Gays

[Justin_stacy]

One of the biggest things troubling me, out side of the war but there is ENOUGH threads on that, is the inability for Gays to marry in this country. I think it is every ones right to pursue happiness, and if that means living your life with some one of your own sex i think thats great. More power to ya. So i dont understand why we as a nation can't give validity to such marrages?

I also think that gay families sould be aloud to adapt children when they have been deamed responsiable enough to do so, this would really inlarge the Adoption pool and hopefully cut out on some unneed abortions. I dont see why loving parents, no matter what there sexual orientations, should be denied children if they can provide for them.

What do you guys ( and wemyn, for zach again) feel on the subject?

[evil zach]

I completly agree. It's nobody business what one dose with their dong. If they can provide for the child, why not? If anything, they'll come out of it with more of a respect for difernt culturs and lifestyles. If 2 guys wanna get married, go for it. It's their lives. If 2 chicks wann get married, why not. Everybody loves lesbians anyway.

[Fobika!]

i completely agree...i honestly dont see why not, is there even a just reason for it, to be illegal??

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Krammit
i completely agree...i honestly dont see why not, is there even a just reason for it, to be illegal??

ya technically, in all but 10 states its still illegal to have intercourse with some of the same sex even if its in your own residence.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Krammit
i completely agree...i honestly dont see why not, is there even a just reason for it, to be illegal??
marrige is a holy thing, and homosexuality is looked down upon by religion. not only that, but its not normal, so it freaks people out, and why does it matter if you are married or not?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
marrige is a holy thing, and homosexuality is looked down upon by religion. not only that, but its not normal, so it freaks people out, and why does it matter if you are married or not?

Marriage means something personally to two individuals, thats why. And the state grants marriages so there should be nothing to holy about (meaning religious).

Fuck you, your not normal, who cares if it freaks people out, i had a mohawk all through freshman yr of highschool and i didnt care if i freaked any one out. Should there be a law against mohawks cause they freak people out?

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Marriage means something personally to two individuals, thats why. And the state grants marriages so there should be nothing to holy about (meaning religious).

Fuck you, your not normal, who cares if it freaks people out, i had a mohawk all through freshman yr of highschool and i didnt care if i freaked any one out. Should there be a law against mohawks cause they freak people out?
mohawks dont cause AIDS

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
mohawks dont cause AIDS

You are a confused little man. That is all i have to say.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
You are a confused little man. That is all i have to say. I am gay so I get it in the ass
Homosexual intercourse gave birth to AIDS, mohawks didnt, a little bit different. yes they both freak people out, but different consequences

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Homosexual intercourse gave birth to AIDS, mohawks didnt, a little bit different. yes they both freak people out, but different consequences

Aids wasn't invented by Gays you idiots. It spreads faster between them because in the late 70's (before aids) many gays, but no where near all or even a majority, participated in unprotected sex with many partners, because unlike heterosexuals they didnt have to worry about enpregnating any one. So it was much easier for them to different partners and not face any consequences.

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Homosexual intercourse gave birth to AIDS, mohawks didnt, a little bit different. yes they both freak people out, but different consequences

no it didn't you uneducated little prick...and its not just homosexual intercourse that transmits HIV...heterosexual intercourse is just as likely to do the same...dumbass...

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Homosexual intercourse gave birth to AIDS, mohawks didnt, a little bit different. yes they both freak people out, but different consequences
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Krammit
no it didn't you uneducated little prick...and its not just homosexual intercourse that transmits HIV...heterosexual intercourse is just as likely to do the same...dumbass...
I know the chances are the same, but gays, like justin said, didnt use condoms as much as regular people did. therefore they are responsible for the birth, not invention of Aids on a large scale

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I know the chances are the same, but gays, like justin said, didnt use condoms as much as regular people did. therefore they are responsible for the birth, not invention of Aids on a large scale

and this means...what? just because they DIDNT use condoms at one point in time, when they were not educated about "safe-sex"...this means that now as a punishment, they can't get married?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I know the chances are the same, but gays, like justin said, didnt use condoms as much as regular people did. therefore they are responsible for the birth, not invention of Aids on a large scale

Lack of condom use by those that are gay, did not give birth to aids, IGNORANCE did.

Also in the 70's almost no one expect military personell used condoms.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Lack of condom use by those that are gay, did not give birth to aids, IGNORANCE did.

Also in the 70's almost no one expect military personell used condoms.
look i dont have an opinion either way, im just saying gay marriges in all states wont happen for years, legally at least, because marrige i considered holy, and gays arent looked greatly upon by religion, supposedly they go straight to hell for being gay. and 70% of aids is transmitted by heterosexual intercourse and 30 by homosexual intercourse. i know more is by hetero, but is 30% of the world gay? still i have no opinion on marrige

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
because marrige i considered holy, and gays arent looked greatly upon by religion

didn't Justin just prove that statement wrong? like she said, the state grants marriages; meaning they are NOT

[evil zach]

Chances of being gay are around 1 in 10. That would make abou 10% of the earths population gay, but aids get spread pretty easly.

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by evil zach
Chances of being gay are around 1 in 10. That would make abou 10% of the earths population gay, but aids get spread pretty easly.

but aids are not spread only by gays...

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Krammit
didn't Justin just prove that statement wrong? like she said, the state grants marriages; meaning they are NOT
what do you mean

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Krammit
didn't Justin just prove that statement wrong? like she said, the state grants marriages; meaning they are NOT

Who you calling she, fucker.

[Justin_stacy]

You guys are kind of getting off the topic, i didnt want this to turn in to an AIDS threads, i think its disgusting how when we talk about gay people AIDS allways has to come up, i mean when you talk about a heterosexual couple is the first thing that comes up "unplaned pregnancies" or "std's," NO, so why should aids be the first thing that comes to mind.

Also how do the rest of you in here feel about gay adoptions? im just kind of wondering.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
You guys are kind of getting off the topic, i didnt want this to turn in to an AIDS threads, i think its disgusting how when we talk about gay people AIDS allways has to come up, i mean when you talk about a heterosexual couple is the first thing that comes up "unplaned pregnancies" or "std's," NO, so why should aids be the first thing that comes to mind.

Also how do the rest of you in here feel about gay adoptions? im just kind of wondering.
again its all on the circumstances. i wouldnt put a kid over 4 in a gay home, becuase of the childs prior knowlege of gays. i also would give a child to heterosexual parents before i gave a kid to gay parents just because of psycological reasons. studies have shown that homosexuality is a learned trait, although some have shown its genetic. also imagine the torture of having gay parents and have all the kids make fun of you at school, that could mess someone up. if its a last resort, im all for gay adoption, but if you have other options, then take it

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
also imagine the torture of having gay parents and have all the kids make fun of you at school, that could mess someone up.

I dont think we should make life effecting decisions based on what the kids at school might think.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
I dont think we should make life effecting decisions based on what the kids at school might think.
being made of at school has caused numerous suicides as well as school shootings, having gay parents causes kids to make fun of kids

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
being made of at school has caused numerous suicides as well as school shootings, having gay parents causes kids to make fun of kids

So by your thinking there should be no interracial marrages either, because there kids tend to get made fun of too at school.
And with that what about fat kids, they get made fun of more then any one at school so should we say no fat couples should be allowed to have kids, or what about geeky couple should they be aloud to have kids?

Also not one of the school shooting were caused by gay parents, they were cause by parents who weren't apart of there kids life (and maralyn Manson).

[unopinionated]

well unfortuneatly if kids at school make fun of someone for having gay parents, then over time that can cause serious pyscilogical problems for a young kid, no matter how great the parents are. So that kind of pyscilogical damage can harm a child, which is one reason why gay people cat get married in every state and why they cant adopt. Another reason is morality. Homosexuality is morally wrong and whether people like it or not it is a sin. Although you guys will say "screw all that religous crap" and stuff like that it still doesnt make it ok.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by unopinionated
well unfortuneatly if kids at school make fun of someone for having gay parents, then over time that can cause serious pyscilogical problems for a young kid, no matter how great the parents are. So that kind of pyscilogical damage can harm a child, which is one reason why gay people cat get married in every state and why they cant adopt. Another reason is morality. Homosexuality is morally wrong and whether people like it or not it is a sin. Although you guys will say "screw all that religous crap" and stuff like that it still doesnt make it ok.
well put

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by unopinionated
well unfortuneatly if kids at school make fun of someone for having gay parents, then over time that can cause serious pyscilogical problems for a young kid, no matter how great the parents are. So that kind of pyscilogical damage can harm a child, which is one reason why gay people cat get married in every state and why they cant adopt. Another reason is morality. Homosexuality is morally wrong and whether people like it or not it is a sin. Although you guys will say "screw all that religous crap" and stuff like that it still doesnt make it ok.

What do you think a foster home or an orphanage will do to a kid physciogically will it be positive, or would parents of any sort have been better. Also i know most of your guys lives revolve around school but it only last 13 to 16 yrs of a person life, and that is such a short time in life and shouldn't be a sole fact in decieding some ones life that will most likly last 60 to 70 years.

Also being gay is only a "mortal sin" if you want it to be, see religion is what YOU make it. You take from it what you choice to and what you dont.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by unopinionated
well unfortuneatly if kids at school make fun of someone for having gay parents, then over time that can cause serious pyscilogical problems for a young kid, no matter how great the parents are. So that kind of pyscilogical damage can harm a child, which is one reason why gay people cat get married in every state and why they cant adopt. Another reason is morality. Homosexuality is morally wrong and whether people like it or not it is a sin. Although you guys will say "screw all that religous crap" and stuff like that it still doesnt make it ok.
Arguments rooted in religion lose all validity when talking to an athiest, and I'm an athiest.

[unopinionated]

actually, i'm not really talking about religion.
Religion is what people do to fill an empty gap in their lives and who try to make themselves bot feel guilty for things that they do.

you people dont understand, all scinetific facts point toward a creator and supreme being in the universe who is God. Unfortunetly, all homosexuals, anarchist, atheist, and even religious people are going to have to come FACE TO FACE with him when our lives on earth pass away. Religous people will have to face the same consequences as non-religious people unless the put their faith in christ.

That is just the truth, whether you believe or choose to live your own selfish life and be ignorant, there is a consequence to your every action unless you realize your ignorance and talk to the man upstairs...

[evil zach]

I was hoping it wouldn't have to come to this but you asked for it. Its time for me to use BOLD font!
actually, i'm not really talking about religion
You were. You said the homosexuality was a sin, bringing the jewdeo-christian belife system into the conversation
Religion is what people do to fill an empty gap in their lives and who try to make themselves bot feel guilty for things that they do.
Agreed.
you people dont understand, all scinetific facts point toward a creator and supreme being in the universe who is God.
sources?
Unfortunetly, all homosexuals, anarchist, atheist, and even religious people are going to have to come FACE TO FACE with him when our lives on earth pass away.
Their are relgious anarchists. I happen to be good friends with one. In fact one could argue that the bible preaches anarchy. Atheists don't belive in god so they arn't too worried.
Religous people will have to face the same consequences as non-religious people unless the put their faith in christ.
Thats just irresponcibel. "I've sinned but because i'm christain its OK. I'll be forgiven" Its irresponcible and selfish.
That is just the truth, whether you believe or choose to live your own selfish life and be ignorant, there is a consequence to your every action unless you realize your ignorance and talk to the man upstairs...
I'm living my life selfish by promoting social anarchy? Essentially helping those not as well off as myself with out expecting reward or recognition. I'm ignorant because I choose to believe science, which can be backed up with fact over religion which can only be backed up by a 2000 year old book? Your argument dosn't make sence. As far as i'm concernd my dad is the man upstairs. his bedroom is directly above mine.

[unopinionated]

i'm not going to try to even explain the religion thing to you

i'm ganna have to bust out some anatomy here....if we "evolved" into a species from basically nothing, and homosexuality is a correct practice, then why sexual intercourse the only way to reproduce? according to evolution, mankind would have some adaptation to produce though homosexual orientation over the supposed millions of years of our existence.

sources-(the statement above), and search google for any creation scientist website. that will give u more info than you can handle. if u would like me to i could find one for u and u could read and investigate everything yourself. i can also give u an odds of the chances of evolution. i dont have the #'s with me but i can find those too if u'd like, but they say that they point to evolution totally being IMPOSSIBLE.

when i said anarchist are going to have to come face to face with God, i wasnt saying that they aren't christians. I was pointing out that every kind of person will have to come face to face. and anarchist isnt preached in the bible. the bible preaches that god is in control. but please, since you are the bible expert, show me a passage in the bible where anarchism is preached and i will believe you

and yes, if u r a christian, you will be forgiven of your sins. and the cool thing about this is that anyone can become a christion. its not like some religouse thing where u have to b baptize or go to some holy sight. even homosexuals can b forgiven....God hates the sin of homosexuality, but not the person, there is still room for forgiveness. Also, someone who is a true christian will want to not sin, its not a pass saying that u can sin whenever you want and get away with it

and finally, i would rather base my faith on a book that is 2000 years old that co-insides to all of our worlds history than belive a 200 year old theory that has NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. and i dont care if your mother theresa helping people every spare second of your life, if u do not put your faith in god and know the facts behind christianity, than you are ignorant, because you choose to ignore your sinful nature as a human being, and you choose to accept that there is someone out there who is in conctrol

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
One of the biggest things troubling me, out side of the war but there is ENOUGH threads on that, is the inability for Gays to marry in this country. I think it is every ones right to pursue happiness, and if that means living your life with some one of your own sex i think thats great. More power to ya. So i dont understand why we as a nation can't give validity to such marrages?

I also think that gay families sould be aloud to adapt children when they have been deamed responsiable enough to do so, this would really inlarge the Adoption pool and hopefully cut out on some unneed abortions. I dont see why loving parents, no matter what there sexual orientations, should be denied children if they can provide for them.

What do you guys ( and wemyn, for zach again) feel on the subject?

I would have a serious problems with gays adopting children. How would you feel if you were adopted by a gay family? You would have no idea of what is normal and how to live your life. Call me homophobic, but I hope that this never happens in my lifetime.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
What do you think a foster home or an orphanage will do to a kid physciogically will it be positive, or would parents of any sort have been better. Also i know most of your guys lives revolve around school but it only last 13 to 16 yrs of a person life, and that is such a short time in life and shouldn't be a sole fact in decieding some ones life that will most likly last 60 to 70 years.

Also being gay is only a "mortal sin" if you want it to be, see religion is what YOU make it. You take from it what you choice to and what you dont.
A parent is only in your life for 18 years man. And if you commit suicide before you are out of school, that 16 years is all you have, so thats 100% of your life. Its not a smart thing to put kids with gays.

[Fobika!]

why should gays be penalized for their sexual preference?? it's the most radical idea i have ever heard of. Homosexuals are BORN HOMOSEXUAL. they have no choice; don't you think that THAT would cause some sort of phsycological damage as well, to the gays who can't live their lives the way they want to, because of some stoopid, unreasonable laws and beliefs??

[yoshimon25]

wow. you're homophobic opinions are disgusting. i know a kid who grew up with two moms. she has no psychological problems, she wasn't made fun of or any of that shit in school, (and if someone did say something i'm sure she was smart ebough to realize they were stupid and shrug it off).

[ibanez4life]

Originally posted by unopinionated

That is just the truth, whether you believe or choose to live your own selfish life and be ignorant, there is a consequence to your every action unless you realize your ignorance and talk to the man upstairs...

and what it the man upstairs is really the muslim god. who are you to say which religion is right or wrong. and don't say the bible told you so because the muslims have a book telling them what is right and wrong too. not only are there too many unknowns in religion, the different ones clash with each other as well.

[kidinthecorner]

Some people take the Bible too literally. Everything in there is a metaphor, which is generally the source of confusion from its point. The Bible is great for teaching morality, but it is NOT is history book. Do you, that honestly take the Bible that literally, think there was a tower of Babel and that's why we speak different languages? How about this? We speak different languages because people were isolated and the same ideas didn't start everywhere, so some grunt would mean something completely different somewhere else.

And before someoen attacks me, yes I'm Christian, but I also believe in evolution. It just makes that much more sense.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by kidinthecorner
Some people take the Bible too literally. Everything in there is a metaphor, which is generally the source of confusion from its point. The Bible is great for teaching morality, but it is NOT is history book. Do you, that honestly take the Bible that literally, think there was a tower of Babel and that's why we speak different languages? How about this? We speak different languages because people were isolated and the same ideas didn't start everywhere, so some grunt would mean something completely different somewhere else.

And before someoen attacks me, yes I'm Christian, but I also believe in evolution. It just makes that much more sense.
I do believe in evolution, but I also have Christian beliefs. You said it perfectly when you said that the bible isnt a history book. But it is a book of morals. Homosexuality isnt correct. There is a reason you need a man and a woman to have a child. Also homosexality is learned. If it was genetic, why are there so many gay people? Gays dont reproduce, so you think that gene would die off, if you believe in evolution or Darwinism. Therefore, homosexuality is a learned trait.

[evil zach]

Homosexulaity isn't learned. I'm sorry but thats one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The chances of sombody being gay are about 1 in 10. Nothing can increase or decreace these odds.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
Homosexulaity isn't learned. I'm sorry but thats one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The chances of sombody being gay are about 1 in 10. Nothing can increase or decreace these odds.
Its learned! How could the gay gene be carried on if gays dont reproduce?!? Where do you come up with a number like 1 in 10?

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Its learned! How could the gay gene be carried on if gays dont reproduce?!? Where do you come up with a number like 1 in 10?

studies show that gays are BORN GAY. they dont "learn it." they arent raised gay...

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Krammit
studies show that gays are BORN GAY. they dont "learn it." they arent raised gay...
Ok Krammit and Zach, let me ask you a question. Do you believe in evolution or Darwinism?

[evil zach]

yes. what dose that have to do with anything?

[Fobika!]

yea i do too

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
yes. what dose that have to do with anything?
You know the whole survival of the fittest? All that means is surviving to reproduce. Gays dont reproduce, correct? That means they cannot pass on the "gay gene". If the gene dies out, then the world would be free of gay people. However gays continue to grow despite the lack of reproduction, explain that to me.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
You know the whole survival of the fittest? All that means is surviving to reproduce. Gays dont reproduce, correct? That means they cannot pass on the "gay gene". If the gene dies out, then the world would be free of gay people. However gays continue to grow despite the lack of reproduction, explain that to me. Ouch.... Looks like you won, BrandNew. Homosexuality, I believe, is learned. All these "studies" are done by special interest gay rights groups who want to make gays look like a race instead of a congregation of stupid people.

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
You know the whole survival of the fittest? All that means is surviving to reproduce. Gays dont reproduce, correct? That means they cannot pass on the "gay gene". If the gene dies out, then the world would be free of gay people. However gays continue to grow despite the lack of reproduction, explain that to me.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/are_some_people_born_gay.htm

i win

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Ouch.... Looks like you won, BrandNew. Homosexuality, I believe, is learned. All these "studies" are done by special interest gay rights groups who want to make gays look like a race instead of a congregation of stupid people.

i hate you. i think YOU'RE part of the "congregation of stupid people"

[WithStamin]

Counter: I win too

ENCINO, Calif.--May 17, 1997--Nearly 25 years after the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic Manual, labeling it a lifestyle choice rather than a psychological disorder, a California-based association of psychiatrists and psychologists has proven that homosexuals can change their orientation through intense therapy and a strong desire to change.

The whole thing is here. (http://www.bible.ca/s-Homo-Genetic.htm)

[evil zach]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
You know the whole survival of the fittest? All that means is surviving to reproduce. Gays dont reproduce, correct? That means they cannot pass on the "gay gene". If the gene dies out, then the world would be free of gay people. However gays continue to grow despite the lack of reproduction, explain that to me.
Evolution teaches that a spiecies evolves to survive. There are defiently enogh heterosexuals for the human race to survive

[evil zach]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Counter: I win too



The whole thing is here. (http://www.bible.ca/s-Homo-Genetic.htm)
Bible.ca? are you joking?

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Counter: I win too



The whole thing is here. (http://www.bible.ca/s-Homo-Genetic.htm)

bah. i wish there was likke, ONE concrete source we could find.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Counter: I win too



The whole thing is here. (http://www.bible.ca/s-Homo-Genetic.htm)
Looks like we are the champions, my friends. And we'll keep on fighting till the end.....

So explain you're theory of how the gene is passes without reproduction, I want to hear this

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by evil zach
Evolution teaches that a spiecies evolves to survive. There are defiently enogh heterosexuals for the human race to survive

yes, thank you.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Krammit
yes, thank you.
But if they dont reproduce, how does it carry on

[Kingskank]

I think it is unreasonable to constrict society to the beliefs of religion. To say homosexuality is wrong just because it is a sin is stupid, because you cant expect all of society to base their morals on religion.

If you make a statement like that, then you pretty much have to believe that sex is for reproduction only, and really how many people follow those religious standards?

While i think gay families should be allowed to adopt gay families, why shouldnt they in terms of parenting..im sure they would provide excellent guidance, support and be allround good parents. Unfortunately it is society that has not evolved to the point of accepting such petty issues, and as brandnewrock has said, it could/would lead to social torment for most of the children.

As for the scientific fact of the 1 in 10...and born gay stuff, im not sure where such a statistic came about. While i do think that someone can be born gay, i dont know how science would ever come up witha properly researched statistic. Has anyone said there is a gay gene? I thought it had to do with hormone imbalances and floodings during pregnancy, those types of things are impossible to predict.

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Looks like we are the champions, my friends. And we'll keep on fighting till the end.....

So explain you're theory of how the gene is passes without reproduction, I want to hear this

i just posted it like 2 posts ago u fucktard. here it is again:

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/H...le_born_gay.htm

me and zach > brandnewrock05 and withstamin

[WithStamin]

Evolution teaches that a spiecies evolves to survive. There are defiently enogh heterosexuals for the human race to survive The human race will survive, but that gene will not be passed on because gays don't reproduce. Therefore, how could this "genetic condition" be passed on??

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by Kingskank
I think it is unreasonable to constrict society to the beliefs of religion. To say homosexuality is wrong just because it is a sin is stupid, because you cant expect all of society to base their morals on religion.

If you make a statement like that, then you pretty much have to believe that sex is for reproduction only, and really how many people follow those religious standards?

While i think gay families should be allowed to adopt gay families, why shouldnt they in terms of parenting..im sure they would provide excellent guidance, support and be allround good parents. Unfortunately it is society that has not evolved to the point of accepting such petty issues, and as brandnewrock has said, it could/would lead to social torment for most of the children.

As for the scientific fact of the 1 in 10...and born gay stuff, im not sure where such a statistic came about. While i do think that someone can be born gay, i dont know how science would ever come up witha properly researched statistic. Has anyone said there is a gay gene? I thought it had to do with hormone imbalances and floodings during pregnancy, those types of things are impossible to predict.

i love you kingskank.


but about how they know that gays are born gay....well they've found gay animals, and this proves that they arent raised gay, animals cant be raised gay

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Krammit
i just posted it like 2 posts ago u fucktard. here it is again:

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/H...le_born_gay.htm

me and zach > brandnewrock05 and withstamin
how about a link that works there hoss

[Kingskank]

Originally posted by Krammit
i love you kingskank.


but about how they know that gays are born gay....well they've found gay animals, and this proves that they arent raised gay, animals cant be raised gay

thanks for the love!

my point wasnt how they know theyre born gay...but how they know what percentage is born gay...that seems like a scientific impossibility to me

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Kingskank
thanks for the love!

my point wasnt how they know theyre born gay...but how they know what percentage is born gay...that seems like a scientific impossibility to me
no one has answered my question. how is the gene passed if they lack reproduction?

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Kingskank
I think it is unreasonable to constrict society to the beliefs of religion. To say homosexuality is wrong just because it is a sin is stupid, because you cant expect all of society to base their morals on religion.

If you make a statement like that, then you pretty much have to believe that sex is for reproduction only, and really how many people follow those religious standards?

While i think gay families should be allowed to adopt gay families, why shouldnt they in terms of parenting..im sure they would provide excellent guidance, support and be allround good parents. Unfortunately it is society that has not evolved to the point of accepting such petty issues, and as brandnewrock has said, it could/would lead to social torment for most of the children.

As for the scientific fact of the 1 in 10...and born gay stuff, im not sure where such a statistic came about. While i do think that someone can be born gay, i dont know how science would ever come up witha properly researched statistic. Has anyone said there is a gay gene? I thought it had to do with hormone imbalances and floodings during pregnancy, those types of things are impossible to predict.
I'm not an especially religious person, but I still believe that homosexuality is wrong. I've had that beleif for a very long time. As for gay families adopting gay families, I don't think that some five year old kid looking to be adopted will be gay. People usually decided to come out later in life. So I don't think that will work.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by WithStamin
I'm not an especially religious person, but I still believe that homosexuality is wrong. I've had that beleif for a very long time. As for gay families adopting gay families, I don't think that some five year old kid looking to be adopted will be gay. People usually decided to come out later in life. So I don't think that will work.
Science talk now. Kramit, zach, king, how does the gay gene get passed on if no reproduction is involved. I have asked quite a few times with no response

[kidinthecorner]

Don't you fools pay attention in bio? If "gay" really is a gene, then it doesn't have to be dominant. It can be recessive, so striaght people carry it. You use that little table thing. Say S=straight and s=gay (you use capital for dominant, and lowercase for whatever the opposite is). If 2 people with recessive traits mate:

-------S -----s
-S ---SS ---Ss
-s ---Ss ---ss

The first person, the SS, is pure straight. The mixed, Ss, are straight but cary the recessive gene. The 4th one, ss, is pure recessive, so he's gay. The gene lives on. All it takes is enough mixed-types to carry a gene if the pure-recessive doesn't reproduce.

This is only if being gay is really genetic, anyway. So there, boys, I win.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by kidinthecorner
Don't you fools pay attention in bio? If "gay" really is a gene, then it doesn't have to be dominant. It can be recessive, so striaght people carry it. You use that little table thing. Say S=straight and s=gay (you use capital for dominant, and lowercase for whatever the opposite is). If 2 people with recessive traits mate:

-------S -----s
-S ---SS ---Ss
-s ---Ss ---ss

The first person, the SS, is pure straight. The mixed, Ss, are straight but cary the recessive gene. The 4th one, ss, is pure recessive, so he's gay. The gene lives on. All it takes is enough mixed-types to carry a gene if the pure-recessive doesn't reproduce.

This is only if being gay is really genetic, anyway. So there, boys, I win.
*applause* good work

[Kingskank]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
no one has answered my question. how is the gene passed if they lack reproduction?

like i said, i dont think there is a gay gene....from what ive read some scientists believe a person can be born gay when they are flooded with hormones while in the womb.

While this might make homosexuality abnormal, in the sense that the hormone douse-age doesnt normally happen, this still doesnt change the fact that the child is born gay. You cant take away a persons civil rights because they are born a certain way, that is insane.

Plus, your "pass on the gene" theory makes no sense. That would indicate that one of the gay persons parents had to have been gay. Genes dont work like that, i can have blue eyes if both my parents have brown. Again ill say, it doenst make much sense for there to be a gay gene. But that doesnt mean someone cant be born gay.

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by Kingskank
like i said, i dont think there is a gay gene....from what ive read some scientists believe a person can be born gay when they are flooded with hormones while in the womb.

While this might make homosexuality abnormal, in the sense that the hormone douse-age doesnt normally happen, this still doesnt change the fact that the child is born gay. You cant take away a persons civil rights because they are born a certain way, that is insane.

Plus, your "pass on the gene" theory makes no sense. That would indicate that one of the gay persons parents had to have been gay. Genes dont work like that, i can have blue eyes if both my parents have brown. Again ill say, it doenst make much sense for there to be a gay gene. But that doesnt mean someone cant be born gay.

It does make sense, see my above post. But I really dont think its genetic eiethr, but it is not learned. I agree with you on the hormone dealie.

[Kingskank]

Yeah, i know thats how it would work...i just dont know if i believe it...we pretty much share the same opinion

nice diagram by the way..its been a while since i took that class!

[kidinthecorner]

Haha, 2 yrs ago for me. I'm surprised I remembered it.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by WithStamin
I would have a serious problems with gays adopting children. How would you feel if you were adopted by a gay family? You would have no idea of what is normal and how to live your life. Call me homophobic, but I hope that this never happens in my lifetime.

Who gives you the right to say what is normal? People live there lives the way THEY want to, they may take in suggestions from others but EVER one lives the life thye want not the one you want for them.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
what gay animals have they discovered?

Yes there are gay animals, or gay sexual incounters which is probably a better term, i dont think animals have the conpasity to think "Hey im gay," or "Im coming out of the Closet."

From what i heard it was like 35% of sexual incounters were gay in the wild, this might also be a natural form of population control.

[Kingskank]

man 35%?

where do people come up with numbers like that

im not saying there arent any gay animals, i know there are...but as someone so involved in proper research, im curious to see how someone can look and come up with a number on the sexual encounters in the wild. You'd have to watch alot of friggen animal sex...alot of different species

that doesnt seem like a worthwile study, who cares how many animal encounters are gay?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Kingskank
man 35%?

where do people come up with numbers like that

im not saying there arent any gay animals, i know there are...but as someone so involved in proper research, im curious to see how someone can look and come up with a number on the sexual encounters in the wild. You'd have to watch alot of friggen animal sex...alot of different species

that doesnt seem like a worthwile study, who cares how many animal encounters are gay?

Man there are people who study the breeding habbits of ants! so some one out there has to have study gay sex in the animal kingdom. Also i just heard that # on in a science book so i cant prove it but it sounds about right to me. I think i could be natures way of controling the population.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Kingskank

that doesnt seem like a worthwile study, who cares how many animal encounters are gay?

Is worthwild to some to prove to people like Brandnew and Stamina, that being gay isn't something you do to be "COOL" or "DIFFERENT," its just part of you and its part of nature.

[Kingskank]

well if you say you read it in a book..ill believe you

sometimes it just seems people pull random numbers out of nowhere...35%...there are alot of animals in the wild, to cover all their sexual habits and come up witha final percent, that seems really...hard to do.

but the population control statement makes sense...who knows

its not the theory im questioning..its just the numbers

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Kingskank
well if you say you read it in a book..ill believe you

sometimes it just seems people pull random numbers out of nowhere...35%...there are alot of animals in the wild, to cover all their sexual habits and come up witha final percent, that seems really...hard to do.

but the population control statement makes sense...who knows

its not the theory im questioning..its just the numbers

Thats just the number i've seen, im not sure if i totally think its that high but who knows?.

Also what you got to remimber is that animals don't just stay gay or only be with same sex animals, the entercourse is just periodic.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Ouch.... Looks like you won, BrandNew. Homosexuality, I believe, is learned. All these "studies" are done by special interest gay rights groups who want to make gays look like a race instead of a congregation of stupid people.

How can you be so stupid. Being gay isn't a race its a sexual prefrence. And a congregation of stupid people i think that would be a more suited title for you and your little friend.

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
no one has answered my question. how is the gene passed if they lack reproduction?

well think about it...if it's a RECESSIVE gene, then straight people could carry it as well, and pass it on to their children

[Fobika!]

oh oopsys i just realized somebody answered that already

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Krammit
well think about it...if it's a RECESSIVE gene, then straight people could carry it as well, and pass it on to their children Yes, but it would eventually disappear. If every single person who was homozygus recessive for homosexuality didn't reproduce, the gene would be nearly nonexistant.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Yes, but it would eventually disappear. If every single person who was homozygus recessive for homosexuality didn't reproduce, the gene would be nearly nonexistant.
still there is no proof that any gene is gay

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
still there is no proof that any gene is gay

and there is no proof that people become gay because of their environment. Homosexuals say that they always knew they were different, and that they didn't have the same feelings as other people. They never say that one day they decided to be gay. Stop behaving like the generic redneck and stop being so fucking discriminatory.

[kidinthecorner]

Just because a gene is recessive and the pure recessive people don't reproduce doesnt mean it will die out. In a relationship with 2 mixed partners, each child has a 75% chance of having the gene, even if it is recessive. It would only die out if people consistantly mated with purely dominant partners, where the cahnce would be 25%, and the chance of finding a mixed person (dom. and rec.) would eventually go down and then the rec. trait would eventually die out.

Edit: I'm not exactly sure if this all makes sense. It seems to to me, but I just got back from a party, and I'm a little gone at the moment. Tell me if it doesn't and I'll fix it in the morning hopefully.

[unopinionated]

wow, i cant believe what i'm seeing

you guys are believeing everything that scientist tell you. its kinda sad. unlike you guys, i have researched my beliefs.
I have read the bible, and many books for evolution and for creationism, and nothing has even pointed in the direction that evolution is why we all exist here today. here's a link to show SOME of the reasons-http://www.creation-vs-evolution.com/ (http://).

no-1 can say that they are christian and belive in evolution. thats just not possible. the basis of the christian faith is in the creation of mankind by God.

THIS IS THE REASON Y CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE AND OTHER RELIGIONS LIKE ISLAM AND BUDDIASM IS FALSE.-
one word-prophecies. did u know that over close to 1000 years before of the promised mesiah that would save our world(Jesus), that there were i believe close to 200 prophecies just about him. They were prophecies that related to the day of his birth to the day of his death. And every single prophecy about the messiah came through through Jesus' life. Now how can u explain that this happens? you might say that he was well knowledged in the prophecies and performed them arcordingly. But that is just simply impossible. No one would go to the cross and die on there own will. Studies have shown that being crucified is the most painful and torcherous death you can possibly imagine. He performed miracles that many people witnessed and even raised someone from the dead, theres no magic or illusional tricks to do that. There are written Hebrew records of his life and his miracles. So then how could an atheist explain that?
Other events of our past and current history were also prophesised. It was prophesised that the nation of Isreal would be scattered across the world and tormented because of there race and then would later return to establish there country back in their original land of Isreal. The jews were scattered after the roman impire and anybody remember the holocaust? Theres some torment. And in 1948, the nation of Isreal was reestablished. It was also prophesised that the arabs and Hebrews would alsways be in conflist until the end of time. This is because Abraham (the father of the jews and arabs) tired to have a son. God told him that him and his wife would eventually have a son who woulld make a great nation. They grew impatient and abraham had a child with his maidservent. That was ishmael(father of the Arabs). Later, abraham and his wife had a child of their own and called him Isaac(father of the jews).
God told them that both of his sons would make great nations but that Isaac's nation would be God's chosen people, hence the jewish race. He aslo said that the descendants of ishmael and the descendants of Isaac would always be in conflict. The jews had to defeat the philistines(group of arrabs at the time) when they occupied Isreal after their bondage in egypt, and they were later oppressed by them for many years. The jews and arabs have always been in conflict for land since then. So since then we have seen that the araab world has alsways been in conflict with the jewish world.
Those 2 examples above are just 2 large gorups of prophesies that have taken place.

please somebody try to give me a counter statement to that

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by unopinionated
wow, i cant believe what i'm seeing

you guys are believeing everything that scientist tell you. its kinda sad. unlike you guys, i have researched my beliefs.
I have read the bible, and many books for evolution and for creationism, and nothing has even pointed in the direction that evolution is why we all exist here today. here's a link to show SOME of the reasons-http://www.creation-vs-evolution.com/ (http://).

no-1 can say that they are christian and belive in evolution. thats just not possible. the basis of the christian faith is in the creation of mankind by God.

THIS IS THE REASON Y CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE AND OTHER RELIGIONS LIKE ISLAM AND BUDDIASM IS FALSE.-
one word-prophecies. did u know that over close to 1000 years before of the promised mesiah that would save our world(Jesus), that there were i believe close to 200 prophecies just about him. They were prophecies that related to the day of his birth to the day of his death. And every single prophecy about the messiah came through through Jesus' life. Now how can u explain that this happens? you might say that he was well knowledged in the prophecies and performed them arcordingly. But that is just simply impossible. No one would go to the cross and die on there own will. Studies have shown that being crucified is the most painful and torcherous death you can possibly imagine. He performed miracles that many people witnessed and even raised someone from the dead, theres no magic or illusional tricks to do that. There are written Hebrew records of his life and his miracles. So then how could an atheist explain that?
Other events of our past and current history were also prophesised. It was prophesised that the nation of Isreal would be scattered across the world and tormented because of there race and then would later return to establish there country back in their original land of Isreal. The jews were scattered after the roman impire and anybody remember the holocaust? Theres some torment. And in 1948, the nation of Isreal was reestablished. It was also prophesised that the arabs and Hebrews would alsways be in conflist until the end of time. This is because Abraham (the father of the jews and arabs) tired to have a son. God told him that him and his wife would eventually have a son who woulld make a great nation. They grew impatient and abraham had a child with his maidservent. That was ishmael(father of the Arabs). Later, abraham and his wife had a child of their own and called him Isaac(father of the jews).
God told them that both of his sons would make great nations but that Isaac's nation would be God's chosen people, hence the jewish race. He aslo said that the descendants of ishmael and the descendants of Isaac would always be in conflict. The jews had to defeat the philistines(group of arrabs at the time) when they occupied Isreal after their bondage in egypt, and they were later oppressed by them for many years. The jews and arabs have always been in conflict for land since then. So since then we have seen that the araab world has alsways been in conflict with the jewish world.
Those 2 examples above are just 2 large gorups of prophesies that have taken place.

please somebody try to give me a counter statement to that
Who says God doesnt use evolution as a tool of creation?

[unopinionated]

sorry about the link hopefully this one works-
www.creation-vs-evolution.com (http://creation-vs-evolution.com)

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
I haven't finished reading the paragraph above but i got a question for ya.

Why have of alot of the Christain religious org. started allowing gays into there congrigations if they think there going to hell?
God forgives

[unopinionated]

that is a good point.

many creation scientist believe that God has given some species the gift of adaptation, which is adapting to the surroundings. However he read the first chapter of Genesis in the Bible and it says that He simply created everything in 6 days. If he did use evolution (everything coming from a swamp), than it would simply be stated in the Bible.

[kidinthecorner]

Dammit, he beat me.

How do you know howlong those 7 days really were? Do you really think God sat there and went "poof, lets add this today. Tomorrow, im thinking a deer would be fun." ?? And how do you explain that dinosaurs were around on this very earth and there were no humans? Explain that one, buddy. If man was created in those first 7 days, where do the dinosaurs fit in? They were before man walked the Earth.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by unopinionated
that is a good point.

many creation scientist believe that God has given some species the gift of adaptation, which is adapting to the surroundings. However he read the first chapter of Genesis in the Bible and it says that He simply created everything in 6 days. If he did use evolution (everything coming from a swamp), than it would simply be stated in the Bible.
Im not saying the Bible is false, because I do believe it, but it WAS written by humans

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
What the hell does that mean? They don't stop being gay or end relationships when they join, they continue being who the are.
I hate to get all religious, but if you ask for Gods forgiveness, he'll forgive you. I dont know why they let gays into the church, maybe because they were getting a bad rep, so they had to let them in, I dont know

[unopinionated]

If your gay it doesnt mean u r going to hell. being gay is simply a sin. The only people going to hell are people who do not beleive in God. Being gay, like any sin, is forgivable thorugh God. So churches, like my own, let gays into them because they need to repent of not only being gay, but of everything. This is an attempt to save, yes saving as in helping, anyone who is gay see the truth.

and yes, I know it is hard to think the God just sat there and made things, but He simply did because he has the power too. And unlike many teachings say, dinosaurs did exist at the same time as humans. There is a verse in the Genesis that talks about very large beast that roam the earth (this is before the flood), but they are obviously not called dinosaurs at the time because there that word wasnt invented for another couple thousand years. And dinosaurs diead off after the flood of noah's time.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I hate to get all religious, but if you ask for Gods forgiveness, he'll forgive you. I dont know why they let gays into the church, maybe because they were getting a bad rep, so they had to let them in, I dont know

Or maybe they've come to realise that theres NOTHING wrong with being gay.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Or maybe they've come to realise that theres NOTHING wrong with being gay.
Gay couples dont bother me, but you need to realize that it is against christian beliefs. I dont make the rules. If I did, well all liberals would die a fiery death....just kidding. Here it is, Bible says gays are bad, thats what Im basing this on, no opinion of mine.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Here it is, Bible says gays are bad, thats what Im basing this on, no opinion of mine.

Show me the quote? What passage is it? What are the exact words?

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by unopinionated
and yes, I know it is hard to think the God just sat there and made things, but He simply did because he has the power too. And unlike many teachings say, dinosaurs did exist at the same time as humans. There is a verse in the Genesis that talks about very large beast that roam the earth (this is before the flood), but they are obviously not called dinosaurs at the time because there that word wasnt invented for another couple thousand years. And dinosaurs diead off after the flood of noah's time.

Holy shit, are you serious? The Bible is not a history book. There is absolutely NO men around when dinosaurs were, as carbon dating will prove, and how can you trust a book from only 2000 yrs ago when they had less technology than we have now and the dinosuars are millions of years old?

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Show me the quote? What passage is it? What are the exact words?
For the most part the Bible doesnt just come out and say anything. I get this information from church. Tommorow I will go and listen to the minister tell me about this. Many of times I have heard him claim homosexuality is a bad thing. I dont mean to be offensive, because this subject seems a little touchy with you, I dont know if you are gay or not, but ask any religious person on where gays stand in the eyes of the lord. Again, I dont make the rules, I just follow them

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Yes, but it would eventually disappear. If every single person who was homozygus recessive for homosexuality didn't reproduce, the gene would be nearly nonexistant.

omg, u DUMBASS...u dont kno to much about this do ya...k, just look at the chart that other person made...AND FIGURE IT OUT

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
For the most part the Bible doesnt just come out and say anything. I get this information from church. Tommorow I will go and listen to the minister tell me about this. Many of times I have heard him claim homosexuality is a bad thing. I dont mean to be offensive, because this subject seems a little touchy with you, I dont know if you are gay or not, but ask any religious person on where gays stand in the eyes of the lord. Again, I dont make the rules, I just follow them

Sorry buddy you are wrong there is an exact line in the bible that does say something on gays (men only). Its there why dont you try and find it.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Sorry buddy you are wrong there is an exact line in the bible that does say something on gays (men only). Its there why dont you try and find it.
Ok. so you just proved yourself wrong in proving me wrong

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Ok. so you just proved yourself wrong in proving me wrong

How did i prove myself wrong, i know the quote, and i know that theres nothing wrong with being gay. SO whats your point.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
How did i prove myself wrong, i know the quote, and i know that theres nothing wrong with being gay. SO whats your point.
do you go to church?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
do you go to church?

I used to but its not really my thing any more, maybe some day it will again but at the moment i cant really get myself to do it.

You can find any thing in the bible you want, Nazis found qoutes for killing jews, KKK found quotes definding oppression of blacks, ect ect. Its all just the context you take stuff in. And you must also remimber the bible is like 2000 and some odd yrs old, and who knows how it has changed from that point to today.

[Kingskank]

i am not a bible quoter...but im catholic and we're taught that sex is to be used for reproduction purposes. Not that a healthy sexual relationship with your spouse isnt important, but the end goal is to reproduce. Gay people cannot reproduce through intercourse, so therefore should not be using their organs for such purposes as casual sex. So while i dont know any teaching that says being gay is against the church's teaching, i can definitely say that gay sex is.


However..!....who the hell follows those rules? Society cannot say that being gay is wrong based on religious teachings (as i said 12 hours ago), to think that we should follow religion on 10% of societal views is hilarious and hypocritical...and again, being a hypocrit is against my religion...

For the argument that it is against religion..ill agree with that, but if you're going to use that argument, you should be prepared to use it for everything.

"i dont like gay people because its against my religion, but i love having sex with my 16 year old girlfriend, doing drugs with my friends and watching porn."

Im not questioning anyones religious dedication..But if you make that statement, religion has nothing to do with you disliking gays.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
I used to but its not really my thing any more, maybe some day it will again but at the moment i cant really get myself to do it.

You can find any thing in the bible you want, Nazis found qoutes for killing jews, KKK found quotes definding oppression of blacks, ect ect. Its all just the context you take stuff in. And you must also remimber the bible is like 2000 and some odd yrs old, and who knows how it has changed from that point to today.
ill give you the "times change" thing, but the fact that they cant reproduce is what seems to be lingering in my mind. i think god made it neccesary for a man and a woman to make a child for a reason. go to church tommorow and ask a minister, i will do the same

[unopinionated]

heres a quote in the bible against homosexuality-

`If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by unopinionated
heres a quote in the bible against homosexuality-

`If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

Thats it and theres one more i think.

Is that the one that is followed by the quote on beastiality?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
ill give you the "times change" thing, but the fact that they cant reproduce is what seems to be lingering in my mind. i think god made it neccesary for a man and a woman to make a child for a reason. go to church tommorow and ask a minister, i will do the same

Naw its not my thing, tommorrow im sleeping tell noon then im writting a paper on stress management. thats my day plan.

[unopinionated]

times change, but God's word is ETERNAL

this means that if there is a law that is set down by him, it DOES NOT CHANGE. There are some things such as offerings for sins and stuff like that that has changed from the beginning of the hebrew culture becase of jesus' death for our sins with is the last sacrifice. the rest is just eternally true, it doesnt change

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Naw its not my thing, tommorrow im sleeping tell noon then im writting a paper on stress management. thats my day plan.
then try some time to ask

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by unopinionated
times change, but God's word is ETERNAL

this means that if there is a law that is set down by him, it DOES NOT CHANGE. There are some things such as offerings for sins and stuff like that that has changed from the beginning of the hebrew culture becase of jesus' death for our sins with is the last sacrifice. the rest is just eternally true, it doesnt change

But how do you know the words haven't been changed over time by those those who rewrote it durring the decades its been around?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
then try some time to ask

I dont need to ask some one i know in my heart that gays are people just like you and me.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
I dont need to ask some one i know in my heart that gays are people just like you and me.
fine, im not going to change your mind. i wasnt trying to anyway, im just trying to get you to see what religion says. right or wrong thats religion

[unopinionated]

if u guys are are to lazy to go to church and ask a minsiter (nothing wrong with being lazy), and are intersested in finding stuff about how christianity views gay relationships, then go to a website or something off of yahoo or google, they have tons of sights about that stuff

and justin stacey- i know that u strongly thing the being gay is perfectly normal, but do u believe that God exist?

[Kingskank]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
fine, im not going to change your mind. i wasnt trying to anyway, im just trying to get you to see what religion says. right or wrong thats religion

cant really argue with that.

But to base your beliefs strictly in what the bible says all the time, puts you in a tough position.

that quote that was used...thats followed by man getting killed if hes in a threesome...pretty ironic.

[Kingskank]

Originally posted by unopinionated
if u guys are are to lazy to go to church and ask a minsiter (nothing wrong with being lazy), and are intersested in finding stuff about how christianity views gay relationships, then go to a website or something off of yahoo or google, they have tons of sights about that stuff

werent you the one saying not to believe in what scientists say? There isnt much difference between science and religion you know...and your information is all off of websites...written by who? the religious versions of scientists...with less credibility.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Kingskank
cant really argue with that.

But to base your beliefs strictly in what the bible says all the time, puts you in a tough position.

that quote that was used...thats followed by man getting killed if hes in a threesome...pretty ironic.
not all of my beliefs are based on the bible, i just use it as a guideline, i make my own descisions from there. killing someone is wrong, one of the ten commandments. i take my biased opinion into a situation and judge it from there. if someone kills someone in self defense, i consider that to be ok, but its still breaking one of the ten commandments. just a guideline

[unopinionated]

But how do you know the words haven't been changed over time by those those who rewrote it durring the decades its been around?

that is a very good point, and in itself an entire arguement. But there are original documents of almost all the scriptures, and there is actual a ton of verses saying that being gay is morally wrong. I'm also going to church tomorrow and can ask my pastor for some more verses. I also think that at sometime you should at least go to a service of a chruch. I know that calvary chapels are always pretty right on when it comes to the bible and definately isnt boring. Theres many others too. I know u think that church isnt your thing anymore, but theres many christians feel the same way. Chrurch just isnt quite their thing, but they still will have fellowship with God. You don't have to go to chruch to go to heaven. You shouldnt take the risk of going to hell, cuz i can give u some more verses on that, and that place is ganna suck. At least give it somewhat of a chance, because when you die you either want to know that theres nothing after death, or know that your going to heaven.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by unopinionated
that is a very good point, and in itself an entire arguement. But there are original documents of almost all the scriptures, and there is actual a ton of verses saying that being gay is morally wrong. I'm also going to church tomorrow and can ask my pastor for some more verses. I also think that at sometime you should at least go to a service of a chruch. I know that calvary chapels are always pretty right on when it comes to the bible and definately isnt boring. Theres many others too. I know u think that church isnt your thing anymore, but theres many christians feel the same way. Chrurch just isnt quite their thing, but they still will have fellowship with God. You don't have to go to chruch to go to heaven. You shouldnt take the risk of going to hell, cuz i can give u some more verses on that, and that place is ganna suck. At least give it somewhat of a chance, because when you die you either want to know that theres nothing after death, or know that your going to heaven.

Wo buddy i never said i didn't believe in a god, i just said church isn't my thing anymore, its two completly different things, jsut like you said. Oh heres a link to my old church if ya care. http://www.jccchurch.org/

[unopinionated]

werent you the one saying not to believe in what scientists say? There isnt much difference between science and religion you know...and your information is all off of websites...written by who? the religious versions of scientists...with less credibility

theres HUGE difference between science and religion

Religion \Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L.
religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein
to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.]
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their
recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having
power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and
honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love,
fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power,
whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites
and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of
faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical
religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion;
revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion
of idol worshipers.

Science-
Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been
systematized and formulated with reference to the
discovery of general truths or the operation of general
laws; knowledge classified and made available in work,
life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or
philosophical knowledge.

[ibanez4life]

Originally posted by unopinionated

and yes, I know it is hard to think the God just sat there and made things, but He simply did because he has the power too. And unlike many teachings say, dinosaurs did exist at the same time as humans. There is a verse in the Genesis that talks about very large beast that roam the earth (this is before the flood), but they are obviously not called dinosaurs at the time because there that word wasnt invented for another couple thousand years. And dinosaurs diead off after the flood of noah's time.

holy shit man, you really need to pull your head out of your ass. throughout this whole thread i thought you were one of the people who knew what your were talking about but now i don't feel the same after you say that dinosaurs walked the earth the same time as man. has your religion got you so fucked up in the head that you actually believe that. how can you deny scientific fact that dates dinosaurs back 65 million years ago. and what about the bones of the neandrathals that have been found. how can you say we didn't evolve from them when actual skulls and bones have been found. this is what i hate about religion, it teaches you to take take your mind off of facts and put it in faith even when the truth is staring you in the face.

[Poetic Silver]

My theory on homosexualism is nature's (or "god's" for you religion people) way of population control, the first not in the form of violence or disease.

Think about it..

-Ag

[evil zach]

1)The flintstones is not a dcumentry.
2)If you wanna use religious arguments thats fine. But I'm not nessesarily gonna listen
3)If (according to the bible) jesus was able to forgive the people that crucified him, do you really think he had a problem with gays?

[unopinionated]

holy shit man, you really need to pull your head out of your ass. throughout this whole thread i thought you were one of the people who knew what your were talking about but now i don't feel the same after you say that dinosaurs walked the earth the same time as man. has your religion got you so fucked up in the head that you actually believe that. how can you deny scientific fact that dates dinosaurs back 65 million years ago. and what about the bones of the neandrathals that have been found. how can you say we didn't evolve from them when actual skulls and bones have been found. this is what i hate about religion, it teaches you to take take your mind off of facts and put it in faith even when the truth is staring you in the face.

1st, how do u positively know that dinousaurs did not walk on earth with man? how do u know that they lived in a diferant part of the world? u don't, because u werent alive, as well as i dont know that dinosaurs lived the same time as man. but think about it....its totally possible. And the earth isnt even close to 65 million years old. it is proven that the moon is less than 10 thousand years. This is old due to the amount of dust that is gathered up on its serface, and if u do the math, it equals less than 10 thousand years of the moons existence. And the just like humans, animals have mutations. The neandrathals could be a mutation, or also an adaption to environment. People have mutaion like downsyndrome, but it doesnt mean that we are all evolving into retards.

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by unopinionated
1st, how do u positively know that dinousaurs did not walk on earth with man? how do u know that they lived in a diferant part of the world? u don't, because u werent alive, as well as i dont know that dinosaurs lived the same time as man. but think about it....its totally possible. And the earth isnt even close to 65 million years old. it is proven that the moon is less than 10 thousand years. This is old due to the amount of dust that is gathered up on its serface, and if u do the math, it equals less than 10 thousand years of the moons existence. And the just like humans, animals have mutations. The neandrathals could be a mutation, or also an adaption to environment. People have mutaion like downsyndrome, but it doesnt mean that we are all evolving into retards.

omg u DUMBASS...u kno nothing. period. fossils my friend, fossils. dated back billions for dinosaurs, and millions for humans. thats not proof enough? humans physically could not have existed during that time...not possible, the conditions were not possible.

[ibanez4life]

Originally posted by unopinionated
1st, how do u positively know that dinousaurs did not walk on earth with man? how do u know that they lived in a diferant part of the world? u don't, because u werent alive, as well as i dont know that dinosaurs lived the same time as man. but think about it....its totally possible. And the earth isnt even close to 65 million years old. it is proven that the moon is less than 10 thousand years. This is old due to the amount of dust that is gathered up on its serface, and if u do the math, it equals less than 10 thousand years of the moons existence. And the just like humans, animals have mutations. The neandrathals could be a mutation, or also an adaption to environment. People have mutaion like downsyndrome, but it doesnt mean that we are all evolving into retards.

well by the looks of posts like yours, we're definetly not headed in the right direction.

[kidinthecorner]

How could nearly (only cuz I'm sure there's at least one crackhead out there) every scientist agree that dinosuars lived MILLIONS of years ago, but the earth is only 10 thousand years old, but they all be wrong? I don't see it.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by unopinionated
1st, how do u positively know that dinousaurs did not walk on earth with man? how do u know that they lived in a diferant part of the world? u don't, because u werent alive, as well as i dont know that dinosaurs lived the same time as man. but think about it....its totally possible. And the earth isnt even close to 65 million years old. it is proven that the moon is less than 10 thousand years. This is old due to the amount of dust that is gathered up on its serface, and if u do the math, it equals less than 10 thousand years of the moons existence. And the just like humans, animals have mutations. The neandrathals could be a mutation, or also an adaption to environment. People have mutaion like downsyndrome, but it doesnt mean that we are all evolving into retards.

Oh my... you poor pathetic individual.

You are exactly what is wrong with organized religion. You blindly follow your doctorine, without question, even when it is completely obvious that what you are being taught is completely wrong.

If anyone wants to understand the mentality of those involved in the Jihad against the western world, just take a look at this moron. I'm sure their brains are on the same level.

GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[unopinionated]

actually theres many scientist, including m former biology teacher who DOESNT belive the earth is millions of years old. And according to you guys, there was no-1 around during dinosaurs, so how do u know what the climate is. And like I said before, Dinosaurs could have lived on the opposite side of the earth, meaning differant climate. It's totally logical. If you read everything scientist tell you and THINK FOR YOURSELF, you will come to understand that not all of it is FACT, but JUST a theory.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by unopinionated
actually theres many scientist, including m former biology teacher who DOESNT belive the earth is millions of years old. And according to you guys, there was no-1 around during dinosaurs, so how do u know what the climate is. And like I said before, Dinosaurs could have lived on the opposite side of the earth, meaning differant climate. It's totally logical. If you read everything scientist tell you and THINK FOR YOURSELF, you will come to understand that not all of it is FACT, but JUST a theory.

We know the climate because....

1) Bauxite deposits showing high temperatures.

2) Salt deposits from dried oceans and inland seas

3) Plant fossils that thrived in high temperatures

And that is just to name a few, all of which are carbon dated between 250 million to 65 million years ago.


And humans inhabited the entire earth, starting from Africa then moving up into europe and asia then eventually migrating to north america along the land bridge between russia and alaska.

And you are telling us to think for ourselves??? You are believing crap spewed at you from some science teacher (and if he doesn't believe the earth is millions of years old should lose his credentials) and by you sexist racist bible. You make me sick.

[unopinionated]

actually, i've given sources in previous post, u must not have read the one about evolutionism and creationism, heres one that explains y evolution has so many errors


Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Premise
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution states that organic life sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on a pre-biotic earth. That original life form then evolved into more complex life forms through a natural process of random mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, the basic premise is that matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, whether organic or non-organic.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Problems
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is still widely accepted by the general public as scientific fact, especially in the popular media and the public schools. On its face, the “survival of the fittest” model is simple and self-evident. In fact, no legitimate scholars doubt that Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for most of the changes within a species (a testable process known as “micro-evolution”).

However, beyond “micro-evolutionary” changes within a species, Darwin’s theory of evolution absolutely breaks down. With our recent findings in biochemistry, genetics and paleontology, not even staunch neo-Darwinists are adhering to a traditional Darwinian model that shows all living organisms on earth today coming from a single life form which itself came from inanimate matter. The “irreducibly complex” world of biochemistry, the digital code inherent in the organic genome, and the fossil record itself have knocked Darwin’s basic theory on its heels.

Segment One: The Fossil Record In this segment we will look at the dramatic evidence (or lack thereof) in the fossil record. Of course, if Darwin’s theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. We see none!

Our museums now contain over 250,000,000 fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin’s theory were true, we should see at least tens of thousands of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory today, confesses “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” (Natural History 86 (1977), pg. 14.) Even the popular press is catching on, “The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” (“Is Man a Subtle Accident,” Newsweek (November 3, 1980.)

Even Darwin himself knew that the fossil record did not yet support his theory. However, he believed that future years of paleontology would help support his claims. Well, they haven’t. In fact, the fossil record has been an embarrassment to Darwinian evolutionists. It’s just that the adherents to the theory have yet to share this reality with the general public, especially our school kids.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: In his own Words…
Darwin's Theory of Evolution was summed up by Darwin himself, as follows: “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

[Justin_stacy]

can we try and keep it a little shorter.

[unopinionated]

alright, thisis gtting way off topic, please do not give me grief for what i'm saying. I'm not just telling me what my church tells me to, because they are not telling me this. I am simply using my head. Everyone just go to www.creation-vs-evolution.com (http://www.creation-vs-evolution.com). Read the following links that are on that site


Big Bang Theory
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Human Evolution
Geologic Time Scale
DNA Double Helix
Radiometric Dating
Dinosaur Extinction
Humanism
Does God Exist
Additional Sites To Explore...

And of course I'm going to get the usual "your sources are just from creationist". Well everyone elses sources so far have been from evolutionist so wats the point? Obviously evolutionist aren't going to give reasons on why their theories are false. And almost every creationist scientist are converted atheist who finally thoguht for themselves and researched evolution as a whole vs. creationism. U will find that almost every scientist who really does look for themselves will finally realize how stupid they've been for just listening to what other scientist tell them is right.

Finally-evolution is not a fact, neather is creationism. both are theories. One is right and one is wrong. Its as simple as that. There are no other possiblities. So research and BOTH SIDES and THINKfor yourself.

[Fobika!]

Originally posted by unopinionated
actually, i've given sources in previous post, u must not have read the one about evolutionism and creationism, heres one that explains y evolution has so many errors


Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Premise
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution states that organic life sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on a pre-biotic earth. That original life form then evolved into more complex life forms through a natural process of random mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, the basic premise is that matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, whether organic or non-organic.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Problems
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is still widely accepted by the general public as scientific fact, especially in the popular media and the public schools. On its face, the “survival of the fittest” model is simple and self-evident. In fact, no legitimate scholars doubt that Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for most of the changes within a species (a testable process known as “micro-evolution”).

However, beyond “micro-evolutionary” changes within a species, Darwin’s theory of evolution absolutely breaks down. With our recent findings in biochemistry, genetics and paleontology, not even staunch neo-Darwinists are adhering to a traditional Darwinian model that shows all living organisms on earth today coming from a single life form which itself came from inanimate matter. The “irreducibly complex” world of biochemistry, the digital code inherent in the organic genome, and the fossil record itself have knocked Darwin’s basic theory on its heels.

Segment One: The Fossil Record In this segment we will look at the dramatic evidence (or lack thereof) in the fossil record. Of course, if Darwin’s theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. We see none!

Our museums now contain over 250,000,000 fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin’s theory were true, we should see at least tens of thousands of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory today, confesses “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” (Natural History 86 (1977), pg. 14.) Even the popular press is catching on, “The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” (“Is Man a Subtle Accident,” Newsweek (November 3, 1980.)

Even Darwin himself knew that the fossil record did not yet support his theory. However, he believed that future years of paleontology would help support his claims. Well, they haven’t. In fact, the fossil record has been an embarrassment to Darwinian evolutionists. It’s just that the adherents to the theory have yet to share this reality with the general public, especially our school kids.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: In his own Words…
Darwin's Theory of Evolution was summed up by Darwin himself, as follows: “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

http://www.raceworx.com/funnypics/cliffsnotes.jpg

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by unopinionated
actually, i've given sources in previous post, u must not have read the one about evolutionism and creationism, heres one that explains y evolution has so many errors


Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Premise
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution states that organic life sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on a pre-biotic earth. That original life form then evolved into more complex life forms through a natural process of random mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, the basic premise is that matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, whether organic or non-organic.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Problems
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is still widely accepted by the general public as scientific fact, especially in the popular media and the public schools. On its face, the “survival of the fittest” model is simple and self-evident. In fact, no legitimate scholars doubt that Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for most of the changes within a species (a testable process known as “micro-evolution”).

However, beyond “micro-evolutionary” changes within a species, Darwin’s theory of evolution absolutely breaks down. With our recent findings in biochemistry, genetics and paleontology, not even staunch neo-Darwinists are adhering to a traditional Darwinian model that shows all living organisms on earth today coming from a single life form which itself came from inanimate matter. The “irreducibly complex” world of biochemistry, the digital code inherent in the organic genome, and the fossil record itself have knocked Darwin’s basic theory on its heels.

Segment One: The Fossil Record In this segment we will look at the dramatic evidence (or lack thereof) in the fossil record. Of course, if Darwin’s theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. We see none!

Our museums now contain over 250,000,000 fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin’s theory were true, we should see at least tens of thousands of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory today, confesses “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” (Natural History 86 (1977), pg. 14.) Even the popular press is catching on, “The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” (“Is Man a Subtle Accident,” Newsweek (November 3, 1980.)

Even Darwin himself knew that the fossil record did not yet support his theory. However, he believed that future years of paleontology would help support his claims. Well, they haven’t. In fact, the fossil record has been an embarrassment to Darwinian evolutionists. It’s just that the adherents to the theory have yet to share this reality with the general public, especially our school kids.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: In his own Words…
Darwin's Theory of Evolution was summed up by Darwin himself, as follows: “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

Wow is this guy ever wrong...


Segment One: The Fossil Record In this segment we will look at the dramatic evidence (or lack thereof) in the fossil record. Of course, if Darwin’s theory of “macro-evolution” were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. We see none!

Of course there are no fucking "intermediate" specimens because once an organism developes into something new, it is a new god damn species. The species we see are completely transitional. From single celled organisms forming a symbiosis with the autonomic plant like ornanisms they consumed to form multi-celled organisms, to apes beginning to walk more upright with larger brains and forward facing eyes that eventually developed into even taller organisms with even larger brains, who in turn developed into even larger smarter creatures called neanderthalls who developed into....

Everything is in a precise order of events. It is completely clear to retrace the ecological chain to see every creatures ancestors.

“The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” (“Is Man a Subtle Accident,” Newsweek (November 3, 1980.)


There is no missing fucking link. There is fossil evidence in africa showing a species of man like creatures who are also remarkably similar to apes. They were slightly larger, and walked upright, much like certain species of primates are close to doing (arangatans, apes) and had forward facing eyes. Then came neanderthalls in europe that were larger and had the same features, only with larger brains and larger boddies. The chain continues until we see modern day man.

[The Nephilm]

And to the religious extremists who think the earth is only a few thousand years old...

How do you explain:

1) Continental drift? It is evident that the earth is made up of a hard outer crust (the asthenosphere) and a liquid mantle and metal core (the lithosphere). On the surface the crust consits of 7 major tectonic plates with hundreds of much smaller plates. These plates move with the motion of liquid magma. They colide with each other, move under each other, and transverse with each other. Continents sit on these plates and it is completely evident that at one point in time all of these continents were grouped together in a supercontinent (Pangea). Reasons for:

a) Glacial evidence. As glaciers form they move pieces of rock and sand over rocks on the earth surface scratching huge scrapes into these rocks. At present day there is glacial evidence in deserts, where the temperature would never be cool enough for a long enough period to form glaciers.

b) Mountain ranges. Various ranges are made of the same material as those on different contintents and if these continents were placed together would connect these ranges perfectly.

c) Bauxite deposits. This happens in areas with large rainfalls (rainforests), which wash away almost all minerals but leave certain elements, the most prominant being bauxite. Now deserts today have extremely high areas of bauxite, which shows that at one time they were rainforests. These areas would have had to move in order to support these forests.

d) Fossil evidence. How do two fossils of extinct species end up on different continents? Because remember today, there is no link between the americas and the rest of the world. So during these animals lives the continents would have had to be together for these species to live on different continents.

Now remember it has been proven that plates only more at a couple of centimeters a year, which completely disprooves that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

2) Carbon Dating? You can't disprove it. Radiation emitted from a rock is not some diabolical plan conceived by athiests to disprove god, it is fact. We have evidence of rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Your "site" tried to disprove it in an almost comical way.
Radiometric Dating: Some Examples of the Inconsistencies
There are many current examples of radiometric dating producing dramatically aberrant results. For instance, Mount St. Helens, which produced new lava specimens in 1980, shows radiometric dating of between 350,000 and 2.8 million years. Volcanic rock from active sites in Hawaii are producing similar dating results.
So the difference between the 350,000 and 2.8 million years is the error spectrum. The dating isn't specific, it just gives relative dates that can be off by a few million years (a few million years in Earths 5 BILLION year existance is insignifigant).

3) Extinctions? If the earth were only a few thousand years old, why have over 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived here been extinct? If humans had been around during these times of extinction, we would be fucking gone to.

Seriously I can't believe how stubborn and ignorant some people are. It would be more possible for me to prove that Hitler loved jews than it is for you to prove any of this bull shit you have posted.

[Matthew]

The way I see it, from my agnostic standpoint, a gay person is no less of a person than a straight person. This emans they should be granted the same rights. Including marriage.

For those of you who hate gays because your Bible tells you to I ask: Isnt hate is condemmed by the Bible? I cant think of anything more ungodly than to hate entire group of people so much that you would scorn them and prevent them from being happy.

Having met several gay guys and knowing (pretty well) two lesbians I can say that these people aren't any different from you or me. Tome this argument is not worth having. Gays are people. People deserve the same rights. So gays desrve rights.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
And to the religious extremists who think the earth is only a few thousand years old...

How do you explain:

1) Continental drift? It is evident that the earth is made up of a hard outer crust (the asthenosphere) and a liquid mantle and metal core (the lithosphere). On the surface the crust consits of 7 major tectonic plates with hundreds of much smaller plates. These plates move with the motion of liquid magma. They colide with each other, move under each other, and transverse with each other. Continents sit on these plates and it is completely evident that at one point in time all of these continents were grouped together in a supercontinent (Pangea). Reasons for:

a) Glacial evidence. As glaciers form they move pieces of rock and sand over rocks on the earth surface scratching huge scrapes into these rocks. At present day there is glacial evidence in deserts, where the temperature would never be cool enough for a long enough period to form glaciers.

b) Mountain ranges. Various ranges are made of the same material as those on different contintents and if these continents were placed together would connect these ranges perfectly.

c) Bauxite deposits. This happens in areas with large rainfalls (rainforests), which wash away almost all minerals but leave certain elements, the most prominant being bauxite. Now deserts today have extremely high areas of bauxite, which shows that at one time they were rainforests. These areas would have had to move in order to support these forests.

d) Fossil evidence. How do two fossils of extinct species end up on different continents? Because remember today, there is no link between the americas and the rest of the world. So during these animals lives the continents would have had to be together for these species to live on different continents.

Now remember it has been proven that plates only more at a couple of centimeters a year, which completely disprooves that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

2) Carbon Dating? You can't disprove it. Radiation emitted from a rock is not some diabolical plan conceived by athiests to disprove god, it is fact. We have evidence of rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Your "site" tried to disprove it in an almost comical way.

So the difference between the 350,000 and 2.8 million years is the error spectrum. The dating isn't specific, it just gives relative dates that can be off by a few million years (a few million years in Earths 5 BILLION year existance is insignifigant).

3) Extinctions? If the earth were only a few thousand years old, why have over 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived here been extinct? If humans had been around during these times of extinction, we would be fucking gone to.

Seriously I can't believe how stubborn and ignorant some people are. It would be more possible for me to prove that Hitler loved jews than it is for you to prove any of this bull shit you have posted.


That book is loaded with errors...

[unopinionated]

lol, u crack me up "the nephilm"

i obviously can't even get u to think straight so i'm ganna quite trying. But look. Your telling me thing sthat i'm not disagreeing with. I never said that there was no continental drift. A matter of fact, most creationist scientist do believe that there was one at the tower of babel incedent when people started talking all diffferant languages. That would b a perfect way for God to seperate people so they can populate the ENTIRE earth. So thanks for helping me prove my point there.


Also, think about it. There is no link between human species and apes. There are only differant looking apes that are totally differant species from adaptation, but they are not apes evolving into humans. There are NO fossils of a missing link between of an ape and a human. Thats just a fact. Any sane scientist will admit that. I have actually heard evolution scientist admit that there is no positive link between apes and humans. The carbon dating is also way off. It is not an accurate source to find the age of something over i believe 5000 years. There have been studies shown to PROVE that. If i come across them on the web i will show them to.

Finally. Stop being ignorant. U need to learn that there is a SUPREME BEING. Someone that is in charge of you. Someone who lets you make your own decisions, and there is a set of rules that u must accept. And if u don't accept them, whether you like it or, u will pay a consequence. Its ganna suck if u dont realize this before u die, but i promise u that u will, in this life or in the afterlife.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by unopinionated
lol, u crack me up "the nephilm"

i obviously can't even get u to think straight so i'm ganna quite trying. But look. Your telling me thing sthat i'm not disagreeing with. I never said that there was no continental drift. A matter of fact, most creationist scientist do believe that there was one at the tower of babel incedent when people started talking all diffferant languages. That would b a perfect way for God to seperate people so they can populate the ENTIRE earth. So thanks for helping me prove my point there.


Also, think about it. There is no link between human species and apes. There are only differant looking apes that are totally differant species from adaptation, but they are not apes evolving into humans. There are NO fossils of a missing link between of an ape and a human. Thats just a fact. Any sane scientist will admit that. I have actually heard evolution scientist admit that there is no positive link between apes and humans. The carbon dating is also way off. It is not an accurate source to find the age of something over i believe 5000 years. There have been studies shown to PROVE that. If i come across them on the web i will show them to.

Finally. Stop being ignorant. U need to learn that there is a SUPREME BEING. Someone that is in charge of you. Someone who lets you make your own decisions, and there is a set of rules that u must accept. And if u don't accept them, whether you like it or, u will pay a consequence. Its ganna suck if u dont realize this before u die, but i promise u that u will, in this life or in the afterlife.



HOW DID THIS GO FROM BEING ABOUT GAY MARIAGES TO BEING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A GOD? can we please get back to the subject or just let the thread die.

[Justin_stacy]

[i]
Seriously I can't believe how stubborn and ignorant some people are. It would be more possible for me to prove that Hitler loved jews than it is for you to prove any of this bull shit you have posted. [/B]

Hitler did love the jews because they were an easy scapegoat.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by yeat182
That book is loaded with errors...

explain

I wrote the whole thing, what was wrong with it?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
explain

I wrote the whole thing, what was wrong with it?

i meant the bible, sorry...hah

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
As far as why i'm against marriage for homosexuals is because i believe it to be wrong. That is a right i dont believe homosexuals should have. Marriage is suppose to be under God, and if you believe what the Bible says then a marriage by same sex is not under God. For the same reason men should not have more than one wife.

Sorry buddy but in this country marrages are done under the STATES approval, not gods.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
As far as why i'm against marriage for homosexuals is because i believe it to be wrong. That is a right i dont believe homosexuals should have. Marriage is suppose to be under God, and if you believe what the Bible says then a marriage by same sex is not under God. For the same reason men should not have more than one wife.

When i said i think GAYS should be allowed to marry i never said we were going to force prest or ministers to do it, they can go to a court judge and get it done.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by cal1082
As far as why i'm against marriage for homosexuals is because i believe it to be wrong. That is a right i dont believe homosexuals should have. Marriage is suppose to be under God, and if you believe what the Bible says then a marriage by same sex is not under God. For the same reason men should not have more than one wife.

If you believe what the Bible says and acted upon it, you would be considered a sexist, racist, biggot.

Marriage in todays society is becoming less and less of a religious ceremony. Just get used to the fact that people aren't stupid enough to conform to a religion that doesn't make sense.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
If you believe what the Bible says and acted upon it, you would be considered a sexist, racist, biggot.

Marriage in todays society is becoming less and less of a religious ceremony. Just get used to the fact that people aren't stupid enough to conform to a religion that doesn't make sense.
how does it not make sense?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
how does it not make sense?

Because NATIONAL comes first, and national law says that all men are created equal, no matter what sex, race, national origin, OR SEXUAL PREFERANCE a person is.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
Because NATIONAL comes first, and national law says that all men are created equal, no matter what sex, race, national origin, OR SEXUAL PREFERANCE a person is.
i mean what about the religion doesnt make sense

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
i mean what about the religion doesnt make sense

My im not even touching that one with a ten foot pole!

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
My im not even touching that one with a ten foot pole!
neph just said the religion didnt make sense, what about it is so confusing? that question is directed towards neph

[bossydacow]

I honeslty don't think God really cares whether or not a man and man are married or a girl and man are married. Above all he wants us to be happy, and to be good to other people. If two guys truly make each other happy and love each other, and seriously want to commit to each other for life, then I don't think God would be super upset. Furthermore:
Bible teaches that God made sex for two reasons: bonding and babies. According to rule, if your having sex without attempting to fulfill these two reasons- you are sinning. A gay couple can bond through sex, but they can't make babies. Two heterosexual people having sex with a condom or if the girl is using the pill, are bonding but not making babies. Therefore, both couples are at equal fault. What the bible deems wrong about gay sex has nothing to do with it being a two people of the same sex; it has everything to do with two people having sex without the intent to procreate.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by bossydacow
I honeslty don't think God really cares whether or not a man and man are married or a girl and man are married. Above all he wants us to be happy, and to be good to other people. If two guys truly make each other happy and love each other, and seriously want to commit to each other for life, then I don't think God would be super upset. Furthermore:
Bible teaches that God made sex for two reasons: bonding and babies. According to rule, if your having sex without attempting to fulfill these two reasons- you are sinning. A gay couple can bond through sex, but they can't make babies. Two heterosexual people having sex with a condom or if the girl is using the pill, are bonding but not making babies. Therefore, both couples are at equal fault. What the bible deems wrong about gay sex has nothing to do with it being a two people of the same sex; it has everything to do with two people having sex without the intent to procreate.
*applause* well done. but again neph i aske what you dont understand about the religion? this is really bugging me

[Justin_stacy]

To the people against gay marriages, doesn't the bible also have a problem with hindus and athiest and pagans, but yet they are still allowed to marry. So why dont you guys have a problem with them marring?

Also we live in a society where every one doesn't think or feel alike but we still can't single out those that are different, just because you think there going to hell that still doesn't mean that you can intrude your beliefs on to them, each person has the will power to choose there own paths, and the government for the most part shouldn't play a part in disrupting there lives.

What if the bible had a passage saying that Blacks weren't humans would you still belive it?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
But it's still done under God.



Does any of this not sound familer in the vowels people take. Marriage is a Biblical ceramony. The day it's not is the day when you don't have to be married by a priest or minister.

Marriage is a biblical ceramony only when people want it to be that is why people can still get married in a court house by a judge not a priest.

Also a priest or a judge at the end of the ceramony say "by the power granted to by the state of .................... i now grant you man and wife." does that sound familar?

[Justin_stacy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cal1082
"Who said I didnt, and other christians dont."

You guys just make it seem that your out to intrude on every homosexuals life. And never talk about any one else.


"In my opinion I think the government should form some type of union where homosexuals recieve the same benifits that a married couple might recieve ( like tax cuts, and other government things) but it should not be done in a Christian church."

Thats what i've been trying to say but you guess always have to put up a christian aspect to it, i dont think they should be married in church either.


"you can feel the Bible full of "what if's" the point is it doesnt."

Just tring ot make a point.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
your original post said this: mabye i didnt make myself clear, but i dont think they should be allowed to be married because marriage is a Biblical ceremony. The "Union" the enter should not be considered a marriage.

I get it, i used "marriage" as a figure of speach

In Vermont and HI, there called UNIONs, so i could live with that, but you must under stand that marriage is a generic term in our society.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
Thats because society has made it a generic term, and it doesnt make it right. Marriage is first mentioned in the Bible for us to do, so it's bases is Biblical. People have taken something that was meant to be a holy union, and twisted it around for convience.

I dont know if twisted it all around is the right term but i understand, And just because the bible first mentions something doesn't mean that the meaning hasn't changed over time, alot of words change defination over time.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
changing the meaning would be changing what the Bible says.

alright im tired of this, just know that the world doesn't all live by the bible and you can't oppress people that don't. But atleast we agree on the whole union(marriage) thing.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
Thats fine, but I dont think not allowing homosexuls to marry is oppressing them.

It'd be like me performing a religious cereomny for a religion i don't believe in. It shouldnt be done.

marring= union are you happy.

And it is opprssion in the fact that your keeping them from pursuing happiness, when there not stoping you.

[unopinionated]

In my opinion I think the government should form some type of union where homosexuals recieve the same benifits that a married couple might recieve ( like tax cuts, and other government things) but it should not be done in a Christian church.

I think this is a very good point (now that we're finally back to the original topic). Because we live in A free country, all people should be allowed the same opportunities. I think that Homosexual's should be allowed to be "united" or married" because of our countries basis of free rights for everyone. I don't see why giving gay couples benefits like a straight couple would recieve would be a huge deal inthe american ways. However, i still strongly believe that this is unbiblical. But, because our country is unfortunetly not ruled by the word of God, it is a gay couples right to have the same benefits as any other couple.
For now though, i do not think that gay couples should be able to adopt. Unlike marraige benefits, adopting is a privledge, not a right. Until our counties homophobia dies down, gays adopting children simply can't happen everywhere. There may b a point in our countries future where gay couples proven responsible might b able to adopt, but that is down the road.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
should we allow a man to marry 40 wives? he's not stopping us from doing it. Wait though stopping this would be opressing him wouldnt it?

Well why dont we stay with giveing those dont have the ability to marry at all that ability then we can start with give men 40 wives.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by unopinionated
For now though, i do not think that gay couples should be able to adopt. Unlike marraige benefits, adopting is a privledge, not a right. Until our counties homophobia dies down, gays adopting children simply can't happen everywhere. There may b a point in our countries future where gay couples proven responsible might b able to adopt, but that is down the road.

Who give you the right to say who can have the privledge of adoption.
How have they proven ill responsible? What do they do that other families dont? Just because you dont like them doesn't make them any less respondsible.
All your actions and the things you guys have said only help to spread homophobia,

[TheDreamIsOver]

I have no problem with homosexual marriages, they are people just like anyone else and their rights are no different. And goddamn some of you people have some fucked up views on this shit. You people who live by what the Bible says are ignorant as fuck. If you thought for yourself for one second and not basing your thoughts on a book written thousands of years ago you might realize how stupid it is to say gays cannot marry, or adopt children for that matter. And did I ACTUALLY read someone saying homosexuality is a LEARNED trait?! What the hell? That is the stupidest shit I have ever heard. You can TEACH someone to be gay, if a kid grows up with gay parents its not gonna RUB OFF on them. That is so fucking ingnorant to think that way. You people have NO idea just how idiotic everything you are saying is....

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
how does it not make sense?

sorry if this doesn't make sense but I am fairly drunk...

the christian religion, at least how it expressed in the bible is hypocritical. it stresses acceptance of all people, yet at the same time there are countless instances of sexism and racism expressed in the bible.

as well religion does not explain countless things in life. evolution, science, etc. we are told to not question God (from Job) If religion and god were the answers to everything in the universe there would be nothing left unexplained in the christian religion.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
sorry if this doesn't make sense but I am fairly drunk...

the christian religion, at least how it expressed in the bible is hypocritical. it stresses acceptance of all people, yet at the same time there are countless instances of sexism and racism expressed in the bible.

as well religion does not explain countless things in life. evolution, science, etc. we are told to not question God (from Job) If religion and god were the answers to everything in the universe there would be nothing left unexplained in the christian religion.
I dont understand that last paragraph fully, but what I got from it is the lack of mentioning evolution. Easy answer to that. The bible was written by MAN thousands of years ago, man is not perfect. And it never stresses to treat women equally. All MEN are created equal. And its been a while, but I dont ever recall the bible condoning racism, there are counts of it, but never does it say "its okay to kill blacks or hebs"

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
I dont understand that last paragraph fully, but what I got from it is the lack of mentioning evolution. Easy answer to that. The bible was written by MAN thousands of years ago, man is not perfect. And it never stresses to treat women equally. All MEN are created equal. And its been a while, but I dont ever recall the bible condoning racism, there are counts of it, but never does it say "its okay to kill blacks or hebs"

according to the bible, it was written by man, through the inspiration of god...meaning that man wrote what god told him too....therefore, the fallicies in the bible would be god's responsibility...your continued sexism and racism astounds me

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
according to the bible, it was written by man, through the inspiration of god...meaning that man wrote what god told him too....therefore, the fallicies in the bible would be god's responsibility...your continued sexism and racism astounds me
how am i a racist you dumbfuck? do i hate "******s" or shoot "beaners" no, I believe in equality. I dont however believe in affirmative action, which is racist in my book

[xnotedgex]

umm, you continually associate arabs with terrorism

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
umm, you continually associate arabs with terrorism
yes i do. its like associating italians with the mob. not all of them are, but italians make up a large percentage of the mob population. right now arabs are the largest percentage of terrorists

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
yes i do. its like associating italians with the mob. not all of them are, but italians make up a large percentage of the mob population. right now arabs are the largest percentage of terrorists

yet terrorists are probably less that 1% of the arab population...just as the mob is less that 1% of the italian population

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
yet terrorists are probably less that 1% of the arab population...just as the mob is less that 1% of the italian population
but what percent of terrorists are arab? how about that?

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
but what percent of terrorists are arab? how about that?

thats impossible to know...people dont announce they're terrorists

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
thats impossible to know...people dont announce they're terrorists
OK then brainiac. Of the last 50 terrorists we have found out are terrorist, how many are arabs? There you go

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
yet terrorists are probably less that 1% of the arab population...just as the mob is less that 1% of the italian population
plus how do you know they "dont announce they are terrorists"

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
In no way did that answer my question. That was just a side step around it. Unless you believe men should marry as many wives as they want to?

You been fucking side steping my question all day, You say that gays can't marry because a book tells you so (way to think for yourself), second you can some thing holy when its already been proven to not be, at least in this country.

ALso its very ignorant to say that gays cant marry just because men cant have 40 wives.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
yet terrorists are probably less that 1% of the arab population...just as the mob is less that 1% of the italian population


yes but about 75% of all terrorists are arab...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082



How is that ignorant. Do you know what ignorant means? I never said the reason gays shouldnt marry is because men can't have 40 wives. Did I?

Ignorant is when you compare to things that have nothing in comon, ie 40 wives and 1 gay husband, who are these related?

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
No ignorance is a lack of knowledge on something. These 2 scenerios easly have strong common threads.

1.) Both want to do something that is against marriage. (according to the Bible, which is what marriage is based on.)

2.) Both marriage's do not affect me in general.

3.) You can use your same argument on why gays should marry, and why men should have more than 1 wife.

Have you ever heard of SLANG, that is the context that im using the word "ingnorant" in, not the book definition, everyone in this forum, except you, uses it that way.


1.) Both want to do something that is against marriage. (according to the Bible, which is what marriage is based on.)
Only marriage in your mind or book, MARRIAGE in this country has nothing to do with the bible, im sorry to brake it to ya but its not, states grant marriages not churchs.


2.) Both marriage's do not affect me in general.
So because something doesn't effect you its not important? Abortion doesn't effect me but im still doing my best to change peoples points of view on the topic.


3.) You can use your same argument on why gays should marry, and why men should have more than 1 wife. [/B][/QUOTE]
We as a society have decieded that men(or woman) shouldn't have more then one wife, what i was saying with this thread is that we as a society should change our laws to allow for gay marriages, Did you know that in all but like 5 states homosexual acts are still illegal and that they can be arrested for sexual acts done in there homes? Is that right in your book.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082


I didnt ask what the society has decided. I wanted to know why? Why shouldnt a man be allowed to have 2 wives (by law) and why shouldnt gays be married (by law).


If you're asking if I think the law is right. No, because it's a seperation of church and state. On a religious stance, I still don't condone it.


I didnt ask what the society has decided. I wanted to know why? Why shouldnt a man be allowed to have 2 wives (by law) and why shouldnt gays be married (by law).

For one its opression of weman and treats them like cattle.

But i know what your getting at, yes at one time this country was based on the christain religion hell the constitution is based on it, but that was a long time ago and we are a different country made up of DIFFERENT people with different religions.

I cant answer the questions of why gay marriages/ lifestyle is illieggal, except for the fact that people like to oppress those that they dont under stand.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by cal1082
No, it's equal rights all the way around. Women could have more than one husband. We dont want to opress heterosexual men, women, or opress homosexual men or women. Gay people would be allowed to have more than one spouse too.

My point in all of this is, if you allow one why not another.

Hey you quoted your self what fun! Hey i got to go we can pick this up some other time if ya want.

[savestheglory]

a

[savestheglory]

why can't they live a life of happiness if they aren't married... if i was gay i wouldn't even care, i would just live with my partner for the rest of my life and not care if we have a 'certificate' or not

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by savestheglory
why can't they live a life of happiness if they aren't married... if i was gay i wouldn't even care, i would just live with my partner for the rest of my life and not care if we have a 'certificate' or not

Because it holds cultural values. There is a big difference between being married and dating.

And by the way, has anyone pointed out how BLATENTLY WRONG your sig is???

[unopinionated]

[the christian religion, at least how it expressed in the bible is hypocritical. it stresses acceptance of all people, yet at the same time there are countless instances of sexism and racism expressed in the bible.

This is y christianity is so misunderstood. Its morons like this who probably havnt even read a full verse of the Bible and make outrageous claims like this. Give me 1 verse of the entire Bible that has sexism or racism (preferably both) and i will belive u. Otherwise shut your hole because u don't know anything that your talking about.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by The Nephilm


And by the way, has anyone pointed out how BLATENTLY WRONG your sig is???

I just made the thread.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by savestheglory
why can't they live a life of happiness if they aren't married... if i was gay i wouldn't even care, i would just live with my partner for the rest of my life and not care if we have a 'certificate' or not

For one why do people, straight, get married when they could be just as happy living there lives to gether.

Also business give benifets to married couples, Buying a house becomes easier, checking accounts become easier to open, adoption becomes more of a reality, one a partner dies the finacinal dealing become more clear, ect.................there are mean reason why people want to get married but the big one is that IT SHOWS A BOND THAT TO PEOPLE HAVE TO GETHER, and its a sign of true love.

[lexi_hxc]

I honestly think that people who think that you will go to hell for being a homosexual will go to hell

[thejetstolehome]

way to bump a three year old thread....

oh and gays should be allowed to get married. i haven't heard one legit argument against it.

[justinevans]

I honestly think that people who think that you will go to hell for being a homosexual will go to hell

take you over 3 years to come up with that?

[BridgesFolly]

One of the biggest things troubling me, out side of the war but there is ENOUGH threads on that, is the inability for Gays to marry in this country. I think it is every ones right to pursue happiness, and if that means living your life with some one of your own sex i think thats great. More power to ya. So i dont understand why we as a nation can't give validity to such marrages?

I also think that gay families sould be aloud to adapt children when they have been deamed responsiable enough to do so, this would really inlarge the Adoption pool and hopefully cut out on some unneed abortions. I dont see why loving parents, no matter what there sexual orientations, should be denied children if they can provide for them.

What do you guys ( and wemyn, for zach again) feel on the subject?


Its hard for me to make a complete decision. I'm one of those people that wants everyone to do their own thing, live their own life to the fullest and be happy the best way they can be. if that means marrying someone of the same sex, then like you said, more power to you.

on the other hand i am a christian. I dont see it as wrong as the bible says, but at the same time one of my co-workers said "its not natural, if god wanted men to marry men he would have made Adam another man as a partner" and went on to also say "If gay marriage is allowed, what next? marrying animals?"

I'm torn. I will always believe that everyone should have the right to pursue happiness in whatever way they can and i dont believe its the goverments buisness to intrude into peoples homes and tell them who they can or cannot marry.

sorry if that didnt make too much sense.

[justinevans]

Its hard for me to make a complete decision. I'm one of those people that wants everyone to do their own thing, live their own life to the fullest and be happy the best way they can be. if that means marrying someone of the same sex, then like you said, more power to you.

on the other hand i am a christian. I dont see it as wrong as the bible says, but at the same time one of my co-workers said "its not natural, if god wanted men to marry men he would have made Adam another man as a partner" and went on to also say "If gay marriage is allowed, what next? marrying animals?"

I'm torn. I will always believe that everyone should have the right to pursue happiness in whatever way they can and i dont believe its the goverments buisness to intrude into peoples homes and tell them who they can or cannot marry.

sorry if that didnt make too much sense.

thats fine, however, not everyone is Christian or religious for that matter. This is the United States of America. Not the United States of the Vatican. I am also Catholic and I think my family may look down on it if someone in our family was to going involve themself in a same-sex marriage, I doubt it, but who knows they may because of religious belief. However, that is our situation to deal with it. It is not the governments. We must maintain a seperation of Church and State. Just because a number of people may be against it, it doesn't mean it is wrong for everyone.

[DOLLFACE<3]

by all means gays should have just as many rights as other people who are straight. :puke: some of you people make me fucking sick. just because its not your thing doesnt mean its wrong for other people. why does everyone tell us to be different then everyone else and then when we end up being different we get punished for it. its pure ignorance.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Here's what I think ought to be done to make marriage fair for everyone. A couple of observations:

First, in this country we observe a seperation of church and state. That means that no one church or religion should have the power to tell the government what marriage is, nor should the government have the power to tell churches and religions what marriage is. The government ought to remove itself from the business of marriage altogether, and instead focus on the economic issues involved in cohabitation so as to maximize the quality of life for as many people as possible. In the meantime, churches can offer marriages to gay couples, straight couples, polygamists, whatever. Who a church decides to wed can be entirely up to it. That doesn't meant the government has to endorse or condone any kind of marriage - they stay out of it all together.

So what would the government do?

Well, that brings me to my second observation. In the United States, what is called "the traditional family unit" is actually declining. There are numerous family structures that can be found in the United States. Aside from gay couples, you have elderly people living with their children or grandchildren, siblings living together, roommates and other financial codependents who have no romantic interest, group homes, polyamorous people, and so many more. Rather than trying to impose one normative model of "family" on all of these people, the government should accomodate them by ensuring that these people - who are financially dependent on one another- have access to the benefits of tax breaks, shared insurance, visitation, and so on, which up until now have been strictly associated with monogamous heterosexual marriage. The government should move towards a "domestic partnership" system that accomodates all domestic units, not just a few.

So here's my vision:

Marriage is a private affair. Want a wedding? Go find a church that will let you have one.

Domestic Parnership is a public affair. This will be the basis of all tax, insurance, property, legal rights, and all the other benefits and privileges that come with marriage.

That way, as many diverse family units as possible can recieve equal legal protection under the law, while allowing each religious institution to define marriage as they see fit.

[justinevans]

Here's what I think ought to be done to make marriage fair for everyone. A couple of observations:

First, in this country we observe a seperation of church and state. That means that no one church or religion should have the power to tell the government what marriage is, nor should the government have the power to tell churches and religions what marriage is. The government ought to remove itself from the business of marriage altogether, and instead focus on the economic issues involved in cohabitation so as to maximize the quality of life for as many people as possible. In the meantime, churches can offer marriages to gay couples, straight couples, polygamists, whatever. Who a church decides to wed can be entirely up to it. That doesn't meant the government has to endorse or condone any kind of marriage - they stay out of it all together.

So what would the government do?

Well, that brings me to my second observation. In the United States, what is called "the traditional family unit" is actually declining. There are numerous family structures that can be found in the United States. Aside from gay couples, you have elderly people living with their children or grandchildren, siblings living together, roommates and other financial codependents who have no romantic interest, group homes, polyamorous people, and so many more. Rather than trying to impose one normative model of "family" on all of these people, the government should accomodate them by ensuring that these people - who are financially dependent on one another- have access to the benefits of tax breaks, shared insurance, visitation, and so on, which up until now have been strictly associated with monogamous heterosexual marriage. The government should move towards a "domestic partnership" system that accomodates all domestic units, not just a few.

So here's my vision:

Marriage is a private affair. Want a wedding? Go find a church that will let you have one.

Domestic Parnership is a public affair. This will be the basis of all tax, insurance, property, legal rights, and all the other benefits and privileges that come with marriage.

That way, as many diverse family units as possible can recieve equal legal protection under the law, while allowing each religious institution to define marriage as they see fit.

Still, both sides will never compromise.

[dai the flu]

having a set of moral standards does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.

if the government was saying "no you cant have gay marriage because its unchristian." , then yes thats a problem. but simply finding something immoral and unethical does not automatically constitute a religious agenda.


i also have a problem with churches that 'bend the rules' to accomodate gay marriage. if your faith says its wrong, then its wrong. either you believe it or you dont. dont preach the bible's message on most things and then flip-flop when it comes to homosexuality just to make people happy.

[justinevans]

having a set of moral standards does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.

if the government was saying "no you cant have gay marriage because its unchristian." , then yes thats a problem. but simply finding something immoral and unethical does not automatically constitute a religious agenda.


i also have a problem with churches that 'bend the rules' to accomodate gay marriage. if your faith says its wrong, then its wrong. either you believe it or you dont. dont preach the bible's message on most things and then flip-flop when it comes to homosexuality just to make people happy.

Dude, you're a fucking moron. The only reason this is ever an issue on politics is for votes. It always disappears after an election.

And just because something is found to be immoral or unethical, doesn't mean it is illegal.

It is immoral to lie. More times than not, you don't goto jail for it. And I am sure the government has reasons beyond its unethical aspects, like maybe less tax revenue.

[dai the flu]

Dude, you're a fucking moron. The only reason this is ever an issue on politics is for votes. It always disappears after an election.

And just because something is found to be immoral or unethical, doesn't mean it is illegal.

It is immoral to lie. More times than not, you don't goto jail for it. And I am sure the government has reasons beyond its unethical aspects, like maybe less tax revenue.

hmm ok. so how does that make me a moron?
i dont care when the issue is raised. crying about "seperation of church and state" does no good.
as i said, you can feel something is unethical or immoral without putting a religious spin on it.
stem cells, human cloning, abortion, etc... those are all ethical issues that the government has ruled on that dont necessarily involve any religious beliefs.

[justinevans]

hmm ok. so how does that make me a moron?
i dont care when the issue is raised. crying about "seperation of church and state" does no good.
as i said, you can feel something is unethical or immoral without putting a religious spin on it.
stem cells, human cloning, abortion, etc... those are all ethical issues that the government has ruled on that dont necessarily involve any religious beliefs.

The government doesn't have the right to rule on morality....that's the point.

The votes should be left up to the people, the states.

[dai the flu]

The government doesn't have the right to rule on morality....that's the point.

The votes should be left up to the people, the states.

well then i have a question.
since the votes should be up to the public,
in public opinion polls, where do most people stand on the gay marriage issue?

[justinevans]

well then i have a question.
since the votes should be up to the public,
in public opinion polls, where do most people stand on the gay marriage issue?

you can't do public opinion polls....30 % approve of bush, but over half voted for him.

[dai the flu]

well lets go with the public poll experts.

the most recent gallup poll on the subject (may 8 - 11, 2006)

question:
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

results:
should be valid - 39%
should not be valid - 58%
no opinion - 4%

[Lueda Alia]

well then i have a question.
since the votes should be up to the public,
in public opinion polls, where do most people stand on the gay marriage issue?
Where did most people stand on the slavery issue?

[justinevans]

well lets go with the public poll experts.

the most recent gallup poll on the subject (may 8 - 11, 2006)

question:
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

results:
should be valid - 39%
should not be valid - 58%
no opinion - 4%




and how many people voted?

[dai the flu]

and how many people voted?

between 1000 and 1500.
there's actually quite a lot of research that shows sample sizes larger than that number show minimal deviation from original findings, if any at all.


Where did most people stand on the slavery issue?

i dont know. show me the numbers.

[justinevans]

between 1000 and 1500.
there's actually quite a lot of research that shows sample sizes larger than that number show minimal deviation from original findings, if any at all.




i dont know. show me the numbers.

so? the federal government still has no right to touch the subject. It is to be left up to each individual states because then the people actually vote on whether or not it is immoral to them.

[dai the flu]

so? the federal government still has no right to touch the subject. It is to be left up to each individual states because then the people actually vote on whether or not it is immoral to them.

i think you've missed the point.
people may be overwhelmingly for gay marriage on this website, but in the nation as a whole, gay marriage proponents are the minority. so it doesnt matter whether the federal government rules on the matter, or the states let the people decide. the outcome will be the same.

this entire tangent is totally beside the point of my original post anyway.
you can be against gay marriage without being pro-religion. the governments' stance on gay marriage does not violate 'seperation of church and state'.

[justinevans]

i think you've missed the point.
people may be overwhelmingly for gay marriage on this website, but in the nation as a whole, gay marriage proponents are the minority. so it doesnt matter whether the federal government rules on the matter, or the states let the people decide. the outcome will be the same.

this entire tangent is totally beside the point of my original post anyway.
you can be against gay marriage without being pro-religion. the governments' stance on gay marriage does not violate 'seperation of church and state'.

yes it does matter, because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to rule on it. I don't care what the public's stance on it. For the government to rule on stem cell research, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. Much of it has to do with religious aspect of it. Trust me if the bible said gay marriage was okay, less people would be against it. Our country is very much a Christian state. Most of what we find to be moral or not stems from our religious beliefs. Beliefs that were instilled in families for many year. Just because somethig is immoral, doesn't make it illegal. Most of the world doesn't find it to be immoral, so I guess your poll should include that too.

[Lueda Alia]

between 1000 and 1500.
there's actually quite a lot of research that shows sample sizes larger than that number show minimal deviation from original findings, if any at all.




i dont know. show me the numbers.
Numbers? Do you not know about your country's history?

I think you completely missed the point.

[dai the flu]

Numbers? Do you not know about your country's history?

I think you completely missed the point.
you're an idiot, quit talking to me.
you interjected with something completely irrelevant to the conversation. i dont care whether you feel its immoral or not. thats not the point.
the point is that it isnt necessarily a merging of religion and government.

[dai the flu]

yes it does matter, because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to rule on it. I don't care what the public's stance on it. For the government to rule on stem cell research, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. Much of it has to do with religious aspect of it. Trust me if the bible said gay marriage was okay, less people would be against it. Our country is very much a Christian state. Most of what we find to be moral or not stems from our religious beliefs. Beliefs that were instilled in families for many year. Just because somethig is immoral, doesn't make it illegal. Most of the world doesn't find it to be immoral, so I guess your poll should include that too.

what part of the constitution does it violate?
and
why did you say the people should vote on it then?

[TheTrooth]

my view - its their business, let them do as they please. not a very smart response but until someone can give me one good reason why not, im sticking to it

[Lueda Alia]

you're an idiot, quit talking to me.
you interjected with something completely irrelevant to the conversation. i dont care whether you feel its immoral or not. thats not the point.
the point is that it isnt necessarily a merging of religion and government.

Easy there, buddy.

Irrelevant? I don't think so. Only someone who doesn't know about the history of the US would say that. Is it honestly that hard for you to make a connection between slavery/civil rights and this issue?

[justinevans]

what part of the constitution does it violate?
and
why did you say the people should vote on it then?

I'm not saying they should, but if it has to be done, it should be left up to the states.

[dai the flu]

sorry about the idiot comment, out of line i know.
anyway i dont know why im arguing this, i dont even really care one way or another, and i think you're both pretty cool so its nothing personal.
so really this is my 'its friday night and im done looking at a stupid message board' cop-out.

[justinevans]

sorry about the idiot comment, out of line i know.
anyway i dont know why im arguing this, i dont even really care one way or another, and i think you're both pretty cool so its nothing personal.
so really this is my 'its friday night and im done looking at a stupid message board' cop-out.

haha peace out.

[make_this_hurt]

I like gay people.

[Kif]

Here is my stance on gay people. It may sound bad, but it's what I believe.

I am fine with people who choose to be gay. 2 men or 2 women who love each other and want to have a relationship, that's cool. It's not my business anyway.

I am not fine with gay people who choose to live like a stereotypical gay person, or someone who thinks that this stereotype is a worldwide image of what gay people should act like. The stereotype I mean is a man who is over-feminine, the kind you'd expect on Will And Grace or some bullshit like that. However, this stereotype is just that, a stereotype, and will never die. Ever.

I'm also against gay marriage, but that's another story.

[Rebs]

I respect anyone's desire to be whatever they want. If I have the right to choose to be straight, anyone else should have the same right to make that choice as well.

[trustworthy]

the only thing i don't understand is why everyone says that homosexuality is a sin which means they shouldn't be able to get married. okay i get that part, but why are non-christians allowed to get married? why are liars allowed to get married?

one, i know plenty of gay men who are christians and go to church regularly. two, if you really are going to use that defense for why gays shouldn't be able to be married, tell me why we shouldn't outlaw marriage between atheists? plenty of people guilty of sin are allowed to get married.

also, in God's eyes, there is no sin worse than another. its all sin. you can lie and its the same caliber sin to God as murdering someone. i lied about doing my homework once, so can i not get married now?

obviously i'm stretching it a little but the basic point is, you can't just pick out one sin and be like 'well..you can't get married because we KNOW you're sinning.'

[thejetstolehome]

I respect anyone's desire to be whatever they want. If I have the right to choose to be straight, anyone else should have the same right to make that choice as well.

the thing is, it's not a choice. it's how you're born. i was born straight, someone else was born gay.

[trustworthy]

and also i don't know if this has been discussed or not, but gays getting married isn't just about being able to say 'we're married' just like straight people are, its also about things that come with marriage, such as a man or woman being able to make medical decisions for his or her partner.

[Rebs]

the thing is, it's not a choice. it's how you're born. i was born straight, someone else was born gay.

Neither are proven facts.

Truly, I don't care either way. I think anyone has the right to marry, whether it's two men or two women or a man and a woman. I don't understand why it truly bothers people.

[FScott]

because they're not comfortable with their own sexuality

[Lueda Alia]

Neither are proven facts.

Truly, I don't care either way. I think anyone has the right to marry, whether it's two men or two women or a man and a woman. I don't understand why it truly bothers people.
Seriously. I don't get it.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Being gay is not a choice. My evidence is me. Now I am not going to tell your for sure that I was born gay because of my genes. I don't neccisarily think thats true. But whatever socialization and acculturation that took place during my formative years was not something I chose. Think about it like your favorite color. I like blue. There is no reason to believe that i have a "blue gene" that causes me to love blue. Nonetheless, I never chose to like blue, and I couldn't stop liking blue if I wanted to. Maybe its not genetic, but that doesn't mean its a choice.


I am not fine with gay people who choose to live like a stereotypical gay person, or someone who thinks that this stereotype is a worldwide image of what gay people should act like. The stereotype I mean is a man who is over-feminine, the kind you'd expect on Will And Grace or some bullshit like that. However, this stereotype is just that, a stereotype, and will never die. Ever.


Some gay men are mascuilne. Some are feminine. Most are a little of both. Let people decide how they want to expres stheir identity, but don't diss on people because you are annyoed by some tv show. I also happen tot think "Will and Grace" is a terrible show, but I still hang out with butch lesbians and femme gay guys.

[E-Skeezy]

lol at all the fundamentalist christians.

Here's the deal.
I'm a religious person
I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ
I believe he died for me, and he is my lord and savior.

I also believe in evolution
I believe in the old earth theory
I believe in the big bang
and I also believe homosexuals should have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.
Why?
Because, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. This is true.
So is jealousy and envy.
So is stealing.
So is adultery.
So is disrespecting your parents.
So is premarital sex(i believe, I can't find the exact scripture on this one)
The point is these are all sins, sins committed by lots of people, and if you love Jesus Christ and have him in your heart, He will forgive you.
Nobody loses any rights for being jealous, nobody who's had premarital sex will be stopped from getting married, and homosexuality shouldn't be cause for having your rights stripped away. Also, God doesn't hate sinners, that's dumb, God only hates sin. As I stated before, I am a christian, but I believe the government is crossing a lot of lines by trying to improve "morality" in America by forcing a lot of christian doctrines and beliefs onto the laws of America. I'm a very big advocate of letting people believe what they want to believe. If a homosexual isn't a christian, and doesn't feel that they need to repent, that's fine by me. If a person believe it is okay to kill people, that's different, because that infringes upon the rights of other people, but for the most part, we'd do well to let people make up their own minds.

One last thing, as far as marriage and religion is concerned. I think that marriage CAN be a religious institution, however, I don't believe that it has to be. If two atheists get married(which is perfectly legal), is it still a religious ceremony?

[make_this_hurt]

Seriously. I don't get it.
Because people are scared of things they don't know.

People were up in arms about black people marrying whites at one point...

It's all about ignorance...

[x togepi x]

i get a lot of shit for it, but long ago i decided i wasn't going to get married myself unless homosexuals had that legal right too. it's kind of fucked some relationships for me but it's pretty bull shit that two people that are in love can't go down to a court house and have a completely secular ceremony just because people think their religion condemns it. (i also think christianity accepts homosexuality, but that's not my point).

[youcomebeforeyo]

Religon as an argument against gay marraige strikes me as odd. Not everything in the bible 2000 years ago is relivent now. At least I hope so (the whole stoning to death of homosexuals etc).

So why take a complete literral interpretation of the bible is my question? Why not take the values underneath that and apply them to your life.

Even if you are opposed to gay marraige, name one way it has a direct affect on you as a person?

[xvszero]

l
and I also believe homosexuals should have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.
Why?
Because, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. This is true.
So is jealousy and envy.
So is stealing.
So is adultery.
So is disrespecting your parents.
So is premarital sex(i believe, I can't find the exact scripture on this one)


But from a Christian perspective homosexual marraige would be CONDONING living a life of sin. The equivalent of say... an unmarried couple moving in together to use one of your examples (premarital sex) and the church frowns upon that as well, especially if the couple has no intention of ever getting married and moving out of that life of sin.

Not that I care. If state marraiges exist marraige should not be defined by religion.

[MLLMillenium]

I have no problem with gay people, and I dont givea shit about religon. Though, I think homosexuality is weird. Since alot of lesbians use dildo's and vibrators..so the sex is essentially the same. Plus to me.. anal sex is disgusting, even if it's a guy and a girl. Its not made for that.. So its just not natural. I dont believe the whole "we are born gay BS" though I dont have a problem with anyone who is gay. Its just my point of view on the matter.

[preppyak]

But from a Christian perspective homosexual marraige would be CONDONING living a life of sin. The equivalent of say... an unmarried couple moving in together to use one of your examples (premarital sex) and the church frowns upon that as well, especially if the couple has no intention of ever getting married and moving out of that life of sin.

Not that I care. If state marraiges exist marraige should not be defined by religion.

To further the first part...the reality of Christianity isn't that you are perfect, but that you don't condone lifestyle choices of that magnitude that allow sin. It's not that heterosexual marriages won't end because of adultery, or envy, etc...but the belief is that they have a chance. Realistically, in the eyes of the church, the act of marriage for homosexuals is a sin.

To put it a different way, even if hetero sexual marriages end 50% of the time, that means they have a 50:50 chance of being relatively unsinful acts...whereas homosexual marriage by nature is a sinful act 100% of the time. This is just what I've gathered though...I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the topic.

I agree with your second part, even if it is a pipe dream

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Its not made for that.. So its just not natural.

Wow, your sex life must be incredibly dull. PS: Your computer? Not natural. Maybe you shouldn't be typing.

I dont believe the whole "we are born gay BS".
Thanks for pointing out what "BS" that argument is. Now I can go tell all of the other gays here that we actually chose to be gay, and that will end the debate once and for all.

[catscradle]

To further the first part...the reality of Christianity isn't that you are perfect, but that you don't condone lifestyle choices of that magnitude that allow sin. It's not that heterosexual marriages won't end because of adultery, or envy, etc...but the belief is that they have a chance. Realistically, in the eyes of the church, the act of marriage for homosexuals is a sin.

To put it a different way, even if hetero sexual marriages end 50% of the time, that means they have a 50:50 chance of being relatively unsinful acts...whereas homosexual marriage by nature is a sinful act 100% of the time. This is just what I've gathered though...I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the topic.

I agree with your second part, even if it is a pipe dream

Like the guy said in your quote, in terms of marriage in the eyes of christianity, the main purpose is to procreate in the favor of god. WHich is why it is a sin to have sex before marriage, as you are not having sex for the purpose of procreation.

So in the eyes of the church you are not a sinner if you are gay, you are a sinner for having sex out of marriage and beyond the means of procreation, b/c with sex comes life.

So a homosexual per say is no more a sinner than some yuppy frat boy fucking every chick he can get. The church calls for homosexuals to live a live of celibacy and to enter the religious orders.

and when i say the church i am speaking on the part of the Catholic church.

Now in my eyes marriage is a religious sacrament that should be kept seperate from the state. There should be a legal civil union between people(including homosexuals) and the religious rite should be practiced on the parties own accord and seperate from the state civil union in order not to create the type of confusion there is today between the two.

[MLLMillenium]

Wow, your sex life must be incredibly dull. PS: Your computer? Not natural. Maybe you shouldn't be typing.

..yeah shitty arguyment. I actually have an amazing sex life as of late. Sorry I just think is disgusting, your anus is made for the removal of waste not sexual pleasure. Id chose a vagina over an ass any day. I say it's not natural because the point of mating is to create off spring, beside that we wouldn't need our sexual orgins. We would just have organs that remove waste. Thats why I say its not natural, it is not made for that. Whether not somone else finds it pleasureable is their own thing.

Thanks for pointing out what "BS" that argument is. Now I can go tell all of the other gays here that we actually chose to be gay, and that will end the debate once and for all.


I think it is bull shit. I don't think people chose to be gay either. I think it's something that our culture creates it. When I say people arent born gay, Isay that because I dont think it has to do anything with genetics.I think every baby is born with acomplete clean slate. Not pre-exposed to any notions.

Our society teaches us what is supposed tobe right and or wrong. Just as it teaches us feelings, love is not a tangeable or detecatable thing. Although everyone knows what it is. Attraction is taught and created within us the same way, I believe. So I think it's the factors in one's life as a child that play the largest factor on whether they are straight gay or even bi. Never the less it's just what they are and I dont have a problem with it.

So lets just leave it at that. Im sorry I have my view and you have yours but at least I dont think what anyone does is wrong. I just find it un appealing. As I should, just as a gay man would find a vagin a unappealing.

[Stereo Mike]

I can't help but laugh whenever i see this title.

[rocktometal]

I have no problem with gay people, and I dont givea shit about religon. Though, I think homosexuality is weird. Since alot of lesbians use dildo's and vibrators..so the sex is essentially the same. Plus to me.. anal sex is disgusting, even if it's a guy and a girl. Its not made for that.. So its just not natural. I dont believe the whole "we are born gay BS" though I dont have a problem with anyone who is gay. Its just my point of view on the matter.

excellently stated i agree totally. besides most homosexuals are bisexual, so how can you defend them? most of them are just sex hungry perverts.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

excellently stated i agree totally. besides most homosexuals are bisexual, so how can you defend them? most of them are just sex hungry perverts.

um... what?

im not bi. most of my gay friends arent.

and if you call us sex hungry perverts again, the homosexual agenda is going to make sure that you have a beautiful blonde son who turns out to be gayer than RuPaul.

[MLLMillenium]

um... what?

im not bi. most of my gay friends arent.

and if you call us sex hungry perverts again, the homosexual agenda is going to make sure that you have a beautiful blonde son who turns out to be gayer than RuPaul.

Thats fucking hilarious hahahaha wow.

[buysoap]

i hate gay people.

[kissbangkill]

excellently stated i agree totally. besides most homosexuals are bisexual, so how can you defend them? most of them are just sex hungry perverts.

wow. fucking asshole.

i fully support equal rights for homosexuals. i'm not down with fascism.

[savestheday129]

um... what?

im not bi. most of my gay friends arent.

and if you call us sex hungry perverts again, the homosexual agenda is going to make sure that you have a beautiful blonde son who turns out to be gayer than RuPaul.

hahaha nice.

[justinevans]

Most of the high-ranking official in the Nazi party were bisexual.

So gays and bis, equal bad people.


JUST KIDDING

There are more important issues in the world to worry about more than how one or the other gets each other off or who they fall in love with.

Marriages are always fucked whether they are boy/girl, girl/girl, boy/boy.

[rocktometal]

um... what?

im not bi. most of my gay friends arent.

and if you call us sex hungry perverts again, the homosexual agenda is going to make sure that you have a beautiful blonde son who turns out to be gayer than RuPaul.

thank God gays dont have that power. mainly because having a blonde kid might be a little impossible for me.

[normalgene]

The only problem I have with gay guys is when they try to convert me or lure me out on a date. Spare me your self righteous "oh that never happens and you're just homophobic." Yeah I work with a few gay guys and it has happened....It's quite uncomfortable and awkward. Other than that I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality and have quite a few gay friends and have gone to a gay club.

[make_this_hurt]

The only problem I have with gay guys is when they try to convert me or lure me out on a date. Spare me your self righteous "oh that never happens and you're just homophobic." Yeah I work with a few gay guys and it has happened....It's quite uncomfortable and awkward. Other than that I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality and have quite a few gay friends and have gone to a gay club.
Oh that never happens and you're just homophobic.