news on the real reason for homosexual marriage need.

[mattskramer]

Well guess what, Einstein, you finally sais something I can agree with. There should be limits to contain behaviors.

I think you just lost your argument at your own hand.:chains:

Things don't necessarily have to be used exclusively for what they are designed.

Oh well. I'm getting tired of this. Look. All things considered (positive and negative speculation and reasoning) I think that, at the very least, there should be local and/or state laws allowing for "civil unions" so that adults who want to form loving unions with other adult people, similar to that of marriage, would be able to do so (even if they are couples of the same sex) and enjoy all to the same rights and responsibilities that they can to the same extent given to married couples.

By the way, I did not lose my argument. I never said that there should be no limits, what so ever, to what people should be allowed to do.

 

[mattskramer]

Ok. What about a retarded girl who can only squeal and say "fuck me"? Is that your idea of a hot date?

No. Retarded people are given special consideration, even in matters of law. Such people are not truly giving informed consent. On a personal level in reply to your question, this would not be my idea of a hot date.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Things don't necessarily have to be used exclusively for what they are designed.

Does this explain why your umbrella smells funny?

 

[mattskramer]

Does this explain why your umbrella smells funny?

Sorry. I don’t understand that question. Could I have used it as a big salad bowl and fail to clean it after dinner? I suppose so but I didn’t treat it as such.

 

[Gunny]

Things don't necessarily have to be used exclusively for what they are designed.

Oh well. I'm getting tired of this. Look. All things considered (positive and negative speculation and reasoning) I think that, at the very least, there should be local and/or state laws allowing for "civil unions" so that adults who want to form loving unions with other adult people, similar to that of marriage, would be able to do so (even if they are couples of the same sex) and enjoy all to the same rights and responsibilities that they can to the same extent given to married couples.

By the way, I did not lose my argument. I never said that there should be no limits, what so ever, to what people should be allowed to do.

Where you shot yourself in the foot, as most liberals do, is you admitted that you believe there is such thing as unacceptable behavior. You just want to destroy the current line of what is acceptable and replace it with one of lesser moral value. So, in effect, you are arguing against the very thing you wish to do, and it's clear as day.

I don't think ANY laws should be changed or written that cater to a person or persons based on their sexual behavior.

If you want to change a law. try changing the ones that deny people, homosexual or not, the right to leave whatever to whoever, and/or allow people to choose whoever they wish as their primary beneficiary and/or next of kin.

Those laws, btw, are just as unfair toward heterosexuals as they are homosexuals.

 

[sitarro]

Things don't necessarily have to be used exclusively for what they are designed.

Oh well. I'm getting tired of this. Look. All things considered (positive and negative speculation and reasoning) I think that, at the very least, there should be local and/or state laws allowing for "civil unions" so that adults who want to form loving unions with other adult people, similar to that of marriage, would be able to do so (even if they are couples of the same sex) and enjoy all to the same rights and responsibilities that they can to the same extent given to married couples.

By the way, I did not lose my argument. I never said that there should be no limits, what so ever, to what people should be allowed to do.

Oh Matts, poor little naive Matts,
What you seem to be missing here is that it's not about rights, it's not about love for whomever or whatever, it's not about legal rights..... it is about coercing society into legitamizing their behavior. In selfishly doing so they may feel better about themselves for a little while but the result will be more innocent kids getting involved in experimenting with this very destructive lifestyle. Most homosexuals when confronted will ask why they would choose to be gay and admit that it is a very hard way to get through life. Yet they don't have a problem involving young people in it, that is a fact.

Society doesn't legalize drug use and they punish abusers of alcohol for the same reason. Cigarette smoking is on the verge of being banned completely in almost all public places. Society is populated by a majority of heterosexuals that have kids, they don't want their kids participating in a lifestyle that is not only much more dangerous and statistically much less stable but admittedly harder by the very people that are pushing it on us. Just as they don't want their kids to be drug addicts or alcoholics. Is that really that hard to understand.

With all of the attention that homosexuals have acheived in the last few years in the press, movies and television programs, there has been a notable increase in kids acceptance and experimentation. As selfish as they are and having their entire identity revolve around who they have sex with, they aren't about to not go after naive young kids to fulfill some sick goal of screwing up a straight virgin or teaching a kid how to serve them.

This is not going to go well for the homosexuals that want to keep pushing their agenda on the rest of us. They will continue to push the wrong people with serious consequences, believe me it is close. If they were as smart as they supposedly are they should be happy with how far they have come and drop the marriage bull shit. Go to one of your gay lawyers and set up a legal system for you and your lover of the week and leave society out of it, we are all getting very sick of it.

Speaking of antisocial behavior and the gangsterization of our nation.......
A young girl was seen getting into a car last weekend and she wasn't seen for 3 days, they found her body in a shallow grave yesterday. She had suffered severe blunt trama to her body and was probably raped. Whether it is gay recruting, gang initiation, pedophile garbage, it doesn't matter. Society has had it with this abhorrent behavior and it is about to be open season on them all.I know that there will be very serious problems for anyone that screws around with any of my nieces or nephews, let's just say that they won't see the inside of a court room if I have anything to say about it, they won't make it that far....... That is a promise! It is time to bring back Charles Bronson's attitude of vigilantism to fight these societal outcasts since the police obviously have no control of this segment of society.

 

[007]

Gunny... sitarro... OCA... 'men', this disgusting excuse of a human krammer will NEVER understand ANYTHING you try and explain to him about MORALS, NATURE, or RIGHT FROM WRONG. He's so far out there in left field with such a warped sense of reality, his reasoning is in the toilet. God only knows how he got that way, but the fact remains, he's fucking OUT TO LUNCH!

Heeeerrrreee's your picture krammer, you perverted FUCK!

This is probably his favorite position...

 

[OCA]

Does this explain why your umbrella smells funny?

LLLLLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMMFFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

BIG FUCKING REP FOR THE JEW ON THIS ONE!

 

[sitarro]

LLLLLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMMFFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

BIG FUCKING REP FOR THE JEW ON THIS ONE!

No shit, I keep thinking about the painful extraction after the accidental pushing of the open button.....ouch!

 

[mattskramer]

Oh, how you mix things into the soup.

In selfishly doing so they may feel better about themselves for a little while but the result will be more innocent kids getting involved in experimenting with this very destructive lifestyle.

What is selfish about allowing gay couples to have the same rights (as a couple) as married heterosexual couples have? It seems to me as though it would be more selfish to not allow gay marriage.

Most homosexuals when confronted will ask why they would choose to be gay and admit that it is a very hard way to get through life. Yet they don't have a problem involving young people in it, that is a fact.

That is an interesting statistical claim. Do you have the reference to this survey? What was the name of the journal? Was this merely your speculation? According to your sources homosexuals don’t have a problem with young people of what age, getting involved in it?

Society doesn't legalize drug use and they punish abusers of alcohol for the same reason. Cigarette smoking is on the verge of being banned completely in almost all public places.

It is interesting how you dance around the topic of drugs. Nicotine is a drug. Society has legalized it use by the public. Alcohol is a drug. Society punishes abusers (DWI) but not users. Still, society does allow people to engaged in some unnatural and even unhealthy behavior.

Society is populated by a majority of heterosexuals that have kids, they don't want their kids participating in a lifestyle that is not only much more dangerous and statistically much less stable but admittedly harder by the very people that are pushing it on us. Just as they don't want their kids to be drug addicts or alcoholics. Is that really that hard to understand.

Do you notice those comparative and relative terms: more and less. Anyway, if you don’t what your children exposed to that lifestyle, then keep your children away from that lifestyle. I’m health conscious. I see places that sell very unhealthy stuff: greasy, high-cholesterol, high-fat cheeseburgers and the like. Do I try to outlaw such establishments? No. Instead, if I had children of my own, I would educate them in my bias against eating such items. Even if my children see people eating fattening junk, I would caution them against participating in that behavior. Yes, I would also educate them about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and try to do my best to see that no homosexual propositions them.

With all of the attention that homosexuals have acheived in the last few years in the press, movies and television programs, there has been a notable increase in kids acceptance and experimentation.

It is your responsibility to raise your kids and it is the responsibility of other parents to raise their kids. If you don’t like what your kids are being exposed to, turn off the TV and be selective about what movies your child sees.

As selfish as they are and having their entire identity revolve around who they have sex with, they aren't about to not go after naive young kids to fulfill some sick goal of screwing up a straight virgin or teaching a kid how to serve them.

In what ways are gays going after children? Are they propositioning them of sex? If so, I think that such activity is illegal just as if someone of the opposite sex propositions a child for sex. As I said, I’m against pedophilia. Now, if people are trying to educate children about the sex – heterosexual or homosexual. Then we have a debate about the education system and about what subjects should be taught and for students of what ages.

This is not going to go well for the homosexuals that want to keep pushing their agenda on the rest of us. They will continue to push the wrong people with serious consequences, believe me it is close. If they were as smart as they supposedly are they should be happy with how far they have come and drop the marriage bull shit. Go to one of your gay lawyers and set up a legal system for you and your lover of the week and leave society out of it, we are all getting very sick of it.

I thought that we reached a compromise and settled on civil unions at the local and state level.

Speaking of antisocial behavior and the gangsterization of our nation.......
A young girl was seen getting into a car last weekend and she wasn't seen for 3 days, they found her body in a shallow grave yesterday. She had suffered severe blunt trama to her body and was probably raped. Whether it is gay recruting, gang initiation, pedophile garbage, it doesn't matter. Society has had it with this abhorrent behavior and it is about to be open season on them all.I know that there will be very serious problems for anyone that screws around with any of my nieces or nephews, let's just say that they won't see the inside of a court room if I have anything to say about it, they won't make it that far....... That is a promise! It is time to bring back Charles Bronson's attitude of vigilantism to fight these societal outcasts since the police obviously have no control of this segment of society.

You seem to be going off on entirely different subjects: Assault, battery, attempted murder, pedophilia, etc – not adult homosexuality. If your nieces or nephews are adults – old enough to give informed consent – and someone “screws around with them" – such activity is probably legal. If you assault the person who “screwed around with them” you will, or should, be charged with a crime. On the other hand, if your nieces or nephews are “under age”, then I have no objection to your applying reasonable force to defend them.

 

[GotZoom]

Do you notice those comparative and relative terms: more and less. Anyway, if you don’t what your children exposed to that lifestyle, then keep your children away from that lifestyle. I’m health conscious. I see places that sell very unhealthy stuff: greasy, high-cholesterol, high-fat cheeseburgers and the like. Do I try to outlaw such establishments? No. Instead, if I had children of my own, I would educate them in my bias against eating such items. Even if my children see people eating fattening junk, I would caution them against participating in that behavior. Yes, I would also educate them about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and try to do my best to see that no homosexual propositions them.

Couple of points here.

1. It isn't that easy to keep your children away from that lifestyle because it is being pushed on them everywhere you look. School, news, etc. Gay marriage, Tommy has two Mommies, etc. You have a choice not to eat at Cheese-Burger Cheese-Burger, but many parents don't have a choice of keeping their children away from the gay/lesbian agenda.

2. You said you would educate your children about the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle. What dangers? I didn't think the homosexual lifestyle was dangerous. I thought you wanted them to have equal rights to non-homosexuals.

Why in the world would you want to give equal rights to people who, even you admit, participate in a a dangerous lifestyle?

 

[mattskramer]

It isn't that easy to keep your children away from that lifestyle because it is being pushed on them everywhere you look. School, news, etc. Gay marriage, Tommy has two Mommies, etc. You have a choice not to eat at Cheese-Burger Cheese-Burger, but many parents don't have a choice of keeping their children away from the gay/lesbian agenda.

I disagree. I think that it is relatively easy to keep your own children away from the gay lifestyle. By the way, I support the privatization of schools and school choice. Investigate school programs and opt your kids out of classes that you find objectionable. Parents do have choices. Have your child read “Children’s Book of Virtues” instead of “Heather Has Two Mommies”. When the TV station is going to talk about gay marriage, change the channel. I think that people have more choices about what to see in media than they do about what fast food items to buy.

You said you would educate your children about the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle. What dangers? I didn't think the homosexual lifestyle was dangerous. I thought you wanted them to have equal rights to non-homosexuals.

There are risks and dangers in many activities. Still, I’m willing to allow adults to make bad decisions. Smoking is dangerous but I don’t want to outlaw smoking. Roller-skating is dangerous but I don’t think that roller-skates should be outlawed.

Why in the world would you want to give equal rights to people who, even you admit, participate in a dangerous lifestyle?

The question goes hand-in-hand with your previous question. Some lifestyles are more dangerous than others. Still, I think that adults should be allowed to have the gay lifestyle if the want it.

 

[acludem]

What is the "gay lifestyle"? Is that what you call it when two consenting adults of the same gender fall in love and decide to be together? If so, why doesn't anyone talk about the "straight lifestyle?"

No one is asking for your approval of any marriage, gay or straight, just for the right to enter into a legal partnership based on love and trust, to be able to protect each partner and their children. That's it. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's not about validation, acceptance, or anything else, it's about protection of a couple and their children.

Now I realize that some of you think that gay people shouldn't be raising children. I'd like to see any of you come up with an independent study backing up your opinion.

HIV/AIDS is most rapidly spreading in poor countries without sanitation and birth control, and most especially from infected mothers to their children. In the industrialized world the spread has slowed because of sex education. It's still a problem, but not nearly to the degree it is in Africa and other areas.

acludem

 

[GotZoom]

I disagree. I think that it is relatively easy to keep your own children away from the gay lifestyle. By the way, I support the privatization of schools and school choice. Investigate school programs and opt your kids out of classes that you find objectionable. Parents do have choices. Have your child read “Children’s Book of Virtues” instead of “Heather Has Two Mommies”. When the TV station is going to talk about gay marriage, change the channel. I think that people have more choices about what to see in media than they do about what fast food items to buy.

It isn't that easy. Schools don't always tell the parents what subjects are being taught. There are countless stories around on this subject. Why should parents be forced to pay for and send their kids to private schools to avoide certain subjects? I agree about the TV and movies. Parents do have a lot of power to police their children's activities when they are with them. There is parental control settings on TVs and computers; a TV guide to tell them what is going to be on that evening, etc.

Unfortunately, public schools don't always stick (or reveal all the information necessary for parents) in their "TV" guide.

There are risks and dangers in many activities. Still, I’m willing to allow adults to make bad decisions. Smoking is dangerous but I don’t want to outlaw smoking. Roller-skating is dangerous but I don’t think that roller-skates should be outlawed.



The question goes hand-in-hand with your previous question. Some lifestyles are more dangerous than others. Still, I think that adults should be allowed to have the gay lifestyle if the want it.

You are so misinformed it is almost funny. I am amazed that even basic comprehension skills abandon you at times.

I have never said that the gay lifestyle should be outlawed. I think a lot of people don't give a rat's ass of Adam and Steve boink like bunnies in the privacy of their own condo with Fifi the poodle at the foot of their bed.

Let me try to do this simply for you. It isn't the "gay-lifestyle" that many people have a problem with. It is "gay marriage."

Gay Marriage. Key word: MARRIAGE

That is the problem.

 

[sitarro]

What is the "gay lifestyle"? Is that what you call it when two consenting adults of the same gender fall in love and decide to be together? If so, why doesn't anyone talk about the "straight lifestyle?"

This childish fake ignorance doesn't help your argument. Your cute little storybook description of homosexual ''hooking up'' is nice and flowery but anyone that has known any homosexuals knows that it is rarely that way. Your question is a typical attorney like set up and is a waste of time to answer because you know the answer.

No one is asking for your approval of any marriage, gay or straight, just for the right to enter into a legal partnership based on love and trust, to be able to protect each partner and their children. That's it. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's not about validation, acceptance, or anything else, it's about protection of a couple and their children.

You're right, homosexuals aren't asking for approval, they are demanding it. They don't have children, they adopt or are artificially made pregnate. Again another set up question, we aren't in court twat, you're fake ignorance is purposely annoying. How is having a lawyer set up the same rights in a partnership contract any different if that is all they need and want.

Now I realize that some of you think that gay people shouldn't be raising children. I'd like to see any of you come up with an independent study backing up your opinion.

What would constitute an independent study, one that wasn't produced by normal people or homosexuals or one done by the ACLU? One that purposely doesn't advocate for children's welfare? It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand the ridicule a child is subjected to by other kids in a normal family(one where the two people of opposite sex get together in a mating ritual and the female carries the child for approximately 9 months and then gives birth). Any variance from what is normal puts a strain on the child that is not ideal for the child but merely a selfish act for the person that should just get a puppy, that would include single heterosexuals. If less than ideal upbringing of the child happens because of death or divorce of a spouse that is different from starting the childs life incorrectly. It may be possible for two guys to raise a child and that child might come out of it normal and ready to live a normal life and enter into normal relationships but get real, that just will not happen most of the time. That child will be forced to deal with his parents problem on a daly basis(homosexuals admit to the many problems they face leading the abnormal lifestyle that they do, why involve a child into it?)

HIV/AIDS is most rapidly spreading in poor countries without sanitation and birth control, and most especially from infected mothers to their children. In the industrialized world the spread has slowed because of sex education. It's still a problem, but not nearly to the degree it is in Africa and other areas.

Ridiculous and useless assertion. Who gives a shit about the spread of a disease in a place whose culture allows for women to be mutilated and raped along with little boys. A culture where screwing as many virgin children as possible makes you more powerful? You are using Africa the way homosexuals do in order to add more heterosexuals into the mix, doesn't make for a correct way of seeing things. Blacks and the ACLU will purposely distort studies the same way by saying that there are more whites on welfare. Of course there are but the correct way to look at the data is to look at actual percentages in relation to population.
Where is your independent data on the slowing of infection here in America? Sex education might help but then again the people getting that education need to heed the recommendations. Tobacco is well known to cause many problems and has been for decades, are kids smoking less?

acludem

 

[mattskramer]

It isn't that easy. Schools don't always tell the parents what subjects are being taught. There are countless stories around on this subject. Why should parents be forced to pay for and send their kids to private schools to avoide certain subjects? I agree about the TV and movies. Parents do have a lot of power to police their children's activities when they are with them. There is parental control settings on TVs and computers; a TV guide to tell them what is going to be on that evening, etc.

Unfortunately, public schools don't always stick (or reveal all the information necessary for parents) in their "TV" guide.




You are so misinformed it is almost funny. I am amazed that even basic comprehension skills abandon you at times.

I have never said that the gay lifestyle should be outlawed. I think a lot of people don't give a rat's ass of Adam and Steve boink like bunnies in the privacy of their own condo with Fifi the poodle at the foot of their bed.

Let me try to do this simply for you. It isn't the "gay-lifestyle" that many people have a problem with. It is "gay marriage."

Gay Marriage. Key word: MARRIAGE

That is the problem.

Look at post 46. My message was copied into it. I had said that “…there should be local and/or state laws allowing for "civil unions”. Sitarry took my quote but then expanded or redirected the debate and said “…they don't want their kids participating in a lifestyle. Sitarry’s post seemed to talk extensively about the gay lifestyle and not so much about gay marriage. Therefore, in reply, I responded to her issue with the lifestyle.

Getting back to gay marriage, we allow people who have all sorts of rare preferences to get married. We allow people who have bad habits. There are those who like sadomasochism. We even allow those people to get married. We allow smokers to get married and raise children. All things considered (the likely good and bad) I think that “civil unions” should be allowed.

 

[sitarro]

Look at post 46. My message was copied into it. I had said that “…there should be local and/or state laws allowing for "civil unions”. Sitarry took my quote but then expanded or redirected the debate and said “…they don't want their kids participating in a lifestyle. Sitarry’s post seemed to talk extensively about the gay lifestyle and not so much about gay marriage. Therefore, in reply, I responded to her issue with the lifestyle.

First off Matts(I could call you Mattsy but that would make me sound like a fag) the name is Sitarro and the female version would be Sitarra. I guess you haven't seen the photo of me that was posted in the thread that asked "let's see what you look like". Either that or you think I'm the bearded lady from a carnival. I'm curious about the civil union, how is that different from going to a lawyer and signing a partnership contract? The problem with "gay marriage" is what it says to impressionable minds, that it is equal to real marriage(once again homosexuals would force the english dictionaries of the world to have to rework another definition just for them) and that is wrong. Marriage is one of the 7 Holy Sacrements in the Catholic church, it's a big deal.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/matri.html
"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

The idea alone of "gay marriage" is an insult to Catholics around the world.

Getting back to gay marriage, we allow people who have all sorts of rare preferences to get married. We allow people who have bad habits. There are those who like sadomasochism. We even allow those people to get married. We allow smokers to get married and raise children. All things considered (the likely good and bad) I think that “civil unions” should be allowed.

And how would anyone know if someone is a sadomasochist?

The fact is that to most of societies around the world, the isea of "gay marriage" is a joke worthy of about as much respect as homosexuals actually give it.
It's as silly as the woman that married a cobra the other day in India. Actually India and China should be a places that should actually promote marriage between 2 people that can't have children.

 

[mattskramer]

First off Matts(I could call you Mattsy but that would make me sound like a fag) the name is Sitarro and the female version would be Sitarra. I guess you haven't seen the photo of me that was posted in the thread that asked "let's see what you look like". Either that or you think I'm the bearded lady from a carnival. I'm curious about the civil union, how is that different from going to a lawyer and signing a partnership contract?

Okay. That was a straight question (pardon the pun) deserving an answer. If a gay couple can go to a justice of the peace and receive a “partnership contract” just as a heterosexual couple can go the a justice of the peace and get a marriage license – and in so doing, get the same rights as a married couple, under the law - I have no objection.

If the gay couple has to jump through extra hoops in order to get equal access to the same things that married couples receive (example: in testate property) then I have an objection.

The problem with "gay marriage" is what it says to impressionable minds, that it is equal to real marriage(once again homosexuals would force the english dictionaries of the world to have to rework another definition just for them) and that is wrong. Marriage is one of the 7 Holy Sacrements in the Catholic church, it's a big deal.

Okay. If the word marriage means so much to so many people within the heterosexual community, I have no objection to the heterosexual couples keeping the words for themselves.

 

[sitarro]

I wonder if these homosexuals that are pushing for a special change in the definition of marriage just for them realize that they have to have a blood test that will reveal everything that they may be carrying in order to get married? It might be a way to quarintine the carriers of HIV/AIDS.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wrong. There are some heterosexuals with AIDS. If there were no homosexuals tomorrow, AIDS would still exist

However, if you actually bothered listening to those "old fashion" Christian values that have been taught since the beginning of the earth, such as chastity before marriage and fidelity afterwards, AIDs would be eliminated within a generation.

It would be funny, if it wasnt so sad, that the only real solution to the AIDS epidemic is what God has told man from the beginning. The problem is that people seem to hate the fact that they cant do what they want and escape the natural consequences of their action. So they blame God and pretend He is trying to control them. In reality, He already knows the consequences and has given men commandments so they can avoid them and be happy rather then face shame, scorn, misery and a slow painful death.

The process starts one person at a time. It only takes one person to have self control and speak out to get others too as well. And we will continue to see one segment of the population get sicker and more miserable and the other stay healthy, strong, and happy.