General Music Chat

I'm pretty sure Slacker was just joking about marrying his dog.. but I see what he was aiming at.he was making an issue regarding BEASTIALITY and homo sex is not exactly the same thing, so his addressing is generally not a valid argument ..two different things, one a crime and the other is legal in most states..don't hang out at the city park's restroom and you will be not arrested for it, keep it in your home away from innocent children.... pretty sure homosexuality has been with us for thousands of years, and will not be going away soon unless we let the moral majority have their way.. tribes in Africa go so far as to kill gays thinking it is of the devil..

Of course it was a facetious scenario, but I should have figured it would go over the heads of some. (The usual ones) The point of it was totally over the heads of the "usual suspects". If there was an point to be made it would be for the deductions and benefits awarded to married couples that singles can not take . Couples benefits such as income tax deductions

The other point is also obvious (to some ). If marriage does not mean a union between a man and a woman, then almost anything else should also be permitted.

My fault for crediting much more intelligence to a few of the posters than is actually accessible to them. My bad.

ell...consider for a moment that "supposed to be" might be in the eyes of the beholder.

Marriage is an institution older than any civilization that currently exists. It is that way because it is the natural order. What it is "supposed to be" has been defined for millennia, so it's not like that is a subjective and relative concept.

The highest estimates of homosexuals are somewhere between 1% to 2% of a population. I would never support persecuting or harassing them in any way...but affirming a sinful behavior (of any kind) is a different subject.

Our society recognizes the "rights" of people to drink alcohol but there are limits to what is acceptable in public. No behavior has a Constitutionally protected right, especially not a destructive one.

same for being "pro family". i've known and seen gay parents do a fine job raising a "family". as grant pointed out...there are far worse things that can be detrimental to a "family"...an alcoholic parent. an absent dad (or mom). an abusive (or neglectful parent). etc.

Using bad examples of what a family is "supposed to be" doesn't really make the case for homosexuality being a good situation to raise a family. Are there some good examples? I'll concede that there are, but you can't make that case from a few anecdotal stories.

Chastity Bono is one mixed up male/female-ish person, and I'd wager that confusion is more likely in most cases.

yeah, that argument has it's flaws, ted. for instance...you might have been discriminating against other women... but you didn't discriminate against me or anyone else in OUR choice of who we chose to marry.

The point wasn't about discrimination as much as it was about how there is, and should be, a special respect for the family unit. Gay marriage is a mockery of that.

it only destroys society if heterosexuality is banned and outlawed. is anyone really worried that's a likely outcome? really?

that justification for prohibiting gays from being married is wonky!

Not really. If you can show where any kind of aberrant sexual behavior became accepted as normal and that society continued to flourish, I'll concede your point here.

I'm not against some kind of civil union, or a society that wants to change the law were couples who live together (of any persuasion) are granted the same social benefits as married couples, but to corrupt an institution that has served civilization so well since eternity is a BIG mistake.

Actually, portraying homosexuality as normal does a disservice to all people. The lifespan of a homosexual is less than that of a heterosexual because of several factors, all behavioral.

I can't, in good conscience, condone any behavior that is destructive to the person doing it. So we are only "tolerating" the death of people when we act like this is simply choosing an alternative lifestyle. No, it's a path to death and hell. That is the truth which all who flirt with sin need to know.

so, what about a straight couple who decides they don't want children???? are they a threat and in danger of "destroying society"?

Right now, the society and culture of Europe is in real danger of disappearing because muslims on the continent are producing children at a 7 to 1 ratio of Europeans. So, yes, I think that statement is reasonable and accurate.

what about cpls in their 50's getting married? they won't be procreating either.
NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU! i know you don't see THAT as a threat to society.

Its never good to make policy based on an extremely small segment of statistics. My guess is that couples who marry later in life could already be grandparents in most cases. It's not a corruption of the institution of marriage either way though, because it has been the natural order of mankind since before history was recorded.

oh, there's probably a long list of reasons for the problems in chicago (and elsewhere)...i'd venture to say economics is a much larger factor.

Well sure, economics is a major factor...but that economic situation is caused by a breakdown of the family unit.

as for why gays would want to marry....c'mon, for EXACTLY the same reasons straight people do. for love. to show they're committed to one another. to write it all off as they're only doing it for the medical benefits, and to avoid probate and estate taxes is to see them as less than you and i. people.

To give anyone a civil rights status based on their behavior (sexual or otherwise) is discriminatory against everyone else.

Gays constantly demand we accept their sexual behavior on public parade. When was the last time you saw "Adultery Pride Day" or "Pedophilia Pride Day" at Six Flags when you went there to enjoy a day with the kiddos?

Yet, they want anyone who criticizes this deviant behavior to be jailed for "hate speech"? This is an infringement of Constitutionally guaranteed free speech!






ted, i h

ave to ask. have you known any gay couples that have been together for awhile? cos' i'm callin' bullshit on that premise. the gay cpls i know and have known are together first and foremost because they're in love and have made the commitment to spend the rest of their lives w their partners. same as you and your wife. same as me and mine.

Yes, I have some friends who have been together for 29 years now. They do suffer some (mostly) economic exclusions for this choice, but they knew that when they made the choice. No one said life is fair.

being free of religious constraints that "dictate" i feel otherwise.....i see gay marriage as a total non problem. two adult people want to be together...it's none of my business whether they're the same gender. or different races. or deaf.

I don't think anyone in the discussion has yet said we are against anyone "being together". I'm not against a guy listing his boyfriend as benefactor of a health insurance policy or as a close family member that can visit his deathbed in the hospital.

But that doesn't mean that it's natural, nor does it mean that they have any right to corrupt the sacred institution of marriage.

yeah....it used to be against the law for deaf to marry because it was a concern they would produce more deaf! somehow society has survived that. i think it can survive gays marrying as well.

Being deaf is not a behavior.

there's so, so many other things seriously wrong these days that's it's amazing to me that intelligent people can spend so much time agonizing over anything like this

The common sense God gave to a housefly is all it takes to understand the reason why marriage is defined as a covenant relationship between one woman and one man.

So, yea, I don't know why intelligent people would agonize over this for more than a minute or two either.

Two wrongs still don't make right.

I love it Mike. You actually attempted an attack on my beliefs. I have no problems with my "partner" no matter what the trials and and tribulations bring in to our lives. My wife and our marriage are constantly bombarded by outside missiles. Does she make mistakes? YES. Do I make mistakes? YES.

However the one thing that Keeps us together is our personal vow and responsibility to each other, sanctioned only by God. The law of the land and the necessary papers required by MY GOVERNMENT only prove out the fact that we have reached a point in our society... Government has become an all encompassing entity.
I don't like the fact that laws from my government discriminate. But...
I don't need any papers from my government to prove my "MARRIAGE".
I don't need approval from any one except God and my wife.

I am very tolerant of many things... But don't ever,ever discriminate against me... because you would have to pull my cold dead hand off anything... to protect that lady. Traditional? Yeah. Any one have a problem with that?

My marriage was sanctioned by a much higher authority than a government that I have authorized. The unfairness of the laws is the problem... But no matter how much any one wants to change the wording and the content... The government will never TRULY be able to sanction MARRIAGE.
It only comes from the heart.......................

I guess the only other way to put it...
I NEVER want to see any denial of blessings from the STATE or any other unequal laws applied....

All my blessings.... come from God.

Marriage was invented a long time ago because humans are naturally predisposed to non-monogamy. Our closest living relative the chimpanzee is also non-monogamous; there may be an evolutionary advantage to it. The problem is that when a man "took" another man's woman there was often bloodshed. So to keep the peace marriage was invented, which basically meant a man could "own" a woman exclusively. This reduced some of the violence and led to the establishment of other laws. In addition to marriage being a legal arrangement, it was enforced by religion, which said marriage was sanctioned by God. So yes, marriage was originally intended as a legal union of a man and a woman, however like all things it is evolving as our attitudes change. We must allow any two people who are of the age of consent to join in marriage and receive the same benefits as anyone. To fail to do so goes against what this country stands for - freedom.

Common sense seems to be thrown out the window when this topic arises.

For example that poster from Mike equating women voting (how a man looks is more important than his factual history now) and then blacks being able to vote or go to restaurants...again....these are not behaviors. A person can stop the behavior of being gay...it happens all the time.

Is there a Constitutionally protected civil right assigned to any behavior that can be changed by the individual? ( No, because that would be discriminatory against every person that doesn't practice that behavior )

This is truly offensive to anyone who works for civil rights.

We must allow any two people who are of the age of consent to join in marriage and receive the same benefits as anyone. To fail to do so goes against what this country stands for - freedom.
_________________

Why not Slacker's dog? Why not 8 men and 3 women?

You cannot choose to be gay. That is just ignorant. It is a biological condition imposed by the genes. It's like saying a tiger could choose not to have stripes. Really guys read a book, just no black ones.

Yod, please respond to my previous post if you can.

I still don't understand why anyone would care. It's just sex. We all do it.

Imaging you want to marry a girl, she's hot, she "does it" for you, like she's the ying of your yang, a perfect match in your eyes. But your best friend is divorced, he constantly preaches that marriage is an abomination, that everyone cheats, and that the very ideal of marriage is a farce. That's his CORE belief, because it's the bulk of his experience.

What's sad? That the friend in this case is more "right" on every level than the anti-gay crowd here.

Think about it. Have you been gay before. Ever sucked a c*ck? Ever been buttf*ked by a dude? I'm betting not.. so how is it that you claim to be the end-all professor of the topic? You aren't. You are taking what is a presumptuous and pre-programmed belief and applying it, rather- repeating it, with a veracity that might imply that you have some personal experience with it....

The bottom line is that you anti-gay folks simply don't know what you are talking about.

Marriage was invented a long time ago because humans are naturally predisposed to non-monogamy. Our closest living relative the chimpanzee is also non-monogamous; there may be an evolutionary advantage to it. The problem is that when a man "took" another man's woman there was often bloodshed. So to keep the peace marriage was invented, which basically meant a man could "own" a woman exclusively. This reduced some of the violence and led to the establishment of other laws. In addition to marriage being a legal arrangement, it was enforced by religion, which said marriage was sanctioned by God. So yes, marriage was originally intended as a legal union of a man and a woman, however like all things it is evolving as our attitudes change. We must allow any two people who are of the age of consent to join in marriage and receive the same benefits as anyone. To fail to do so goes against what this country stands for - freedom.

First , no man owns a woman,and no woman owns a man. Second, religion enforces no law today. Third, I guess you didn't read what was clearly in what I wrote. Societal laws must never discriminate. If Diane Feinstein is allowed a full carry conceal permit, then she must also allow everyone else. I think she is crazy for not understanding that little bit of hypocrisy.

If 2% really need to claim the word marriage... If it is more important than the equality of societal law... Then so be it. But it will never be sanctioned in the eyes of God.

I think Yod answered your question in... MY POST.

Glenny I think you have some reading comprehension issues. I was giving the reasons and conditions for the invention of marriage, not the current state or legal definition. Of course no man owns a woman today, but at one time that is exactly what marriage meant. And of course religious sanctioning of marriage is legally meaningless, I think we all pretty much understand this. Please try to keep up.

Mark... Go back and read your posts. Once again you have reverted to pure name calling as a "METHOD" to disrupt an honest argument and point of view. You went after Slacker, Dog and Ted. I didn't write this... YOU DID!

glen, i admire your loyalty for sticking up for those who share your views. and your consistency in passively/aggressively attacking those who do not... even if it does comes off as hypocritical and one sided. (it does)

may i suggest you simply scroll up two posts above mine and you can see what prompted my response (or as you insist on referring to it....my "name calling" of slacker)

interesting that you missed (as usual) his shot across the bow and instead you choose to call ME out. this is common pet "tactic" or "METHOD" of your's that you never grow tired of.

here....in case you don't want to do the leg work.....

Generally I wouldn't address such ignorance as yours,

and my response to it....

and still more bullshit from you. "addressing"???...that's ALL you do.

so, somehow you MISSED the name calling that provoked mine? really?


now, please explain where you think i "attacked" grant and yod.

in fact if you reread carefully you'll see i actually agreed w a large point that grant made. conversation w yod was just that. no name calling from either of us.

i understand this is a new diversionary tactic... a "METHOD" of yours but really....no one's buying it and you're better than that.

What? Are you a homosexual?

and what if i was? do you believe that you have to be a homosexual to stick up for homosexuals? do you have to a black to stick up for blacks?

I believe you should stop attacking people in the way you are good at.

thanks for the oft repeated backhanded compliment. now, see above glen. and in the future i'll have more respect for you if you level that same advice at others (from your team) who consistently do the same, yet never get a slap on the hand from you.

as for me being good at it..i learned it from the best...YOU! at least you've given up the attack dog tactic of calling those who disagree w you traitors and america haters.

I thought we had reached some sort of detente... I guess you just wish to go on cursing out people that speak their thoughts.

and that was my take too(detente)

i hope you take this in the way i intend it. you need to stow this BS. we both know that the views i expressed above re. gay marriage....whether you and others agree w them or not, are certainly more than just "cursing out people". for you to dismiss it as nothing more than an "attack" and as "an attempt to disrupt an honest conversation" is bogus and does little for your credibility.

That is shallow. Now I feel sorry for you. I am also wise enough to realize the truth.

no glen, you dismissing what i had to SAY ON THE SUBJECT w this cheap and weak tactic of yours (what... to keep your "opponent" off balance???) is the only thing that's "shallow" (and transparent) here.

please go back and read the substantive points i tried to make above. then tell me that was nothing more than "name calling".

ok, this is the last time i'll spend addressing this silliness of your's.

ted, grant....i look forward to continuing this and other civilized conversation w you.

slacker......as long as you continue w the snarky commments i trust you know you can expect them returned your way. (as it has been. as it is. as it will be)

we can both handle it..even it does rankle glen's delicate sensibilities (when I do it...i'm sure you will continue to get a pass)

You cannot choose to be gay. That is just ignorant. It is a biological condition imposed by the genes. It's like saying a tiger could choose not to have stripes. Really guys read a book, just no black ones.

Yod, please respond to my previous post if you can.

you don't know that

I just wrote it, so I guess I do.

The bottom line is that you anti-gay folks simply don't know what you are talking about.

but you do.

ha!