The Gay Marriage debate!

word.

Be reasonable in terms of a person's personal religious beliefs.

 

The religious text-based arguments against homosexuality or homosexual union are preposterous, unreliable and probably aren't even accurate. Moses might well have said "Fags, have at it with abandon, ream mightily in union" for all we know. Somebody sat in a cave in Turkey 300 years later might not have done their research, maybe they had bad candles and wrote it down wrong, or maybe they were some Abyssinian forbearer of Slys and just decided to fit fags up with some fabricated evidence. Who knows.

For me, I have never ever seen an argument for gay marriage being made, save for it having attendant upon it known pederasts and predators of the most unreliable character.

For instance, David Norris, in Ireland, a wholly unreliable sort, big proponent of Gay Marriage, is queer as a thruppeny bit himself, and it seems cannot tell the truth about his true motives from one moment to the next. Has been involved with all sorts, including known criminals {statutory rape} and has a view of homosexuality which itself is quasi-bronze age in that it harks back to some brutal, pederast-based ideals, rather than eulogizing or even embracing the modern, secular notion of two grown men or women living together in basic comfort and mutual support of each other.

No sooner is Gay Marriage leglalized, then he'll be off looking for the lowering of the age of this, the lowering of the age of the other. No "Slippery-Slope" arguments here- this creature and his false academia are well established- he's a Senator in Ireland and exists. He is not the figment of some wing-nuts imagination.

 

No one is suggesting otherwise. It just makes you an asshole, it's fairly clear cut.

 

You don't have to do anything. I'm not suggesting you do anything. I'm just pointing out that your general dislike for gays and gay marriage, even though I totally respect your stance on the legality of it, exists only because you're an asshole.

 

I don't dislike gays. Disliking gays would be like disliking people with red hair, or lonely icemen from Saskatchewan.

There was a gay Irish guy called Vincent Hanley, he had a great career ahead of him, he got a job as a TV presenter for a new TV venture called Music Television USA- it was a big deal over here, a European version of MTV which broadcast in Ireland. He was a from the countryside, and here he was making it in NYC. He got AIDS and died a short time later, covered in Kaposi Sarcoma, and his dying words were "no no no, no no no".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Hanley

The notion that I take some pleasure from what happened to this guy, or wished it on him, or regarded it as being divinely inspired, is utter nonsense. The notion that hiding in a hospital ward, basically quarantined, like a leper, was any way for anybody to go, is preposterous. Its possible that Gay Marriage being legal....might have saved his life. It might have meant he didn't spend his time screwing around in some dangerous, shitty fag-bars looking for company and affection. It certainly would have allowed him to die with more dignity.

But like any minority outfit, it seems that they cannot set out their cause in clearly defined details with and in a fashion which appeals to the people they need to support their cause- i.e. non-gays. Rather than ask, they demand. Rather than request, they insist. And everyone who might vote YES but do it reservedly...is an asshole.

Good lad. You skip on back to your Ivory Tower.

 

My Uncle died the same way.

 

I don't know if that is either true or relevant, however, in the event that it is the first and therefore both, my condolences. My Uncle died in Massachussets on 30th July 2008 working on live electrical lines. Buddy will confirm the surname if you've forgotten.

Page 8. http://www.masscosh.org/files/Workers Memorial Day Report 2009.pdf

In any case..consider the legalization of marijuna. I believe it should be legalized to take money out of the pockets of criminal scumbags, and because the criminalization of a naturally occurring plant which is endemic to all but the harshest of environments represents a perverse rule of law over nature.

Others say it should be legalized so that potheads can have more fun.

Am I am an asshole if I only vote for the legalization of pot for my own reasons? Am I an asshole if I change my mind and feel that drug-dealers might, somehow, profit from the legalization of cannabis and decided therefore to vote against said legalization??

 

It's true. Sorry about yours too.

I was calling you an asshole because you were saying you don't like gay people. :: There were no deep reasons.

 

"Deep", "Cut" and "Asshole"......all three of those words have been injected by you into this thread. :dunno:

I wouldn't like to be a gay, I pity them, being honest. I don't mind gay marriage per se but I do not like how it is used as a vanguard for broader, less well-defined issues which need their own separate forum, instead of, ahem, riding in on a tide of basic pro-Gay sentiment.

Pederasty, the age of consent, the redefining of pedophilia are all issues which seem to be always riding the coat-tails of the gay marriage issue.

 

Dude, spin it however you like, but you're only fooling yourself. I was the one who argued that you should be let back here because I thought you could behave yourself.

 

This is true.

 

I wasn't aware of any particularly heinous, unilateral broadsides I had unleashed against anyone in particular, in fact the "Neilgro" insult which got me a few days off has been routinely thrown around by another poster since then, to no evident sanction. Not that I am requesting one you understand, "just saying" as it were.

In any event, I did nothing in this thread which would warrant a sanction. You are more than welcome to do your job of course, I just didn't expect to you to do it here.

 

I wasn't aware that there had been an "argument" Buddy did suggest that you might need immediate psychiatric evaluation, that caused me to assume wildly that you had been emphatically overruled on the matter of the 24 hour/7hour ban. ::

 

ha, no, I mean when you allowed back after your original permanent banishment.

 

Again, I thought that was something Buddy came up with on his own....what with him owning the site and all. Since then the only bans I got were the one you dished out, overruled, and the one he dished out, for an offence repeatedly committed by another poster to no obvious sanction.

 

Uh huh.

 

Wow. Lost for words are we?

We got your ban, overruled, and we got Buds ban for an offence which, IIRC, has been let slide repeatedly since then when committed by another poster.

 

Give living a try, bro. You got this.

We've been down this road too many times. It's boring.

 

Sure. Buddy injected this. Not me. Lets be clear on that much.

 

Don't care.

 

Not true. I've thought it before, but I never said it to you. ::

 

Great minds think alike, come on, we both know he's batshit. :: I say lock him in a padded igloo, 24 hour lockdown, observation at 15 minute intervals. If that doesn't work, he gets an Exorcism. I CAST YOU OUT!!!!!:34:

 

didnt realize the religious right had a monopoly on the definitions of words

gay marriage is fine by me, in the words of jefferson it "neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket"

 

If UGO wants to have a civil union with his long time partner, Jyrki, I have no problem with that. But to request that the definition of marriage is changed just for that lifestyle is silly.

As I said before...Kosher Pork.....or defition of Caucasian changed to include all other races.

 

::

 

'Kosher' meat & 'Caucasian' men are subsets of broader catagories. Like 'Gay' marriage.

 

:giggle:

You've missed my point entirely. Which is strange since you're one of the smartest dudes here.

 

You are going to start calling me gay again because you are losing an argument?

No, the term is not changed because of a lifestyle (and you do understand that sexual orientation is not a 'lifestyle' even though you pretend not to). It is about giving these people the same right others have and which they clearly deserve. Just like when women and black people wanted to be allowed to vote: they didn't change the term 'voting', nor was it called 'black voting'. They just got the same right.

 

I'm not losing anything. I'm just having fun with you. It's impossible to lose this argument.

Secondly, these analogies of yours simply do not work. Gays HAVE the same rights of others. Last checked, gays can vote, work, purchase homes, sit at the front of the bus, own companies blah blah blah.

Having the identity of "Marriage" isn't a "right" it's an IDENTITY. Pork could NEVER be made Kosher or Halal. By NATURE it isn't according to Jews or Muslims. A Black man can NEVER be identified as a caucasian because by definition he is not a caucasian. A gay couple should NEVER be identified as being married because by definition they are INCAPABLE of being married.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, producing a husband and a wife, and with the hope of producing children.

Dan and Stan have nothing to do with that identify.

 

Oh and whether or not Sexual orientation is a lifestyle or nature or choice or whatever is completely and utterly irrelevant. In fact I never know why those who agree with me ever bother to entertain discussions on whether it is a choice or not. Makes no difference to the issue of whether they should be identified as marriaed and actually makes no difference as to whether the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong.