Samuel Dravis Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 Originally posted by TK-8252 No one is born a drug addict, therefore the argument holds no water. Actually, you can be. Your mother has to be addicted when she's carrying you about before you're born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 Originally posted by Samuel Dravis Actually, you can be. Your mother has to be addicted when she's carrying you about before you're born. Ah. I bet its first words'll be "yo momma, hook me up with some of that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 Originally posted by TK-8252 Ah. I bet its first words'll be "yo momma, hook me up with some of that." Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 Originally posted by Maddmann Interesting debate going on here. *goes to Senate Chambers to check out "Hot People Thread" What? Originally posted by Curt-Man i am straight, and i think no one is born gay or straight it is a thing you learn as a baby, who knows what sparks it but no one is born gay or straight, until you develope an attraction to either gender you're neither straight nor gay. Regardless of what you think, you're not a biologist. Current theory holds that exposure to certain chemicals in the womb can at least affect sexual orientation (however, the 'cause' if there is a single cause, is unknown.) Originally posted by Curt-Man second if gays and lesbians can adopt children, i will be fruious, because thats just wrong. i will post no more so therefore i shall not see what you have to say on my comments, HAH! There isn't any reason that it's 'just wrong'. All the studies say differently. And news flash - gays and lesbians can and do adopt children, they just can't jointly adopt them as a couple, but you'll never know that as you're not reading this thread anymore. Pity. Originally posted by narfblat Are there no former drug addicts? Just because you may occasionally be tempted by something doesn't mean you haven't changed. Being homosexual or heterosexual doesn't have anything to do with drug addiction. Otherwise there could be former heterosexuals. You're making a false comparison. Homosexuality is about attraction not necessarily behavior. There is nothing wrong with this attraction and it is impossible to prove otherwise. Originally posted by narfblat and yes, Kipper made choices that lead to his gender preference, and he makes choices that keep him that way. Utter nonsense. I would be very interested in seeing the reasoning you have behind this. Originally posted by narfblat One more thing: there is no "separation of church and state" in the US constitution, and there should'nt be. It states that the government will not promote nor discriminate against religion. To change marriage is to promote one group's beliefs, and therefore shouldn't be done. Actually, to change marriage would be promoting many group's beliefs, and not to change marriage would also be promoting many group's beliefs. Marriage is an institution of the state, NOT religion. There is the fundamental difference. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Congress has already made laws respecting marriage (tax benefits etc.) Thus it is not and cannot be an establishment of religion. Originally posted by narfblat I didn't say they chose to be that way, I said they made choices that lead to it. You think they do. You might want to think about it a tad more carefully. Again, I am interested in seeing the reasoning behind this, because it seems patently ridiculous to me. Originally posted by narfblat "Born that way" isn't an excuse, as most people can get over depression, anxiety, and many other mental disorders. Those are disorders. They cause harm. Homosexuality does not inherently cause harm. Originally posted by narfblat Marriage belongs to religion, not Government. Therefore any attempt to change marriage is an attempt to change religion. Wrong. See above. Originally posted by narfblat If you were curious enough to try grass, you might find you liked it. If someones curious enough to try being gay, they may find they like it. They shouldn't have tried. You can't "try" physical attraction to your own gender. You're confusing homosexual behavior with homosexuality itself. Just because you've never had sex with a woman doesn't mean you're not heterosexual, does it? (Assuming you want to.) Also: You can't like grass, unless you severely conditioned yourself to, because you happen to be human with human taste buds and digestive system. This conditioning doesn't happen with homosexuals. Originally posted by narfblat Are you sure it isn't a mental disorder? I've heard that gays are more likely to come from abusive families, and they are more likely to be pedophiles. Wrong and wrong. Again, heterosexuals are the most likely people to become pedophiles. Also, gays come from anywhere and everywhere. Originally posted by narfblat If I published a book and someone changed it and re-published it without my permission, wouldn't it be plagiarism? Religion "published" marriage, and gave permission to copy to anyone who kept it as between two people of appropriate age and opposite gender. Can the government take their "copyright" away? No such thing happened. Culturally, marriage happened first, THEN religion. Do a little research into anthropology if you really want to understand marriage. (Oh, and to clarify, Adam and Eve were not married anymore than I would be married to someone else if I lived with them, was commited to them and had sex with them.) Also, the comparison to copyright is silly. The government created copyright. Originally posted by narfblat In my view, the original still owns the rights. I never said Religion = Heterosexuality, I said the religion that started marriage favors it. Again, you honestly think Christianity/Judaism started the cultural institution of marriage? Where did you get this idea? Originally posted by Samuel Dravis Actually, you can be. Your mother has to be addicted when she's carrying you about before you're born. This is true. However, gay women do not have any higher chance of bearing gay children than straight women. Thus, the drug comparison is still out Sorry for the long post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jed Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 How about we move this over to the Senate Chambers where the intelligent people who can continue a debate without hearing the argument "eww, poop sex is gross!" can do so, and people who do use those types of arguments will be eaten alive by those with a higher level of intellectual existence? I shall ponder this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 I'm not gay, or Canadian. So this doesn't concern me. But porkchop sandwiches are absolutely delicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 If two men want to shag each other, that should be their choice - not society's, not the legislature's, not yours, not mine, but THEIRS. Is that so difficult to allow? Case over. New thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 13, 2004 Author Share Posted December 13, 2004 The_One, would you like to move with me to Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 I don't care what anyone says. Gay is not marrage. Definition Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupes. Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Don't resurrect a 6 months old thread to post crap like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Let's just throw out the rest of the definitions, right kip? No no, let's review all the definitions. Ah! Here's one: Marriage: A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted April 7, 2005 Author Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog I don't care what anyone says. Gay is not marrage. Definition Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Because of unconstitutional legislation. And noone gives a **** what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 I close this thread in the name of not resurrecting 6 month old crap just to post a dictionary definition. If you don't believe that gay people can be married, don't marry a gay person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.