Same-sex Marriage Ban Initiatives

Whats the deal with all of these same-sex marriage ban initiatives on the ballots last election?  Even in my home state of Wisconsin this issue was voted on and passed.  Why can’t homosexuals get the same rights as heterosexuals?

I know it is a slippery slope and people fear that if homosexuals can marry, that there will be a “Waterfall Effect”  where people will be able to marry anything.  But there is no scientific evidence supporting this point.  However, it has been shown that homosexual couples living together and raising a child fair just as well as heterosexual couples.  There is much more scientific evidence showing how capable homosexuals are at parenting.

Also, saying that homosexuals are condemned in the Bible seems to be another point used to defend the same-sex marriage ban.  However, the Bible condemns homosexual acts as a sin, not homosexuality.  The church even recently came out saying that same point and that discrimination against homosexuals is unacceptable.

Also, homosexuality is just as innate as heterosexuality.  Homosexuals cannot become heterosexual if they want to like many try and show.  But trying to change homosexuals and showing that they can change is more negative fuel to this homophobic fire.  If people can change their sexuality, then where are the people who want and try to become homosexual?

Why are these laws/amendments being passed?  What is so wrong with homosexuals that make people feel so strongly against them that they want to pass legislation?  People put out a lot of propaganda trying to show the immorality of homosexuality, but they truely love each other and should get the same rights as heterosexuals.  If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get one, but don’t prevent others from being equal.

Posted by The Other Side on November 18th, 2006 in Articles, Commentary |

116 Responses to “Same-sex Marriage Ban Initiatives”

  1. Sieren Says: November 19th, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    This is a great article.

  2. John Says: November 21st, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    Agreed. It seems simple to me. What’s all the fuss about?

  3. DazzlinDino Says: November 29th, 2006 at 7:36 am

    Bob, could you e-mail me, I would like some information on a certain person who ran last election, one who may have fled to the USA for tax evation reasons, I think you know who I mean.

    DD

  4. nguirado Says: December 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 am

    Since you’re wanting to open up marriage to homosexuals, you should show why overturning thousands of years of tradition will make this a better country. Notice none of the questions have to do with God? Please answer the following questions:

    1. How will same-sex marriage make this a better country?

    2. Why is the state involved in marriage or takes it upon itself to regulate marriage? How does it promote the general welfare?

    3. Why does heterosexual marriage make the United States a better country?

    4. Why would homosexuals want to marry?

    5. What is the purpose of marriage? or why would anyone want to marry? or how does it benefit the individual?

    6. To whom would you limit marriage if you would at all and why?

    7. By liberalizing the standards for marriage, would marriage gain or lose prestige?

    8. How would school textbooks for children change once marriage is open to homosexual unions?

    9. Which state prevents homosexuals from marrying provided they choose a spouse of the opposite sex?

    10. What bad things will happen from keeping the status quo?

    http://www.nelsonguirado.com

  5. The Other Side Says: December 4th, 2006 at 4:58 am

    1. It will take away one example of discrimination that plagues the country. America is based on all men being equal. Also it may stimulate adoption because same-sex couples cannot concieve. There are thousands of children waiting to be adopted and same-sex marriage is a good solution. How will allowing same-sex marriage negatively affect the country?
    2. Because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the US defines marriage as the union of a man and a women. Therefore, states need to take it upon themselves to decide on same-sex marriage. Thats the only way to get same-sex marriage. Its illegal already so what are the other options? Why do states need to define marriage and prohit same-sex marriage?
    3. Heterosexual marriage produces offspring that keeps the country alive and is a staple of our society. It has always been legal and provides a reward for two people being in love.
    4. Homosexuals would want to marry to be equal like heterosexuals not to mention the martial benefits. They can share benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare. Civil unions do not provide these nor does it go between states. If heterosexuals who love each other want to marry, why shouldn’t homosexuals want to marry? What is the threat?
    5. Again, people who marry receive benefits that non-married individuals cannot, http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm.
    6. This is one of the main problems with same-sex marriage, the Waterfall Effect. It is difficult to define who can marry because there are so many variations of people. Bisexuals especially feel slighted in this debate because they cannot marry two people and have to chose. But if its illegal, zoophilia or pedaphilia, then it should not be allowed to marry. Animals and children cannot consent to marriage, homosexuals can.
    7. I think marriage is already losing its prestige. Divorce rates are at 50% and just look at the people marrying. Britney Spears was married for hours. Why deny two loving individuals to marry when there are many unloving couples marrying? Current society is losing many important values, especially love. People have no idea what it is and move too fast. But if the people are in love, then marriage will not lose any prestige.
    8. How are school textbooks defined right now and why is this an important question? If children learned what homosexuality is and not the propaganda then they will better understand how harmless it is. The people who are scared of the same-sex literature in schools want to ban them because they should be able to chose what influences their children. But they base this on their morals and their view that homosexuality is immoral.
    9. No state prevents this example. But this question trivializes the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals do not feel any sexual attraction to the opposite sex. What would be the point of them marrying the opposite sex if they aren’t going to be truely happy? They cannot change their orientation and should not be forced into unloving marriages. Sex is a part of life and marriage so why would the homosexual chose something that feels wrong?
    10. As you see from the current debates, there are homosexuals that want to marry and do not feel truly equal. Nothing bad would happen to heterosexuals, but homosexuals will still feel discriminated against. What bad will come from allowing same-sex marriage? Thats the underlying question to the opponents of same-sex marriage. They spew non-scientifically based propaganda as their reasons when it is their religious beliefs that motivate them.

    Hopefully I answered your questions. I understand that the burden of proof on the same-sex proponents. But it is hard to prove these points when they are religiously based. It is hard to believe that God plays no significant role in banning same-sex marriage. And what does tradition have to do with anything. In the past people of different races couldn’t marry. These initiatives are following the same path. If you or anyone else can find un-biased scientific data that supports banning same-sex marriage, I’m listening. There aren’t too many unmorally motivated reasons against same-sex marriage. People don’t want to change, I understand that. But why enforce your morals on people who don’t share them?

  6. Floyd Abrams Says: December 5th, 2006 at 12:40 am

    If you have to resort to religion to defend a position, then it is indefensible.

  7. Floyd Abrams Says: December 5th, 2006 at 3:04 am

    nguirado,
    here is a more fundamental question. Should we start amending constitutions (state and federal) to deprive groups of rights? If I am not mistaken, amendments to prohibit same sex marriage would be the first instance of amendments being used to deprive a group of a right. So the proposition to prohibit gays from marrying is actually more radical in terms of the constitutional moves implied than would be same sex marriage. I believe that it would be a serious mistake to use constitutions (state or federal) to deprive particular groups of citizens of legal rights. I have seen no rational basis for depriving gays of any rights. You are right to exclude god (Jahweh, zeus, Thor, Shiva, or other imaginary entity from the debate). Marriage is legal only with respect to states. Religious ceremonies of marriages are not recognized by the state in any sense whatsoever. So the marriage that is under discussion is in the legal sense only, thus religion is irrelevant to the debate.

  8. nguirado Says: December 5th, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    First, The Other Side- I apreciate your thoughtful response. I replied, but it hasn’t shown up yet.

    Floyd,

    The answer is if people are not allowed to choose-if judges take it upon themselves to decide this matter, then, yes, it’s appropriate to amend the constitution.

    And marriage is not a right. Since when is keeping the staus quo radical?

  9. Floyd Abrams Says: December 6th, 2006 at 1:11 am

    nguirado,
    As far as the state is concerned, marriage is purely a legal agreement between two consenting individuals. It is not clear to me why the genitals of the individuals are relevant to the the legal agreement between those individuals. The church part is a different matter altogether. Whatever else a marriage symbolizes to the two individuals involved is between them. If the certain superstitions place prohibitions on believers, like stepping on cracks in the sidewalk, eating meat on Fridays, working on Sundays, etc., that is the believer’s problem. For far too long rational people have been required to abide by the dictates of silly superstitions, cultural relics of our ancient pre-rational past. The world would be a far better place if we embraced the practices of charity and compassion to our fellow man, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, or nationality and dropped the superstitious baggage.

  10. kolran Says: December 6th, 2006 at 2:22 am

    Okay, first of all gay Floyed, name one think about gay marrige that helps our society. waiting… Nvm, you won’t. You are a liberal and you respond to this post by finger pointing, chest pounding, and weasleing your way out of it. Or maybe you will just ignore it completely. Okay, gay marrige in a nut shell, the liberals found another group that they could ‘protect’. The end. That’s the whole story. Liberals gain more votes, that’s all that matters. If you are actually one of those suckers that the liberals convinced that this was an actual cause… then maybe we can get you some help. Up until about five years ago ‘homosexuality’ was a mental disorder. Has the disorder changed? No. And as long as you are on your hippie rampage we should stop calling it marrige, because that involves catholic tradition. Hey, let’s call it groupage! Yah, great Idea. How about anybody can get grouped? Then lets let up to 5 people to do it. Why not let animals do it! Hey maybe we can all get aids! Yah, besides a solution to overpopulation this solves NOTHING. And if you want a human population in the future, then go ahead and stop being gay. Remember Floyd, we can help you through this.

  11. The Other Side Says: December 6th, 2006 at 8:59 am

    I keep saying that not allowing homosexuals to marry is discrimination. Thats the point of the debate. Society won’t gain much from allowing gay marriage, but why does every change to the status quo need help heterosexual society. Same-sex marriage is harmless. It is only a means for homosexuals to gain the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals. The main reasons against gay-marriage are flawed and not scientifically based. The so called Waterfall Effect has not been proven (remember the Domino Effect?) and polygomy, pedophilia and zoophilia are illegal. Homosexuality is legal. And the homosexual way of life is not a disorder. Kolran shows the ignorance making homosexuals fight an uphill battle. The reason why homosexuality was in the DSM was because of similar ignorance. There is a reason why people took it out.
    And Kolrans rant is an obvious crack at liberals. By writing the pointless insults you delegitimized your side of the arguement. While continuing to ask the liberals the questions, why don’t you answer the liberals questions? Why does gay marriage need to benefit society? What is wrong with gay marriage? Why can’t homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals? You also seem to forget that the Democrats dominated the elections and that the Republicans were the ones to bring up the debate. Gay marriage and flag burning were weak attempts to bring in votes that the right desperatly needed.
    Finally, Homosexuals cannot change and become heterosexual any more than a heterosexual can become a homosexual. What are the real reasons behind banning homosexual marriage? Science has shown time and time again that the reasons banning gay marriage are false. I want to finally hear a truthful reason why people want to ban gay marriage. People don’t share your values, thats what makes America great. So why do you feel you need to forcfully impose those values on them?

  12. Floyd Abrams Says: December 6th, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Kolran,
    The answer to your question is obvious. Just name the things about heterosexual marriage that benefit individuals and society. Gay marriage would offer precisely those benefits to homosexual individuals who willingly enter into a committed monogamous relationship. By the way, Kolran, a sure sign that you harbor homosexual urges is obvious in your hyperenergized anti gay remarks (remember how Tom Foley portrayed himself publicly as anti gay?). The more anti gay you act the more obvious it is that you are struggling with your own strong homosexual desires.

  13. British_Nationalist Says: December 6th, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    Kolran, are you seriously suggesting we should lock up every single homosexual because they have a “mental disorder”? Because, if true that philospohy sounds remarkably similar to another chap’s ideas, who was around ooohhh… just over sixty years ago it would be now… You and him would get along no problem.

  14. Floyd Abrams Says: December 7th, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    nguirado,
    In our society marriage most certainly is a right in several senses. For one, it is encompassed in our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Amending the constitution to deny consenting individuals of one particular group (i.e., homosexuals) to enter into a legal contract (marriage) is radical.
    I suspect that you are conflating two separate concepts - marriage in the legal sense and marriage as a religious ceremony. I couldn’t care less about the religious nonsense involved in marriage. There are benefits (and costs) associated with a relationship that meets the legal definitions of marriage just as there are advantages (and costs) of forming a corporation for a business. I have heard no rational arguments against allowing homosexual individuals enter into a legal relationship with one another that confers the benefits of marriage (it doesn’t matter what you call it, by the way. Call it Civil Union if you wish). I have heard plenty of irrational emotional rants against it, but they add nothing of value to the debate - just noise.

  15. Crzy_Mexican Says: December 22nd, 2006 at 2:05 am

    Ok, come on dude! How would you like to be raised by two gay parents? think about how you would have been teased! Think about how aqward it would be to have friends over for dinner! People would immediatley accuse you of being gay. I have no problem with Adam choosing to like Eve - or Steve, as long as they are not married (or raise a kid for that matter), I’m fine with it. And agin, how would this benefit America? All it would do would cause an outrage by typical Americans, because in destroying (ignore the spelling please) Traditional Values, we WILL go on that ’slide-effect’ that someone mentioned before. It will eventually get to the point where we accept those radical Muslim extremests’ practices of blowing themselves up to kill INNOCENT people as ‘Freedom of Expression’ or ‘Freedom of Relegion’ no less! Like I said before, go ahead and like ‘Steve’ instead of ‘Eve’, because if you stay in the closet, it’s allright for me.
    Ok….. I haven’t got to my point yet. It’s that Traditional values have drove this country through both rough and good times. We should preserve this with NOT allowinth gay marrige, and if possible, STOPPING abortion. GOD BLESS YOUR FAMALIES,
    AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!

  16. Anon Says: December 23rd, 2006 at 5:46 am

    This is for Crzy_Mexican:

    I would have no problem being raised by gay parents. Actually, as “The Other Side” stated above, studies have shown that homosexuals raise their children just as well. If anyone were teased over that, it would be for their bigoted attitudes of hate towards anyone who isn’t straight. I think a lesson could be learned from that to accept everyone. Friends over for dinner wouldn’t be awkward unless they were actually prejudiced against homosexuals, and I’m sure the child could find friends who were tolerant of alternative lifestyles. If people immediately accused them of being gay, then again, they’re someone to avoid and take away a lesson from that not everyone is compassionate.

    “The Other Side” has already provided an answer to as to how gay marriage would benefit America. It would grant equality to all, regardless of sexual orientation. I believe you’re referring to the slippery slope that would eventually lead to people being able to marry animals, brothers, etc…and, once again, that has been answered.

    Freedom of expression is allowed only when it is not in direct harm to anyone. This is not going to change in the United States of America. Religions are only allowed to practice when they aren’t breaking the law (although giving wine in church to those underaged is fully legal), unless you’re applying that a future where killing is tolerated isn’t far off.

    You’ve provided absolutely no proof whatsoever that traditional values have ultimately helped us become an improved nation. It was conventional to accept slavery, then disallow women from voting. Only those supporting change altered history at these crucial points in history, so if anything, your statement is completely opposite of the truth. Finally, I respectfully disagree with your statement concerning abortion, as I was once pro-life.

  17. jul. Says: December 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    Thank you for your frank and thoughtful commentary. Restricting marriage to opposite-sexed couples is ridiculous, and gender discrimination. The only reason I can’t legally marry the person I love is because that person is a woman. So, for me, I’m getting married in Montreal. We might be one of the last western industrialized countries to legalize same-sex marriage (isn’t it a shame when your human rights are lagging behind south africa?), but we’ll do it. If only to keep ourselves viable in talent competition in global business.

    If you want to support same-sex marriage, we are a couple trying to raise money to get married in Montreal this June (2007). We are fun-loving and thoughtful girls who are just trying to do the right thing…

    Check out our site at:
    julieamandawedding.googlepages.come/home2

  18. Emory Says: December 27th, 2006 at 7:50 pm

    Hmm… seems like the link is broken.

  19. buster Says: December 28th, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    “Why can’t homosexuals get the same rights as heterosexuals?”

    They have the same rights. A gay guy can marry any woman he wants.

  20. longlivepkstn Says: December 29th, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    Homosexuality is just another pervision, like pedophilia or bestiality. Should that be legal too now? Get real.

  21. muslimview Says: December 29th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    Marriage always has been about opposite sex relationships. Why change that? Have some RESPECT for human tradition, one that is global. The human body is made for heterosexual activity, that’s why there are males and females. Use logic people, not emotion, when making your opinions. I will NEVER stand for the legalization of gay marriage and neither will 75% of the rest of the world. Don’t forget, 1/5th of the earth is Muslim, one where homosexuality is strictly forbidden. How about OUR rights to our own beliefs?

  22. The Other Side Says: December 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    To buster: You missed the entire point of my article. While it is true a homosexual can marry someone from the opposite sex, THEY DON’T WANT TO. They are as homosexual as I am heterosexual and they have interest in those of their same sex. It is unhealthy to force someone to marry whom they don’t choose and repress who they are.
    To longlivepkst: Even though you think homosexuality is a perversion, it’s not. No one gets harmed in the process and it leads to love, at least within the relationship. And like I’ve said before, both pedophilia and zoophilia do not involve CONSENT. Neither a child nor an animal legally can give consent to a sexual relationship. Your perversion sounds like you think same-sex marriage is wrong, which is perfectly fine.
    To muslimview: I do respect human tradition, I’m Catholic. But in America there is a separation of church and state. The Muslim world can think whatever they want, thats their right in America. But they cannot impose their beliefs on the legislative process. Your logic is based on religion and are irrelivent in this debate.
    Keep the disagreements with same-sex marriage coming because they all can be refuted. They are based on religion and a lack of education on homosexuality. People dislike the homosexual lifestyle for narrow-minded reasons and that’s their problem. Again, remember slavery, women’s sufferage and a lack of mixed-racial marriage? Times change and even though religion may not, that shouldn’t matter.

  23. John Says: January 9th, 2007 at 2:58 am

    Okay, i dont agree with homosexual marriage, i also don’t agree with pedophiles and incest. so i guess im descriminating against pedophiliacs? lol, butt-sex is gross, ill leave it at that. its un-natural and was never intended to happen. I can’t explain why someone wants to be homsexual because im not one but don’t we all have to live with our decisions, i wish i could change standards for my “differences….”
    Like for instance, what if i said I was born “to want to kill people” ha, and obviously all the murderers, crazy or not, could be part of “my group” (like all the gays). well that would be discrimination….

    No one is born with a gene that makes them gay, its there life experiences that cause that. some people have extreme personalities and others fall in to the usual.

    I do beleive that gays support it just for the votes. think about it…gay people are very social (most) and have many friends. well most poeple dont set there friends based on what they beleive in. they base it off their surroundings (family and friends). Obviously our going to support the pol. party thats supports the beliefs you have.

    but arguing about politics is useless, someone will beleive as they will and most people are so stubborn they dont listen.

    If you are religious you most likely support laws banning gay marriage, in that it states in the bible that it is indeed wrong, a sin.
    It doesnt say that they are lower, dumber or less of a person, it states its a sin.

    Religion is relevant, its the reason why many laws were made, like not killing, rape ect… what do you think told us what was right and wrong from the beginning?

    and if there is no right or wrong in politics, what are we arguing about?

  24. the Other Side Says: January 9th, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    In response to John’s comment, the whole arguement is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice. Someone’s personality is based on three components: genetics, shared-enivronments and non-shared environments. While it is true that their hasn’t been a genetic breakthrough finding a homosexual gene, it doesn’t mean that there is or isn’t one. I may be assuming that their is a homosexual gene and that homosexuality isn’t a choice, but did you chose to be heterosexual?
    P.S. Pedophilia, incest and murder are all illegal so stop comparing them with homosexuality.

  25. kolran Says: January 11th, 2007 at 12:34 am

    Wow, the Other Side. You actually believe that crap that came out of your mouth? You say that homosexuality is not a choice? Okay, let’s relate this to your world. If you want something really bad at that store (you are attracted to it) but don’t have enough money. Do you follow that compulsion and steal it? Heck no, you have a choice NOT to take it, just like being homosexual. You sound like a criminal coming up with the sad exscuse, ‘it isn’t their fault’.

  26. kolran Says: January 11th, 2007 at 12:50 am

    The other side’s comment is kind of funny if you are one of the people with brains. John raised some great points. I am confused on his position, because above he said he agreed with the article, but now he raises points against it. Nevertheless let me replace all of the words momosexuality with a disease that makes people want to eat other people. We’ll call it ‘cannibalism syndrom”

    In response to John’s comment, the whole arguement is based on the assumption that cannibalism syndrom is a choice. Someone’s personality is based on three components: genetics, shared-enivronments and non-shared environments. While it is true that their hasn’t been a genetic breakthrough finding a cannibalism syndromgene, it doesn’t mean that there is or isn’t one. I may be assuming that their is a cannibalism syndrom gene and that cannibalism syndrom isn’t a choice, but did you chose to be gentle, kind, and caring?
    P.S. Being homosexual used to be a disorder so stop comparing it with a disorder that makes people want to kill and eat other people. There is an enormous difference between these two disorders that both give you compulsion to do something that DOES NOT benifit society, nor your life.

    I hope this puts things into perspective for those narrow minded liberals.

    -Kolran Fett

  27. the Other Side Says: January 11th, 2007 at 11:26 am

    I do believe the things that are coming out of my mouth. Every opponent of homosexuality continually compares it to totally different topics. People have urges to steal things or eat people, I don’t deny that. However, sexuality is nothing like that. There is more to one’s sexuality than what kolran seems to think. I’m no expert on sexuality, but being attracted to a specific item and not stealing it will go away eventually, unlike homosexuality.
    I’m still waiting for a response to why people don’t change from being heterosexual to being homosexual. If its so easy than thats possible too, right? And like I’ve been repeating, homosexuality isn’t illegal. People may think its wrong, but there are no laws against it, just narrow-minded people who don’t leave people be.
    What adverse affects would same-sex marriage have on the US or the world, besides riots from the aforementioned narrowminded individuals?

  28. the Other Side Says: January 11th, 2007 at 11:32 am

    I need to make this short and sweet because it seems like I’ve been repeating myself
    1. homosexuality is as much of a choice as heterosexuality
    2. homosexuality is not illegal
    3. homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone

    But I have some questions:
    1. can heterosexuals chose to be homosexuals?
    2. what scientifically proven harm will same-sex marriage have to America or the world?

    I want to hear something based on facts and not assumptions.

  29. matthew willis Says: January 12th, 2007 at 6:27 am

    christin,jew ,muslim etc. say no to homosexuality.basic laws came from and started from religion.

  30. the Other Side Says: January 12th, 2007 at 10:20 am

    seperation of church and state prevents religion from playing a part in legislation. and why do they say its wrong?

  31. Kolran Fett Says: January 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    Oh wow, the Other side, you don’t get it do you. If I had to guess I would say that you are just getting into politics.

    1. Heterosexuality is to HAVE KIDS and homosexuality can only have AIDS.

    2. No, it’s not illegal.

    3. Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone? wtf! Okay, what about the guy who raped his male page? hmm?

    1. Can hetero be homo? Yes, if you want to have man kind fall.

    2. Scientifically proven… Male + Male= no more humans + disease

    final point. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS TO KEEP THE STATE OUT OF THE CHURCH! GOT THAT? STUDY HISTORY YOU DIMWIT AND STOP READING LIBERAL PLAYBOOKS!

  32. the Other Side Says: January 14th, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    wow, calm down and take a deep breath kolran. if i’m a raving liberal then you must be the exact opposite. your homophobia clouds your rational thinking and results in your offensive remarks. AIDS didn’t result from homosexuality, it is an unfortunate disease that afficts homosexuals, and heterosexuals, due to the lack of proper protection. even though foley was homosexual, most pedophiles aren’t and they prey on girls. what about those vicitms. taking one pervert and generalizing it to a whole group is unfair. and finally, you didn’t answer the question about if heterosexuals becoming homosexuals. you merely ranted about how if that happened it would result in the apocalypse. no one has shown that to be possible because sexuality isn’t a switch that you can change whenever. i’m sorry i don’t know that much about the separation of church and state, but the church should not have a primary role in legislation. homophobia is the only negative about homosexuality, and that can change. racism and sexism are becoming extinct, so too should homophobia.
    PS at least people are starting to admit that the negativity towards homosexuals is based on RELIGION

  33. Kolran Fett Says: January 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    You could say that you are a christian
    Then say that you are a democrat
    But then you’d be arguing with yourself…

  34. Kolran Fett Says: January 15th, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    Okay, the otherside, your only valid argument is that it doesn’t hurt anyone, correct? You just try to make other arguements out of bullcrap like ‘it’s based on religion, it can’t be valid!’ This country was based on religion, almost all of the founding fathers were devoted christians. Does that mean this country isn’t valid? Without religion we would be nothing, have no reason to live, and there would be no reason to treat others with respect. If you have nothing assosiating with religion in your life you would be like an animal with no higher goal. Maybe I did generalize a bit on some of the other issues, but the basic concept is still there. You give me ONE scenario where homosexuality benifits society and I will give you four scenarios where it does not.

    I will go through your points again if you need.

    1. Yes, it is a choice. Just like the choice to kill someone or not, just like the choice of robbing a bank. According to the liberal playbook you will now argue that those are illegal and homosexuality is not. Okay, lets take bipolar for example. Being bipolar is not illegal. This bipolar person knows if he doesn’t take his ‘medicine’ he will go out of control, probably offend many people, lose his job, and be a real pain in societies side. It isn’t illegal not to take those drugs, but not talking them has bad consequinces.

    2. Homosexuality is no longer illegal thanks to the liberal agenda that legalized this disorder.

    3. Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone? http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1976/is_200204/ai_n6988244, go to that link, read that. Two good points, Rape and Aids. Men/boys never used to get raped. So now instead of having 1/2 the population as a possible victim, we have 2/2 as possible victims.

    4. Can someone who is normal choose to be mentally retarded? No

    5. Scientific proof, AIDS- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS , adopted childern- Father-son Relationships and Male Sexual Development
    Investigation into parent-child relations of homosexual and heterosexual men is heavily documented in research literature, and a link between the absence of sufficient bonding with same-sex parent or role models and the development of adult male homosexuality has been proposed. Numerous studies have found that adult homosexual males tend to report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers than their heterosexual peers (from wikipedia/homosexuality)

    6. So, how would you like to grow up without knowing your real parents, have aids, and be rejected by your own parents. How the hell are you suppose to benifit society. On top of this you will be forced to be atheist and you probably won’t have any friends cause you talk funny.

    7. If those aren’t enough facts for you… [removed by editor]

  35. John Says: January 15th, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    In the end there will be those who [removed by editor] males and females, and then there will be those who know what the [removed by editor] is for (pooping) is it completely necessary for gays to marry each other so they can say we’re married and [removed by editor]?

    I mean they cant even make babies, thats a HUGE part of marriage!!
    Think about their poor kid!!

    and yes seperation of state and religion was to keep state of of religion, hence why my church isnt taxed by the goverment for alot of things.

    and finally why is it that liberals support only gays and not lesbians, oh yeah! because their only doing it for support

  36. nutslikebush Says: January 16th, 2007 at 3:54 am

    Actually, Kolran, many of the founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence) for instance, where certainly NOT christians. And none of them practiced christianity that resembles evangelicalism at all (they detested that form of religion).

    Second, how anyone could be so screwed up that they could care about any one else’s sexuality is unfathomable to me.

    AIDS is a virus that doesn’t care whether you are straight or gay, just like any other STD. Most rapes are certainly committed as heterosexual (violent) acts. You made up most of the crap you put in your last post and pretended it was factual. Shame on you for being a liar.

  37. nutslikebush Says: January 16th, 2007 at 3:57 am

    Here Koran. This should rock your little world.
    earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

  38. John Says: January 16th, 2007 at 4:31 am

    k the editor removed what i said, he erased the word butt lol
    “in the end there will be those who likesticking there poles into dark caves, manholes lol,…”

  39. matthew willis Says: January 16th, 2007 at 4:35 am

    gods law is above state church and anything else . Ten commandments to live by from god.

  40. Kolran-Fett Says: January 17th, 2007 at 2:09 am

    Nutslike bush seems to be the only liberal (or, as he perfers, centrist) with a leg left to stand on here. And even his response I know to be untrue. It looks like regular old, dispute the facts and smear the poster tactics. To take up on what Matthew Willis said, I completely agree. This is a Democracy, right? And it is a FACT that the majority of americans are christians/muslims/jews. It is against ALL of these religions for this to happen or for them to be around it. THEREFORE (RULE BY THE MAJORITY) same sex marrige should be illegal or restricted. Chalk up one for the traditionalists, that one’s undesputable.

    B.T.W. If anyone has read Culture Warrior by Bill O’reily it’s a great book. Just popped in my mind because there are facts relating to some of these topics on there.

  41. John Says: January 17th, 2007 at 3:38 am

    Kolran you have a myspace, haha just wondering

  42. Kolran-Fett Says: January 17th, 2007 at 4:26 am

    Okay, I feel that I must respond to nutslikebush’s post. If I didn’t respond and ignored his post I would be taking a move out of his playbook. I will stop here with talking about nutslikebush because I also do not want to take the ’smear the opposition to make him look like an idiot” out of his play book either (despite this I would like to ask why he posted that he was going to leave this “Sad part of our generation behind” and stop posting. Then he came back. He also said he was going to change his name from nutslikebush, but he’s still nutslikebush. Spells hippocrit to me.) Nutslikebush clearly smeared me by calling me a ‘liar’ even though I sited sources. He also said I had a ‘little world’.

    Okay, to the topic, nutlikebush thinks the founding fathers were not christians. So he presents me with a phony liberal site. I almost laughed my head off. I went there and read the whole thing and they had no right to make some of the Assumptions that they made. The founding fathers abviosly put ‘In god we trust’ and ’so help me god’ on various things. Why the hell would they do this if they weren’t christian.

    Your second ‘argument’ convinced me that you have no idea at all on what we are posting about here. “how anyone could be so screwed up that they could care about any one else’s sexuality” Well, frankly I don’t give a [removed by editor] about anyone’s personal lives, but I do give a [removed by editor] about america’s values (as well as people’s rights). I don’t think that people should have to be around this [removed by editor] so I try to get people behind me and stop things that would encorage this sort of thing. Aids are spread more by homosexuals because they don’t use ‘wrappers’ to stop boddily contact (if you know what I mean) and hetrosexuals usually do unless they are ‘having babbies’. (This was moderated for any young viewers of these posts, such as nutsli… nah, no name calling).

    I would like to know where you got the crap to put in your posts and I hope that I didn’t rock your little world by stating FACTS.

    I would like to repeat this because I know it will be hard to get you to respond to this because you probably don’t even bother reading my posts, you just hit and run.

    1. MOST AMERICANS ARE CHRISTIANS OR BELIEVE IN THE BOOKS OF ABRAHAM- FACT

    2. THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND THE BOOKS OF ABRAHM ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY SO PEOPLE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE AROUND PEOPLE WHO ARE OPENLY GAY. - FACT

    3. BECAUSE WE ARE A DEMOCRACY AND MAJORITY RULES HOMOSEXUALITY SHOUT NOT, I REPEAT NOT, BE ENCOURAGED. - FACT

    There, totally facts. I have given you facts that aren’t relating to religion and you dismiss it as a pile of crap. Now this is also non-religious but you can’t wave this away. It stands like a brick wall. - FACT

    nutslikebush - OPINION

    (I am sure that you will defend your website as fact, but it’s a load of bull. Right on the site they have links to gay movements. I’ll tell you what that site is, a corrupt load of bull)

    - Kolran Fett

  43. Kolran-Fett Says: January 17th, 2007 at 4:36 am

    I am glad that the Other Side had the sense to shut up after that facts were displayed against him, but am dismayed that nutslikebush’s argumentative nature overuled his intelligence.

  44. nutslikebush Says: January 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am

    Kolran,
    The majority of americans oppose the US involvement in the war in Iraq. So I suppose, by your logic, that means we should terminate our involvement in it immediately. Majority rule, right?

    Also, one has to apply a very loose definition of christian/muslim/jew to reckon that most americans fit into one of those categories (perhaps in name only). Finally, I am not so sure that most americans don’t support marriage for individuals of the same sex who are in a loving, committed relationship.

    It seems like the most important to ask ourselves, however, is how we can build a society that can foster love and commitment between individuals, treat people fairly and ethically, and sincerely wish each other the best regardless of our differences in sexual preferences, ideology, religion, ethnicity, nationality etc… We are different. We only live once. We must create meaning in this life for ourselves from scratch because if we borrow it from others, it is empty. Don’t hate.

    PS: You probably won’t be surprised but I have read O’Reilly and find him shallow and unconvincing. There are much better thinkers out there to be reading than O’Reilly. He is a relative light weight.

  45. nutslikebush Says: January 18th, 2007 at 3:54 am

    The monetary cost of the war in Iraq to the American people is now at about $1.2 trillion dollars (i.e., $1,200,000,000,000,000 for those of you who need to see zeros to get it). The White House originally estimated that it would cost about $1 billion, then $50 billion, and one administration official who dared to estimate that it could ultimately cost $200 billion was immediately fired by Bush for disclosing that estimate. But even he grossly underestimated the cost.
    for details see the article linked below.
    nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Read it and weep.

  46. nutslikebush Says: January 18th, 2007 at 4:13 am

    Here’s one to think about for you O’Reilly fans out there. Would O’Reilly tell Martin Luther King Jr. to shut up? Watch and think.
    youtube.com/watch?v=awFuel1Vds0

  47. Kolran Fett Says: January 18th, 2007 at 5:20 am

    Okay, why would I go and read what the New York Times has to say about that Global War in Iraq? Obviously it’s going to be negative, so I am sorry Nutslikeyou, I did not do any weeping. I do not find it suprising that you dislike Bill O’reilly and I myself am not a major fan of him. He does, however, have a fairly good concept of reality. If he just wasn’t Irish… So I partially agree with your personal attacks on O’reilly, but I would never take it that far.

    You have no evidence that the majority of people oppose the war in Iraq, the media just makes it look that way. And I don’t know why you posted about ‘love not hate’, but I do hope that every american lives life the fullest, but I still do not agree with you on Gay Marrage. Obviosly by completely ignoring my argument you are admiting that you have lost this arguement and I glad of that. Cya at the next sparring, I am pretty darn sick of gay marrige myself…

    -Kolran Fett

  48. The Other Side Says: January 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Just because I didn’t reply within seconds of reading your post kolran doesn’t mean you shut me up.
    Being influenced by morals is not wrong and should play a part in politics. Therefore I guess religion can be involved in political discussion. I realize that now. However, when the people using religion pick and chose what they want as their morals is wrong. Those against same-sex marriage continually point at the Bible and how it is a sin. That is true, in Leviticus there was a verse saying as much.
    But that verse is so hidden that it seems to have little importance, at least compared to the Ten Commandments. If the people with such morals care so much, then how do they react to adulterers? It is one of the top ten sins so why don’t we hear anyone up in arms? There must be something deeper fueling the anti-homosexual agendas (homophobia?).
    Furthermore, just because making same-sex marriage legal doesn’t directly benefit heterosexuals, it doesn’t mean that its not beneficial. It has a profound affect on the quality of life for homosexuals. People may not agree with thier lifestyle, as seen by numerous posts here, but thats life in America. And as for the children of homosexuals being ridiculed and negativily affected, isn’t that the other people’s problem. How can the fact that ignorant people will make fun of them be an arguement. Moreover, children with single-parent homes survive, so why can’t children of homosexuals?
    People won’t always agree with legislation, but the majority does rule. The unfortunate thing here is that the majority that is against same-sex marriage base their opinions on wrong “facts”. Homophobia, just like racism, has a profound affect on people and their emotions. Anal-sex may be disguisting and not result in birth, but what about oral-sex?
    People chose to hate homosexuals becuase of an obscure verse in the Bible but ignore the golden rule: love thy neighbor. Homosexuality is not a mental illness; and it wasn’t a liberal conspiracy that removed it from the DSM, rather more information trumped the past misinformation. Homosexuality doesn’t impair the individual, unlike bipolar disorder and mental retardation. It only impairs those opposed to homosexuality and react verbally and sometimes violently.
    As long as the world continues their homophobic ways, the homosexual community cannot gain rights. People use morals and “facts” to prove that same-sex marriage should be banned, but how would that benefit society? It would merely suppress another group of people and further discrimination. Why do those opposed feel so threatened about same-sex marriage? What is at the basis for homophobic views? Have these people actually met a homosexual? Isn’t equality a value that America has nurtured throughout its history and should continue?

  49. nutslikebush Says: January 19th, 2007 at 3:42 am

    The old testament requires that you stone to death women accused of having sex with men they are not married to (there is no punishment prescribed for the men, by the way). The Jesus comes along and befriends a prostitute (Mary Magdalin) and says to her would-be murderers (the overly religious freaks), “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I think that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament would be the defender of gays and would stare people like Kolran in the eye and say, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” And Kolran would put down his stones and go home, shamed.

  50. nutslikebush Says: January 19th, 2007 at 3:43 am

    “then Jesus comes along…”

  51. nutslikebush Says: January 19th, 2007 at 3:49 am

    Kolran,
    just read your earlier posts for the first time. You are so full of it that I am just amazed that you manage to survive. Why do you keep saying “play book”. What the hell are you talking about? Are you pretending to be a moronic talk radio talk show clown? As for the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, go and read their letters and other writings for yourself (btw, that was not a liberal site unless by liberal you mean not kooky enough for you). You are just intellectually lazy as far as I can tell.

  52. nutslikebush Says: January 19th, 2007 at 3:57 am

    Kolran, you dispute the cost of the Iraq war that was based on government figures and presented in the New York Times. So what has it really costs according to your sources? I think that you just dismiss facts that are inconvenient to you and don’t fit your biases. You need to actually attempt thinking, it is liberating.

  53. Kolran Fett Says: January 20th, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    Lol, we got guys arguing against religion, then quoting religious statements on others. How, Ironic. The biggest chuckle I got out of the recent posts was where the Other Side posted; “one of the top ten sins”. Hmm… if that’s how liberals think the United States may already be a lost front. If everything is not determined by moral values, but by what you can get away with. Should we have a ranking system to see how high you can get in heaven? I think god would think that’s funny, if he wasn’t angered by it. The only person having valid points lately is John and his points have been ignored by liberal thinkers. Okay, I guess I should address nutslikebush’s comments. “you are so full of it that I am just amazed that you manage to survive” “moronic talk show clown” “intellectually lazy” You need to actually attempt thinking” I mean, come on! Talk about intellectually lazy! I made my valid points and all he does is come at me with insults! Gimme a break! Nutslikeyou, admit it, I made valid points and you started talking about the founding fathers as well as the war in Iraq. Gimme a break. Then you site liberal media and give me links to a liberal site. And yes, that was a liberal site, if you would care to open your eyes there are links to gay foundations all over the page. Dead honest.

    Gimme a break.

    -Kolran Fett

  54. Kolran Fett Says: January 20th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    hmm… I never really adressed the Other Side. To answer some of your questions, I have met a homosexual and I felt bad for him. The golder rule is “Love thy neighbor like thy self” not whatever you said. And honestly, liberals don’t have any respect for neighbors and their selves. If they did rapists wouldn’t be getting away with 64 days in prison. And yes, equality is a value “nurtured”

  55. Kolran Fett Says: January 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    Hmm, that too bad. I had a large paragraph about equality is a value nutured, but it got cut off… It basically went on to say that; Equality is value “nutured” (What kind of a word is that?) by the united states. I have the right to raise my children without seeing gays kiss mouth to mouth in public. I mean come on, get a room. I wouldn’t care if they weren’t so darn public.

    With Regaurds,
    Kolran Fett

  56. The Other Side Says: January 21st, 2007 at 6:59 am

    The ‘top ten sins’ remark was a joke, I didn’t want to write The Ten Commandments again, too redundent. I get the fact that kolran, john and others think that homosexuality is wrong, disguisting, un-natural, etc. So stop displaying your insecurities with things that are different.
    I do pay attention to what John was saying and I think that we all are stubborn in our beliefs. I find it hard to believe that kolran et al. believe what their saying, but then again I don’t know where they’re coming from. Maybe the belief that homosexuality is a choice leads to attitude that homosexuality isn’t a real group which results in the belief that homosexuals/liberals have a conspiracy for votes or whatever. However, the last election showed its not too hard for liberals to get votes. Or maybe they are just homophobes.
    But what if homosexuality wasn’t a choice and all they wanted was rights that marriage provides? There are legal rights that would benefit homosexual spouses. Their ‘parts’ may not provide child production, but what about all of those kids waiting for adoption (maybe those unaborted babies that are unwanted anyway?). What if when they finally get those rights, you never hear from them again and they live happily ever after? They seem to be harmless and just want to live a happy life.
    The only way to remedy this is to have the majority of people see that homosexuality isn’t evil. All of this majority talk reminds me of slavery and women’s roles. Those ideas were believed by many people and stayed the same forever, right? Didn’t the Bible say something about a women’s role is to serve her husband? I guess that’s a command that people didn’t chose. Also, Manifest Destiny worked real well.
    Times change and so do people. I hope kolran really believes that if homosexuality were kept indoors that it would be acceptable. Except, somehow I don’t think that would happen. This isn’t some left-wing conspiracy against traditional morals, its trying to stop discrimination.

  57. shannon Says: January 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 am

    How are my rights any different from yours kolran? Are we not still people protected under the constitution? There is a seperation of church and state, and you republicans only remember that when it benefits your cause. I have been discriminated against my entire adult life by people like you who claim to know the word of God. Well I know that “God is love” not hate, and definitely not a bigot. You say you feel sorry for homosexuals, we feel sorry for people like you that are so consumed by your own hatred and fear that you do nothing to better your own enviroment. People like you are abudant on this earth and that is why we fight, kill, rape, steal and do other horrible things to one another. If the world were a more tolerant place and people projected that hatred into doing good in the world maybe my children will have a better enviroment to grow up in than I did. Why is it so bad for me to give my wife a kiss in public? I have to look at you heteros doing more horrible things than that. Look at your leaders, slowly but surely they are being shoved out of the closet, but we all know how smart us homos are and that you need some kind of brains behind your operation. Maybe one day in that big ole Whitehouse the large curtain will be pulled back as it was in The Wizard of Oz and we will see a big flaming man in drag is truly the brains of the Bush administration. God knows none of you cared that Cheneys lesbian daughter ran his campaign, bet you did not vote for that reason did you? So in short Kolran kiss my lesbain ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  58. Joy Says: January 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 am

    Other side,
    Could you give the exact place in the Bible where women are told that their role is to serve their husband? Is it anywhere near where husband and wife are told to serve each other? Or somewhere around where the husband is told to love his wife as his own body and in the same way that Christ loved the church by giving Himself up for it? Maybe it’s around the place that tells the husband to be faithful to the wife of his youth and not waste his time or energy chasing other women?
    Your vague reference to the Bible is like a smeared copy of a copy(that was not a typo) of a very blurry picture of a masterpiece painting…not at all an accurate portrayal.
    Perhaps you could clarify?

  59. Joy Says: January 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am

    NLB,
    Going back a ways in this comment section, you brought up where Jesus told those who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery; “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Do you also remember what he told the woman?
    “Neither do I condemn you. GO AND SIN NO MORE”
    He didn’t condone her wrong actions nor condemn her. God does not condemn us. Those who are condemned are condemned by their own choice. Had that woman chosen to continue in a lifestyle of adultery, she would have been condemning herself by her choices.
    We are NOT to condemn others who do wrong, nor are we to condone wrong actions.
    By OUR CHOICES we decide if we are condemned or not.
    Jesus’ statement “Neither do I condemn you.” still rings true.
    Jesus’ command “Go and sin no more” is still in effect.
    The choice is ours. Hmmmmm…
    Back to personal responsibility.

    LETS BE REAL CLEAR HERE:
    Those who choose the homosexual lifestyle are not victims of an unjust nation.
    No one is stoning them.
    No one is denying them the right to vote.
    No one owns them or can claim them as property.
    No one is throwing them in prison or even jail for blatantly breaking the law.
    No one is denying them the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
    So….what IS the big deal?

  60. nutslikebush Says: January 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm

    Kolran,
    You don’t even really know what the word liberal means. Second, you have not yet mad a single coherent argument at this site. Stringing together a list of your and prejudices does not represent a coherent argument, by the way. I also don’t believe that you know the first thing about the Bible or the Christian religion other than hearsay. You are just a tightly wound bundle of neurotic conservative impressions. Conscious thought has nothing to do with your beliefs.

  61. Kolran Fett Says: January 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 am

    The thing is, the other side, that the Liberal party took up this argument to get votes. What’s sad is people (followers of the liberal party) actually bought it and continue to argue ‘facts’ long after your party has dropped the cause. I am sorry you find religion and history ‘redundant’ and I wish you had a more open view to the world. Apparently your Pro-abortion. You say we shouldn’t discriminate and are, at the same time, letting irresponsible teenage girls kill their babies without parents knowing. I guess that’s what you get when you let people with no traditional values (liberals) raise children.

    -Kolran Fett

  62. The Other Side Says: January 23rd, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    Didn’t Republicans just try and use same-sex marriage and flag-burning to distract the nation from other issues? Democrats don’t need votes, but at the time, the Republicans did. Also, its fairly ironic that kolran wishes that I had a more open view of the world. I think I have a very open mind to the world, more so than most conservatives. I don’t call myself a liberal, more of a moderate. But there are a few issues that I identify with liberals. On the other hand, I agree with the fact that liberal parenting is horrible and destroying our nation’s youth. But bringing abortion into this debate is dangerous because it is a totally differently and equally polarized debate. Maybe if children were given access to information about sex and condoms, they wouldn’t be getting pregnant. Absitence only doesn’t work. But again, thats a totally different debate.
    I find it weird that both kolran and joy brought up abortion in their arguments. Maybe they are losing interest or are trying to spurn another debate, I don’t know. Or maybe they just dislike liberals so much that they want to goad them into saying something stupid. Thats why they take cheap shots, but I guess so did nutslikebush. Got to love politics.

  63. The Other Side Says: January 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    To Joy, “Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.” Colossians 3:18. I heard that during mass in December and paraphrased it in my past comment. So I apologize if I sounded vague but thats what I meant.
    I used this one verse like conservatives use “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22. What is the difference between the two?

  64. Kolran Fett Says: January 24th, 2007 at 1:01 am

    Okay, I am getting tired of verbal attacks. Shannon’s view IS irrelevant because she has a personal stake in this. Of course her mind is going to be more corrupt because she only thinks of herself. The whole post of hers was one big attack on me, no facts, nothing. And talk about generalizing! “You hetero’s” Wow… We were discussing a topic, not a group of people, and she (although I would bet my life on the fact that nutslikebush posted that, he has been quite aggressive in his comments lately).

    Nutslikebush- EVERYONE SINS, okay? I know you think your perfect but… your not. Jesus did befriend Mary Magdalin, and she stopped. She didn’t continue her ways, did she? As for “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I think that you would step forward and cast a stone at Jesus himself, when he shakes his head at your arrogance you would cast another one. You would go home, arrogantly, to your wife (or husband), but that night when it rains, you would drown because of your nose stuck in the air.

    -Kolran Fett

  65. John Says: January 24th, 2007 at 1:48 am

    Kolran, I agree with most of your points and I am too against gay marriage, but i think its a pointless argument when trying to persuay which one is right or wrong. that goes for everyone else.

    btw is there a topic on abortion?

  66. Kolran Fett Says: January 25th, 2007 at 3:46 am

    I would say there is a 50% chance that nutslikebush posted as Shannon, so no, nutslikebush, I will not “kiss your lesbain ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!” I guess John’s right about convincing (and no, John, I don’t have a myspace) I should stop posting on this topic. I have listed 6 convincing points and now all that remains is finger pointing and the name-blame-game. There is a topic about stem cell research, but I am not aware of one on abortion, perhaps someone should start one?

  67. nutslikebush Says: January 25th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    Fett,
    are you off your meds?

  68. shannon Says: January 25th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Kolran, Shanon, is well, shannon. I do not pose as anyone else, I do not have to. Once again your anger takes over and all anyone hears or sees is a Charley Brown adult speaking. What hillbilly back woods country are you from? Why have you yet to address the issue of so many Republicans being forced out of the closet? Why have you not addressed the issue of Cheney’s daughter being a lesbian?

  69. shannon Says: January 25th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    Another thing yes this is personal, you attacked an entire group of people you idiot. I cannot believe that people like you roam the earth freely, shouldn’t you be in the mental institution you asshole? YEs I did state facts, the fact that your leaders and supporters are coming out one by one, so harharhardyharharhar!!!!!! I mean since you want to act like a child I will play that also. You are exactly like every other hate mongor in the world. So let me ask one more time….. no let me guess, I bet you are from West Virginia.

  70. shannon Says: January 25th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    and one more hting, you may want to spell and grammar check your post so you do not sound like SUCH an idiot. We all see that you are just from the words you type, but you may want to make sure everything is spelled correctly.

  71. shannon Says: January 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    oh and wait, if homosexuals way is to have AIDS, why is it that there is only ONE documented case of AIDS in the lesbian community you asshole? Why is it that it has spread like wildfire through your community? You want to talk facts I can give you facts about AIDS and yours are terrible!!!!!!
    Look what you have said: If I didn’t respond and ignored his post I would be taking a move out of his playbook. I will stop here with talking about nutslikebush because I also do not want to take the ’smear the opposition to make him look like an idiot” out of his play book either (despite this I would like to ask why he posted that he was going to leave this “Sad part of our generation behind” and stop posting. Then he came back. He also said he was going to change his name from nutslikebush, but he’s still nutslikebush. Spells hippocrit to me.) But you continue to argue with him. How typical of the supporters of your party. The bottom line is this any radical is bad, you all sound the same, period end of story. Realy I would have to agree with previous oposts, you are harboring some serious homosexual urges!!!! Look at you man, you are ridiculous. Bet you are Catholic, and if so look at the history of your church, you down homosexuals but it is okay for priests to molest little boys and for your church to sweep it under the rug. Bet you have a few skeletons in your closet, perhaps a stash of lesbian porn, all us dykes know how you love to get off on that.

  72. The Other Side Says: January 25th, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    For once in my life, I agree with Kolran. No one is moving and I think both sides have made their points. Moreover, there seem to be subtle hints about switching the subject of the debate. I would be interested in anything posted.

  73. shannon Says: January 26th, 2007 at 1:40 am

    Now Joy you say that no one is denying me my rights but yet you say this:
    No one is throwing them in prison or even jail for blatantly breaking the law.
    Now I could be terribly wrong here but…….. It sounds like if I am breaking the law by loving the person I am in love with, that is just a tad unjust. The Bible also gives testimony that I can kill my neighbor if he smites me, well I know that morally that is wrong not to mention the lesal aspect of it all. It also says that women are not able to spread the word and teachings of the Bible so does that mean you are going to hell? I mean I thought a sin is a sin is a sin there is no big one or little one. So if you view me as sinful the same could be said for you because the Bible says we are born of sin! So Bible beater you need to look at the entire picture instead of the one that best suits you!
    Also you say this:
    No one is denying them the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

    Now the pursuit of happiness to me is to be married to the woman that I love, so in that I am denied. She is my life my heart and my soul, so once again I am denied. I want children with her, I cannot adopt hers, she cannot adopt mine, once again denied. Boy all you conservatives are all alike. You want to scream seperation of church and state when it interferes with your politics but you do not mind pulling that dusty Bible out to prove your politics. WTF? Lets just keep all of this political and leave God out of it, I am sure he does not smile every time a person like you pulls out a verse to sponsor hate.

  74. shannon Says: January 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Okay here is a suggestion for a new subject: I here that we will soon be fired for calling a black person the N word. I have never agreed with that word, but are they going to fine themselves every time they say. Are Jew’s going to be able to fine others for calling them a Kike? Can I turn someone for calling me a dyke? Can white people call for a fine when they are called Cracker? So how is that for a subject?

  75. Kolran Fett Says: January 26th, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    No comment shannon. I have made more points then I care too. I am glad that the otherside and I have found common ground. It’s time to move on. I have been arguing this topic for the last month. And by the way (shannon), I have not voted for a republican in my life. So stfu.

    -Kolran Fett

  76. nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2007 at 2:27 am

    Fett,
    As long as there have been priests and church youth leaders, young boys have been getting raped (reference your 1/15/07 post).

  77. nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2007 at 2:37 am

    Joy,
    Just saw your 1/22 post. I do remember Jesus’s line and it is a fine one; “neither do I condemn you.” Meditate on that. That is the essence of goodness. Though I disagree with the fundamental premise of christianity, the myth still carries some truths. A few of the Jesus tales are quite nice (but the best ones are not much followed by “christians”, unfortunately). As for no one hurting gays, you surely must be joking. Plenty of people stoked by old testament style rage have killed and tortured people who they thought were homosexual.

  78. nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2007 at 2:42 am

    You may also recall, Joy, that Paul of Tarsus told the Corinthian followers of The Christos not to marry or to do so only as a last resort. Apparently he was not a big fan of marriage even of the heterosexual sort. But he was sure that his generation would see the end of times (so maybe he was just a kook and can be dismissed summarily).

  79. nutslikebush Says: January 27th, 2007 at 2:47 am

    Perhaps someone should post on the Libby trial. Did Rove set Libby up to be the fall guy for leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent, as Libby’s attorney claimed?

  80. shannon Says: January 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    that was nice kolran, stfu huh? Well you showed me!

  81. Kolran Fett Says: January 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    See, shannon, in America we have something called the freedom of speech. This was a privelidge fought for by our fathers in numerous wars. People like you take that great privelidge and abuse it. I know you know that we have the freedom of speech, and I know you’ll beat it to death, but have you ever heard of respect?

    If only there were more people with moral values in this world…
    -Kolran Fett (and before you start accusing me of typo’s look at your own writing, lol, quite ironic)

  82. shannon Says: January 28th, 2007 at 12:11 am

    Quite ironic that you cannot spell privilege but want to use it so freely. Quite ironic that you tell me to stfu and talk to me about respect. Quite ironic that you tell me that you have NEVER voted for a republican but you want to talk about the democrat jargon. Quite ironic that you talk about morality but tell a female to shut the f up. Quite ironic that you talk about freedom of speech but tell me I abuse it. Freedom is freedom there is no “Well, you have the freedom of speech with the exception of the following”. Quite ironic that you have nothing better to do than argue a point that time again you say it is pointless.The right for me to marry is important to me and some redneck hillbilly on Capital Hill is making that choice for me. Funny you talk about our forefathers but fail to mention that they fought for equality for ALL not for some. So if you need a schooling on what we have fought for I will bee more than willing to teach you a few things.

  83. John Says: January 28th, 2007 at 2:52 am

    going off topic to attack someone on typos is funny. I think liberals just argue to make thereselves feel better. brownie points perhaps?

  84. shannon Says: January 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Well it is THEMSELVES, thereselves I do not even know what that could mean. Because I believe in Gay rights does not mean I am a liberal, I am a moderate. So do no cast your stones before you know who I am. Funny you call brownie points, who the f would I want brownie points from? I do not care who likes me, so why would I want brownie points? If I gave a shit about brownie points I would not be arguing this point!

  85. nutslikebush Says: January 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Shannon, your 1/28 post was excellent. I personally have no inclinations toward homosexuality. But I am completely baffled by people who care about other people’s sexual preferences. In some cases I think that their priorities are just shuffled strangely and irrationally. But in many other cases, especially with the most fervent anti-homosexual crowd, they really are struggling to deal with their own strong desires to have sex with people of the same sex. Almost as a rule, the louder they protest homosexuality the more likely they are to use same-sex prostitutes.

  86. The Other Side Says: January 29th, 2007 at 12:19 am

    this really is going off topic

  87. Kolran Fett Says: February 8th, 2007 at 12:27 am

    the topic was really getting beaten to death

  88. Kolran Fett Says: February 8th, 2007 at 12:30 am

    Lol, shannon says she’s a moderate. LOL! If she’s a moderate she’s one pissed off, opinionated, hippocritical, gay, moderate.

    I almost started crying because her statement was so funny.

  89. em Says: February 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 am

    So. I have a debate in spanish class tomorrow. I am supposed to argue against gay marriage, which will be interesting a) because I am for SSM and b) because I have to argue in Spanish. Anyway, this came up in a search engine, and wow has it been fun reading all of your comments for about the last hour or so. It is apparent that some of you might need to take more care when choosing your words, as some comments are a bit hypocritical. Not to mention any names, but in my humble opinion, some of you need to do better research when backing up an argument. But who am I to say that–I’m looking for facts on a blog. Wow. So if anyone wants to give me a couple websites that have reasons why SSM should not be legalized, that would be great. The ones I have encountered thusfar have been complete and utter…yeah. Not debate-worthy information. Too full of extreme emotionally created opinions…nothing like this page of course…
    Thanks!

  90. The Other Side Says: February 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    much of the same-sex marriage debate is based off of religion and the belief that homosexuality is immoral. as a result, there are not many sites against same-sex marriage. homophobia still affects this debate.

  91. Kolran Fett Says: February 27th, 2007 at 12:56 am

    I really wish I was in your spanish class em, though I am confused why they would have a debate like that in spanish. I am glad you found the arguments useful, and I hope mine in particular were because I have been the main person posting against it. There is more than just homophobia backing us who are against it. I hope my debates helped you and I would recommended Wikipedia as a source. Hope you post again.

    -Kolran Fett

  92. VoiceOfReason Says: March 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    I know there have been religious arguments against homosexuality but not too many people have addressed the biologial, the natural aspects of the issue. For me it’s pretty simple…nature has designed us as male and female….people (gay, straight, whatever) owe their very existence to the sperm joining the egg. There’s no way around that. I just wonder what it means when I hear people say “gender doesn’t matter”? If it didn’t matter there would not be two different sexes. With the advent of birthcontrol it’s easy to forget that procreation is the driving force behind being attracted to the each other in the first place. Sex is not just for pleasure or expression, it used to actually have a purpose. If a heterosexual couple who cannot conceive adopt or use a petrie dish they are trying to correct a wrong. They should be able to conceive as they were designed to do in the first place. But when two gays adopt or get artificially inseminated they aren’t balancing out anything. They are trying to make happen something that was not naturally meant to be.

    Secondly, saying you’re opposed to gays getting married is not the same as opposing mixed race marriage. For one thing, you can put together a male and a female of any race and they can conceive a child, who will then also be able to conceive. Survival is ensured. Nature did not provide a barrier there, it was people who decided they did not like the race-mixing…personal preference aside, the biological imperative is still accomplished.

    To me, marriage only sanctions what nature already made possible. Two people of the same sex have to adopt but do they ever really think about why that is? They have all the necessary equipment to make a child, but because they are attracted to the same sex (trying to put the square peg in the round hole so to speak) they cannot make a child together. They can never really join the way heterosexuals can. So is nature homophobic then? Are we to be angry at mother nature for being so short sighted as to allow any (racial) combination to work but stop short at crossing the gender line? Let’s be real!! I do not hate gays, I think we should be compassionate and sensitive. But I’m a bit tired of this propaganda that “gender doesn’t matter”, and “love is love”. That makes about as much sense as some of the religious arguments!

  93. VoiceOfReason Says: March 6th, 2007 at 1:15 am

    As for how gay marriage can hurt society…it’s a much bigger issue than the two people getting married. On the surface it would seem that it’s “between two people so who cares what the neighbors think”. But honestly there’s already been talk of extracting DNA from two sperm or two eggs to create a biological offspring for gay couples. Granted you don’t need marriage to incorporate children into a relationship these days. But this tweaking of the DNA seems the next logical step in the quest for gays to follow the heterosexual paradigm. A paradigm that is being shrugged off on the one hand but being desparately immitated on the other. I think some of the comments here against gays have been very harsh…think for a minute what it must be like to be gay. I feel for gays I really do, but my disagreement comes when homosexuality is being passed off as normal. I disagree that “gender is arbitrary”. I don’t want us to think that it’s ok to be a genderless society. I hear talk of celebrating diversity but what I see is that we are erasing the very things which make us diverse. I like that there are two sexes…more importantly I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for two sexes. None of us would. I don’t understand how anyone gay can look you in the eye and make the argument that it’s perfectly normal. You can tell me you can’t change your sexuality so you’ve got to live your life, this I do accept. I think for the most part people are born gay. There are environemental factors but really it’s hormonal. So if a person can’t change who they’re attracted to what would you have them do? So I understand, really….but don’t try to make an argument for homosexuality by pretending gender doesn’t matter. You can call people prejudiced but what about biology? I haven’t heard a single biological argument for homosexuality.

  94. The Other Side Says: March 6th, 2007 at 10:09 pm

    where did you hear about extracting dna from two sperm or two eggs? is it just talk, or are you riding the slippery slope that so many rely on.

    i hate to say it in this way, but what if homosexuality is a mutation? not in a bad way, rather mutation related to evolution. thats how we became the way were are, through random mutations and then natural selection. it may not have been originally natural, but no one has proven where homosexuality began. i could be a choice, genetic, natural, unnatural, whatever. people seem to be stuck on a certain reason for homosexuality even though none has been shown. as a result, this debate continues.

  95. VoiceOfReason Says: March 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    Where did I hear about research on the two egg/ two sperm? On the news last summer but since I couldn’t name the exact time or news station I only mentioned it as talk. I’ve looked it up on the net in an attempt to find a credible source with any info and here’s what I got: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0421_040421_
    whoneedsmales.html

    As far back as 2004 Japanese researchers conducted experiments on female mice in an attempt to discover why you need a sperm AND egg to make offspring. They had a very low success rate mind you, (only one mouse made from two eggs survived into adulthood and was able to reproduce on it’s own. One out of 371 embryos). We are not even close to doing it to humans…nature’s being stubborn:-) So in terms of it actually being done successfully, I guess you could say it’s just talk. However, scientists are already working on it. This particular article is on National Geographic’s site and has been referenced on several others. I did find interesting info regarding how this MIGHT be accomplished in terms of humans but it’s on a discussion site.

    It’s still an interesting read: answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=162419

  96. VoiceOfReason Says: March 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Ok, on to the comment about homosexuality being a mutation…evolution. I don’t think natural selection has been in effect like it used to be if at all lately. We’ve learned how to compensate for our environment, and alot of weak links have survived due to advancements in science. Weak links that would not have made it if we had to still hunt for food and rely on just physical prowess and the senses to survive. Science has managed to find cures and treatments for disease which has prolonged our life but in terms of mutating genes for the better, I don’t know. Like an animal you keep for a pet and domesticate by keeping it sheltered and feeding it processed food, I doubt humans have progressed the way we would have naturally given all our creature comforts and aptitude for all things convenient.

    Lets let go of emotion and use some cold logic. What kind of a mutation are you talking about? Nature wants the species to survive so any good physical changes will be to that end. Homosexuals do not have the drive to seek out a person of the opposite sex and mate. How can that be good for the species? The reason why evolution works is because things change and mutate one generation to the next…reproduction is step one. So how can HOMOsexual (being attracted to the SAME sex) be good when we are a species that needs HETERO (DIFFERENT sexes) just to exist? So first you have to exist then, you have to reproduce…hmm….I’d say being homo rather than hetero would kind of put a kink in that process wouldn’t you? So in terms of advancement of the species how is homo a step forward and not a step back?

    So as a homosexual you’re anatomically correct, you still want to mate but when it comes to the deed you reach for the same sex which may make you feel emotionally fulfilled and fuzzy inside but it doesn’t accomplish anything in terms of actually reproducing. I see an incongruence….it doesn’t add up.

  97. VoiceOfReason Says: March 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    The cause of homosexuality…nature vs nurture? Well, what I learned in back in college with the many debates that erupted in my classes (Abnormal psy, Child development, Adolescent development, Human Sexuality, Experimental psy, Theories of Personality, Cognitive psy and more pertinently Biopsychology to name a few) was it’s rarely exclusively one over the other because the minute you’re born, enviroment becomes a factor. Still certain physical drives are strong enough that environment doesn’t seem to make much of a dent.

    In biopsych, which looks at how body chemicals including hormones affect us, we studied sex & gender (pre & post natal development) It turns out the level of estrogen and testosterone fluctuates during pregnancy. Not only that, but certain levels of these hormones are introduced at specific times. This gives various results if the doses are not of the normal level or the timing is off. For instance there is such a thing as the masculine brain and the feminine brain. It’s possible to be a woman but think like a man or feel you’re one gender trapped in the wrong body. So when transexuals get accused of just being gay..they are not gay. Gender indentity (thinking of yourself as male or female) is separate from attraction to one sex or the other and both of those elements are separate from whether you have a penis or a vagina.

    By the way, your sex is whether you’re physically male or female…your gender has to do with how you identify as one or the other if we want to get technical. So coming out as a female or male with one set of anotomically correct genitals, who’s gender identity matches the physical is a feat in itself. Then you have to match the sex and the way the brain works to who you’re attracted to. It’s a vey delicate, multistep process..it has to be precise or things get mixed up. This is where I personally believe homosexuality starts. You’d be interested to know that experiments have been performed on rodents where through hormone treatments they were able to produce “gay mice”. Males started humping males instead of females. This is no joke, we saw this film in my biopsy class. So this is what I base my thoughts on.

  98. The Other Side Says: March 9th, 2007 at 4:31 am

    you make the assumption that homosexuality needs to be physically expressed. however, people, neanderthals, whatever may have had the homosexual gene and been homosexual without expressing it. the individual could have reproduced and spread the gene. a penis is still a penis no matter the sexual orientation.

    also, you imply that the mutation happened fairly recently, at least in a human sense. only until now has homosexuality been relatively accepted in society which makes homosexuals more comfortable to express their orientation. there is no way to pinpoint where the gene mutated, but it may have been thousands of years ago.

    genetic sex is whether you are XX or XY; anatomical sex is whether you have a penis or a vulva; assigned sex is set by the doctor refering to your anatomical sex; gender identity is the gender the person believes to be and sexual orientation is whether you are attracted to same or opposite sex.

  99. VoiceOfReason Says: March 9th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    I don’t think I’ve made an unreasonable assumption that a heterosexual will want to have sex with one of the opposite sex and a homosexual will want to have sex with the same sex. They are what they are by definition. Given desire and disposition, it would only be a matter of time before someone acted on ANY desire (gay or otherwise). Yes, of course an individual can choose to abstain from sex no matter what his orientation but that’s not what we’re talking about. We were talking in broad terms about sexuality and evolution and last I checked reproduction plays an essential part LOL, so I was coming from that standpoint.

    It sounds like you’re saying that one “caveman” carrying the “gay gene” reproduced with someone of the opposite sex and passed that “gay gene” down. Even if that’s true, I still say the likely hood of a homosexual to mate with the opposite sex is much LESS than a heterosexual to mate with their opposite sex…can we agree on that? Again, that’s what the definition of the terms mean. What an inefficient way to pass on genes! You still have not answered my question of what would be the benefit of producing an individual who did not feel inclined to mate with the opposite sex. I’m talking strictly function here. In terms of reproduction being key to passing anything on…what would be the point of that scenario?

    “also you imply that the mutation happened fairly recently…”

    I&#