Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

10 Reasons Why Same Sex Marriage is Wrong
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ejp414 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6483 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ejp414 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 November 2005 at 10:58pm
Originally posted by Cedric Cedric wrote:

Not every living thing is either homosexual or straight. There could be a mix of them..


Definitely not, you're absolutely right.

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. . . . The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects, (p 639).

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history. . . . An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. . . . A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist, (pp. 639, 656)

Kinsey, et al. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.



(from kinseyinstitute.org/resources)


Edited by Ejp414
__________________
__________________

Back to Top
The Guy View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Soup Can Guy

Joined: 18 March 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6659 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 8:52am
This NAMBLA arguement has absolutly nothing to do with SSMs. NAMBLA does not involve marriage. The only thing they have in common whatsoever is homosexuality. 
My Site
Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5678 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by Cedric Cedric wrote:

If you look at it, it makes no sense not allowing homosexuals to get married. It's just that simple.


It also makes no sense for marijuana to be illegal, but it is.

The government isn't about doing what's right.
It's about banning anything they consider unsavory.
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10298 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 1:15pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:


You missed the
point of that statement. Honestly now, how stupid are you if you reply to it like that?
Honestly now, how stupid are YOU to miss MY point?

Lets look back at the quote, shall we?

"In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America."

I stated that we had 3 major religions, each saying homosexuality is a sin.

But perhaps I wasn't making myself clear enough.

3 religions + same idea = homosexuality is wrong.

Now tell me how their ideas are 'imposed' on the entire country when 80%+ follow it. Tell me how it's imposed when 80%+ AGREE with it. Tell me how it's imposed when 100% of the people in this country are allowed to choose to follow what they want.


I dont care what your pont was. Seriously, I dont, because I said you missed the point of that statemnet. I couldnt care less how much you care about what th religions think is wrong, because that wasnt the irony of the statement, moron.

Jesus christ, you make everything and everyone you are associated with look bad. Just quit being so ugly and so damn retarded, will you?

(no, because that would constitute you killing yourself, or completely changing)


Edited by Gatyr
Back to Top
PlentifulBalls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Tons of em’

Joined: 14 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9800 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PlentifulBalls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 4:50pm
Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married, because that is a holy sacrament to be shared between a man and a woman. But I'm in favor of allowing civil unions through the state between them.

sporx wrote:
well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 5:08pm
I think the word for that is "separate but equal"...
Back to Top
PlentifulBalls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Tons of em’

Joined: 14 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9800 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PlentifulBalls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

I think the word for that is "separate but equal"...


When marraige is done by the church, you can either listen to the rules or find a new religion.

So what if its seperate but equal, these are totally different issues. I'm saying they can have every right that married couples have, but cannot be married in a church.

sporx wrote:
well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30.
Back to Top
Ejp414 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6483 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ejp414 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by PlentifulBalls PlentifulBalls wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

I think the word for that is "separate but equal"...


When marraige is done by the church, you can either listen to the rules or find a new religion.

So what if its seperate but equal, these are totally different issues. I'm saying they can have every right that married couples have, but cannot be married in a church.


How about you let a Church decide their own rules rather than impose your own beliefs on them? What if a Church wants to allow same-sex marriages?

No one else here has even mentioned Church marriages; we are debating a legal marriages—that is, when a judge stamps a big, red M onto a couple's names and when the gov't grants them many new privelages, tax breaks, and rights.

By the way, there are over 1000 rights that married couples recieve and those joined by a civil union do not receive. And even if the gov't were to confer completely equal rights as a result of the two establishments, then—as Clark mentioned—that's called, "Seperate but equal."

Which is never truly equal.


Edited by Ejp414
__________________
__________________

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 6:33pm

Nobody at all is suggesting that any church should be forced to marry anybody they choose not to.  The issue is the GOVERNMENT and LEGAL concept of marriage, which is distinct from church marriage.

Right now churches can marry men to chickens, while refusing to marry whites to blacks, and that is ok.  It's when the legal effects come up that we have an issue.
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 9:49pm
Marriages should fall under the jurisdiction of the church. They are performed in a church via a sect or religion.

A catholic church should not have to perform a homosexual marriage.

But, if a homosexual couple wants to be married in the eyes of the law, they should be alowed to do so.

Legaly speaking they should have every right to do so, if you look at the presidences, we have..

Roe V. Wade( wich established a right to privacy)
Equal protection clause in the constitution.

Religious groups should not be able to legislate beleifs, their beliefs have nothing to do with law. Our constitution is set up in such a way that is should legaly alow homosexual marriages, its right there in black and white.

Thats just the way it, if these groups want homosexual not to be able to marry, well then they should get a constitutional amendment to that effect.

Edited by DBibeau855
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.