try and supress something they have no understanding of.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 27, 2005, 01:43:00 PM
-
I fear anyone that isn't a pedophobe.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 27, 2005, 03:03:00 PM
-
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 27, 2005, 01:43:00 PM
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 27, 2005, 03:03:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Feb 27 2005, 03:49 PM)
I fear anyone that isn't a pedophobe.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 27, 2005, 03:58:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 27, 2005, 09:58:00 PM
-
uh, I don't advocate beastiality nor do I advocate necrophilia.
Though, I will get my friends drunk and bet them 20 dollars that they wont have sex with certain animals.
I am totally FOR that.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 28, 2005, 08:49:00 AM
-
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 27, 2005, 03:58:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on February 27, 2005, 09:58:00 PM
Though, I will get my friends drunk and bet them 20 dollars that they wont have sex with certain animals.
I am totally FOR that.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 28, 2005, 08:49:00 AM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Feb 28 2005, 12:04 AM)
uh, I don't advocate beastiality nor do I advocate necrophilia.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on February 28, 2005, 09:26:00 AM
-
Dont forget the bonobo monkeys - they have recreational sex 6 - 10 times a day and they are the only other species I know of to partake in lesbian sex as well.
Well, we have seen a wide gammit here of sexual practices seen in the animal world. Everything from gay necrophlyic ducks, to guys that have life long relations with cows. Yesterday, on the Discovery channel (just got cable about 2 weeks ago and it rocks), I saw a show on how dolphins kill their young for sport. What I am getting at is this, we shouldnt look to the other animals to decide what our norm is. If this thread had any point once it mutated to a discussion on necrophylic ducks, it is that.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Tony42077 on February 28, 2005, 12:16:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on February 28, 2005, 09:26:00 AM
QUOTE(Wattman @ Feb 27 2005, 11:57 AM)
Almost all mammals enjoy sex in the sense that it brings please when the genitals are aroused. What you are thinking of is that only humans and dolphins have sex for recreation and reproduction. I also believe there are a few monkey/gorilla species who have recreational sex.
Dont forget the bonobo monkeys - they have recreational sex 6 - 10 times a day and they are the only other species I know of to partake in lesbian sex as well.
Well, we have seen a wide gammit here of sexual practices seen in the animal world. Everything from gay necrophlyic ducks, to guys that have life long relations with cows. Yesterday, on the Discovery channel (just got cable about 2 weeks ago and it rocks), I saw a show on how dolphins kill their young for sport. What I am getting at is this, we shouldnt look to the other animals to decide what our norm is. If this thread had any point once it mutated to a discussion on necrophylic ducks, it is that.
Post by: Tony42077 on February 28, 2005, 12:16:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Feb 24 2005, 06:59 PM)
ok what about if youre white and had to put your kids up for adoption: would you want a black couple rasing your kids? is that any different?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 12:37:00 PM
-
just because the "majority" doesnt like something, doesnt make it wrong... and ill leave it at that...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on February 28, 2005, 02:03:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 12:37:00 PM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on February 28, 2005, 02:03:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Feb 28 2005, 07:43 PM)
just because the "majority" doesnt like something, doesnt make it wrong... and ill leave it at that...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: AkumAPRIME on February 28, 2005, 02:21:00 PM
-
First of all, "Christian Fanboys" is hilarious and Im going to say it more often.
Secondly, Someone said that other animals enjoy when they get their genitals aroused. I would llove to know how they knowt this. Recreational sex is a behavior that can be measured, pleasure is a hypothetical construct that cannot.
Thirdly, Many species engage in homosexual activity, some even engage in transgenderism.
Fourthly, I too have not heard a good reason against gay marriage. The slippery slope argument is totally BS. When a good 8% of our population wants to make beastiality legal, than we can deal with that. But thats not what we're dealing with here.
Fifth, I hate Bush, but these secret tapes made me dislike him less. He sounded somewhat "good" in the tapes as opposed to completely corrupt and evil. I think the corruption occurred in the years after the tapes were made. Anyway, my 2cents
peace
ehb
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 06:43:00 PM
-
Post by: AkumAPRIME on February 28, 2005, 02:21:00 PM
Secondly, Someone said that other animals enjoy when they get their genitals aroused. I would llove to know how they knowt this. Recreational sex is a behavior that can be measured, pleasure is a hypothetical construct that cannot.
Thirdly, Many species engage in homosexual activity, some even engage in transgenderism.
Fourthly, I too have not heard a good reason against gay marriage. The slippery slope argument is totally BS. When a good 8% of our population wants to make beastiality legal, than we can deal with that. But thats not what we're dealing with here.
Fifth, I hate Bush, but these secret tapes made me dislike him less. He sounded somewhat "good" in the tapes as opposed to completely corrupt and evil. I think the corruption occurred in the years after the tapes were made. Anyway, my 2cents
peace
ehb
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 06:43:00 PM
QUOTE(EverythingButAnAnswer @ Feb 28 2005, 02:09 PM)
So you have no problem with people who engage in activities that wong lo previously mentioned, e.g. pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Ween311 on February 28, 2005, 07:39:00 PM
-
What about polygamy? That has the guidelines of consenting adults but is also illegal and was made that way after it had been legal (in one state anyway).
Edit for spelling.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 07:42:00 PM
-
i have no problem with polygamy...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 28, 2005, 07:52:00 PM
-
Post by: Ween311 on February 28, 2005, 07:39:00 PM
Edit for spelling.
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 07:42:00 PM
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on February 28, 2005, 07:52:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Feb 28 2005, 09:48 PM)
i have no problem with polygamy...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Ween311 on February 28, 2005, 07:53:00 PM
-
Just wanted to make sure. A lot of people can be hypocritical when it comes to this kind of stuff. They want it to be ok for one group of people but not for another group.
Personally, I think the ideal family would be one man and one woman and their child/children.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on February 28, 2005, 10:34:00 PM
-
Post by: Ween311 on February 28, 2005, 07:53:00 PM
Personally, I think the ideal family would be one man and one woman and their child/children.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on February 28, 2005, 10:34:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Mar 1 2005, 01:49 AM)
perfect example of a failing jump in logic... i, as a matter of fact, do not agree with those for one reason: the lack of choice by both participants... pedophilia is wrong as the child is forced or coereced into doing something they wouldnt, beastiality is the same applied to animals, and necrophilia is desecrating a corpse... all completely different to consenting adults of the same sex engaging in intercourse...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 11:42:00 PM
-
i thought i made it obvious but heres the dividing line between homosexual relations and the examples youve stated: there are two consenting parties in homosexual relationships, in the other examples its one person forcing their desires on another, which is wrong as it violates the others rights, be it child or animal... necrophilia is DESECRATING A CORPSE, which is wrong in and of itself...
the line is drawn at the forcing of ones desires on another, not what you think is 'disgusting'...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 01, 2005, 07:46:00 AM
-
however, this is an argument that cannot be won...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on March 01, 2005, 12:01:00 PM
-
Actually the results vary on how the questions are asked. The studies show that homosexuality ranges from 3.5 - 10% across all cultures. The Christian right usually quotes 3.5% (no suprise), the very vocal gay movement always quotes 10% (again no suprise). Both sides simply use the number that suits them best.
necrophilia really disgusts me - but I really dont understand your logic here. On the other two counts, you are saying their is an unwilling partner. I get that. For necrophilia - their is no unwilling partner. The deceased is, well deceased. Its the equavelent of using a sex toy.
Their was a really good book written on the Gay movement by Patricia Ireland (I think - she was president of NOW from 1991 - 2001 and if she is the right person she is a lesbian). Its called something like "The abandonment of Common Sense". At any rate, the book is primarily about how the Gay movement has totally gone off the deep end because it has been hijacked by fringe groups like NAMBLA who are constantly trying to push the age of consent lower and lower.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 01, 2005, 12:12:00 PM
-
my logic stems from my belief of desecrating a corpse to be wrong being that it was once a person who would, in all probability, not have choosen to let people have sex with their corpse... therefore its not the same as using a sex toy as a sex toy is an inanimate object which has no feelings of how its used in one way or another, people, on the other hand, care deeply for what happens to them when they die...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 01, 2005, 12:53:00 PM
-
It's sad that you can't see your flawed logic.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 01, 2005, 02:26:00 PM
-
my logic isnt flawed in the least... if you think it is, please enlighten me...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: moistness on March 01, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
-
Anyway, why havent you come "home"? Were you not given the doorkey back?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 01, 2005, 03:06:00 PM
-
None of these issues will be a concern in the years to come.
Society has been innoculated against leading a filthy lifestyle and we are able to see real-time results in such countries as thailand and nigeria. The cure is here. We just need to let it run its course.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Stoan on March 01, 2005, 03:07:00 PM
-
As far as the issue of gay marriage goes, I think its personally up to the individual. I do not condone it but I also have little problem as most hot lesbians are bi-sexual anyways! I dont think however the govt should regulate this as it leads to the slippery slope effect. Ex. Gay marriage should be outlawed b/c people(Religious) think its wrong. Ok fair enough says America as this dosent effect a significant amount of people. Well jhow about the govt ruling out inter-racial marriages because, again due to some interpretations of the Bible one race now feels superior to another. See where this can cause a problem? And basicly this can keep going until you have nothing but marriage between blond haired blue eyed people being legal...(Ok maybe thats way extreme but I thought I should point it out.) Now if the so-called releigious people were doing thier job I think the whole GM issue wouldnt be as controvesial as it is. Christians, as far as I know, dont shun homosexuals but rather try and convert them. What are my views on marriage? I dont really think its necessary people who are in love should be just that in love together, there shouldnt be a need to make it official so to speak. Personally I think gay people are trying to get married b/c there is such opposition to it.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: NeuroChemist on March 01, 2005, 05:47:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on February 28, 2005, 11:42:00 PM
the line is drawn at the forcing of ones desires on another, not what you think is 'disgusting'...
Post by: gcskate27 on March 01, 2005, 07:46:00 AM
QUOTE(barna)
The ultimate aim of the firm is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States
however, this is an argument that cannot be won...
Post by: damam on March 01, 2005, 12:01:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Mar 1 2005, 02:52 AM)
1. every stat ive heard on homosexuality accounts for it being around 10% of the population
Actually the results vary on how the questions are asked. The studies show that homosexuality ranges from 3.5 - 10% across all cultures. The Christian right usually quotes 3.5% (no suprise), the very vocal gay movement always quotes 10% (again no suprise). Both sides simply use the number that suits them best.
QUOTE(gcskate27)
necrophilia is DESECRATING A CORPSE, which is wrong in and of itself...
necrophilia really disgusts me - but I really dont understand your logic here. On the other two counts, you are saying their is an unwilling partner. I get that. For necrophilia - their is no unwilling partner. The deceased is, well deceased. Its the equavelent of using a sex toy.
Their was a really good book written on the Gay movement by Patricia Ireland (I think - she was president of NOW from 1991 - 2001 and if she is the right person she is a lesbian). Its called something like "The abandonment of Common Sense". At any rate, the book is primarily about how the Gay movement has totally gone off the deep end because it has been hijacked by fringe groups like NAMBLA who are constantly trying to push the age of consent lower and lower.
Post by: gcskate27 on March 01, 2005, 12:12:00 PM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 01, 2005, 12:53:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on March 01, 2005, 02:26:00 PM
Post by: moistness on March 01, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
Anyway, why havent you come "home"? Were you not given the doorkey back?
Post by: bluedeath on March 01, 2005, 03:06:00 PM
Society has been innoculated against leading a filthy lifestyle and we are able to see real-time results in such countries as thailand and nigeria. The cure is here. We just need to let it run its course.
Post by: Stoan on March 01, 2005, 03:07:00 PM
Post by: NeuroChemist on March 01, 2005, 05:47:00 PM
QUOTE(Stoan @ Mar 1 2005, 10:13 PM)
Personally I think gay people are trying to get married b/c there is such opposition to it.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 01, 2005, 09:29:00 PM
-
The reason we have a government (among other reasons) is to make sure the rights of minorities are protected, or am I mistaken?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: xboxbox451 on March 01, 2005, 10:26:00 PM
-
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 01, 2005, 09:29:00 PM
Post by: xboxbox451 on March 01, 2005, 10:26:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 1 2005, 10:35 PM)
The reason we have a government (among other reasons) is to make sure the rights of minorities are protected, or am I mistaken?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 01, 2005, 11:10:00 PM
-
Post by: bluedeath on March 01, 2005, 11:10:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 1 2005, 08:35 PM)
The reason we have a government (among other reasons) is to make sure the rights of minorities are protected, or am I mistaken?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 01, 2005, 11:14:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 01:29:00 AM
-
@bluedeath, how much of that was sarcasm? you cant possibly believe that, can you?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 02, 2005, 01:50:00 AM
-
Where was he wrong?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 09:37:00 AM
-
is this a commentary on how things actually are or how you think they should be... in either case its not entirely accurate, nor should it be... it should be majority rule with minority protection, which it is for the most part...
this (as well as the previous quote) will have to go back to the oft mentioned comparison to race... do black people deserve recognition within our dynamic governing body? well assume you think gay people choose to be gay for some bizarre reason or another which also leads to the assumption that youve never actually known a gay person...
this is one of the stupidest examples of psuedo-logic ive ever read... "the fags are just all uppity because they dont have to work hard like us honest americans"... you cant possibly believe this... have you never seen a protest for anything other than gay issues? maybe perhaps abortion? anti-war protests? the million man march? how about the anti-'gays in the military' protests? were these all gay people using up all the free time they have because they have no family unit? are you retarded? (no offense, but that is just rediculous)
and most of this threads debate has been around gay adoption! kind throws this quote out the window doesnt it?
everyone knows why bush was reelected, people were drawn into the terrorist scare machine, but thats for another thread... if the entire election was decided by the gay marraige issue, then conservatives and others who voted against it def did not do their part as 'good citizens' and look at all key factors... and not that its of anyone here's concern, but IM MARRIED... i dont consider anyone gay trying to get married a slap in the face or a degrading of marraige, i think of it as "hey, they obviously love each other and want to get married, good for them"...
my attitude is this: people can do whatever the fuck they want, so long as they arent hurting anyone else... i thought concervatives wanted less government involvement? seems to me with all of these 'controversial issues' that the people refusing to change have a superiority complex, trying to force their views on others... while im sure youll try and turn that around, there is a difference with the ones advocating change: they arent trying to force views on others, they are trying to have every have a choice... what are you false chrisitans so damn scared of?
ohh and ebaa, im still waiting for your stelar argument as to why my logic is flawed regarding the necrophilia debate...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 02, 2005, 10:33:00 AM
-
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 01, 2005, 11:14:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 01:29:00 AM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 02, 2005, 01:50:00 AM
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 09:37:00 AM
QUOTE(bluedeath @ Mar 1 2005, 11:16 PM)
You are mistaken. The government serves the will of the majority of the people. The minority has no place where the majority rules.
is this a commentary on how things actually are or how you think they should be... in either case its not entirely accurate, nor should it be... it should be majority rule with minority protection, which it is for the most part...
QUOTE
A group of individuals who encourage and take part in deviant sexual behaviour do not justify recognition within our dynamic governing body.
this (as well as the previous quote) will have to go back to the oft mentioned comparison to race... do black people deserve recognition within our dynamic governing body? well assume you think gay people choose to be gay for some bizarre reason or another which also leads to the assumption that youve never actually known a gay person...
QUOTE
The reason that this small body of deviants has such a loud voice stems from the simple fact that they have no desire to establish a nuclear family. The overwhelmingly large heterosexual population is raising children, working and leading lives that revolve around the family unit. Since the homosexual population has chosen not to participate in the perpetual responsibility of family life they have much more free time. While they march in parades and write letters to their congressman the rest of the country is busy with reality. This type of behaviour is extremely selfish and narcissistic and most certainly bares the mark of mental illness.
this is one of the stupidest examples of psuedo-logic ive ever read... "the fags are just all uppity because they dont have to work hard like us honest americans"... you cant possibly believe this... have you never seen a protest for anything other than gay issues? maybe perhaps abortion? anti-war protests? the million man march? how about the anti-'gays in the military' protests? were these all gay people using up all the free time they have because they have no family unit? are you retarded? (no offense, but that is just rediculous)
and most of this threads debate has been around gay adoption! kind throws this quote out the window doesnt it?
QUOTE
they have no desire to establish a nuclear family
QUOTE
Everyone wonders why Bush was elected and the answer is simple. The homosexual population alienated the entire country in it's quest for marriage. The democrats allowed a small group of individuals to tell a nation that every man and woman who are married are wrong. The people were forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
everyone knows why bush was reelected, people were drawn into the terrorist scare machine, but thats for another thread... if the entire election was decided by the gay marraige issue, then conservatives and others who voted against it def did not do their part as 'good citizens' and look at all key factors... and not that its of anyone here's concern, but IM MARRIED... i dont consider anyone gay trying to get married a slap in the face or a degrading of marraige, i think of it as "hey, they obviously love each other and want to get married, good for them"...
my attitude is this: people can do whatever the fuck they want, so long as they arent hurting anyone else... i thought concervatives wanted less government involvement? seems to me with all of these 'controversial issues' that the people refusing to change have a superiority complex, trying to force their views on others... while im sure youll try and turn that around, there is a difference with the ones advocating change: they arent trying to force views on others, they are trying to have every have a choice... what are you false chrisitans so damn scared of?
ohh and ebaa, im still waiting for your stelar argument as to why my logic is flawed regarding the necrophilia debate...
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 02, 2005, 10:33:00 AM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Mar 2 2005, 04:43 PM)
ohh and ebaa, im still waiting for your stelar argument as to why my logic is flawed regarding the necrophilia debate...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
-
, should be carried out... so as i see it, there are two parties... should a will not be carried out? i mean theyre dead right? they dont have any say...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on March 02, 2005, 11:29:00 AM
-
Redefining Marriage, is definitely adverse to the "permanent and aggregate interests of the community." While the Christian Right may be a faction, they are a faction in agreement with the majority of america, and this definition of marriage is not just a whim of passion, it has been this way for a real real long time.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 05:54:00 PM
-
yes ive taken american histroy as well... now, exactly how is redefining marraige going to harm 'the community'?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 02, 2005, 06:07:00 PM
-
Interracial courting was once considered "deviant sexual behavior," as times change so must we. A great time to bring up why amendments are called "amendments." THEY CHANGE! It's brilliant that our Deist fathers would be smart enough to allow change in our government.
Maybe if we let them adopt children they wouldn't have so much free time to "march in parades and write letters to their congressman [while] the rest of the country is busy with reality."
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 02, 2005, 09:37:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
, should be carried out... so as i see it, there are two parties... should a will not be carried out? i mean theyre dead right? they dont have any say...
Post by: damam on March 02, 2005, 11:29:00 AM
QUOTE(Founding Father James Madison)
a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest adverse . . . to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Redefining Marriage, is definitely adverse to the "permanent and aggregate interests of the community." While the Christian Right may be a faction, they are a faction in agreement with the majority of america, and this definition of marriage is not just a whim of passion, it has been this way for a real real long time.
Post by: gcskate27 on March 02, 2005, 05:54:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 02, 2005, 06:07:00 PM
QUOTE
You are mistaken. The government serves the will of the majority of the people. The minority has no place where the majority rules. A group of individuals who encourage and take part in deviant sexual behaviour do not justify recognition within our dynamic governing body.
Interracial courting was once considered "deviant sexual behavior," as times change so must we. A great time to bring up why amendments are called "amendments." THEY CHANGE! It's brilliant that our Deist fathers would be smart enough to allow change in our government.
QUOTE
Since the homosexual population has chosen not to participate in the perpetual responsibility of family life they have much more free time.
Maybe if we let them adopt children they wouldn't have so much free time to "march in parades and write letters to their congressman [while] the rest of the country is busy with reality."
Post by: bluedeath on March 02, 2005, 09:37:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 2 2005, 05:13 PM)
Interracial courting was once considered "deviant sexual behavior," as times change so must we. A great time to bring up why amendments are called "amendments." THEY CHANGE! It's brilliant that our Deist fathers would be smart enough to allow change in our government.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: damam on March 03, 2005, 09:54:00 AM
-
could have fooled me
I do agree that a civil union wouldnt hurt the general public. But that really doesnt matter does it. It only has to go against the general will of the public. And the definition of marriage is rather permanent. The closest thing to a gay marriage that has ever existed was a "rape" ceromony (sometimes called "conjugal contracts") they used to do in Rome. They were for set periods of time (ie not a life long contract), and the older male was usually acting as a teacher in some fashion (kind of like a master and apprentice). Not really the same thing is it. Marriage, on the other hand, has been around for several millenia as a legally binding contract. Marriage as it stands, certainly fits the definition of "permanent".
Im not saying that wont change in time. I believe that the "aggregate interests of the community" will change in time like they did with slavery. but at the moment its not going to happen nor should it happen until those conditions are met.
thats a pretty small group (albeit very vocal) with-in the homosexual movement. Its not really fair to say that that is a the stance of most homosexuals.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 03, 2005, 09:59:00 AM
-
Post by: damam on March 03, 2005, 09:54:00 AM
QUOTE(gcskate27)
yes ive taken american histroy as well
could have fooled me
QUOTE(gcskate27)
now, exactly how is redefining marraige going to harm 'the community'?
I do agree that a civil union wouldnt hurt the general public. But that really doesnt matter does it. It only has to go against the general will of the public. And the definition of marriage is rather permanent. The closest thing to a gay marriage that has ever existed was a "rape" ceromony (sometimes called "conjugal contracts") they used to do in Rome. They were for set periods of time (ie not a life long contract), and the older male was usually acting as a teacher in some fashion (kind of like a master and apprentice). Not really the same thing is it. Marriage, on the other hand, has been around for several millenia as a legally binding contract. Marriage as it stands, certainly fits the definition of "permanent".
Im not saying that wont change in time. I believe that the "aggregate interests of the community" will change in time like they did with slavery. but at the moment its not going to happen nor should it happen until those conditions are met.
QUOTE(bluedeath)
So you support the homosexual stance that eight is too late?
thats a pretty small group (albeit very vocal) with-in the homosexual movement. Its not really fair to say that that is a the stance of most homosexuals.
Post by: bluedeath on March 03, 2005, 09:59:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 3 2005, 09:00 AM)
thats a pretty small group (albeit very vocal) with-in the homosexual movement. Its not really fair to say that that is a the stance of most homosexuals.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 03, 2005, 02:21:00 PM
-
If by deviant behavior you mean tolerant behavior.
I bet children of interracial couples are more like to have interracial relationships because they've been raised in a tolerant enviroment. It makes sense, correlation does not mean causation.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 03, 2005, 03:36:00 PM
-
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 03, 2005, 02:21:00 PM
QUOTE
Deviant behaviour begets deviant behaviour.
If by deviant behavior you mean tolerant behavior.
I bet children of interracial couples are more like to have interracial relationships because they've been raised in a tolerant enviroment. It makes sense, correlation does not mean causation.
Post by: bluedeath on March 03, 2005, 03:36:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 3 2005, 01:27 PM)
If by deviant behavior you mean tolerant behavior.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 03, 2005, 04:23:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: ThaCrip on March 03, 2005, 05:25:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on March 03, 2005, 04:23:00 PM
Post by: ThaCrip on March 03, 2005, 05:25:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Feb 22 2005, 12:53 AM)
ive yet to hear a good reason against gay marriage other than people dont like it...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: ThaCrip on March 03, 2005, 05:38:00 PM
-
Post by: ThaCrip on March 03, 2005, 05:38:00 PM
QUOTE(chalosf @ Feb 23 2005, 03:19 AM)
Yes there are couples who are screwed up and mess up there kids lifes. But I can guarantee you that a kid raised buy a gay couple has a VERY HIGH (like 99.9%) rate of having issues in life becuase they are being raised in an UN NORMAL enviroment. No matter how you put it, you can't tell me a child that grows up with a gay parents is a good idea. I'll jsut drop it becuase this is going no where.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 03, 2005, 05:59:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 03, 2005, 07:05:00 PM
-
Babbling or not, I can still spell bigotry.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 03, 2005, 07:08:00 PM
-
This "bigotry" is a paradox in and of itself.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 03, 2005, 07:10:00 PM
-
How so?
Honest question, no flame strings attached.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 03, 2005, 07:14:00 PM
-
You are an advocate of tolerance, yet intolerant to the views of others.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 03, 2005, 07:28:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: pb2themax on March 04, 2005, 02:42:00 AM
-
Back to the subject. You may or may not like Bush, but that's just tough. He won 51 to 49%, which is a higher percentage than when Clinton won, BTW. Plus GWB had the highest total poplular vote of any president in US history. If you voted for Kerry, then you are the minority. Deal with it. I'm tired of people looking for any little issue to bash the President, just because they're still bitter because their side lost the election.
I put up with Clinton's disgrace of the Whitehouse for 8 years. I think you can handle Bush for 8 years.
You can vote again in 3 1/2 years. Until then, Let's support our President, and try to get possitive things accomplished.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 09:25:00 AM
-
why does everyone forget that there were 3 'vaible' candidates in clintons elections?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: pb2themax on March 04, 2005, 01:54:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on March 03, 2005, 05:59:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 03, 2005, 07:05:00 PM
QUOTE
Snap out of it. You are babbling and making no sense.
Babbling or not, I can still spell bigotry.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 03, 2005, 07:08:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 03, 2005, 07:10:00 PM
Honest question, no flame strings attached.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 03, 2005, 07:14:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on March 03, 2005, 07:28:00 PM
Post by: pb2themax on March 04, 2005, 02:42:00 AM
I put up with Clinton's disgrace of the Whitehouse for 8 years. I think you can handle Bush for 8 years.
You can vote again in 3 1/2 years. Until then, Let's support our President, and try to get possitive things accomplished.
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 09:25:00 AM
QUOTE(pb2themax @ Mar 4 2005, 02:48 AM)
He won 51 to 49%, which is a higher percentage than when Clinton won, BTW.
why does everyone forget that there were 3 'vaible' candidates in clintons elections?
Post by: pb2themax on March 04, 2005, 01:54:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Mar 4 2005, 10:31 AM)
why does everyone forget that there were 3 'vaible' candidates in clintons elections?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 02:20:00 PM
-
viable as in got anywhere near a significant amount of votes...
and what was your point? bush had more votes in this election? while perot might have taken votes away from bush sr, clinton won 49.2% of the popular vote after his first term (beating a divided perot, dole pop vote of 49.1%) which is much more meaningful if you ask me as people got to see how he fared in office... and in 2000 bush won 47.9% of the pop compared to a divided gore, nader vote of 51.1%...
what do these mean now? not much... but arent statistics fun?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 04, 2005, 02:31:00 PM
-
It's not intolerant to say BlueDeath shares similar views as any bigot would. I'd call it more logic. I never said that he wasn't allowed his opinion, I'm merely proposing that it's a horribly intolerant one.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: pb2themax on March 04, 2005, 02:43:00 PM
-
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 04, 2005, 02:47:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 02:20:00 PM
and what was your point? bush had more votes in this election? while perot might have taken votes away from bush sr, clinton won 49.2% of the popular vote after his first term (beating a divided perot, dole pop vote of 49.1%) which is much more meaningful if you ask me as people got to see how he fared in office... and in 2000 bush won 47.9% of the pop compared to a divided gore, nader vote of 51.1%...
what do these mean now? not much... but arent statistics fun?
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 04, 2005, 02:31:00 PM
Post by: pb2themax on March 04, 2005, 02:43:00 PM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 04, 2005, 02:47:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 4 2005, 09:37 PM)
It's not intolerant to say BlueDeath shares similar views as any bigot would. I'd call it more logic. I never said that he wasn't allowed his opinion, I'm merely proposing that it's a horribly intolerant one.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: pepsik on March 04, 2005, 03:13:00 PM
-
Post by: pepsik on March 04, 2005, 03:13:00 PM
QUOTE(EverythingButAnAnswer @ Mar 4 2005, 09:53 PM)
Who is the real bigot here?
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 04, 2005, 03:43:00 PM
-
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 04, 2005, 03:43:00 PM
QUOTE(pepsik @ Mar 4 2005, 10:19 PM)
I think you are with all your nazi posts, but you already know that. 
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 04, 2005, 04:54:00 PM
-
Post by: bluedeath on March 04, 2005, 04:54:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 4 2005, 01:37 PM)
It's not intolerant to say BlueDeath shares similar views as any bigot would. I'd call it more logic. I never said that he wasn't allowed his opinion, I'm merely proposing that it's a horribly intolerant one.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 04:59:00 PM
-
umm ok...
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: pepsik on March 04, 2005, 05:26:00 PM
-
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 04:59:00 PM
Post by: pepsik on March 04, 2005, 05:26:00 PM
QUOTE(bluedeath @ Mar 5 2005, 12:00 AM)
Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 04, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
-
Uh...BlueDeath? I thought I made that abundantly clear, forgive me.
There had been a hundred prophets just like Jesus before his time, he just happened to be born in a place where impressionable people fed on hope.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 04, 2005, 10:58:00 PM
-
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 04, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
QUOTE
Who is the real bigot here?
Uh...BlueDeath? I thought I made that abundantly clear, forgive me.
QUOTE
Wasn't Jesus the first Liberal? Advocating world peace and to love thy neighbors despite their differences? He died for you and now you kill everything off in his name. When those pearly gates turn into hellfire you will know who's will you were really serving.
There had been a hundred prophets just like Jesus before his time, he just happened to be born in a place where impressionable people fed on hope.
Post by: bluedeath on March 04, 2005, 10:58:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 4 2005, 04:56 PM)
Uh...BlueDeath? I thought I made that abundantly clear, forgive me.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 04, 2005, 11:05:00 PM
-
It is done.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 11:48:00 PM
-
how did you come to those conclusions? his posts say nothing of the sort...
regardless of whether youre christian or not does not affect the truth of this statement... try thinking objectively... (yet again)
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 05, 2005, 06:21:00 PM
-
As compelling as that arguement(?) really is, I still don't think you have any position at all other then "homosexuals are deviants, we should slaughter the non-believers."
As time becomes available I will find your 'nonsensicalities' and post them and I'll be sure to completely remove them from context before hand as well.
If anyone here wants to make easy money go to script lance, hire some desperate latvian programmers at 65 cents an hour and have them start making program clones.
Sending young men to die .......... $250,000 per death
Sending Mom the telegram ......... $12.00 per death
Making an oil rich nation our bitch ....... Priceless
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: bluedeath on March 05, 2005, 07:26:00 PM
-
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on March 04, 2005, 11:05:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on March 04, 2005, 11:48:00 PM
QUOTE
You think that you are smarter than god and we are all wrong for being heterosexual.
how did you come to those conclusions? his posts say nothing of the sort...
QUOTE
There had been a hundred prophets just like Jesus before his time, he just happened to be born in a place where impressionable people fed on hope.
regardless of whether youre christian or not does not affect the truth of this statement... try thinking objectively...
(yet again)
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 05, 2005, 06:21:00 PM
QUOTE
Oh and daddy doesn't love you. <Tears>He really doesn't love you. You know that right? He left you with mommy because he saw how weak you are and lets face it no one wants a weak son</Tears >
As compelling as that arguement(?) really is, I still don't think you have any position at all other then "homosexuals are deviants, we should slaughter the non-believers."
As time becomes available I will find your 'nonsensicalities' and post them and I'll be sure to completely remove them from context before hand as well.
If anyone here wants to make easy money go to script lance, hire some desperate latvian programmers at 65 cents an hour and have them start making program clones.
Sending young men to die .......... $250,000 per death
Sending Mom the telegram ......... $12.00 per death
Making an oil rich nation our bitch ....... Priceless
Post by: bluedeath on March 05, 2005, 07:26:00 PM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 5 2005, 05:27 PM)
As compelling as that arguement(?) really is, I still don't think you have any position at all other then "homosexuals are deviants, we should slaughter the non-believers."
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 06, 2005, 10:33:00 AM
-
Freud would only have one explanation for your accusations towards others of "daddy" issues.
-
Title: Bush Supports Gays, And More Lies, Worse President
Post by: sbmd on March 06, 2005, 10:51:00 AM
-
Post by: Maximumbeing on March 06, 2005, 10:33:00 AM
Post by: sbmd on March 06, 2005, 10:51:00 AM
QUOTE(Maximumbeing @ Mar 5 2005, 06:27 PM)
Sending young men to die .......... $250,000 per death