# Bush to Ban Gay Marriage



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

If we keep him in office he's going to pass a law that "protects the sanctity of marriage", which obviously means no more gays getting married.  As he is, I'm sick of the courts deciding the laws.  Time to re-elect Bush.


----------



## DFINEST (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> If we keep him in office he's going to pass a law that "protects the sanctity of marriage", which obviously means no more gays getting married.  As he is, I'm sick of the courts deciding the laws.  Time to re-elect Bush.



Buck Fush.....

I am in agreement with his statement on the
sanctity of marriage though


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

so you are voting for Bush even though you don't like him, right??


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

HA, yeah, just vote for him.  You don't need to like him.


----------



## DFINEST (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> so you are voting for Bush even though you don't like him, right??



NOT


----------



## DFINEST (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> HA, yeah, just vote for him.  You don't need to like him.



Do you vote for folk that you don't like?


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they are wrong.


----------



## DFINEST (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they are wrong.


 I never said anything about right or wrong....
You can disagree with someone and have a different approach
to address concerns, that doesn't make anyone wrong....

You must feel that he is wrong, why?


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

DFINEST, how would you have done things differently?


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by DFINEST *_
> Buck Fush.....
> 
> I am in agreement with his statement on the
> sanctity of marriage though




Agreed........God made man and woman for each other.....not man and man.....................................

I believe during his speech last night he said.........if gays are to marry........then they won't receive spousal support, etc...etc.....

I'm not one to judge however,......men weren't made to partner up with each other in that sense.............That's ill minded right there............

I don't know.....All I can say is:  "I'm sure John H, will post his opinions on gays since he is one!"


----------



## david (Jan 21, 2004)

and to think, I was in the state where the idiot governor legalized it!   

Side note: Funny thing is that the Vermonter's opposed it and were fumigated by his decision!  LMAO!!!


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

BULLSHIT!!!  If homosexuals choose to marry each other how is this affecting anyone?  

Marriage is about love and wanting to spend the rest of your lives together.  If 2 women or 2 men can find this love with each other and they prefer this lifestyle, then I think its wonderful that they have such deep desire and love to be with each other.  There is no reason that they should not be married.  Love is love no matter who is loving who.

Let them enjoy their lives with each other.  Man and women get married to confess their undying love for each other, why can't Man and Man or Woman and Woman do it.  Who say's its wrong.  YOU, the general public?  Its not your (general public) say who can love who.   

I despise the one-way minded people of this country.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> If we keep him in office he's going to pass a law that "protects the sanctity of marriage", which obviously means no more gays getting married.  As he is, I'm sick of the courts deciding the laws.  Time to re-elect Bush.



 r u the same "the great Satan" who watches beastiality pornos "chick blowing a donkey" (your words) , expressed disgust for them, then said that it was your brother's fault for showing it to you, then inspite of your alleged disgust, went on to watch yet another beastiality porno of a " woman letting her dog fuck her " ( again your words ), makes comments about how someone's mother swallows cum ( in the blow job thread ), you apparently don't think much of naked female bodybuilders, along with some other people on the boards ), her large genitalia got your attention,  yet you make comments about the sanctity of marriage on this thread?    So you are apparently for humans having sex with animals,  you are apparently keen on knowing that someone's mother swallows when she is giving someone fellatio, there is a hint of an issue with muscular women ( who don't match your qualifications of beauty ) yet you are against women having sex with other women or men having sex with other men.    Or is it just men having sex with men that bugs you?  How about women having sex with other women?  What if the women were gorgeous blondes with 500cc implants?  YOu like that ?  or  how about  if they were both short, not fitting your definition of attractive and sporting buzz cuts?  would you like that?

some set of values exhibited there?  

I am not making judgement about your opinions, just noticing a patterns of inconsistencies that many people have when it comes to something that scares them.  

people believe whatever they wish to believe that fits in with their delusions about how life is supposed to be.  Whatever it takes to get thru the day.  you believe whatever you want that fills your needs.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

i don't like Bush......his whole speech was about how our country is helping out other countries....

I DIDN'T HEAR HIM SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HELPING OURS!!!!!!!!!!!....Didn't even bring up how he cut Medicare for the elderly!!!!  They are our people!!!!!!  shouldn't we be helping out our country more so...while lending a hand to the others?????????


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

I heard a bit on Prescription drugs and health insurance.  It was only 45mins. long or so.  Not like you could cover everything, though some would mention anything he did not.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm not scared.  Men are supposed to be manly.  Not another man's bitch.


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> BULLSHIT!!!  If homosexuals choose to marry each other how is this affecting anyone?
> 
> Marriage is about love and wanting to spend the rest of your lives together.  If 2 women or 2 men can find this love with each other and they prefer this lifestyle, then I think its wonderful that they have such deep desire and love to be with each other.  There is no reason that they should not be married.  Love is love no matter who is loving who.
> ...


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> Time to re-elect Bush.


Absolutely! Same sex were not made to "Love" each other. And how does it affect me? Well if they have their way they want benifits from employers and such. Who pays for these benefits. I do............the taxpayers. No way in hell do I want to pay for a couple of gays to get insurance. Let them pay for it out of their own pocket. It's their choice.....remember.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

*A MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!*

*2004 Election Issue !! *


*GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.* 



This must be an issue in "2004". Please! Keep it going. 

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

*SOCIAL SECURITY: *

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.) 

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. 

Our Senators and Congresspersons *do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. *

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of *their* rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago* they voted in their own  benefit plan. *

In more recent years, *no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. *

*For all practical purposes their plan works like this:* 

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. 

*Except it may increase* from time to time for cost of living adjustments. 

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and *their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. *

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. 

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. 

*Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....* 

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. *You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; 

 "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! *

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of *$1,000 per month after retirement. *

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of *$1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits! *

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. 

That change would be to *jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan* from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it. 

*If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. *

*How many people can YOU inform of this?*


Keep this going clear up thru the 2004 election!!  We need to be heard


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm tired of all my paychecks getting robbed by Social Security.  The elderly have enough money


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Absolutely! Same sex were not made to "Love" each other. And how does it affect me? Well if they have their way they want benifits from employers and such. Who pays for these benefits. I do............the taxpayers. No way in hell do I want to pay for a couple of gays to get insurance. Let them pay for it out of their own pocket. It's their choice.....remember.


Oh so you think that all homosexuals don't work and pay taxes on their homes as well.  Yup that's it they all site on their asses and let you pay for their insurance.  Whatever 

All married couples should have insurance and a marriage is a marriage so what's the difference?  None!!

They pay just like we do.  They pay their sales tax, income tax, federal tax, property tax just the same as you.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

Of course...........why do you think so many want to get elected?
I think they should let us decide how to invest OUR money. For me, it wouldn't be in social security.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> BULLSHIT!!!  If homosexuals choose to marry each other how is this affecting anyone




All I'm saying is........if that's what they decide to do with their life...that's fine.....


It's affecting our children........It's promoting that being gay is healthy..............it's not!

It's okay until it happens under my roof and in my blood!  I have gay friends!  They're great people and have wonderful taste.......


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

I'll trade in future Social Security to keep that money now.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> I'm tired of all my paychecks getting robbed by Social Security.  The elderly have enough money




You're paying into it.....Read your statements you get each year!


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> It's okay until it happens under my roof and in my blood!  I have gay friends!  They're great people and have wonderful taste.......



so as long as it doesn't happen in your family, it's ok.  Your gay friends are still ok, but if your son was to become gay, then what?


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> I'll trade in future Social Security to keep that money now.




You'd regret it


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

by the time I'm old, there will be no Social Security


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by naturaltan *_
> so as long as it doesn't happen in your family, it's ok.  Your gay friends are still ok, but if your son was to become gay, then what?




I couldn't do anything obviously....Voice my opinion just like I am now.......

I wouldn't support his/her decision to become gay.  It would be an embarrassment to my family.  Therefore if it was happening in my immediate family, I would seek counselling, etc...to try to understand and where it all went wrong.

my nephew acts like he's gay.......I keep telling myself it's because he was raised by women.....His fater wasn't in his life..........


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by naturaltan *_
> but if your son was to become gay, then what?


Dissown him...............I don't bring mine up that way and have no fear of that happeing.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> All I'm saying is........if that's what they decide to do with their life...that's fine.....
> 
> 
> ...


WHY is it not healthy?  Just because you don't prefer that lifestyle, why is it unhealthy?  Love is Love and love is healthy.

So if your children learn as a teen that they might be gay, you are going to try and stop them or discourage them?


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Dissown him...............I don't bring mine up that way and have no fear of that happeing.



I agree.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> So if your children learn as a teen that they might be gay, you are going to try and stop them or discourage them?



yeah.  Tell them, not in my family.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Absolutely! Same sex were not made to "Love" each other. And how does it affect me? Well if they have their way they want benifits from employers and such. Who pays for these benefits. I do............the taxpayers. No way in hell do I want to pay for a couple of gays to get insurance. Let them pay for it out of their own pocket. It's their choice.....remember.




i don't want Bush re-elected!  No way!!!!!

I do agree....Same sex were not made to marry each other....AND......NO WAY IN HELL SHOULD THEY GET HEALTH INSURANCE......ETC...............it's their choice......and with choices comes *sacrifice!*


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> yeah.  Tell them, not in my family.


Way to go and get your kids to despise you.


----------



## tucker01 (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> BULLSHIT!!!  If homosexuals choose to marry each other how is this affecting anyone?
> 
> Marriage is about love and wanting to spend the rest of your lives together.  If 2 women or 2 men can find this love with each other and they prefer this lifestyle, then I think its wonderful that they have such deep desire and love to be with each other.  There is no reason that they should not be married.  Love is love no matter who is loving who.
> ...






Exactly,  Ontario has just begun to allow same sex marriages.

What impact has it had on me none, ziltch.  If a man or woman  are happy with someone of the same sex so be it, it will have no impact on the way you will live your life.


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

I don't think it has anything to do with his upbringing, so don't think it still can't happen Dg. 

I guess I'm fortunate that I have a supportive family and friends structure to rely on.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> WHY is it not healthy?  Just because you don't prefer that lifestyle, why is it unhealthy?  Love is Love and love is healthy.
> 
> So if your children learn as a teen that they might be gay, you are going to try and stop them or discourage them?



I'm sure in the begining I would shun him/her and at some point possibly regret it.  I don't know.  haven't been to that point yet and hope to never cross or burn that bridge.  I would discourage it and try to understand...do some reading, etc...talk to my gay friends......It would be a learning process.

I believe the "makeing love" portion of this deal is unhealthy....soo many things can happen and that's how diseases get started within each other, etc..and spread from one person to the next.

Agreed:  Love is love and love is healthy!  With the oposite sex.....it's like going against everything god created and his reasonings.....I don't know  It's every opinion for it's own......


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

I do believe it has everything to do with upbringing and morals. I guess there could be a chance in hell that it would happen. But my children would know the consequences.


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> i don't want Bush re-elected!  No way!!!!!
> 
> I do agree....Same sex were not made to marry each other....AND......NO WAY IN HELL SHOULD THEY GET HEALTH INSURANCE......ETC...............it's their choice......and with choices comes *sacrifice!*



and the sacrifice for loving someone in your family comes with a hefty price.  Again, to each their own, I'm glad that our family circle doesn't have the same ideals.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> Way to go and get your kids to despise you.




I see what you're saying.....


Sacrifices come with each decision made.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I do believe it has everything to do with upbringing and morals. I guess there could be a chance in hell that it would happen. But my children would know the consequences.




Exactly.....



In reality...i don't think I would "lock" my children out of my life if they turned gay or lesbian......

It would be hard to understand and degrading as a parent.  I would constantly wonder where it all went wrong......I could never NOT love my children for who they are or want to be.  I just wouldn't praise the idea or understand.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Exactly.....
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

A parents job is done basically when a child hits the age of accountabilty. That is why you should instill values when a child is young.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> I'm sure in the begining I would shun him/her and at some point possibly regret it.  I don't know.  haven't been to that point yet and hope to never cross or burn that bridge.  I would discourage it and try to understand...do some reading, etc...talk to my gay friends......It would be a learning process.
> 
> I believe the "makeing love" portion of this deal is unhealthy....soo many things can happen and that's how diseases get started within each other, etc..and spread from one person to the next.
> ...


Diseases spread among heterosexuals just as much as homosexuals.  

Not everyone believes in the Christian God.  

Christianity also doesn't believe in premarital sex but that didn't stop 99% of us.  I'm sure your God would also frown upon pornography but again, that doesn't stop us.  Or how about all you men that like to watch Girl on Girl action?  I'm willing to bet that your God doesn't agree with that one either.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> Diseases spread among heterosexuals just as much as homosexuals.
> 
> Not everyone believes in the Christian God.
> ...




True

True

VERY TRUE!


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> A parents job is done basically when a child hits the age of accountabilty. That is why you should instill values when a child is young.



To that I will agree with you Dg


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I do believe it has everything to do with upbringing and morals. I guess there could be a chance in hell that it would happen. But my children would know the consequences.


Morals.........and who defines these morals?


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by naturaltan *_
> To that I will agree with you Dg


NT, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a top notch Parent!


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)




----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 21, 2004)

Bush is pissing me off lately.  He bans ephedra and I disagree with that.  I disagree with his stance on same sex marriages.  I disagree with him allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country to work.

However, I agree with how he is handling the Iraq situation and the new funding for NASA, and that trumps these other three domestic issues IMO.  Therefore, I will probably vote for him again.  There will never be a candidate that I agree with 100%.


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> NT, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a top notch Parent!



Dg, thank you.  And I do not doubt your parenting skills either.  We choose to attack some of life's problems differently and that's ok.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> I'm willing to bet that your God doesn't agree with that one either.



Mine does!


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> NT, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a top notch Parent!


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> Morals.........and who defines these morals?



The parents.  Plain and simple.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by naturaltan *_
> Dg, thank you.  And I do not doubt your parenting skills either.  We choose to attack some of life's problems differently and that's ok.


Hey this parenting thing is not easy! I'm having a hard time right now with my 6 yr old son who thinks he doesn't have to listen in school. He gets notes sent home about everyday(talking, not listening, hitting other kids). I think he takes after his father too much You reap what you sow two fold!!!


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> The parents.  Plain and simple.


But they still have no right to say what others do with thier love/sexual choices.  Just because a parent may feel its "not right" doesn't mean they have the right to tell society what is wrong and what is right.


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_



thanks Babsie


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

this thread is going good.


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> But they still have no right to say what others do with thier love/sexual choices.  Just because a parent may feel its "not right" doesn't mean they have the right to tell society what is wrong and what is right.


Wrong.  Until the kids are 18, they have every right.

Your arguement is false.  The parents aren't telling society anything, they ARE A PART OF SOCIETY.  A society has a collective impact on how issues within it are dealt with within it.  Many in the society are partents.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> The parents.  Plain and simple.


And obviously you teach what you are taught. I try to let the bible guide me, but by far I'm not perfect.


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> But they still have no right to say what others do with thier love/sexual choices.  Just because a parent may feel its "not right" doesn't mean they have the right to tell society what is wrong and what is right.



and just because the parents think something is wrong, should not mean that it is written in stone.  If there was a moral issue in our family, we've always said that here is how we feel, you do not need to agree - just repect our opinion as we respect her opinions.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> Wrong.  Until the kids are 18, they have every right.
> 
> Your arguement is false.  The parents aren't telling society anything, they ARE A PART OF SOCIETY.  A society has a collective impact on how issues within it are dealt with within it.  Many in the society are partents.


How parents choose to raise their children is their business.  Whether I or others agree or disagree with their decisions it doesn't matter, its still their choice.  Just as the choice is for 2 women to marry.  Others may or may not agree and again it should not matter.  Its their lives, its their choice.


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

No.  Not if SOCIETY deems the marriage illegal.  Then the marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of society.  Let them say they are married but it is a moot point.  We live in a land of laws.  Marriage is covered under them.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by naturaltan *_
> and just because the parents think something is wrong, should not mean that it is written in stone.  If there was a moral issue in our family, we've always said that here is how we feel, you do not need to agree - just repect our opinion as we respect her opinions.


But don't you think with the influence you have over your children, they will believe what you teach them? Ever see kids immitating their parents??


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> No.  Not if SOCIETY deems the marriage illegal.  Then the marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of society.  Let them say they are married but it is a moot point.  We live in a land of laws.  Marriage is covered under them.


True....................any many going to say " I don't care if it's illegal, I'm still saying it's ok?" Doesn't work that way.That is like driving without a license. You might say you can drive fine without one, but the law says you can't drive without one.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> No.  Not if SOCIETY deems the marriage illegal.  They the marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of society.  Let them say they are married but it is a moot point.  We live in a land of laws.  Marriage is covered under them.


Marriage is the joining of 2 people in love so therefore it is not moot.  Again, it is their choice and should not be frowned upon.  Society does not have the right to say what is wrong or what is right.  We live in a country were we have choices and we should have the choice to marry same sex if we wish.  It is no different than a heterosexual marriage and should not be treated differently.  Marriage should not be treated under laws, because laws don't define love.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 21, 2004)

I think we need to get one thing straight, homosexuality for most is not a choice.   See link where I discuss the data on congential adrenal hyperplasia and twin studies, etc. etc.

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/s...t=congenital adrenal hyperplasia&pagenumber=5

Physicians and pediatricians are privey to this knowledge that not even family members realize.....most homosexuals know they are homosexuals long before puberty or around puberty but keep it hidden from society.  My link also addresses a study by a psychologists that show how by analyzing toddlers at play, and their atypical behavior predicts homosexuality later in life.  So in fact, this may be ingrained by the time they are toddlers.  All my homosexual patients were raised in heterosexual family structures, many from bible thumping, southern households with very macho dads who have since disowned them.  I see adults and teenager raised in homosexual households who are cleary heterosexual, so there is no correlation between "upbringing" .  I keep careful demographic data on all 14,000 active patients due to clinical studies I have to do and such social parameters are kept track of in detail so I can corroborate what psychologists have been saying for a long time. 
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM

http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/summer97/mueh.htm


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> But don't you think with the influence you have over your children, they will believe what you teach them? Ever see kids immitating their parents??



I do see it, but we always give our daughter our opinion, if/how the issue relates to the law and then ask for her opinion with the caveat that if she disagrees with us, then she's allowed as long as she can back up her opinion.  There have been a few instances where she has decided that what we believe in is not what she believes in ... and that is fine.  We don't rule our household, we all make it a place where everyone is allowed to voice his/her own opinion without the fear of being rejected, degrated, etc.


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

Joining of a man and a woman.  Under every religious system regardless of what religion(to my knowledge anyway, not that I would pretend to be an expert) and currently under OUR laws.  You started out saying parents couldn't tell society, now society can tell anyone.  Who makes the laws in this country?  We do.  It is our societies decision.  We make a choice to live here.  They have every right to try and change societies view on this.  That is why I love this friggin' country.  What you have shown is your view and opinion, you want things to change, do something about it.  Until then, gay marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of society.  Who are you or any single individual or COUPLE to dictate what our entire society should think?  Change how our society views it, then you can have your gay marriage.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

Bandaide:      You know who you remind me of?

That lady who played in smokey and the bandit...What's her name?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Bandaide:      You know who you remind me of?
> 
> That lady who played in smokey and the bandit...What's her name?




This is heretical but I never saw that movie!  My husband loved it though.  zSo i don't know who that actress is!


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Bandaide:      You know who you remind me of?
> 
> That lady who played in smokey and the bandit...What's her name?




Sally Field.


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> This is heretical but I never saw that movie!  My husband loved it though.  zSo i don't know who that actress is!



Sally Field  (Nt types showing his age  )


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

From dictionary.com

mar·riage    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mrj)
n. 

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

it's amazing the number of people who adamantly support the 100 billion dollars spent on the war against terrorism in Iraq yet just as vehemently disdain any support for people of different sexuality than their own.  1 billion dollars of that money ( 1%) would be enough to have covered any and all of their social security needs in perpetuity.  Invest it in any fund or at 6% in the bank. 

How about this proposal: Have them fund their own social security;  if gays want to be married having the same benefits, then have money contributed by all gay couples put into a " gay account " and let's see how much money is there at the end for them.  

Don't call it marriage: call it a "union".  

comments about homosexuality spreading disease show an almost astounding level of lack of comprehension of how disease is spread.  Of disease spread by homosexuals, perhaps only 20-30% of homosexuals engage in behavior that would lead to increased risk exposure.   Heterosexuals who bed hop, having more than 3 sex partners in one year are at the same if not a greater risk of passing any disease, including aids than homosexuals   What is true is that there seems to be a greater percentage of people within the homosexual cohort that are able to engage in this risky behavior.   Yet aids, TB and other sexual diseases are increasing more in heterosexual people due to heterosexual  contact.   Especially if the people are poor, IV drug users, female,  Native, a sex worker ( prostitute )or living in certain Regions of Africa.   

Since these people are a drain on the revenue and use up a lot of medical resources, perhaps you could also bump them from the recipient list.  As they made a choice as well.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 21, 2004)

that YEAH......was for IAB


----------



## ZECH (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by naturaltan *_
> Sally Field  (Nt types showing his age  )


I re-watched this on DVD right before Christmas.(thus my sig) Great movie.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by sYkboY *_
> Joining of a man and a woman.  Under every religious system regardless of what religion(to my knowledge anyway, not that I would pretend to be an expert) and currently under OUR laws.  You started out saying parents couldn't tell society, now society can tell anyone.  Who makes the laws in this country?  We do.  It is our societies decision.  We make a choice to live here.  They have every right to try and change societies view on this.  That is why I love this friggin' country.  What you have shown is your view and opinion, you want things to change, do something about it.  Until then, gay marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of society.  Who are you or any single individual or COUPLE to dictate what our entire society should think?  Change how our society views it, then you can have your gay marriage.


That is one of my points.  I believe we should change and allow same sex marriages.  It is my hope that someday society will understand and see no harm in it.  There is no harm and I have yet to see someone make a valid point as to WHY it is wrong here or anywhere else.

I love this country too and plan to cast my vote according to my opinions and things I would like to see changed.  

Yes I have my opinions as others have theirs but I have valid reasons for my opinions.  

Other than, "its not right" or "God says so" what are your/others reasoning behind your opinons?  This is what I would like to see


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> Since these people are a drain on the revenue and use up a lot of medical resources, perhaps you could also bump them from the recipient list.  As they made a choice as well.


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

Burton Leon Reynolds.  Cool with a capital "C".

Anyway, I agree that perhaps some sort of consessions could be made.  I have always thought that a large part of the problem is simply the implications of the word "marriage".  Union may be more tolerable by those who strongly disagree.  This isn't PC and I don't mean to offend but aren't gay people supposed to be creative?  Create a new word.  I will try to help. Homonuptual?


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> From dictionary.com
> 
> mar·riage    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mrj)
> ...


I believe they change and add words to the dictionary every year


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> this thread is going good.



i bet you are thrilled!!!  u enjoy being a shit disturber


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> I'm not scared.  Men are supposed to be manly.  Not another man's bitch.



define manly for me buddy.  at least give me your version.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> Other than, "its not right" or "God says so" what are your/others reasoning behind your opinons?  This is what I would like to see



There are none.  We've gone though this before on IM, and _every single reason_ people have for opposing same sex marriages is religious.  This is why organized religion frustrates the hell out of me.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by I Are Baboon *_
> There are none.  We've gone though this before on IM, and _every single reason_ people have for opposing same sex marriages is religious.  This is why organized religion frustrates the hell out of me.


I know, but I'm still waiting for a valid reason 

I believe I've debated this before as well too


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> define manly for me buddy.  at least give me your version.



oh yeah, and try to include where beastiality fits into that definition of manly since you wisely chose to ignore my post about your enthusiasm about that.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> I know, but I'm still waiting for a valid reason



Keep waiting.  You won't get one.    Separation of church and state my ass.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

any comment about homosexuality  is bound to dredge up endless  discourse between those who feel strongly for ( usually disparaged as leftist leaning liberals ) and those who feel strongly against ( usually for religious reasons ) 

we might as well start an abortion thread and see where that goes.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> any comment about homosexuality  is bound to dredge up endless  discourse between those who feel strongly for ( usually disparaged as leftist leaning liberals ) and those who feel strongly against ( usually for religious reasons )
> 
> we might as well start an abortion thread and see where that goes.


Been there done that. 

It was the same damn thing.  "The Church says its wrong"


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

people live within the delusions that give their life meaning.  as long as they don't inflict their personal choice of pain on me, I can deal with most things.  My delusion is that homosexuals don't adversely affect me ( i didn't say that they don't have an effect on me ) whereas others carry the burden created by the delusion that homosexuals somehow adversely affect them.  

Maybe they worry that some homo is going to steal their children.  or that some homo is going to abduct and kill their children.  Or that homosexual Union is going to end in tragedy.  

There is a greater threat in a heterosexual marriage of the male partner being murdered by the wife than a gayman killing his partner.  this could be another thread that will alienate the women and the men.   Spousal abuse.  The very term conjures up a drunken lout in a wife-beater  beating up his wife to  death.  Some may be surprised to find that the statistics show that almost 40% of all spousal homicides have the MALE as the dead spouse and the wife as the culprit.    i'd almost say that heterosexual union is not healthy. for either party.


----------



## Rixmon (Jan 21, 2004)

Its not like it matters, These days the human race doesnt marry even close to as much as the old days, and also alot of marriages go into divorce.

Two men getting married? I am sorry but Men like variety... and the ones that dont cheat.. well thats good, But I think  Marriage should be in the hopes to raise a child of thier making in a good environment of musha and fasha(Goldmember) and a stable home

Anyways, I too was a product of a man dropping his seed then leaving the woman. I dont resent it... I just gotta live with the truth of man.

I say Let bush do what he likes, I am getting tired of hearing about homosexuals being treated as if they are a race. But then again I was taught in church that homosexuality is sinful, but what I learned from my self is that its not, and the only thing wrong with it is that it is not natural as a species if its sex for perserving the human race.

But then again Humans and dolphins are the two species that have sex for pleasure, so it is unnatural to have sex for pleasure, even if it is with a man? I say no its not unnatural, But to have sex for the perservation of the human race to go on, that is natural too.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> All I'm saying is........if that's what they decide to do with their life...that's fine.....
> 
> 
> ...



How does "great people and have wonderful taste...." have any impact on this?  What does" have wonderful taste... " contribute anything to this?  By what definition of "wonderful taste" do you conclude that these people are worthy in your eyes?  

Excuse me but it is difficult to conclude anything other than that you seem to judge people by a very superficial and shallow set of standards.   they have good taste?  so they wear white on white and the curtains match the drapes?  or they buy the newest SUV?  

Having gay friends seems to be the flavor of the month ( or at least the last 2 year s) for heterosexuals.   They wear this friendship like a badge of hardship, always bringing up the fact that " oh, my gay friend told me ......" to show people that they themselves aren't intolerant.  It's a burden but they put up with it as they are oh so liberal, doncha know.


----------



## Var (Jan 21, 2004)

*Re: A MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!*



> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> *2004 Election Issue !! *
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> I believe they change and add words to the dictionary every year



The institution of marriage has certainly not been the same since the beginning of time, and has in fact been in a constant state of evolution.

Jodi is right...historically marriage was done for survival and economic purposes...not to sanctify a loving relationship as the modern western world now views marriage.   

Arranged marriages were once commonplace.  In addition, you could marry a child and some societies still allow for this. Marriage is defined as a union between man and prepbescent girls in some   Women were once considered the property of their husbands, who were free to do with them as they liked. It used to be illegal for people of two different races to get married or even to get a divorce! 

We live in a society where church and state are supposedly separate. Many religions forbid divorce, but that???s legal. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would have no affect on anyone???s religious beliefs. 



> Also, the other argument used against same-sex marriages is that it  weakens the already shaky institution of marriage because gays are inherently incapable of commitment and monogamy. Aside from the fact that this is an unfounded and offensive stereotype, straight people who are equally unable to commit are allowed to marry all the time. A man or woman who has been divorced three or four times can get married with no problem!  It is understood that some marriages will last and others won???t. The right to marry doesn???t take the chances of the survival of the relationship into account. And it shouldn???t, not for straight marriages and not for gay marriages.



This is from another site I belong to.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by trailrix *_
> But then again Humans and dolphins are the two species that have sex for pleasure, so it is unnatural to have sex for pleasure, even if it is with a man? I say no its not unnatural, But to have sex for the perservation of the human race to go on, that is natural too.



you are just un-informed of the reality.  read BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE for the low down on what happens in the natural world.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

O.K. gay collecting eachothers benefits is one thing.  But not marriage.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Exactly.....
> 
> 
> ...




you view your children as simply an extension of yourself.  Not as discreet people worthy and capable of self-determination.   Somehow, you have concluded that Their choice is degrading to YOU.   so you are concerned somehow that other people may view you as being less of a person, not a good parent.  This is not a healthy view in my opinion.   parenting is difficult yet you are creating an unnecessary burden for yourself with your outlook.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 21, 2004)

By the way, I did a search since in the Netherlands marriage among same sex couples  has been legal for over 13 yrs.

The marriage rate for straight couples is up 10%, and the divorce rate among straights has fallen 12%. Of the 17,000 gay couples who have married there, one in twelve divorce .   Thus, a gay couple seems to have a much lower divorce rate and disruption of family unit than a straight couple here in the states where divorces approach 50%.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> O.K. gay collecting eachothers benefits is one thing.  But not marriage.



ok, my animal-loving-but-gay-loathing friend.  let's call it a UNION and let them collect their own money for their future use.  But don't be upset when these HOMOSEXUALS turn down the HETEROSEXUALS who come begging for money at the end.  This will be like the grasshopper and the ant as the homos will be able to save more of the money and invest it wiser than the foolish heterosexuals.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

People can't think for themselves.  They are told what is right and wrong so that is what they believe.  But for what good reason?  They don't know "just cause" or "the bible says so".  *Most* that say they live by the bible are hypocrites IMO.  "God says its wrong" yet this same person is sitting at the local nuddie bar waving bills for a peak show.  Did God say this was ok?

Some that do think for themselves and actually have thier own opinions are afraid to voice it as they fear what others will think.  Why?  Because they don't want Society to think of them as wierd or different.  Same reason that many homosexuals live in closets and fear.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> foolish heterosexuals.



So you are gay...


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

since we are limiting the amount of partners that a man or woman can have, how about enforcing a rule that likewise limits sexual reproduction to those having some arbitrarily determined criteria of " beauty".    i really am sick and tired of seeing ugly people having a flock of children.  i have arbitrarily determined that I am beautiful: the rest of you , get in line.
and then after that, I am going after the stupid people.  I have likewise determined that I am intelligent, the rest of you; get in line.
and then after that, I will be going after the poor. I have again determined that I am rich, the rest of you get in line.
then I am going after the immoral and amoral; I have used my set of morals as the standard; the rest of you get in line.  Lawyers needn't bother to apply.  
I will be throwing vagrants, the poor, the artists, the homosexuals, the ugly and all those who otherwise don't fit into the parameters into a holding camp for proper assessment.   The railway car leaves shortly.  don't bother taking your belongings as you won't be needing them.  Those with a lot of cavity fillings, please step to the front of the line.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> So you are gay...



whatever displeases you the most.  my animal-loving but gay-loathing comrade.  

are you asking me out? 
or afraid that i don't find you attractive?


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> So you are gay...



so you enjoy watching women have sex with animals?


----------



## Jodi (Jan 21, 2004)

MarcusMaximus - your cracking me up - LMFAO!


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

the biggest fear that straight people have is that some homo will hit on them.  

the second biggest fear that straight people have is that some homo will NOT hit on them.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

ok, so "marriage" is out,  "union" is in. and they pay for their own dental plan..


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> the biggest fear that straight people have is that some homo will hit on them.
> 
> the second biggest fear that straight people have is that some homo will NOT hit on them.



I'm straight and I've been hit on.  Does that mean I am beautiful?     Or just gay looking?


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> so you enjoy watching women have sex with animals?


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_



lol


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by I Are Baboon *_
> I'm straight and I've been hit on.  Does that mean I am beautiful?     Or just gay looking?



it all depends.  what kind of dog do you have?


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)




----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> it all depends.  what kind of dog do you have?



No dog, but two cats.  I suppose that answers the question.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 21, 2004)

oh yeah  ... you're gay.  you just don't know it . lol


----------



## naturaltan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_



how does your wife feel about women having sex with animals?  I'm guessing this is _your little secert_ ... all that sanctity of marriage and stuff.


----------



## sYkboY (Jan 21, 2004)

For crying out loud!  I love the fact that you people haven't lost your sense of humor.  Good discussion.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by naturaltan *_
> how does your wife feel about women having sex with animals?  I'm guessing this is _your little secert_ ... all that sanctity of marriage and stuff.



she thinks it sick, but even sick can be funny.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> .......
> and then after that, I will be going after the poor. I have again determined that I am rich, the rest of you get in line.
> then I am going after the moral; I have used my set of morals as the standard; the rest of you get in line.  *Lawyers needn't bother to apply.*


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Of course...........why do you think so many want to get elected?
> I think they should let us decide how to invest OUR money. For me, it wouldn't be in social security.




I would invest mine in one of those beer hats with the straws..

But seriously, I don't care if they give gay folk benefits, who cares?  I would rather give gays benfits than politicians a raise.

Oh, and I was living in VT when they legalized gay marriages.  People were for it when they thought it would bring in money from toursim, they soon became against it when they realized there were gay people "among us".  Ridiculous.


----------



## DFINEST (Jan 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> DFINEST, how would you have done things differently?



What would you have done...
 exactly the same thing?


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I try to let the bible guide me, but by far I'm not perfect.



Amen bro.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 22, 2004)

I cannot believe this is still going


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 22, 2004)

Yeah, it is still going, I read a couple of posts and reflected on them overnight...
The reason people do not want to be receptive to biblical teaching is that if the do accept it, they have to be accountable to it.
It is far easier to be a "creature driven and derided by vanity" and pursue the lusts of the flesh than to adhere to the probity of the bible.  So people tend to choose the path of ease, rather than be subject to a God.

The push for an abominable gay "marriage" is just people trying to validate their ultimate choice of rejecting God.


----------



## John H. (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> If we keep him in office he's going to pass a law that "protects the sanctity of marriage", which obviously means no more gays getting married.  As he is, I'm sick of the courts deciding the laws.  Time to re-elect Bush.


 Hi The. Marriage is a man-made creation actually. If you will go back and see the history of marriage you will see that. To me what two people decide to do - as long as they are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely - is ENTIRELY up to them and is NO ONE'S business - NOT religion, not the government and not you or I, unless they give consent freely to it being our business. I believe the government and religion (which IS MAN MADE) has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS in people's personal life and living. Bush is only sucking up to special interests (in this case religion) and trying to gain reelection in this manner. This country WAS FOUNDED on FREEDOM of religion - to believe or not as you personally desire WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE from government.... In the future if this is allowed to continue we will all see the same crap that is happening in Iraq, Iran, etc. happen here as well. Religion IS DESTROYING those countries and the extremes of those religions is at the very heart of all the problems that exist there and even in other areas of the world and throughout history. Religion(s) can be and have been VERY DANGEROUS. Remember there IS a BIG DIFFERENCE between religion(s) and God/Christ - a BIG DIFFERENCE. Remember also that there are thousands of religions in this world each with their own beliefs and their willingness to kill others over those beliefs. RELIGION and anything connected therewith MUST ALWAYS BE TOTALLY SEPARATE from government... Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by DFINEST *_
> Buck Fush.....
> 
> I am in agreement with his statement on the
> sanctity of marriage though


 Hi Dfinest. "Sanctity of marriage" depends ENTIRELY upon each individual and can not be legislated. ANY mutual joining of two people CAN BE "sanctified" and "sacred" IF EACH treat that joining the same. If two people are willing to join in life and living together it is entirely their business and no one else's - not yours, not mine, not religion(s), not the government. It is a PRIVATE MATTER. If private matters can become the "property" of government or religion NOTHING is then safe from intrusion from others. THAT IS VERY WRONG. Bush is VERY WRONG in even getting into this subject. It is NOT a function of government - or even religion since there are thousands of religions each with their own beliefs and religion IS MAN MADE...  Take Care, John H.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I try to let the bible guide me, but by far I'm not perfect.




The bible is up for interpretation.  Wasn't it the bible that guided people to burn supposed witches way back when?  Surely you cannot believe that this was right.

Anyone else see the Monty Python skit with the witches, it was hilarious.


----------



## John H. (Jan 22, 2004)

*Sex police*

What's next the "sex police"? Are we going to have a special Police Force Against Sex?  When and where will this all stop? Will I be able to go into someone's bedroom and tell them what they can and can not do Sexually and with whom? And how? And when? Will there be a "tax" on having Sex and who will collect it and how? Sex IS A VERY PRIVATE MATTER and has NO BUSINESS being the business of any government or religion. Government and religion is man-made. Sex is natural and God given and ONLY the business of those who agree to so engage regardless the Gender of those so involved as long as they are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely.... NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Dale Mabry *_
> The bible is up for interpretation.  Wasn't it the bible that guided people to burn supposed witches way back when?  Surely you cannot believe that this was right.
> 
> Anyone else see the Monty Python skit with the witches, it was hilarious.


  Hi Dale. The Bible was written BY MEN - over 40 - each with their own viewpoint. And over a long period of time. There was NO Bible during the Time of Christ and not for a long time thereafter. The Bible is just one religion's "religious article". There are thousands of religions throughout this world and throughout time EACH with their own beliefs and viewpoints...  Take Care, John H.


----------



## irontime (Jan 22, 2004)

Question for you people, do you know of any non-christians that celebrate christmas, or that do get marrried? Probably so. They do not do this because of a religion they do it for family and for love. Why are there not any protests against that?

This all just looks like a bunch of hypocritism here. And if they do get married, who cares? How is it going to affect what you do every day? Don't get me wrong I personally think gay is kinda disgusting, but it is their own choice.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 22, 2004)

hypocracy my friend, it is hypocracy.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 22, 2004)

There are alot of lost people here trying to validate their lost positions by seeking approval of others.
If they really felt they were right, they wouldn't need to do so, but they have this small pang of conscience left telling them "maybe I am wrong (being gay or whatever), so I better seek validation from others" and I'll make the bible fit my lifestyle instead of vice versa.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

seems we have a number of police; the people who are against gay lifestyle are adamantly opposed to it, they disparage just about everyone else who holds a different opinion.  Everyone else has to agree with their view or else they are heathens.          ( This comment doesn't extend to DG or trailrix who have never made comments that made it appear that everyone else has to agree with them )

thought police, diet police, workout police, clothing police.  

the right is saying that everyone else is incorrect and must come to their side or be burnt in hell forever whereas the liberals are saying "just leave me alone- it's my life and I'll choose my own personal agony.  I don't need you to make my life miserable".  

I prefer the latter yet the people who adhere to the former, although smaller in numbers are louder and repeat it more often.

maddog,  you are completely off the wall on this with your projections of your own personae onto the motives of anyone else's actions.    I don't see what it is that you say that you see.  No one has sought the approval of others on this thread.  People who are against are against it and those who are for it are for it.  you must be talking about yourself for your own personal reasons for posting.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 22, 2004)

I personally don't care what rights a gay person gets, but if they want them, what right do I have to tell them they can't have them.  I think the government needs to chill the fuck out and let people live their lives.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

*bush and the gay issue*

it seems probable that Bush brought up the Gay marriage issue as a smoke screen.  he knows that in North America, homosexuality is a polarizing issue for just about everyone.  Bush has to somehow mollify the fears of the Right who bankrolled his election.  He is playing to those concerns, and trying to draw attention away from his 100 billion dollar war against terrorism in Iraq, the 300-500 Americans who have died in this war and the fact that he has done little if anything to look after his own people at home.  There is no way that the USA is going to recover the amount of money spent on this war.  The spin on the story is incredible.  It now seems sacriligious to bring it up; that the money ( 100 000 000 000  and counting ) could have been better spent.   So by bringing up this homo issue, he deflects attention away from the more critical issues.  it is adog and pony act.   this 100 000 000 000 dollars could have saved millions of people's  lives, given just about everyone who qualifies a free university education, given child care for life for every child, and taken care of the millions of people in AFrica dying every year of famine and disease.  however, you can't talk about this as someone will always say " you can't have any of that if you don't have freedom first".   True yet that doesn't mean " at any cost".


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 22, 2004)

It's ironic that a political party  that believes in "less government" ie: less governmnt sticking its nose into regulating our lives,  is so into what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom or marriage.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by trailrix *_
> Its not like it matters, These days the human race doesnt marry even close to as much as the old days, and also alot of marriages go into divorce.
> 
> Two men getting married? I am sorry but Men like variety... and the ones that dont cheat.. well thats good, But I think  Marriage should be in the hopes to raise a child of thier making in a good environment of musha and fasha(Goldmember) and a stable home
> ...



ya know, i have read this several times and have come to the conclusion that this is a very smart commentary on the issue.  perhaps the best of the entire lot.  the only miscue is the thing about dolphins and humans; just about every species on the planet engage in some nasty stuff, with themselves, with same sex or for the pursuit of pleasure.  it is just that the people writing this stuff up in books didn't want anyone else to find this out.  lots of stuff is discovered during search for something else; some of it is hidden much like the animal homosexuality and pursuit of pleasure. 

some people are taught by others that something is wrong; yet in our own experience, we discover that it isn't at all.  Some people alter their perceptions to fit with reality while others alter reality to fit their misperceptions. 

Trailrix; nicely said.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 22, 2004)




----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> It's ironic that a political party  that believes in "less government" ie: less governmnt sticking its nose into regulating our lives,  is so into what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom or marriage.




The political party you speak of only believes in a lassez-faire government as it pertains to "their" money.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> It's ironic that a political party  that believes in "less government" ie: less governmnt sticking its nose into regulating our lives,  is so into what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom or marriage.



it's 'selective' meaning that they are for less government in areas that are of no strategic importance to them while they are for more government in areas that they wish to direct towards a more comfortable ending. comfortable for them really.  but big business is geared towards mom and dad and 1.8 children.  this is what drives the united states.  in the eyes of big business, they sell to a man and a woman and their kids.  unlike ikea or volkswagon.

until gay people organize and vote along their sexual lines, and the person they vote in actually does what was said,  it ain't gonna change. 

i don't see why gay ppl want to get married anyway; haven't they seen the chaos that exists now in church sanctioned and state approved heterosexual marriage?    Surely another union can be improvised that would serve their own particular needs.  i still  like the " gay dental plan "  amendment idea of mine where money is donated into a high return fund for their future exclusive use.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

IAB;  bang the drum slowly brother.

what emoticon is that anyway? i don't have it.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> IAB;  bang the drum slowly brother.
> 
> what emoticon is that anyway? i don't have it.



It's linked from another website, so you won't see it in the IM list.

I thought it fit in quite nicely in this thread.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> There are alot of lost people here trying to validate their lost positions by seeking approval of others.
> If they really felt they were right, they wouldn't need to do so, but they have this small pang of conscience left telling them "maybe I am wrong (being gay or whatever), so I better seek validation from others" and I'll make the bible fit my lifestyle instead of vice versa.




I think in this country, these people are called church members.
I still haven't seen anyone here admit that they are heterosexual because the Bible told them to be. Using God as a coverup for bigotry sounds like a fast ticket on the waterslide to the fiery furnace to me.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

*that is a hateful attitude*



> _*
> 
> The push for an abominable gay "marriage" is just people trying to validate their ultimate choice of rejecting God. *_


_*

Just because a person is gay does not necessarily mean that they reject your God or any god for that matter.  GAy does not mean atheistic or agnostic at all.  By your definition, one could reasonably conclude that all atheists are gay since you seem to associate one with the other.*_


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I think in this country, these people are called church members.
> I still haven't seen anyone here admit that they are heterosexual because the Bible told them to be. Using God as a coverup for bigotry sounds like a fast ticket on the waterslide to the fiery furnace to me.



i couldn't have said this better myself!  This sums it up nicely!


to " the bible calls them sinners " crowd: 
I cannot force myself to believe in your definition of your god: who would banish a group of people while letting murderers and known criminals back into the fold via a simple" i am sorry father for i have sinned " WElcome back Mr. Gotti.!  CAtholics; they cover both ends.  

that ain't my definition of a god.  it's not who or what I wish to believe in.  

When the world is at the brink and there is a clash between whatever powers that may exist, I am siding up with the fruits and the non-criminal deviates ( non- Michael Jackson types ).  I will take whatever befalls me rather than deal with the closeted freak holier-than- thou heterosexuals who are hiding more sheer perversity behind their false crowns of piety than the homosexuals. Behind just about every Normal-looking heterosexual hides a monster.  it's just a sham, a charade.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by I Are Baboon *_
> It's linked from another website, so you won't see it in the IM list.
> 
> I thought it fit in quite nicely in this thread.



so are you using this in the satirical sense or literal?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> seems we have a number of police; the people who are against gay lifestyle are adamantly opposed to it, they disparage just about everyone else who holds a different opinion.  Everyone else has to agree with their view or else they are heathens.          ( This comment doesn't extend to DG or trailrix who have never made comments that made it appear that everyone else has to agree with them )




I have a tendancy to believe that this is really caused by people who violate the "sanctity" of marriage by constantly being overly interested in the relationships of others outside their own marriages, especially when it involves potential sexual stimulation for their own "sinful" gratification. Seems to me that none of us complain about being allowed to marry again (after one or both parties might have committed adultery). No one expects to be denied health insurance or death benefits if they are on their second, third or fourth marriage, and I haven't seen many men in here who have freely posted their lust for a woman and framed it faithfully with a footnote "upon marriage." 

It's more than hypocrisy. The biblical argument means nothing in this debate about marriage - marriages are sanctioned and recognized by the State, which consistently approves of unions outside of some local church doctrine. Churches regularly refuse to recognize and honor certain marriages that are approved by the State. The crux of the religious argument is that the State MUST reflect the values of whatever Church happens to have the most broadcast time on television or represents the religious beliefs of the President, even if there are other churches or state constitutions which prohibit such discrimination. 

Federal regulation of marriage has rarely been the legal tradition in this country. Those matters have historically been decided by individual states, which is exactly the supposed political philosophy of the President's political party. In both Vermont and Massachusetts, the Supreme Courts ordered a change to the laws based on flagrant discrimination in terms of benefits that were violations of their state constitutions. It's NOT a religious argument. Those who have churches that contend that having their peepee get hard over a set of boobs entitles them to special privileges can go to the altar and gloat all they want about how hard they've worked to become heterosexual. But until I see those ministers ranting political dogma forking over some tax money, I'd rather they keep their worship services focused on spiritual challenges rather than an attempt to elect an American Ayatullah. 

Of course, I do know a few gay people who might readily accept a permanent tax exemption from supporting all the heterosexual family services in lieu of being allowed to get married. But given the number of conservative Republicans who claim they pay all the taxes in this country, we'd probably see a dramatic increase in the number of people who would suddenly call themselves "gay" at tax time.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 22, 2004)

Sorry bud, but you don't seem to be aware of what true Christianity is. 
It's not about "closeted freak holier-than- thou heterosexuals who are hiding more sheer perversity behind their false crowns of piety than the homosexuals. Behind just about every Normal-looking heterosexual hides a monster. "
We are not condemning or judging anyone, God will do that in time. When I say that people are lost, I mean they are searching for the truth, and I hope they find it.
You guys are throwing in terms like Bigots and monsters to describe "church" people. seems a bit inflammatory.  I don't see any right-winger types using terms like "fags" or whatever is used.  
There are alot of things wrong going on in churches and there seems to be a new paradigm to move away from church based worship.  
If you wish to persecute true Christians by insults, feel free,-flame away, as you are only realizing prophecy by doing so.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> so are you using this in the satirical sense or literal?



The prior.

I tend to agree with most of what YOU are saying.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> Sorry bud, but you don't seem to be aware of what true Christianity is.
> It's not about "closeted freak holier-than- thou heterosexuals who are hiding more sheer perversity behind their false crowns of piety than the homosexuals. Behind just about every Normal-looking heterosexual hides a monster. "
> We are not condemning or judging anyone, God will do that in time. When I say that people are lost, I mean they are searching for the truth, and I hope they find it.
> ...



there you go again, projecting onto others that which you yourself possess.  you have only proved my point.  you see a battle in everything that could possibly be against you.  I didn't connect Monsters with church going people.  you did.  i said a normal looking heterosexual.  Funny though that you connected normal looking heterosexual to church going people.  
if you say thatyou are not condemning anyone, i humbly suggest that you have not been paying close enough attention.  
if you have never heard any right winger type use the word  "fag' then I again suggest that you haven't been paying close enough attention.
Funny that YOU feel persecuted when YOU have had every tribute foisted upon you as a Christian.  It is always amusing to see the people commiting the deed & making the most noise complaining about how they are suddenly a victim.  

No one has told you not to believe in your god.  you keep the faith and pray for the rest of us.  we all greatly appreciate it


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> Sorry bud, but you don't seem to be aware of what true Christianity is.
> It's not about "closeted freak holier-than- thou heterosexuals who are hiding more sheer perversity behind their false crowns of piety than the homosexuals. Behind just about every Normal-looking heterosexual hides a monster. "
> We are not condemning or judging anyone, God will do that in time. When I say that people are lost, I mean they are searching for the truth, and I hope they find it.
> ...




You need to read a few more threads on this disussion forum. And according to one of my gay buds, no one has called heterosexuals or church members "obsessive breeders," either, mostly because none of you are going to admit that you stop having sex when the decision is made to stop procreating.
It's easy to conclude that demanding that one particular group of "sinners" be denied rights like death benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, and the right to be buried together is obvious bigotry, since no comparable sanctions are advocated to other allegedly socially damaging biblical sins committed by heterosexuals. Demanding that the laws of the Nation reflect the selective religious beliefs of some selective churches, knowing that it will perpetuate hate and hardship against another group is hardly christian behavior.  

This religious argument still has nothing to do with the government of a free society regulating marriage. It's not a biblical argument. The Church isn't supposed to have a say in how the State defines marriage - that is the reason the States took on the task of marriage in the first place. The proposed constitutional amendment is supposed to be about government regulation, not endorsement of some church's religious dogma.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> It is always amusing to see the people commiting the deed & making the most noise complaining about how they are suddenly a victim.



Sorry dude, but what "deed" did I commit and 3 or 4 posts isn't the most noise, it just happens to be the only "noise" you don't like.

as far as persecution, I didn't say 'I' now did I.

I could say "It's always the little guys (I saw your pic) thousands of miles away...." 
but I won't dude.  
I will say this, you are a bit confused and evidently uneducated.

I have 4 graduate degrees and I have tried to keep this comprehensible, but I guess I failed you.
Good bye, my time is valuable.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> ( This comment doesn't extend to DG or trailrix who have never made comments that made it appear that everyone else has to agree with them )


Even though I don't believe in gay marriage, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Like NT said, I respect everyone's opinion weather I agree or not. I do get very protective of my opinions from time to time. There are people from all over the world here with many different opinions on things.
O/T, but John Edwards gripes my ass!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 22, 2004)

I would have to think the church turning away gays would be much like the NAACP turning away blacks.  Hello, homosexual pedofile priests, anyone read a paper the last couple years?


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

*everything you say*



> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> Sorry dude, but what "deed" did I commit and 3 or 4 posts isn't the most noise, it just happens to be the only "noise" you don't like.
> 
> as far as persecution, I didn't say 'I' now did I.
> ...



everything you say simply proves my point.  NOT everything is about you.   the first statement is about how often it happens that the accused suddenly wants to be seen as a victim when in fact, the victim is the victim.  the aggressor simply wants to see themselves in a new light.
as for noise, again NOT everything is about you.  
this isn't about not liking;  you seem to take a disagreement as a personal attack.  
your comments about persecution is almost too ridiculous to even consider;    DO YOU not even read your own posts?  you wrote " if you wish to persecute Christians "  for crying out loud buddy, read your own posts.

as for comment about my stature,  i think that you have just alienated the people who agreed with you up to this point. It is a sign of a dying argument when the person starts to belittle a person's stature as opposed to his character or the points that are being made.  
most people will be moving away from you at this point since you could not come up with a stronger argument than " you're short and ugly to boot !"  lol    i could almost hear the audible groan from Dg and others when they read that particular comment as they would know that you had nothing else to say.  You shot yourself in your foot and the funny thing is; you don't know it.  you thought it was all rather witty.


as for your education: congratulations.  i am honored to be the presence of such greatness.   However, i do believe that just about everyone here on these boards are suitably intelligent to match their lifestyle.  Not everyone who has a university degree is smart.  but hey, what do i know, i am but a hobbit.   i prefer not to hang banners and diplomas on the wall yet each to his/her own.  i am sure they serve you well as is plainly evident by the points you have been making.   

keep answering in a similar manner as you show exactly who and what you are.

as always, i appreciate that you pray for me.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 22, 2004)

All of your ASSumptions are wrong - based on the fact that I am not "praying" for you.  There are no sides here and I'm sure that DG is out working and noone really gives a rats ass about this topic, its just taking up server space.
Lets just say this..
We agree to disagree, it will always be that way.
Arguing on the internet is like winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics:  You may win, but you are still retarded.
Let's find some common ground in another thread and take it from there.
Talk to you there.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

i thought that you had something special to do..  maybe elucidate some pheromone or something....


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

keep it up.  you keep proving my point.  take a look at the number of views this thread has generated in a couple of days then look at the number of posts and the number of different people who have posted.  

i have nothing to do, being a hobbit, and you seem to be able to juggle this message board with your numerous scholastic activities.   so please pass the bottle of jack daniels and keep the conversation going.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 22, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> You need to read a few more threads on this disussion forum. And according to one of my gay buds, no one has called heterosexuals or church members "obsessive breeders," either, mostly because none of you are going to admit that you stop having sex when the decision is made to stop procreating.
> It's easy to conclude that demanding that one particular group of "sinners" be denied rights like death benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, and the right to be buried together is obvious bigotry, since no comparable sanctions are advocated to other allegedly socially damaging biblical sins committed by heterosexuals. Demanding that the laws of the Nation reflect the selective religious beliefs of some selective churches, knowing that it will perpetuate hate and hardship against another group is hardly christian behavior.



exactly.  this imo is the best post on the subject.  however, not understanding true christianity limits my objectivity on the subject.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> 
> All married couples should have insurance and a marriage is a marriage so what's the difference?  None!!



"marriage is a marriage" Oh my...I cannot possibly disagree more.

So, if gay marriage is allowed, then I, as an employer have to cover the spouse of a gay employee? Hell no.

Not trying it tell someone how to live their life. Just if they live it that way, they can't get married. Marriage is for a man and a woman...Period. 

I never understand why people think you have to accept anything and everything anyone wants to do.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 22, 2004)

I hate to disagree, Pepper, but frankly, you ARE trying to tell someone how to live their life by exacting penalties for not living it in the way you prescribe. While you certainly have rights as an employer, you also openly advocate employment discrimination based on that, while reserving your right to abrogate those same principles when you don't personally agree. 

While I have no idea who you employ, it's doubtful you screen applicants for the purpose of denying them benefits if they are divorced (thus proving themselves without enough character to honor their marital vows), those who might have engaged or are engaging in sexual relationships outside of church-sanctified marriage, or even those who aren't members in good standing of a particular church, a political party, or live in a certain area of town.

Providing benefits for anyone else seems like the same principle to me - whether the government and some churches have recognized it or not, gay people have lived as "married" couples and endured denial of bereavement benefits, leave of absence time for dying spouses and, some cases, time off when that partner dies. A pretty high price for individuals to pay because your personal beliefs dictate that only this group of people should suffer for their perceived sins. Are you sure you could readily confront an employee in this situation and explain to them that they can't have time off for a "partner's" funeral because they aren't allowed to be married? Some companies have done so. 

I suppose it would be easier, in that situation, to turn your head and watch someone's life partner be stripped of their home and possessions because the law provided no legal protection. Or to see an employee suffer while his/her partner's dead body is hauled off hundreds of miles to another cemetary (since there are no recognized legal rights). Or maybe it's even worth more to enjoy the pain of an employee who is denied attendance to a longterm partner's funeral because the "family" refused to recognize the existence of that relationship.

Of course, your policy might already simply be that you would never employ a gay person, period. Lots of companies had that policy for years, and those gays who could masquerade as heterosexuals managed to do very well being employed by them. Dishonesty is often rewarded in the business world, as long as it helps preserve an image of surrealism for someone else. The businesses who engage in this kind of policy most often now are...not surprisingly...certain churches - those who profess to display the most compassion. 

I respect your right to disagree for yourself that gay marriage is not an avenue in your own life. But I don't think the point is about "acceptance" - it's already a living reality. If you don't want to know that it's a reality, fine - but don't ask them to suffer to preserve your need not to accept it. If the answer for these people isn't marriage, then that constitutional amendment should well include some kind of recognition that ensures the same basic practical, legal rights that you take for granted every day. The point is how to alleviate the horrific, unnecessary, and unjustified treatment that lack of legal recognition has caused. These are not new issues - people stood silently for years and watched those people suffer, and knew that they would never sit for that kind of treatment in their own lives.  

I honestly don't think gay people give a damn whether you accept their relationship or not, any more than you would knock on your neighbor's door and ask them if they think your choice of a wife is appropriate. But the one thing you'd never tolerate is being told you could not have any protections or your marriage any recognition. You live in South Carolina - surely you have a memory about policies concerning interracial marriage in your state. Why, back then, marriage really wasn't just between a Man and a Woman...they had to be of the same race. I suppose that means that your explanation then would have been - "Marriage is between a man and a woman - of the same race." No spousal benefits are allowed.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 23, 2004)

*people in the same pew are getting nervous*



> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> All of your ASSumptions are wrong - based on the fact that I am not "praying" for you.  There are no sides here and I'm sure that DG is out working and noone really gives a rats ass about this topic, its just taking up server space.
> Lets just say this..
> We agree to disagree, it will always be that way.
> ...



i don't know where to begin with this post.  really, i can hear the shuffling of feet and rustling of clothes as the people sitting in the same pew shuffle to  distance themselves from your comments.  The entire side of the church has moved leaving you in the middle of a wide open circle.  

special olympics?  retarded?  NOw there is compassion!   what church espouses this ideal of yours?


----------



## Pepper (Jan 23, 2004)

kbm,

That was long and full of assumptions about me that simply are not true. For example, I have no problem with interracial marriages. I have no idea where that comes from.

I will say, I have no issue with gays having some of the aspects of marriage in a legal sense. I don't care if they have a contractual or even a legal relationship. I just do not want it to be called marriage and I do not want to be forced to treat it as such.

Obviously, marriage is abused by many straight couples and also by many professing Christian couples. This does not make me want to further trash the institution by opening it up to homosexuals.

Again, I just grow extremely tired of having everyone's actions forced down my throat in a way that either I have to accept them or be labled a bigot.


----------



## John H. (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Agreed........God made man and woman for each other.....not man and man.....................................
> 
> I believe during his speech last night he said.........if gays are to marry........then they won't receive spousal support, etc...etc.....
> ...


 Hi Babsie. I am BiSexual actually. Babsie, God NEVER said and Christ NEVER said ONE WORD against BiSexuality or Homosexuality - NEVER. Christ was on this earth for 32 years and had plenty of opportunity to say to and NEVER DID ONE TIME! Each of the Sexualities - Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality DO EXIST and always have in Nature and the Natural World of which Human Beings are a part whether we like it or not. It IS a FACT! As with anything else in life and living THERE IS VARIETY, even in Sex. And for reason(s) God knows since He created it all... Since God and Christ NEVER said one word then who is Man to "prohibit" anything on this subject? God speaks FOR HIMSELF and needs no one to speak FOR HIM and I would think NEVER WOULD ALLOW that at ANY TIME. Since God created Man and He is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, etc. I would think He would KNOW MAN and Man's capabilities for doing right and wrong and would NEVER ALLOW someone else to SPEAK FOR HIM given the desire of some Men to control all others even to the point of killing... Read these books (just a couple to start - there are many more that are equally as good): BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press);  FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE and SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN FEMALE, by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and Associates (Indiana University Press). The "Gay Marriage issue" is really about having the same rights and privledges as Heterosexual "couples" have with regard to support, inheritance, sickness and death issues, etc. Marriage is actually a Man-made thing anyway. The Sanctity of it depends ENTIRELY UPON THOSE WHO ARE SO ENGAGED. No law will ever guarantee any "sanctity" of any marriage or union EVER. That can not be legislated. It is in the heart and soul of each individual involved. Take Care, John H.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 23, 2004)

Now how did I know you were going to post?  

May I ask you a question?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> kbm,
> 
> That was long and full of assumptions about me that simply are not true. For example, I have no problem with interracial marriages. I have no idea where that comes from.
> ...




Well, Pepper - that's why I prefaced my remarks by saying that I don't have any idea about who you employ, and then addressed the idea of spousal rights. But I still believe that the assumption that allowing homosexuals to marry will trash the institution of marriage has no basis beyond some biblical interpretation, and thus should have no impact in how a state defines it's laws.

I do agree - it might not be wise for those people to necessarily desire marriage, mostly because some heterosexuals have done a job of trashing the concept of matrimony quite effectively. The point, at least for me, is that the President's remarks did not include those legal or contractual guarantees that would address the damaging practical issues these people face in our society. Because he ignored those issues, his statement for a constitutional amendment was directed as a permanent way to insure that no court could ever interpret deprivation of those benefits as unconstitutional. That's why he doesn't want just a basic "defense of marriage law." In my opinion, he should have immediately addressed those issues in conjunction with that proposal. 

I don't claim that you don't accept interracial marriages - I was only pointing out that your reasoning to deny benefits would historically have been redefined when the laws - and many churches - dictated that marriage was not between a man and a woman, period - they had to be of the same race. Even if you had believed at that time that there was nothing wrong with marriage between races, you would have been prevented from providing spousal benefits simply because the state and/or the church refused to recognize those relationships. 

As for everyone's actions being shoved down your throat, maybe we all have to keep in mind the fact that our own actions are shoved down other people's throats every single day, and we don't think a thing about it. When that gay partner's body is moved hundreds of miles away to another cemetary,  it's OUR values that are shoved down the grieving party's throat, and they don't get a choice about screaming how unjust the action is. . .only reminded that their relationship wasn't "acceptable" to someone else. We don't rush to the government and say "Look...we don't want them to get married, but this treatment is crap. Rewrite the laws first and then explain why we need this marriage recognition amendment so we don't feel threatened." Instead, as a nation, we rush to hysteria, pass a slew of "defense of marriage" acts as if heterosexual benefits are on the brink of destruction, and have a President declare that only an "activist" judge would interpret a state constitution that provides for equal treatment of its citizens as cause for a federal constitutional amendment to codify that discrimination. 

If, for example, you had fallen in love with a woman who others publicly felt was inappropriate for you merely because of physical appearance, and that was repeatedly pointed out to you everywhere you went, would you swallow the idea of making their attitudes codified and supported by many churches and the state? Would you bite the bullet and live with her anyway, knowing you could never marry?
Even if you did, which is what many same-sex couples do, we don't even consider that in states which honor common law marriages among heterosexuals, gay couples are not granted the same kind of legal consideration. That differentiation in benefit acceptance is perhaps the most blatant example of unequal treatment under the law. So, even if you choose to live with a woman and never be legally married, many states will eventually recognize the relationship anyway and allow benefits simply on the basis that you lived together. Some churches might never recognize that you are married - and some other states might temporarily raise the question of whether your common law coexistence has been active long enough to be the basis for marriage benefit consideration.  But your partner would still have the chance of that benefit recognition;  same-sex couples would not.

The difference in that situation is obvious - heterosexual couples who choose to cohabitate are still more likely to eventually receive many marital benefits than same-sex couples who cannot legalize their relationship under any circumstances.

There are obviously a variety of solutions to the issue - we could admit that we've provided entitlements to heterosexuals and expect those who cannot marry to help pay for those without access to any similar benefits, and then remove those benefits for all spouses period,  or we can preserve our concept of the sanctity of marriage by providing some kind of legal means of preserving the dignity of those gay people, KNOWING that the intention is still to deny them the label of being "married." Or we can just let them all get married. The President hasn't expressed any interest in addressing any one of those options with this amendment. 

No proposal has ever attempted to remove spousal benefits or entitlements granted to heterosexual married couples. But, in my mind, an act by a President who is supposed to look after the interests of ALL Americans that doesn't recognize or include provisions to protect basic dignity and human rights for those people IS an attempt to institutionalize bigotry. We should address those legal and contractual guarantees on a federal level before rushing to pass some ridiculous constitutional amendment that serves only to further deny those benefits. 

I think bandaidwoman pointed out in another part of this thread that, in the Netherlands, which has allowed gay marriages for over several years, the divorce rate among gay couples is considerably lower than rates for heterosexual couples. If those statistics are true, it seems to me that the only trashing of the idea of marriage might be the realization of how the rest of us may have not been the best examples of honoring the institution  in the first place. 

The argument here, to me, is not about whether they should be allowed to marry or not. It's the failure of the government to recognize the damages caused by lack of legal recognition and address those before reacting to some paranoid religious hysteria over the definition of "marriage." That, to me, is the bigotry.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 23, 2004)

will one of the non-bigoted, non-intolerant ppl please give me their archie bunker definition of bigot or intolerant so that I can see the error of my ways?


----------



## DFINEST (Jan 23, 2004)

John H......

GOD said "man is not to lay with another man as does with a woman"


----------



## bandaidwoman (Jan 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by DFINEST *_
> John H......
> 
> GOD said "man is not to lay with another man as does with a woman"




People argue about this interpretation all the time.  Also, you cannot obey this law of Leviticus and ignore all the others regarding killing disobedient children, having intercourse with a menstruating woman etc.  Be prepared to follow all the laws and not just a selective few.  
This has been argued in other threads but I will quote some highlights from them and other sources.  



> 1. Leviticus is not where we go for our moral instruction. It is a central thesis of Paul that Jesus has freed us from the Law.
> 
> 2. Leviticus is that book of the Law which has specifically to do with cult--sacrifice, priesthood, ritual purity. It is in this regard that it touches on homosexuality.
> 
> ...



By the way, nowhere in the bible is female homosexuality condemned.  

http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/1999/julaug1999/articles/BibleHomosexuality.shtml


----------



## DFINEST (Jan 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by bandaidwoman *_
> People argue about this interpretation all the time.  Also, you cannot obey this law of Leviticus and ignore all the others regarding killing disobedient children, having intercourse with a menstruating woman etc.  Be prepared to follow all the laws and not just a selective few.



So true bandaidwoman but John H stated that it was 
NOT in the Bible


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 23, 2004)

dfinest,
i do believe that john is correct in that he says that homosexuality is not mentioned in the bible.  It was an interpretation, and not the only one, that brings that into play.
for all those people who continue to quote " the bible tells me to do this", it certainly is a selective lifestyle as you ignore much of what else is in that book in order to preserve the 10% of it that you cling to, sometimes desperately.  the rejoiner, "i'm not perfect but.." or " i'm not a bigot but.."  is always used to explain away the discrepancies.

I just don't understand the hatred.  I don't base my decisions on a person's character by their race, creed, religion or sexual preference.  if you take the time to get to know the person, you will find all sorts of more important reason to hate them.  so why stop at the most obvious one?


----------



## John H. (Jan 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by DFINEST *_
> John H......
> 
> GOD said "man is not to lay with another man as does with a woman"


   Hi DFinest. Actually you are quoting the words of Man not of God. The Bible was written by Man - over 40 and over a long period of time. There was no Bible in the Time of Christ and not for a long time after He existed. And given the "track record" of Man I feel Man is very suspect in anything he writes or does and then "says God said it". People forget that before about 2,000 years ago when Christianity first came about the world existed for MILLIONS of years - MILLIONS of years - and without Christianity for example, and throughout time there have been and I suspose always will be thousands of religions each with their own beliefs - Man's beliefs - in his desire to answer the unanswerable and to find some solice in the unknown and the need to remove the fear of the unknown. I consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES never just one. I am very open minded and very objective about all things and I also remember that we all learn throughout our lives - learning is life long. Like I said God NEVER said. Christ NEVER said - and Christ was on this earth for 32 years and had plenty of opportunity to speak to this subject and NEVER DID. If Homosexuality, for example, was so very wrong He WOULD HAVE SAID SO HIMSELF and probably many times - HE NEVER SAID ONE WORD EVER. So then you must ask yourself why then would Man have any right to whatsoever to speak to this subject and why is he doing this? My best answer through research is to have a means of controlling others which religion and politics have always been famous for. If you can control the Sexual lives of people you can certainly control everything else. It is Man's and Society's and "the powers-that-be" first "time card" and "rules of the road" for power, position, control over others... The Sexualities each exist in Nature and the Natural World of which we all are a part. Like anything else in life and living there is variety here as well and for good reason(s). If people would become truly and accurately and completely educated about Sexuality, for example, the "house of cards" of the religious zealots and the politicians would come tumbling down. For some strange reason Human Beings seem to like to be controlled by others and told what to do - or not - no matter the truthfulness and accuracy of what they are told. There are few "leaders and many "followers". God gave each of us a brain and I would think He would want each of us to utilize that brain to the very best of our abilities and to question all things and everyone - including Him. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Now how did I know you were going to post?
> 
> May I ask you a question?


 Hi Babsie. I actually tried many times to answer your quote and for some reason I was not able to get your post up on this Board to do so - or others - and then answer you... Until now.... I kept trying to "quote" you and then reply and all I could get was a "not able to" reply. After a few days for some strange reason "it took"... Anyway, what's your question? Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 24, 2004)

Here is a book that addresses this subject: SAME-SEX UNIONS IN PRE-MODERN EUROPE, by John Boswell (copyright 1994 if I remember right).


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> God gave each of us a brain and I would think He would want each of us to utilize that brain to the very best of our abilities and to question all things and everyone - including Him. Take Care, John H.



why can't god be a 'she'; why is it always a 'he".  since men wrote the book, they made the rules.  Religion is about ruling people's sexual rights whereas politics/governance/police is about ruling property rights.  Keeping women's sexuality suppressed in the guise of religious propriety is the norm.  
I say let god be a she from here on in and let's see how she does!


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 24, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush to Ban Gay Marriage*



> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> "marriage is a marriage" Oh my...I cannot possibly disagree more.
> 
> So, if gay marriage is allowed, then I, as an employer have to cover the spouse of a gay employee? Hell no.
> ...



hello, 

would you cover the spouse of a philanderer?  since 40% of men cheat on their wife and oddly enough about 40% of women cheat on their husband,  ( but apparently not with each other ) would you even hire these people?  what criteria would there have to be in order for you or what questions would you ask a potential employee so thatyou preserve your revered sanctity of marriage ideals?  

and why do i have to accept anything and everything that you want me to?

and i find it amusing that you say " not trying to tell anyone how to live their life," then you go on to do exactly that....

nice try though.


----------



## firestorm (Jan 26, 2004)

Personnally I don't care what the hell anyone else does.  I have a gay male couple living up the street from me and I'd take them for neighbors anyday over a hell of alot of "straight" married people I know.  In fact the wacky straight couple 2 doors down from them are total wackos and wish THEY would move out. Plus their property looks like the bowels of hell which brings the neighborhood down. They Gay guys property is meticulous and they also give FULL SIZED CANDY BARS OUT ON HALLOWEEN!!!  Damn man I can't descriminate against them man.  I vote to break up their relationship and they are forced to sell the house and I get more wacky neighbors who DON'T give out FULL SIZED CANDY BARS Halloween!!!!  HELL NO.  Give me full sized candybars or give me death!   Ok I'm trying to be funny here and yet get a point across.  They are human beings and moreso....AMERICANS.  I once made statements in another thread that I didn't feel that gays should be entitled to Government programs and such but have since changed my mind.  Hey, they are not ILLEGAL ALIENS! They are Americans!  Like it or not you can't discredit that!   The gay fellas up the street pay the same taxes as I do so they should be entitled to everything I get.  I have also said in the past that I don't feel homosexuality is morally acceptable to me due to my religious beliefs and the way I was raised but like others said, SO who the hell am I to pass judgement.  That is not my job on this planet.  You know the old war time saying:  Kill em all let God sort them out. well that phylosopy stands here.  If there is a God that is Gods problem at the end.  He will direct those whom he feel sinned the big sins or not.  We can say whatever we want and in the end our words mean NOTHING because we will not have a say on the Judgement Day so don't concern yourself with the religious aspects.  It's about legalities PERIOD.  And once again I'll say this.  You may not like your neighbor but he is still an American and pays the same damn taxes as you and he deserves the same rights as you and I.  Amen!  

I must say this was the best post yet.  All  you other peoples post totally suck.  Mine is much more thoughtout and accurate to what is right and what is wrong.  So now I'll just sit back and wait for everyone to agree with everything I just said.  Thank you.   hahahahahahahaha


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

worst episode ever


----------



## firestorm (Jan 26, 2004)

what was the worst episode ever? I hope your not talking about my well written, well thought post young man. lol


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> why can't god be a 'she'; why is it always a 'he".  since men wrote the book, they made the rules.  Religion is about ruling people's sexual rights whereas politics/governance/police is about ruling property rights.  Keeping women's sexuality suppressed in the guise of religious propriety is the norm.
> I say let god be a she from here on in and let's see how she does!


 Hi Marcus. Throughout the years God has always been addressed as "He" - guess I am just doing what others have done... This is how I look at all this - Sexuality is a private matter between people who agree and are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely -  Sex is no one's business - not religion, politics, government, etc. - unless you grant freely that it can be their business. Religion is man-made and each one has their own "thoughts", "feelings", "beliefs", etc. about "whatever". More often than not it is a "crap-shoot" really as to what actually is or is not true...  Governmnent should not enter into the picture and the same with the police unless the people - or some involved - did not give their permission and they were abused....  Take Care, John H.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> Give me full sized candybars or give me death!


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

*Relationships/Sex are a PRIVATE matter*

Relationships/Sex are a PRIVATE matter between people who agree and are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. It is NOT the business of religion, government, police, each of us - UNLESS permission is FREELY granted otherwise. Marriage/unions are between people who consent. EACH should and must have the very same rights. Anything else is discrimination. Religions and government are taking on JUDGING others and passing judgement. THAT is NOT the business of religion and/or goverment. PERIOD. If I "screw" up I will be the one to "pay" in the end. Relgion / government can MAYBE "advise" me of "my wrongdoing" but that is as far as it must go. To do otherwise is to cross the "line". Religion/government must stay out of the private life of people who are in agreement.... Your "bedroom" IS VERY PRIVATE and ONLY YOU and those YOU ALLOW there have any right to be there - NOT RELIGION AND NOT GOVERNMENT. Take Care, John H.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Babsie. I actually tried many times to answer your quote and for some reason I was not able to get your post up on this Board to do so - or others - and then answer you... Until now.... I kept trying to "quote" you and then reply and all I could get was a "not able to" reply. After a few days for some strange reason "it took"... Anyway, what's your question? Take Care, John H.




You don't have to answer this......I'm curious.

What made you the person you are today?  When did you know you were bi-sexual and how did you deal with it?

Again dear, you don't have to answer.  If you'd like, you can send your response via PM.

Thanks,
Babs


----------



## Pepper (Jan 26, 2004)

John H....

You keep repeating two things in several threads that are just wrong.

1) the Bible was written by man, but inspired by God. The Bible is God's word. 
2) the OT was written well before the time of Christ. The OT was the Bible at that point. It is further believed that the first five books of the Bible were "the Bible" to the Hebrew people of the OT.

I agree that it is not my busines what you do in your bedroom. However, I do have a right to defend marriage. You are not asking for me to stay out of your bedroom, I would do that. You are asking me to let gays into marriage. My resisting that is not bigoted it is not discrimination...it is protecting marriage.

It is clear to me that many gays will not be happy until everyone accepts their lifestyle. And it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> You don't have to answer this......I'm curious.
> 
> What made you the person you are today?  When did you know you were bi-sexual and how did you deal with it?
> ...


 Hi Babsie. I have always liked people - Human Beings. Men and Women. To me it is all about honesty with people and honestly caring about them. The Gender of a person has absolutely nothing to do with it unless of course you are wanting to bring new life into this world. At first I was very concerned and wondered... then I thought I would read what was "out there" about it and also from observing life and living , asking questions, etc. I learned too. There is A LOT OF BULL with regard to Sex and Sexuality that is nothing BUT BULL. And that misinformation, outright lying, bigotry, hatred, etc. is religious in origin and VERY COUNTER to the reality. Heterosexuality, BiSexuality AND Homosexuality ARE a very natural part of life - variety - variation - as with anything else in life. Each do exist in Nature and the Natural World. Each have their purpose(s). The more I learned and read the more I felt LESS "what's wrong with me" because I began to see and to understand the whole picture. I am completely fine with my BiSexuality and know it is another Gift from God and no different than any other variation in life and in living. As for when did I "know" - in my early teens I guess but what really "struck me" was the "attitude of other people" towards others with respect to Sexuality, Race, etc. The more I researched the more I saw that people just "like having someone" to run down for any reason and that it is NOT based on facts, accuracy, reality, etc. People are going to hate just to hate because many just like hating. THEIR lives usually are so miserable the only way they can feel better about themselves is to try to make someone else more miserable then themselves and then THEY "feel better".... I look at all things with an open mind and very objectively and consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES ALL THE TIME.  Opening "doors" and honestly and accurately learning has been my "best partner". You wouldn't believe how much better you feel about yourself the more you learn in ALL areas of everything. The "fear(s)" melt away because you begin to HONESTLY UNDERSTAND AND GRASP life and living.  Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Pepper *_
> John H....
> 
> You keep repeating two things in several threads that are just wrong.
> ...


 Hi Pepper. The Bible WAS WRITTEN BY MEN. You say "inspired by God" - you must ask yourself what "inspired by" REALLY means. I can tell you that IF I were God and I created Man and I know all, love all, etc. I would NEVER ALLOW MEN to SPEAK FOR ME but would SPEAK FOR MYSELF especially on very important things. Man is not always capable or willing to speak truthfully and/or accurately. There are THOUSANDS of religions (created by MAN) each with their own "beliefs", etc. More hatred, killing, murder, unhappiness, etc. has BEEN CAUSED BY "religion" and "politics" than for any other reason in the history of the world. I see religion as being a form of insanity more often than not. I am NOT saying ALL religion is all "bad" but it SURE GETS VERY OUT OF CONTROL real fast! Look HONESTLY AND CLEARLY  at the history and past practices - and even present practices of "religion" to see what I mean and what I am saying and the "religious leaders" and how they "operate" past and present. There IS a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between "religion" and God/Christ - a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE and I feel a lot of lying is what is really going on with respect to "religion" in an effort to control and manipulate others and control them and their "riches" really.  I feel the real things God/Christ REALLY WANT for all of us have absolutely nothing to do with any of the religions that "religions" are just using God/Christ to their own end.

As for the Old Testament, it is nothing more than the old Jewish law books. A religious article of one religion. Each religion has their own "religious articles"... The Bible as we know it today did not come about until the invention fo the printing press about 1350 A. D. There was no "Bible" in the Time of Christ actually. 

(For the benefit of those who do not like my "long paragraphs" I FINALLY found someone to show me how you "break up" my statements into paragraphs for easier reading. Every time I tried doing that myself I ended up loosing what I wrote. I am NOT a "computer wiz" and never will be - but I try my best....)

As for the "defense of marriage" I feel marriage NEEDS NO "defense" actually. The sacredness and meaning of a marriage between people is ENTIRELY WITHIN THEMSELVES. The sacredness and sanctity IS WITHIN those involved. You can NOT "legislate" it. I feel "legislating" is actually a form of demeaning. I feel ALL people should and must be able - if they want - to join in a "marriage" or a "union" and that EVERYONE so engaged be able and have the VERY SAME benefits. 

As for "Gays" wanting "everyone to accept them" I feel you will find what they are REALLY WANTING is just the same legal, social, etc. "abilities" all people who are "not Gay" can "enjoy" such as insurance, home-life, visitation rites, benefits, inheritance, etc. They do NOT want anyone in "their bedroom" anymore then you or I want them in "ours" actually. People WHO AGREE to "join" in a "union" to live life together because they CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER HONESTLY should ALWAYS BE THEIR BUSINESS and NEVER the business of someone else, government, religion, etc. as long as they are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. I do not feel they are out to "destroy marriage" as it is "currently viewed" at all - quite the opposite actually... 

To make it very simple and even agreeable to people I think there should be "marriage" between a Male and a Female and a "union" between all others EVERYONE HAVING the very same benefits. Afterall we are ONLY applying "words" or "terms" to "what is". Marriage is actually a Man-made "institution" anyway. Given the disrespect many have for the "institution of marriage" today I would not want to be "married" anyway. I would want all people who CARED to know to KNOW I CARED HONESTLY AND COMPLETELY about the person I wanted to share my life with. I personally do not care what that "is called" as long as I can have the same "benefits" as everyone else is all. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 26, 2004)

WOW!  Thanks for sharing.  It all makes sense!

May I ask another?


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> WOW!  Thanks for sharing.  It all makes sense!
> 
> May I ask another?


 Hi Babsie. Ask away. I have nothing to hide from anyone. Take Care, John H.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 26, 2004)

With your experience being Bi-Sexual.  What do you find sexually appeasing or not so appeasing when being with a female or male?
Thanks.......Babs


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 26, 2004)

I get the feeling, perhaps in John H.'s case, that his appeal for others is based on what he discovers inside them rather than the physical manner in which that soul is packaged. 

Several years ago, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine about his attraction, and that is the kind of response he provided. I felt a bit embarassed, actually - it made me feel like my own instinctive desires and love were more shallowly based.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I get the feeling, perhaps in John H.'s case, that his appeal for others is based on what he discovers inside them rather than the physical manner in which that soul is packaged.
> 
> Several years ago, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine about his attraction, and that is the kind of response he provided. I felt a bit embarassed, actually - it made me feel like my own instinctive desires and love were more shallowly based.



the fact that you felt embarassed is a good sign as many others would get aggressively confrontational.  It is very hard to be different and not be shallow;  to not judge people on whether they have good taste ( by whose definition), to love someone based upon inherent or intrinsic values rather than on material or extrinsic values.  When your decisions are based upon an internal motivation rather than external, and you come to understand that the decisions of your children or partners or friends in no way make you look good or bad, you will have made the first step.  

There is always someone at this point who makes some disparaging comment about how this is like the shit from Kung Fu : they always quotes grasshopper's master from the television show Kung Fu ; as in " take the pebble from my hand " type of thing.  They just don't get it.    And they never will yet to keep their own lifepurpose going, they must belittle another person's chosen path.  As otherwise, to view oneself as selfish, shallow, superficial, racist, bigoted or intolerant ( anyone one of them or all of them )  is not a choice that most people would like to make.   It is the vocabulary of motive one uses to describe their actions;  a person having committed an evil act does not wish to view herself as evil so they come up with some other more reasonable explanation for their actions.  Evil is not a choice most people would make.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 26, 2004)

it's so funny how far this thread has gone.


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> With your experience being Bi-Sexual.  What do you find sexually appeasing or not so appeasing when being with a female or male?
> Thanks.......Babs


 Hi Babsie. Do you mean "appeasing" or "appealing"? I do not try to "appease" anyone for that is in my mind being untruthful. "Appealing" encompases the entire person, their physical, mental, etc. I get to KNOW the person completely AND them me - and then "whatever" we agree on.... If I CARE about someone - Male or Female - I DO and THEY KNOW IT WITHOUT QUESTION. I would NOT have it any other way. This includes Sexually. If it is a "first time" it will NOT be the "last time" because I always think of the other person first whenever and DO whatever it takes to cause them to BE VERY HAPPY COMPLETELY and I want them to NEVER FORGET we were together and always want to be. I NEVER use and / or abuse others in any form or fashion and will not allow that to happen to me either. The "beauty" and "honesty" of a person - totally speaking - is important to me. Male and/or female. Take Care, John H.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> it's so funny how far this thread has gone.



This is exactly the purpose behind Bush spending time on in during his speech.  it is avery polarizing issue, meant to distract people away from more pressing issues that affect everyone every single day of their lives.  

No one wants to talk about the hundreds of thousand of dollars spent each month propping up flimsy dictatorships,  millions spent on shoddy deals, misappropriation of funds,  the 1000s of people starving each day on your streets.  you have 6 500 000 homeless people at any given time.  the education system is a complete mess yet only piecemeal attempts at improvement are made.  You have close to 300 000 000 people yet close to 50 million have no health care.  the money spent on one war could have been enough to have health care for everyone for at least 20 years.  

people start to roll their eyes whenever these comments are made.  But talk about butt fuqqing or some guy blowing another guy and we stop to listen.  This is the problem actually-  homosexuality is not always about sex although it's a part as much as it is a part in heterosexual life- albeit with not so much guilt and difficulty as there seems to be in heterosexual life.   

And it is always male homosexuals that cause so many people to become uneasy!  the interpretation is that Christian god seems to disfavor male homosexuals yet ignores female homosexuals.  Absence of evidence against does not mean you can assume that female homosexuality is favored yet it does seem that one can make a safe bet.     god must be a horn dog male.


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> I get the feeling, perhaps in John H.'s case, that his appeal for others is based on what he discovers inside them rather than the physical manner in which that soul is packaged.
> 
> Several years ago, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine about his attraction, and that is the kind of response he provided. I felt a bit embarassed, actually - it made me feel like my own instinctive desires and love were more shallowly based.


 Hi Kbm. Believe me I am NOT trying to embarass or have anyone feel "bad" for any reason. I can only say how I am - I DO consider the ENTIRELY of a person - Male and / or Female. I see PEOPLE - HUMAN BEINGS, NOT someone to use and / or abuse, their Gender, etc. HUMAN BEINGS. People I am capable of loving and them me. I want real friendships and relationships not just "another" or "run-of-the-mill".... I KNOW Men right now that are my very best friends and some of them I have had knock-down drag-out fights with BEFORE they KNEW ME and we are NOW damn good friends for having gotten to know each other. Yea it took a battle to get to that point but on reflection it was the only way - for them - I guess. I have had people criticize me for "whatever" but it was because they did NOT REALLY KNOW ME. If I care about someone - Male or Female - I DO - PERIOD. They WILL find that out without question! That is how I am. And I speak truthfully about anything. I am an adult and I speak as an adult. I question everything and everybody. That IS how people really learn. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> This is exactly the purpose behind Bush spending time on in during his speech.  it is avery polarizing issue, meant to distract people away from more pressing issues that affect everyone every single day of their lives.
> 
> No one wants to talk about the hundreds of thousand of dollars spent each month propping up flimsy dictatorships,  millions spent on shoddy deals, misappropriation of funds,  the 1000s of people starving each day on your streets.  you have 6 500 000 homeless people at any given time.  the education system is a complete mess yet only piecemeal attempts at improvement are made.  You have close to 400 000 000 people yet only about 60 million have adequate health care.  the money spent on one war could have been enough to have health care for everyone for at least 20 years.
> ...


 Hi Marcus. Yep! It used to be that Black People were damned and downed and murdered... (ALL very wrong and very much BS)  - more often then they now are - now it is people who are Homosexual or BiSexual. And RELIGION IS ENTIRELY BEHIND IT ALL. NOT God and NOT Christ. If you take people's attention way from something important and something they really need because you (meaning Bush, etc.) really do not have an honest and helpful and truthful answer(s) and "jump on the bandwagon" of damning a certain segment of the population you end up "throwing some to the lions" to appease the general population. People ARE AFTER BLOOD - they really are UNHAPPY and have damn good reason(s) for that and if someone throws them a "bone" they will scarf it up immediately but the REAL PROBLEMS STILL EXIST AND DO NOT GO AWAY... People do this many times to themselves through ignorance and evern stupidity and fear. Politicians and religious leaders KNOW how to manipulate people. They have always been "strange bedfellows" throughout history. Take Care, John H.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 26, 2004)

aww...it's all good to me, John H...and Marcus. It was good for me to feel a bit embarassed at the time about myself - it gave me a chance to better understand his motivations and get to know him better, and to gain a better understanding of my own sense of self and the world. I also felt pretty honored that he would take the time to explain something so personal to me, and to trust me enough to believe I would understand. 

I meant my statement to indicate a degree of admiration for people who can instinctively care so well that way. And yeah, Marcus - I realized after a time that it wasn't a positive or negative reinforcement of my own desires.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Jan 26, 2004)

Bush has done some stupid things (like every other president before him) like sending billions to Africa for AIDS and legalizing Mexicans, but no one can rightfully claim that any other president can do better.  Thay all mess up.  The poor will always be poor and the education system will always be in shambles.  There's little we can do.


----------



## John H. (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> Bush has done some stupid things (like every other president before him) like sending billions to Africa for AIDS and legalizing Mexicans, but no one can rightfully claim that any other president can do better.  Thay all mess up.  The poor will always be poor and the education system will always be in shambles.  There's little we can do.


 Hi The. If we do not try to make things better they will get worse. Nothing worthwhile - as with Bodybuilding too - is ever necessarily "easy" but WELL WORTH THE WORK to make it all better. Take Care, John H.


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

Just a few comments:

Just as gays/lesbians often feel that they are judged unfairly... I believe that some of you are making the same mistake with Bush.  Its easy to assume that he is doing things for <insert reason that we desire most to blame him for here>, but to be fair, we know very little about whats going on, politics involved, what his reasons are, etc.  Now, we could certainly say that he should be more honest, and perhaps he should... but then realize that being completely honest in politics is not always beneficial, and certainly not always productive.  We'd like to think it is, but to be fair I dont believe its that cut and dry.  Anyhow, you certainly have ligitimate complaints, as any of us do... but for any of us to say that Gore would have been a better president, or the next one will do better, etc... is looking down a path we cant see, and problematic.  Either way, I agree that Bush has made some mistakes, but I'd also say that he has done a very good job in other things.  Does he have an agenda that he is pushing?  Sure... as you would if you were in his position.  The difference is that you believe your agenda to be valid and his to not be, so you dont agree with him pushing his.  If you were in his position, there would be just as many people complaining about your agenda.  Thems the apples you get when your president.

As to religion... you can blame it for whatever you want to, but religion in and of itself is not the true issue here.  Its merely a vehicle for it.  The real issue at stake is that man loves to hate.  He thrives on it unfortunately.  I certainly wish it werent so, it would make this world a happier place... but in this world that we live in, man will find a vehicle for his hate, whether it be religion, racism, classism, etc.

As to people being able to do any acts that they want to as long as they are alone:  
1.  How about if I like my mate to beat me excessively?  Kick me in the face... put me in the hospital kinda stuff.  Is that okay if its my choice?
2. What happens if there is a 13 or 14 year old male/female that likes an older person, say 21 or 22.  Because they are both consenting, should a sexual relationship be allowed between them?  Why or why not?

There are more questions that could be asked... but I'd just as soon not.  So what does consent really do to validate the legitimacy of a relationship?  And if you have something against the afore mentioned, why do you believe you have the right to judge someone else?  You find your case to be an exception though and that it should be allowed?  Perhaps that is because it is self serving?

I dont really have anything against homosexuals guys, just asking questions 

As to bisexuals, ya double dip your chips too dont ya  (Ahh, just my attempt at being humorous, no offense intended  ).


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> Bush has done some stupid things (like every other president before him) like sending billions to Africa for AIDS and legalizing Mexicans, but no one can rightfully claim that any other president can do better.  Thay all mess up.  The poor will always be poor and the education system will always be in shambles.  There's little we can do.



 welcome back maddog.   glad to see you again. thanks for your input!!


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Just a few comments:
> 
> ... Either way, I agree that Bush has made some mistakes, but I'd also say that he has done a very good job in other things.  Does he have an agenda that he is pushing?  Sure... as you would if you were in his position.  The difference is that you believe your agenda to be valid and his to not be, so you dont agree with him pushing his.  If you were in his position, there would be just as many people complaining about your agenda.  Thems the apples you get when your president.
> ...



wow,  hard to know where to start;
you equate a loving balanced relationship between two women or two men with pedophilia.  you compare a very imbalanced sexual relationship between a person in power ( the older person general ) and a subordinate with a union of two people who wish to be together, living in harmony, free of outside hatred and abuse.  you compare a masochistic/sadistic relationship or bondage/discipline lifestyle with discrimination against homosexuals.  hard to believe what else lay in that fervent mind of yours.  

If you cannot see the difference between your two examples and the fact that a group of people are being discriminated against  then there is nothing anyone can say to you.  


your first paragraph is completely absurd as few people if any have digressed to talk about Gore or any of the past presidents.  

it's funny again that the person being blighted is accused of being self serving for not wishing to be demeaned or denied existence.  This is the strategy of those who have nothing left with which to argue their point.  it is not heterosexuals who are being denied their due,  no one is beating up or murdering heterosexuals for their sexuality.  there is very little " straight bashing " going on.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> welcome back maddog.   glad to see you again. thanks for your input!!



You attribute this quote to me and it was written by someone else.  Are you delirious or playing your ploy again??


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> wow,  hard to know where to start;
> you equate a loving balanced relationship between two women or two men with pedophilia.  you compare a very imbalanced sexual relationship between a person in power ( the older person general ) and a subordinate with a union of two people who wish to be together, living in harmony, free of outside hatred and abuse.  you compare a masochistic/sadistic relationship or bondage/discipline lifestyle with discrimination against homosexuals.  hard to believe what else lay in that fervent mind of yours.
> 
> If you cannot see the difference between your two examples and the fact that a group of people are being discriminated against  then there is nothing anyone can say to you.



Get off it   I was asking you questions, not attacking you.  You've grown a bit accustomed to playing the victim havent you?  Why dont you get over it and come into the grown ups world where we can have discussions without running off to cry in a corner.



> your first paragraph is completely absurd as few people if any have digressed to talk about Gore or any of the past presidents.



Your piss poor attitute is absurd.  I was stating that Bush is not necessarily any worse a president than most we've had... which is absolutely relevant being that he has received a bit of flack in this thread.



> it's funny again that the person being blighted is accused of being self serving for not wishing to be demeaned or denied existence.  This is the strategy of those who have nothing left with which to argue their point.  it is not heterosexuals who are being denied their due,  no one is beating up or murdering heterosexuals for their sexuality.  there is very little " straight bashing " going on.



Once again, you're playing the victim.  Its good when you're begging for money on the side of a road, but not necessarily productive when discussing something.  I was asking questions, not asking you to feel sorry for yourself.  Do you think that those people that I brought up do not see themselves as being mistreated?  I believe they do, and they probably use the same thoughts that you do to rationalize why you are a victim.  That was my point... and the point that follows is: What makes your point more valid than theirs?  As I said, I wasnt trying bash you, as you'd like to imagine, but instead to understand your rationale for the opinion that you have.

If you have an answer, then please post so... if you're going to cry about being a victim or attack me, then please dont waste my time and just say that you cant make a response of any value.

Thanks.


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

Let me clarify this so its less offensive for you Marcus -

There are alot of people in the world that believe themselves to be treated unfairly.  Some indeed are, some are not.  Why do you believe that it is okay for you to step outside of societals norms more than others that you think should not be able to?  What quantifies this?

I dont really care to discuss the falacies committed in your previous response... if you have a logical response though I'd love to hear it.  Its not even really to convince me, I dont have a problem with homosexuals.  Instead I'm just interested in your reasoning.  Thanks.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm not sure I would view a state constitution's equal protection clause as an "agenda." And since states have characteristically been assigned the task of performing and 'sanctifying" marriage outside the churches, there are other reasons to suddenly make this a federal executive branch decision. 

It's interesting to note here that the context of the subject of state-sanctioned rights and homosexuality is brought up here in an example comparison of minor consent and sado-masochism. as if this would be some kind of new "rights" assertion. Physical injury situations and relationships involving age of consent policies are rather well-defined under state laws, mostly because the issues have been addressed involving heterosexual behavior.(Incidentally, some states have had different age of consent laws).  Is a wife who is beaten forced to divorce her husband? Can you marry a first or second cousin in some states? 

At issue are situations in which there are no legal protections or recognition. For example, hospitals with a policy of no visitation unless you are an immediate family member can and do legally restrict life partners from seeing each other. State regulations governing arrangements of funerals and burials instruct practitioners to accept arrangements according to the "family" wishes. At times, wills, some insurance policies, property rights and power of attorney assignments to partners  have been contested based on the lack of legal recognition of the existence of those relationships. The most common explanation is stated as "because you aren't (can't) be married," or "because you aren't immediate family." Naturally, this group would seek redress by asking for that right if it would be the only means to rectify the situation. 

Even though heterosexual common law relationships, which are generally forged by choice rather than imposition, have a higher chance of being able to protect their choices in regards to personal property and benefits, simply because of the nature of their gender. While they have to face some similar obstacles involving benefits, they are more apt to be recognized by States and court systems as having grounds for legitimacy. 

The complaint about President Bush is that he made a blanket statement involving proposal of a federal constitutional amendment designed to codify restrictions of those rights and override provisions in state constitutions. In doing so, he made no statement even acknowledging the real issues that the state court in question was bound to address by it's jurisdiction. Since the President swore on the Bible upon his inaugeration to uphold the Constitution (with its own equal protection clause), it was a curious issue to address in such a complete manner, and one in which the federal government traditionally leaves to the States.

While it is difficult for any President to balance issues that are of a pressing nature to the population, there is a difference between the opposition to a concept (like gay marriage) based on personal or religious principle and the responsibility to acknowledge the practical damages to American lives because of the way existing laws have been defined. 

States began regulating marriage for many reasons, among them the desire to promote social stability, provide a family structure, allow men and women to enter matrimony despite individual church regulations that would otherwise prohibit the union, and assign benefits to keep good order and encourage a stable community. Courts entered the picture when individual choices in partnership were restricted because of laws or customs that prevented men and women of different races or faiths to marry, etc. 

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court said that "marriage is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." (381 U.S. 479). 

It also appears that the Supreme Court stepped in when certain states restricted the fundamental right to marry. Citing that marriage is a "basic civil right of man," the Court has held state miscegenation laws as unconstitutional, has removed unreasonable burdens on an individual's decision to marry (because of financial obligations) but also strongly reinforced the State's right to create the conditions (blood tests, benefits) upon which the marriage relations between its citizens be determined and the causes for which it can be dissolved.

There have been three constitutional principles applied to the right of Americans to marry. One involves, in large part, the right to privacy. In Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974), the Supreme Court held that it "has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (414 U.S. 632). Another derives from freedom of intimate association, and legal decisions over the years have recognized that as fundamental in limiting state authority to influence or force those associations. The Court explained this in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) by stating that "certain kinds of highly personal relationships. . . act as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State." This may partially explain such policies that prevent forcing one spouse from testifying against another one in court. It also would mean that the State needs to provide compelling reasons why an intimate association would create hardship, such as in reasons to regulate close relatives from marrying because of the likelihood of birth defects. On the other hand, the right to marriage has never been restricted to the concept of procreation. States cannot prevent infertile persons from marriage or force them to bear children. 


The third basic constitutional tenet involves the promotion of family and social stability. This is the area which seems to trigger the most dramatic opposition to same-sex relationships. The argument of procreation and protection of "traditional values" has little merit beyond exercise as a prejudicial fear. In many cases, the Court has viewed that the State must advance some justification for a law beyond it's conformity to religious doctrine.

What might be more interesting to understand is that some state constitutions surpass the federal constitution in the definition of basic human rights of citizenry. It appears that in both the Vermont and the Massachusetts situations, the state Supreme Courts were faced with interpretation of state constitutional guarantees that, while not contradicting the federal Constitution, more clearly explained equal treatment of residents of their States. I believe that the state legislature in Massachusetts is currently attempting to forge a compromise that would establish civil unions rather than marriage. They aren't going to, at least not at this time, amend their constitution.

The panic among other states (and, apparently, the President) has been over how states traditionally recognize the marriages of sister states. Thus we saw the quick and emotion-charged passage of "Defense of Marriage" acts. The constitutional amendment the President mentioned is designed to supercede any equal protection rights that may be challenged in other states  and apparently override any decisions an individual State might choose to make.


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

Excellent response Kbm 

I agree with what you say... but I do think that a constitutional amendment is important in this case.  Not actually what Bush is suggesting though.  In reality, Homosexuals are here to stay and will be a part of this nation whether allowed to do so or not by any rule or regulation.  The federal government needs to realize this and put forth workable parameters for the situation so that progress can be made.  The end product would perhaps need to include a mixture of protective measures and limitations if they indeed apply.

I'm not sure if I see it happening in this presidency or the next as the light is not particularily shining on it favorably at this time.  We shall see.

Thanks for the post, it was very well thought out!


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 26, 2004)

kbm, it looks like good research, but since I dislike the field of law and saw the case references, I just gleaned over.  I take it you are for the ban, based on some agreement by the Eggs "consortium"??


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

Haha, you might want to read his post all the way through maddog, it would do you some good


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

Being able to argue what you believe is a great thing.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by maddog1 *_
> You attribute this quote to me and it was written by someone else.  Are you delirious or playing your ploy again??


hello


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

*concrete thinking*



> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Let me clarify this so its less offensive for you Marcus -
> 
> There are alot of people in the world that believe themselves to be treated unfairly.  Some indeed are, some are not.  Why do you believe that it is okay for you to step outside of societals norms more than others that you think should not be able to?  What quantifies this?
> ...


once again, a person's ( your ) penchant to see things as being exclusively about themself ( you ) lead you to the erroneous conclusion that i was talking about you in one situation and myself in another.  

the person or people being blighted in this case is not me but rather the people who are being confounded in their attempt at freedom.  it was about neither you nor I.  I, being white and straight have been afforded a number of luxuries for which i am eternally grateful.  Luxuries that are being denied others for no apparent reason other than sexual orientation in this case but in times past, it was based upon race or religion or other more nebulous attributes. 

as for societal norms and stepping outside- indeed.

I have not been treated unfairly; however  there exists a group of people who have been.  i have merely pointed that fact out.    That others do not wish to admit or address this is beyond my abilities to repair.  

i love your liine of reasoning;  your use of indefensible extreme examples of social intereaction to illustrate your point is brilliant.  I immediately see the connection between these sorts of relationship and one in which both partners share equally their commitments and trust. 

There is no argument in this issue- each person believes whatever construct that allows them to get thru the day living in their own skin.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Being able to argue what you believe is a great thing.


yes it is.  great to live in north america!!


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

A select portion of South America is supposedly getting better day to day as well... In the end we may envy them, they have better beaches


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

*Re: concrete thinking*

This is such a charged topic that it is always interesting to step into 



> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> once again, a person's ( your ) penchant to see things as being exclusively about themself ( you ) lead you to the erroneous conclusion that i was talking about you in one situation and myself in another.



I could have made it more ambiguous MM, but wasnt thinking about it... must have figured that you were either homosexual, or were not and would not take it as an insult to be referred to as one.  Not a big deal, I'll be more specific next time.



> the person or people being blighted in this case is not me but rather the people who are being confounded in their attempt at freedom.  it was about neither you nor I.  I, being white and straight have been afforded a number of luxuries for which i am eternally grateful.  Luxuries that are being denied others for no apparent reason other than sexual orientation in this case but in times past, it was based upon race or religion or other more nebulous attributes.



I am white and straight too... I am perhaps not quite so used to the lap of luxury though.  Where I grew up I was one of 2 white people in my school.  I am quite aware of what it is to be different, when as a child I hopingly asked my parents if I had a little black in me in the hopes of feeling less the outsider.  I dont think we are necessarily dealing in luxuries here though.  Indeed, I could care less about the equality of luxuries.  However, when it comes to basic human rights (if indeed that is the issue), then thats a whole different ball park.



> I have not been treated unfairly; however  there exists a group of people who have been.  i have merely pointed that fact out.    That others do not wish to admit or address this is beyond my abilities to repair.



That is so, but we are afforded the luxury of being able to talk about it.



> i love your liine of reasoning;  your use of indefensible extreme examples of social intereaction to illustrate your point is brilliant.  I immediately see the connection between these sorts of relationship and one in which both partners share equally their commitments and trust.



Both the groups I mentioned and homosexuals can share equally in their commitments and trust.  My point was simply where do we draw the line?  And why?



> There is no argument in this issue- each person believes whatever construct that allows them to get thru the day living in their own skin.



Its not truly as simple as that I believe, but it does have a nice ring to it.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Haha, you might want to read his post all the way through maddog, it would do you some good


yeah, I should, but I read alot of technical stuff all day at work and am just looking for a bit of escapism here, not a treatise like some do offer, which is great of course.


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

Ah well, point taken.  So what do you do?


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 26, 2004)

I do a combination of biochem and software engineering work.
(If I had my choice, I'd deliver new sailing yachts from France to the east coast though). Such is life.
To stay on subject, I at least have to respect the ability for some to articulate their position, whether agreeable or not.


----------



## Eggs (Jan 26, 2004)

Understandable, argument rather than force is certainly to be commended.

That does sound like an ideal job... though it also wouldnt be so bad just having the money to travel the Med/Caribbean and visit the ports.  I'd say working for a charter organization would be great, but then you'd not always have a choice of those that you interact with.  Which most definitely could take half the fun out of it.  Used to sail in Southern California... but one of my favorite sailing trips was just a day trip in the Chesapeake.  It was a hot summer day and I and the rest of the group hung off the back on a rope and enjoyed the water.  Now thats the life.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 26, 2004)

Chesapeake is nice, Severn river and the Academy...Bay Bridge.
One of my favorite places.


----------



## firestorm (Jan 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Babsie. Ask away. I have nothing to hide from anyone. Take Care, John H.




Nothing to hide? Ask away?  OK!!!  Umm John to you like to give or recieve?  hahaha   Just kidding my man,,, I couldn't control my humor there.  I hate when I do that.


----------



## John H. (Jan 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> Nothing to hide? Ask away?  OK!!!  Umm John to you like to give or recieve?  hahaha   Just kidding my man,,, I couldn't control my humor there.  I hate when I do that.


 Hi Firestorm. I love humor and people who can laugh and sincerely so especially from their heart and soul. To be serious though, when I get to KNOW someone and they me it depends entirely upon EACH of us. REAL LOVE transcends all ... And is all encompassing. It does not lie. It is sacred as is each person. The "viciousness of Sex" is when people use and / or abuse another JUST for personal "gratification" without any regard whatsoever for the other person. And THAT is disrespectful, dishonorable, etc. I can "see" and "understand" persons wanting to "experiment" the variety that is available but IN A LOVING AND HONESTLY CARING foundation. Many people just "get their rocks off" and "move on to the next person". THAT is demeaning to Sex and to EACH person involved therein. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jan 27, 2004)

*Need and Desire of Equal rights...*

The need and desire of equal rights is something ALL people require to live and breathe. No one should ever be denied those equal rights. People who bitch about those who scream FOR THEIR RIGHTS,  HAVE THEIR RIGHTS and so do NOT understand or know or maybe even care what it is like NOT HAVING basic rights. Because THEY HAVE THEIR RIGHTS!! The same applies to someone who is ill or injured. ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED the pain KNOW what it is like to be ill or injured and those that  never have HAVE NO REAL DESIRE to CARE about OTHER PEOPLE and their lack of rights or of good health - generally speaking - UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO THEM!!!!! The same applies to people who HAVE money - they generally could care less about those who are suffering and more often than not have so desire and/or are not even remotely cognizant of what it is like to do without or be without. It is ONLY when those who are MORE "fortunate" are MADE to SEE AND UNDERSTAND what it is like NOT HAVING their basic rights or health that others even begin to "care" to any measure. Take Care, John H.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 27, 2004)

*Canada and the turks /Caicos isles*



> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> 
> That does sound like an ideal job... though it also wouldnt be so bad just having the money to travel the Med/Caribbean and visit the ports.  I'd say working for a charter organization would be great, but then you'd not always have a choice of those that you interact with.  Which most definitely could take half the fun out of it.  Used to sail in Southern California... but one of my favorite sailing trips was just a day trip in the Chesapeake.  It was a hot summer day and I and the rest of the group hung off the back on a rope and enjoyed the water.  Now thats the life.



tell this to the canadian prime minister;  they is a slight chance that Canada may take these caribbean islands as a canadian territory.  this would be great, especially since it is 28 degrees Celsius ( 80-85 F ) there while it is -28 degrees Celsius ( freezing cold in any scale. )here on the East Coast.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Yeah, I have it on good authority that Bush is gonna take Canada as the 51st state and turn it into a chien de traineaux colony.
I can't wait.
It will really help the local economy, as many of you can become guides.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 27, 2004)

hey maddog, you can be the first person on the back of my dog sled!   i won't charge you too much....


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Oh good, I usually take 6 chien just myself.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 27, 2004)

so do you keep sib huskies or malamutes?  or a mix of them both?


----------



## BabsieGirl (Jan 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Firestorm. I love humor and people who can laugh and sincerely so especially from their heart and soul. To be serious though, when I get to KNOW someone and they me it depends entirely upon EACH of us. REAL LOVE transcends all ... And is all encompassing. It does not lie. It is sacred as is each person. The "viciousness of Sex" is when people use and / or abuse another JUST for personal "gratification" without any regard whatsoever for the other person. And THAT is disrespectful, dishonorable, etc. I can "see" and "understand" persons wanting to "experiment" the variety that is available but IN A LOVING AND HONESTLY CARING foundation. Many people just "get their rocks off" and "move on to the next person". THAT is demeaning to Sex and to EACH person involved therein. Take Care, John H.




Okay....................

So........honestly.........with your experience, do you think men give oral better than women? If so or no, why?  

I'm thinking they would because they know from experience what feels good.  What to do and what NOT to do........

I won't get grossed out.......details baby!


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by MarcusMaximus *_
> so do you keep sib huskies or malamutes?  or a mix of them both?


Don't have any myself, only when I go to Quebec, They usually put the malumutes in the rear and the "smaller" huskies up front.
Those dogs live to run.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 27, 2004)

i know,  ain't it a blast to watch them?  friends of ours keep 12 huskies at her home.  she makes her own sled, has all the gear, bandsaws and benders in her basement.  this is rather extreme as few other people do this.  actually few people in canada actually dogsled relative to the 25 million canadians.  most are up north  ( ont or Que ) or NWT / yukon or nunavut.


----------



## maddog1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Most people don't realize it really is a demanding sport, especially on narrow trails....The dogs don't care if they slingshoot you into a tree.  It is like skiing but on flat ground.  And they only know GO, you have to stand on the brake to stop them, if you are lucky.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Jan 27, 2004)

there is actually a sport  called ski jouring which is essentially what you just described.  the dog pulls you while you are on cross country skis!  it's crazy wild but fun as hell.  i've only done it once when I met a fellow who had the gear here in town.  fast.  no brakes.


----------



## firestorm (Jan 31, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Okay....................
> 
> So........honestly.........with your experience, do you think men give oral better than women? If so or no, why?
> ...



OMG BABS YOUR TOO FUQING FUNNY GIRL!!! HAHAHAHAHA  Damn Babs you just throw it right out there dontcha???? hahahaha   Your my kinda gal for sure.  I'd love to toss back a few beers with you and talk man talk. hahahaha


----------



## John H. (Feb 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Okay....................
> 
> So........honestly.........with your experience, do you think men give oral better than women? If so or no, why?
> ...


 Hi Babsie. (Did I answer this already?) I thought I did? But I do not see an answer here? I can tell you that Men DO know MEN and that they would be more likely to know what to do or not and how. IF they truly care for the other person - like anyone I guess - they WOULD DO their very best and paying attention to reactions and sounds are among the best ways to know if you are doing right by someone. Taking THEM into consideration before yourself to me is very important and is how you both end up understanding and knowing each other. Take Care, John H.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Feb 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> OMG BABS YOUR TOO FUQING FUNNY GIRL!!! HAHAHAHAHA  Damn Babs you just throw it right out there dontcha???? hahahaha   Your my kinda gal for sure.  I'd love to toss back a few beers with you and talk man talk. hahahaha



  I'm very open with my thoughts.  If I think it, you know it.....If I don't understand it.........I'll show you and explain........

Thanks bud!  I have a lot of guy friends, which is probably the reason WHY  I feel open about this topic and why I have a lot of guy friends.  You can learn A LOT from them......

Hopeully, John H, will give me a :   Oral 101 lesson or three....I wanna be as good as the other men ya know 

Men can't be challenging the women these days on which gender is better than the other when it comes to this......geesh.....

Walk my way and lets do "man" talk............I'll share if you share


----------



## BabsieGirl (Feb 4, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Babsie. (Did I answer this already?) I thought I did? But I do not see an answer here? I can tell you that Men DO know MEN and that they would be more likely to know what to do or not and how. IF they truly care for the other person - like anyone I guess - they WOULD DO their very best and paying attention to reactions and sounds are among the best ways to know if you are doing right by someone. Taking THEM into consideration before yourself to me is very important and is how you both end up understanding and knowing each other. Take Care, John H.




Okay..........So, (hmm lets see) how exactly are the men better?  I want to hear and know it all baby.  I can take it.  Like, how do they do it that is better than women.

What do women do that they shouldn't and how can WE improve our technique.

I try to do my research however, this is the best research I can think of at the moment.  You've got the best of both genders.  Experience!!!!!!!!!!  Share it..........


----------



## greekblondechic (Feb 4, 2004)

babsie how was the steak house


----------



## BabsieGirl (Feb 4, 2004)

Oh my.....there are NOOOOOOOO words............................

Mouth watering.....


----------



## greekblondechic (Feb 4, 2004)

hehehe glad to hear u enjoyed it!

i hate when i expect a good meal and its disappointing..waste of a cheat


----------



## BabsieGirl (Feb 4, 2004)

Oh...........it was  FAR from it.

I didn't have dessert though..............held the will power up on that  one..........Watched everyone eat this brownie mound with a scoop of Vaniller Ice Cream with Hershey's syrup.


----------



## greekblondechic (Feb 4, 2004)

desserts like that always make me feel sick


----------



## BabsieGirl (Feb 4, 2004)

I'm not a big choc fan...................

I about barfed when i saw that................the only thought that came to mind was:  "Omg, if I ate something like that, it'd go STRAIGHT to my hips!"

You guys see that commercial that says:  "You are what you eat!"


----------



## John H. (Feb 5, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> Okay..........So, (hmm lets see) how exactly are the men better?  I want to hear and know it all baby.  I can take it.  Like, how do they do it that is better than women.
> 
> What do women do that they shouldn't and how can WE improve our technique.
> ...


  Hi Babsie. I did that on "another Board" and eventually I got banned (without any explanation or warning or notification - kinda childish and immature I think and certainly UNAmerican - free speech, etc.). I think Chiba even quoted one of the exact posts I made here on this Board (?) which I STILL STAND BY COMPLETELY. I am not sure what "is allowed" really and what is "not allowed" here yet. I am still trying to see to what extent people are allowed to speak honestly, accurately and completely here. I asm a very open minded person and like to see ALL sides of ALL subjects and am very objective - that IS the ONLY way a person TRULY LEARNS. I THOUGHT you were "allowed" to speak on "that other Board" as I did not post for a long time on it until I read what WAS being posted there by others and I then thought (MY mistake I guess!) I could then speak too....  I do not understnad what people are "so afraid of" - why is it we can not as adults LEARN HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY about ALL things?  I WILL say one thing though Babsie: I DO NOT believe in just "using" someone. To me Sex and Love are sacred and a Gift from God and  that ANY relationship with anyone (as long as they are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely regardless of Gender) AS LONG AS THEY TRULY CARE FOR AND ABOUT EACH OTHER is PARAMOUNT. And THINKING ABOUT the OTHER PERSON FIRST AND FOREMOST is key to BOTH being very happy. Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Feb 5, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> I'm very open with my thoughts.  If I think it, you know it.....If I don't understand it.........I'll show you and explain........
> 
> Thanks bud!  I have a lot of guy friends, which is probably the reason WHY  I feel open about this topic and why I have a lot of guy friends.  You can learn A LOT from them......
> ...



Hi Babsie. Let me say at least this: CONSIDER and PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to a Man's ENTIRE BODY, carefully. lovingly (Honestly), sincerely... The "goods" MUST ALWAYS come last - and even then HOLD BACK 'til you think he will DIE if you do not "allow him" his "NEED".................................................................. (on purpose!). MAKE DAMN SURE HE KNOWS HE IS - HE IS - A MAN - IN THE TRUEST SENSE OF THE WORD. NEVER harm or tear down or humiliate another for ANY REASON. ALWAYS SHOW EXTREME RESPECT, HONOR, DIGNITY, and LOVE for those you are with....  TDGC, John H.


----------



## BabsieGirl (Feb 5, 2004)

John.............Saaaaaaaawwwwwwwweeeeeeeetttttttttttttt.....  If Prince says it's allowed, you can bank on receiving a PM from me...  I agree with you entirely.  Of course doing this will be for my husband...............He already loves what I do, but you can NEVER know TOO much about these things.  

You know....I don't think PMs hurt!  who can get affended via PM about this topic?  I"m asking for it, so I know I won't be affended

*Hey Prince*  --  Is sexual discussions allowed as long as they're PMed.  Or can people talk about this sort of stuff*(In detail)* in the Sexual Health board?  I'm talking........Laying it all out there.  What do you say?


----------



## firestorm (Feb 7, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by John H. *_
> Hi Babsie. I did that on "another Board" and eventually I got banned (without any explanation or warning or notification - kinda childish and immature I think and certainly UNAmerican - free speech, etc.). I think Chiba even quoted one of the exact posts I made here on this Board (?) which I STILL STAND BY COMPLETELY. I am not sure what "is allowed" really and what is "not allowed" here yet. I am still trying to see to what extent people are allowed to speak honestly, accurately and completely here. I asm a very open minded person and like to see ALL sides of ALL subjects and am very objective - that IS the ONLY way a person TRULY LEARNS. I THOUGHT you were "allowed" to speak on "that other Board" as I did not post for a long time on it until I read what WAS being posted there by others and I then thought (MY mistake I guess!) I could then speak too....  I do not understnad what people are "so afraid of" - why is it we can not as adults LEARN HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY about ALL things?  I WILL say one thing though Babsie: I DO NOT believe in just "using" someone. To me Sex and Love are sacred and a Gift from God and  that ANY relationship with anyone (as long as they are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely regardless of Gender) AS LONG AS THEY TRULY CARE FOR AND ABOUT EACH OTHER is PARAMOUNT. And THINKING ABOUT the OTHER PERSON FIRST AND FOREMOST is key to BOTH being very happy. Take Care, John H.




JOHN,,, I can just about guarentee you won't get banned here.   PRINCE and I have not seen eye to eye on multiple occations and one huge incident occurred only a week ago and to Prince's defense, he is one stand up guy and does not ban for speaking your mind or your opinion regardless if he believes in it or not.  Point is,,, if I haven't gotten banned from here, then your advising Babs on sexual discussions will never get you banned from here.  My only advice to you and babs would be only to move the Sexual conversation to the sex thread as babs pointed out.  Prince won't ban you bro.
Fire


----------



## firestorm (Feb 7, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by BabsieGirl *_
> John.............Saaaaaaaawwwwwwwweeeeeeeetttttttttttttt.....  If Prince says it's allowed, you can bank on receiving a PM from me...  I agree with you entirely.  Of course doing this will be for my husband...............He already loves what I do, but you can NEVER know TOO much about these things.
> 
> You know....I don't think PMs hurt!  who can get affended via PM about this topic?  I"m asking for it, so I know I won't be affended
> ...



You can say whatever you like in a PM Babs as long as it's not offensive to the point the individual reports it to Prince.  Calling a black person the N word for example would probably get you banned even in a PM if they reported it but asking how to give a hummer would not.  
I'd bet that if someone called John a derrogitory name for homosexual they would be the one getting banned and NOT John for being curved.
(Curved being bisexual, straight being well you know...straight)!!  hehehehe   Curved,,,,,I like that.   John is curved. hahahahaha  Sorry John, just me amusing myself again.  disregard my humor.
Fire


----------



## Little Wing (May 17, 2004)

If gay couples can adopt children they should be allowed to marry and give their families the added protection and financial security this would afford them plain and simple. It's some of the people on Jerry Springer that shouldn't be allowed to marry.


----------

