Canada to pass same sex legislation 8:00 PM ET

[Byzantine Prince]

Will this be good guys? Canada will now become the 3rd country in the world to legalize same sex marriage. A true milestone.

Soon every country in the world will take example.

[Ser Clegane]

Good for you guys :thumbsup:

Unfortunately I guess that here the (likely) upcoming elections this fall will not bring us closer to taking this step...

[ShadesPanther]

what are the other two countries?

[Hurin_Rules]

Netherlands and Belgium, I believe.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Netherlands and Belgium, I believe.

Doesn't Sweden have it?

[AggonyDuck]

Yup, this is good news and I hope other countries follow after their example... ~:)

[Duke Malcolm]

Dear oh dear, what a travesty this is...
Gays already have the same treatment as normal folk -- they can marry women if they want to. If I was King, or Governor-General, or even Prime Minister (of the UK, mind) I would be working to stop this...

[PanzerJaeger]

I didnt vote because Im not Canadian, but this is a bad decision in my opinion.

Besides ensuring the homosexual lobby a place in the pantheon of minorities, you shouldnt give people extra rights for a choice they make. Whats to stop people who choose to "love" animals or family members from pushing for legislation?

[Auctoritas]

Will this be good guys? Canada will now become the 3rd country in the world to legalize same sex marriage. A true milestone.

Soon every country in the world will take example.


Maybe this legislation is passing in Canada because a larger proportion of their population base is directly affected by it....


JUST Kidding!!! ~;)

[Byzantine Prince]

I didnt vote because Im not Canadian, but this is a bad decision in my opinion.

Besides ensuring the homosexual lobby a place in the pantheon of minorities, you shouldnt give people extra rights for a choice they make. Whats to stop people who choose to "love" animals or family members from pushing for legislation?
People who "love" animals can't get married because there's no animals included in the charter of rights. IT's only for humans. ~D

As for family members who would want to get married, I don't think they would ever be numerous and organized enough to be able to lobby anything. I don't see what's wrong with it anyways so I wouldn't mind if they did.

Go ahead and vote panzer. The vote is how many people agree with it or not, no matter where they live.

[King of Atlantis]

I think that gays couples should be granted the same rights as married couples(Man and women), but i dont think that it should ever be considered marriage. So, i just had to vote no.

[Beirut]

My gut feeling is that gay people should not be allowed to marry.

On the other hand, who am I to limit the expression of love and happiness of others?

I don't like it it but I'm not sure I'm fit to oppose it.

[Goofball]

Besides ensuring the homosexual lobby a place in the pantheon of minorities, you shouldnt give people extra rights for a choice they make. Whats to stop people who choose to "love" animals or family members from pushing for legislation?

Dusted off the old "slippery slope into bestiality and incest" argument template did we?

:zzz:

[ShadesPanther]

simpley, there aren't enough Incest lovers to lobby for it.

Personally I don't like the idea of Gay marigges. but then, who am I to limit their Human rights and anyway they mostly want it for legal stuff.

[Watchman]

I'm not particularly keen on the institution of marriage anyway (blame bad family history), but if homosexuals really feel like it I don't see why they shouldn't get to do it. It's really just a social contract between two people when you get down to it. And they certainly can't make any worse couples than heteros...

As a side note, Finland nowadays also allows same-sex civil unions which for most practical intents and purposes are the same as a marriage. Although we've a state church and the clergy are thus subservient to the governement, individual priests are allowed to listen to their conscienses in whether they're willing to perform all the maritial ceremonies to same-sex couples. A fair lot of them have proven to be willing - indeed, I think there's a few who were willing to do the ceremony even before the legislation, although it obviously only had symbolic value.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Since when has it been a human right for your government to acknowledge and support an institution of specious morality?

:book:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

who am I to limit their Human rights and anyway they mostly want it for legal stuff.

And thats the crux of the problem. They can already marry anyone they like even a dog. Having the state sanction it and give you special benifits is however another matter.

[Hurin_Rules]

They can already marry anyone they like even a dog.

I have yet to see a Canadian court recognize a marriage between a human and a canine. Please explain.

[_Martyr_]

As for family members who would want to get married, I don't think they would ever be numerous and organized enough to be able to lobby anything.

Didnt they found a state or two down South? ~;)

~:cheers: :duel:

[The_Doctor]

All marriage is is a way of organising people and their families.

I do not see the point of it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have yet to see a Canadian court recognize a marriage between a human and a canine. Please explain.

I thought I was pretty clear.


They can already marry anyone they like even a dog. Having the state sanction it and give you special benifits is however another matter.

What part dont you understand?

[Steppe Merc]

You're saying that marriage is one thing, but state sanctioned marriage is another...

[Byzantine Prince]

Frankly I don't see why marriage is even performed other then in case some guy tries to hit on your partner. Usually the ring tells people to mind their own business because this candy shop is closed. That's about all I can see in terms of benefits. If you really love someone you don't need marrige to not chaet on them with other people.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You're saying that marriage is one thing, but state sanctioned marriage is another...

Give the man a cookie ~D Again its not about love its about getting special privliges. If gays can get a tax break by living together I want one 2. Why should marriage have anything to do with it or love or sex for that matter?

[Goofball]

If gays can get a tax break by living together I want one 2.

You already can.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You already can.

So then theres no reason to let them marry ~;)

[Goofball]

You already can.So then theres no reason to let them marry ~;)

You can. They can't.

That's discrimination.

[Beirut]

We can get aroused looking at the Babes Thread. They can't.

Now that's discrimination! ~:cheers:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Originally posted by Goofball
You can. They can't.

That's discrimination.
Well, they can do what Gawain can do - marry a member of the opposite sex. From the state's perspective, the couple does not have to be "happy" - Heterosexual man can dislike his marriage just as much as homosexual man can.


We can get aroused looking at the Babes Thread. They can't.

Now that's discrimination!
Amen! ~:cheers:

[Proletariat]

We can get aroused looking at the Babes Thread. They can't.


Erm, I could prolly start a thread they wouldn't get bored with.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

We can get aroused looking at the Babes Thread. They can't.

Now that's discrimination! ~:cheers:

If they ever feel in need of a little eye candy though, they can check themselves out in a mirror. ~;)

[King of Atlantis]

If they ever feel in need of a little eye candy though, they can check themselves out in a mirror. ~;)


:sick2: :stunned: ~:eek:

[Papewaio]

Erm, I could prolly start a thread they wouldn't get bored with.

And you can, and it would be 'state sanctioned' as long as it obeyed the rules of no nudity etc as per all other threads.

I'm sure a larger percentage of homophobes would be examining the contents for 'offending material' then non-homophobes.

[Byzantine Prince]

Erm, I could prolly start a thread they wouldn't get bored with.
The rest of us can all chip in with some original material. ~D

Except for Papewaio and Gawain, they are not pretty. ~;)

[bmolsson]

How many threads do we have on this issue now ? I wonder why a war game community have so large interest in a question as gay marriage ??

[King of Atlantis]

This is the only one i see...

The american way one turned in to a gay marriage thing though cause somebody tried to take a cheap shot at americans and the americans got mad. Surprise, surprise ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

We're expected to sit back and take those cheap shots.. didnt you get the memo? ~;)

[King of Atlantis]

No i forgot to read it, i was to busy gay bashing... ~;)

[Papewaio]

Except for Papewaio and Gawain, they are not pretty. ~;)

We guys might not be pretty, but at least we have kids. :baby: Well my first is due in 4 weeks anyhow.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v493/Papewaio/Shogun.jpg

[Proletariat]

And you can, and it would be 'state sanctioned' as long as it obeyed the rules of no nudity etc as per all other threads.


None? Well screw it, then.


(Honestly, I just don't have enough of a pornographic bent, but thanks.)

[Byzantine Prince]

None? Well screw it, then.
As long as there is no penis, ass, or cum shot you'll be fine.


But seriously though, how do women get aroused by men? I find it hard to believe that our sex is even attractive. Then again I'm a guy so what do I know?

[Proletariat]

As long as there is no penis, ass, or cum shot you'll be fine.

Jeez, you puritanical fascists. (For the ESL guys, that was heavy sarcasm)


I find it hard to believe that our sex is even attractive. Then again I'm a guy so what do I know?

There's more to physical attraction than most females let on. Alot of the other things are intangible qualities that don't seem to make alot of sense, but I still think I'd recognize what I really want if/when it happens.

(Sorry for the wishy-washy answer, but what did you really expect? :gring:)

Yeah, 24 might be old to you, you whipper snapper. But I still got some things to figure out. *pops a Werther's Original*

[Gawain of Orkeny]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v493/Papewaio/Shogun.jpg

I love oreintal women. :bow: If thats you and your wife you are one lucky man.

[Papewaio]

Yes that is indeed my wife, and considering the mongrel on the left is me, I am a very very lucky man. ~D

[Byzantine Prince]

Yeah, 24 might be old to you, you whipper snapper. But I still got some things to figure out. *pops a Werther's Original*
Didn't your teachers tell you not to start sentences with 'But'? ~;)

This was a thread about Canada allowing gay marriage, not who Papewaio is getting married to, unless I am mistaken and the guy in that picture is a transvestite. ~:eek:

[Proletariat]

Didn't your teachers tell you not to start sentences with 'But'? ~;)


This is a pretty conversational forum, you.



This was a thread about Canada allowing gay marriage, not who Papewaio is getting married to, unless I am mistaken and the guy in that picture is a transvestite. ~:eek:

The way you try to flirt with Pape is shameless.

[Papewaio]

It is about marriage and who gets the right to it.

The wife is 24 too btw.

[Redleg]

It is about marriage and who gets the right to it.

The wife is 24 too btw.

Marriage is not a right - its a priveledge because you have to ask the person you want to marry - if they want to marry you. And they can always refuse.

I did not have the right to marry my wife - I got the priveledge to marry her because she consented to the union, and then because we wanted the license from the state we had to meet the conditions established by society to be married.

As for Canada - that they went through the legislative process to change their laws regarding the institution of marriage is the way a democracy is suppose to work. While I might not agree with the concept of same-sex marriage - if the desire of the society is to allow such a thing and the democratic process is followed there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing the laws to meet the changing conditions of society.

[Beirut]

But seriously though, how do women get aroused by men? I find it hard to believe that our sex is even attractive. Then again I'm a guy so what do I know?

Of course men are attractive. Look at me. ~:smoking:

Play lumberjack for a while and you'll know why the women find men sexy. :knight: (Even the gay guys love us. ~:eek: Eek!)

They like the beef, the strength, the attitude, the desires we hold, the beligerency, the bear in the woods demeanour. They think we're pigs and bastards and they're right. And they love it.

Men are great, and I thank God that I am one. The only better than being a man is being a man in a lesbian woman's body who looks like Angelina Jolie. :kiss2: My next life.

[Steppe Merc]

Lumberjack Song aka Beruit's Theme Song
By Monty Python

I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK,
I sleep all night and I work all day.

He's a lumberjack and he's OK,
He sleeps all night and works all day.

I cut down trees, I eat my lunch,
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shopping,
And have buttered scones for tea.

I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK,
I sleep all night and I work all day.

He's a lumberjack and he's OK,
He sleeps all night and works all day.

He cuts down trees, eats his lunch,
Goes to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays he goes shopping,
And has buttered scones for tea.

I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK,
I sleep all night and I work all day.

He's a lumberjack and he's OK,
He sleeps all night and works all day.

I cut down trees, I skip and jump,
I like to press wild flowers,
I put on women's clothing,
And hang around in bars.

He cuts down trees, he skips and jumps,
He likes to press wild flowers,
He put on women's clothing,
And hang around in bars.

I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK,
I sleep all night and I work all day.

He's a lumberjack and he's OK,
He sleeps all night and works all day.

I cut down trees, I wear high heels,
Suspenders and a bra,
I wish I were a girlie,
Just like my dear papa.

He cuts down trees, he wears high heels,
Suspenders and a bra,
He wants to be a girlie,
Just like his dear papa????

I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK,
I sleep all night and I work all day.

He's a lumberjack and he's OK,
He sleeps all night and works all day.


:bow:

[English assassin]

Men are great, and I thank God that I am one. The only better than being a man is being a man in a lesbian woman's body who looks like Angelina Jolie.

Thank you VERY MUCH. I suppose you realise every time I look at Angelina now I am going to have some very confused notion about her being a male lesbian lumberjack?

For heavens sake please don't say anything about Salma Hayek, leave me with one unsullied fantasy figure...

[Ronin]

Thank you VERY MUCH. I suppose you realise every time I look at Angelina now I am going to have some very confused notion about her being a male lesbian lumberjack?

For heavens sake please don't say anything about Salma Hayek, leave me with one unsullied fantasy figure...


i second that motion.....i further add that nothing should be said about Monica Bellucci either...or i´ll go seriously apesh*t ~D

[Papewaio]

For heavens sake please don't say anything about Salma Hayek, leave me with one unsullied fantasy figure...

You havn't seen Rob the Bastards picture then have you?

[King of Atlantis]

You havn't seen Rob the Bastards picture then have you?

His avatar is an arab or are you talking about his real picture... :dizzy2:

[Sigurd]

Doesn't Sweden have it?
LOL!
You're such a troll...~D

[Don Corleone]

Didnt they found a state or two down South? ~;)

~:cheers: :duel:

No, last time I checked, incestuous marriage was still illegal in Kerry too.

[Don Corleone]

We can get aroused looking at the Babes Thread. They can't.

Now that's discrimination! ~:cheers:

Well, for the love of God, don't start a 'Dudes' thread. ~:eek:

[Goofball]

This is the only one i see...

The american way one turned in to a gay marriage thing though cause somebody tried to take a cheap shot at americans and the americans got mad. Surprise, surprise ~;)

No, somebody (namely: Yours Truly) took a cheap shot at Republicans, not Americans. But in some conservative minds taking a shot at the Republican Party is the rough equivilant of burning your flag on the grave of the Unknown Soldier on the Fourth of July, so some panties got slightly twisted. I realize you guys sometimes think you are the only true Americans, but believe it or not, membership in the Republican Party is not yet a requirement for citizenship...

[King of Atlantis]

im not a republican by the way...

[PanzerJaeger]

God youre so stupid Atlantis!

Of course he wasnt attacking America, he was only attacking Americans.. its really quite simple.

Next time keep in mind Canadians never say anything hateful about America - they only say hateful things about huge parts of the population. ~;)

[Don Corleone]

Is it just me, or are people on both sides getting tired of this whole gay marriage issue?

It's not even the biggest threat to marriage for crying out loud. Let's bring back laws outlawing adultery if you want to protect traditional marriage...

[Goofball]

God youre so stupid Atlantis!

Of course he wasnt attacking America, he was only attacking Americans.. its really quite simple.

So I guess when you are saying all kinds of bad things about Democrats, you are actually insulting America as a whole?

Gimme a break.

However you want to spin it to satisfy your victim complex, there is a very big difference between taking a shot at a political party and taking a shot at an entire nation of people.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to think your back is against the wall and everybody hates you, fill your boots and believe whatever you want.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, somebody (namely: Yours Truly) took a cheap shot at Republicans, not Americans. But in some conservative minds taking a shot at the Republican Party

Are you sure?


The American Way:

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless you are gay, in which case you should be ashamed of your filthy, abnormal self and stay in the closet where you belong if you don't have the decency to suppress your sexual identity and marry and have kids while making both you and your spouse miserable because of your burning repressed sexuality."

Now if I were one of those who like to take things out of context like you did in the O Reily thread. Im still waiting there for you to quote the appropriate lines. You could be callled a liar like O reily.

But thats not me so here you go being the funny man you are you added this disclaimer.


Oh, wait.. I got mixed up.

That's the Republican Way.

My bad...

I see no mention of the Republican Party here either. Good thing you didnt say the conservative way. As you and I both now it is really a conservative principle and is not owned by the Republican party. Even though Im not a republican I still took offense. By the way what was your position on what Karl Rove said again? Did he attack the democratic party or democrats in general or democrats at all?

[Redleg]

No, somebody (namely: Yours Truly) took a cheap shot at Republicans, not Americans.

As Gaiwan pointed out your first sentence was not a cheap shot at Republicans but one directed at all Americans. You attempted to make it sound like just Republicans at the end.

The problem with using sarcasm in the typed discussion format is that it always is mis-understood or misinterpeted (SP) because its method of humor that works best in the vocal media - not in a typed discussion.

And by the way - you were still wrong as can be with the cheap shot no matter if it was direct at Republican's only or all Americans - since the Democratic party for the most part does not support same-sex marriage either.

[PanzerJaeger]

So I guess when you are saying all kinds of bad things about Democrats, you are actually insulting America as a whole?

Democrats are Americans arent they? So yes, im attacking other Americans. I dont try and pretend like being a democrat has nothing to do with being an american. ~:)

[Steppe Merc]

Is it just me, or are people on both sides getting tired of this whole gay marriage issue?
Frankly yes. I see it as a non issue, just let them get married. I never and still don't see what the fuss is about, despite Gawain and PJ's and others best efforts to explain it to me. ~;)

[King of Atlantis]

goofball-

im no republican and i often attack them on some of the issues i disagree with, but i took offense to your comment cause it was simply wrong. Though im a demcrat i will be the first to stand up for a republican if someone says something that is false, with little to no base in fact.

And further more, dislike of gay marriage is a pretty common thing for all americans. Even Kerry wasnt for it, though he just confused everybody and probably himself.

I(and others) have given reasons for why americans dislike gay marriage so im not going to repeat them, but the point is you were attacking an american belief, not a republican one, so i could care less if you said it was the republican way.

If you had said Bush is an idiot or something like that i would have been the first to agree, but reading your IS offense to an american, especially in a thread which is supposed to be about the amreican way( which many americans, myself included take to heart.

[JAG]

I thought this quite appropriate for the thread - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm - Canada just pipping Spain in ratifying gay marriage it seems. Spain would have legalised it a month or so ago if their conservative held Senate didn't block it first time round. No matter, it will pass this time.

I could have predicted the way this thread would have gone, and I was proved right. The old sex with animals gem came out quick, possibly quicker than I imagined, which was the only surprise.

Don't worry PJ and co, it is coming to a place near you... soon!

:balloon2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I could have predicted the way this thread would have gone, and I was proved right. The old sex with animals gem came out quick, possibly quicker than I imagined, which was the only surprise.

Oh common . How many threads have there been on this? If you dont know the shpeel by now give it up. Next Ill tell you that about the Palestinian thread. I knew it would look like this. Dont go patting yourself on the back like your some genius ~D

But tell me how you knew a thread on the American way would alert you to this


The old sex with animals gem came out quick, possibly quicker than I imagined

What does that have to do with the American way?

[JAG]

Well this being a thread about Canada now having legalised gay marriage might be the reason...

[Papewaio]

I'm not sure what it has to do with the American way... is that a statement from experience? ~D ~:eek:

[King of Atlantis]

if you read the amreican way thread then you will know what gawain is talking about ~;)

[Divinus Arma]

I vote "Gah!"

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't worry PJ and co, it is coming to a place near you... soon!

Oh im not worried. Im collecting a small arsenal and planning to move to Montana. Ive never heard of a Gay Pride parade in Montana!

[edyzmedieval]

Homosexuals are derailed people.... Bad for Canada to pass the same sex legislation....

[Goofball]

And further more, dislike of gay marriage is a pretty common thing for all americans. Even Kerry wasnt for it, though he just confused everybody and probably himself.

I(and others) have given reasons for why americans dislike gay marriage so im not going to repeat them, but the point is you were attacking an american belief, not a republican one, so i could care less if you said it was the republican way.

No, being against gay marriage is not something that is an "American belief" and dislike of gay marriage is not a "pretty common thing for all Americans (as I will show below). In fact, your statements to that effect imply unfairly that Americans are generally discriminatory people who want to deny people happiness and equality based on a silly little thing like sexual orientation. That is far more insulting to Americans as a whole than any statements I made about Republicans. So ease up on the America-bashing, will ya?

~;)


While 48% of those surveyed say allowing gay unions "will change our society for the worse," 50% say they would be an improvement or have no effect.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-06-marry-inside-usat_x.htm

These next numbers show that while a majority of Americans are against gay marriage (hey, it's a Fox poll, what do you expect?), it is still nowhere near all Americans. And when asked about civil unions, the "no" majority shrinks sharply.


Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry.

(cont.)Americans are more supportive on the issue of allowing gay and lesbian couples to form "civil unions that are not marriages." Today, 41 percent support and 48 percent oppose civil unions. These new poll results show a small increase in opposition to civil unions — two months ago 46 percent supported and 44 percent opposed (September 2003).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

Here's another one for you:


In the poll, 37 percent of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legal, while 55 percent say they should be illegal. But when opponents are asked if it's worth amending the Constitution to ban such marriages, six in 10 of them say it's not. As a net total of the population, this poll finds 20 percent of Americans favor a constitutional ban on gay marriages; 33 percent oppose such marriages but wouldn't amend the Constitution; and 37 percent would make them legal.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/gaymarriage_poll_030922.html

As you can see, your population is nowhere near as united in the anti-gay marriage Crusade as you seem to think.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As you can see, your population is nowhere near as united in the anti-gay marriage Crusade as you seem to think.

Still dodging the bullets huh? According to your post its only republicans who hold that postion. All youve done is prove us right and you wrong here.

[King of Atlantis]

No, being against gay marriage is not something that is an "American belief" and dislike of gay marriage is not a "pretty common thing for all Americans (as I will show below). In fact, your statements to that effect imply unfairly that Americans are generally discriminatory people who want to deny people happiness and equality based on a silly little thing like sexual orientation. That is far more insulting to Americans as a whole than any statements I made about Republicans. So ease up on the America-bashing, will ya?

~;)



You just proved my point, the problem with your statement was that it was implying that gay marriage was a right and if people dislike it then they are gay bashers. I personally dont really care if gay marriage gets passed because it doesnt effect me at all, but the point i have been making in these threads is that marriage is not a right, it is a privaledge. And all your numbers did show that gay marriage was in the minority in america. Now as a majority of people in america are against gay marriage, you have agained called all those people gay haters.

Please come up with one reason why gay marriage should be a right. Gays can marry a women/man(depending on their sex) just like any other american.
And if we say that gay marriage is legal, what would stop animal marriages?

I mean there is very sexy looking trashcan across the street, but im not allowed to marry it. I guess i better go to the local fourth of july parade, and start protesting as loud as i can so that i ruin everybody else's time there. ~;)

[Goofball]

Still dodging the bullets huh? According to your post its only republicans who hold that postion.

My post said nothing of the kind. That's the way you want to read it because interpreted that way it actually gives your argument a tiny resemblence to correctness.

Alas, you are quite off base in your spin.

Keep trying though...


You just proved my point

Impossible. You have no point.


the problem with your statement was that it was implying that gay marriage was a right and if people dislike it then they are gay bashers.

Are you and Gawain eating the same ESP pills? Because you both seem intent on insisting you know what I am saying better than I do.

I specifically said I don't really care if you want to call marriage a right/privilege/whatever. And I never said anything about gay bashers. The word I used was discrimination. Very big difference.

Get some new ESP pills, yours are defective.


Please come up with one reason why gay marriage should be a right. Gays can marry a women/man(depending on their sex) just like any other american.
And if we say that gay marriage is legal, what would stop animal marriages?

Wow. Profound arguments my friend. You are really offering a fresh, new perspective on the whole debate that is causing me to rethink my whole position. I mean think of it! People marrying their cats! Good God! We'd soon have a super-powerful race of cat people planning to take over the world. Good thing we have clear thinking defenders of rightness around to put a stop to that sort of nonsense.

I mean there is very sexy looking trashcan across the street, but im not allowed to marry it.

Wow. If you hadn't already decimated my position with such original, incisive, points such as the ones you posted above, this one would have totally done me in.

Thank you for protecting us from a nation of Oscar the Grouch offspring that would surely be the result of allowing gays to marry.

I yield to your superior analysis of the issue.

[Ser Clegane]

I know that the opponents of gay marriage keep telling us that they personally don't hate gay people and that they respect their lifestyle as long as they do not insist on receiving the right/privilege to marry.

However, I find it to be quite revealing that when hearing about gay marriage, the first thing that comes to some people's minds are animals and now even trashcans.
Respect indeed...

[King of Atlantis]

I in no way think gay marriage is any thing close to animal/trashcan marriage. The point is there are people out there like that and the are being descriminated too, if deining gays marriage descrimination.

goofball- it seems pointless to argue with you, obviosuly your statement was offensive to americans, as many non republucan americans were offended, so this argument is rather piontless.

Your statistric proved my point that a majority of americans dislike the idea of gay marriage, but no your right i have no point ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

Respect indeed...

Whoa whoa, who said anything about respect? ~:confused:

I just acknowledge they are able to do what they want because we live in a relatively free country.. I have no respect for that lifestyle or the people who pursue it.

I also feel that the fact homosexuality causes people to think of bestiality and other sexual deviation is more the problem of the homosexuals, not anyone else. You can force people to tolerate the lifestyle, you cant force them to change their opinion of it though.

[Redleg]

I know that the opponents of gay marriage keep telling us that they personally don't hate gay people and that they respect their lifestyle as long as they do not insist on receiving the right/privilege to marry.

However, I find it to be quite revealing that when hearing about gay marriage, the first thing that comes to some people's minds are animals and now even trashcans.
Respect indeed...

Then you have missed the jest of my postion on the issue.

Same-sex marriage laws need to go through the same process as any other law in the country in which it is being advocated. Not forced through the courts but allowed to proceed through the legislative process - just like the Canadians have done.

When the society of that country is ready for same-sex marriage as a public law it will be voted in.

Its amazing that Goofball will attack the American postion on the issue - but he is very silent on the other countries - many of them western European which also do not recogonize same-sex marriage. To include your own country of Germany if my memory serves me correctly.

And he says he is only bashing Republicians - lets see you bash the French politicial parties for not have same-sex marriage, or the labor party of Britian for not allowing same-sex marriage, or anyother party for that matter.

[Goofball]

goofball- it seems pointless to argue with you,

No, it's just pointless to argue with me when you're wrong.

~;)


obviosuly your statement was offensive to americans, as many non republucan americans were offended, so this argument is rather piontless.

No, a couple of people (who shall remain nameless) whose thinking very closely mirrors the standard Republican Party stance on gay marriage became offended, and claimed I was taking a shot at all Americans, which I clearly was not doing. I didn't see any pro-gay marriage Americans weighing in to tell me how offended they were. This is simply another example of conservative-thinking Americans trying to project their own views onto the entire population, when the entire population does not share those views.


Your statistric proved my point that a majority of americans dislike the idea of gay marriage,

No, they didn't. Let me remind you what your "point" was (and note that I do it by direct quote, rather than inaccurate and misleading paraphrasing, though I have added my own bold highlights):


And further more, dislike of gay marriage is a pretty common thing for all americans.

and:


but the point is you were attacking an american belief, not a republican one, so i could care less if you said it was the republican way.

Quite clearly you were arguing that opposition to gay marriage was prevalent in all Americans, not (as the position you have just tried to backpedal into states) a majority of Americans. My statistics showed that you are wrong.

And at any rate, in your own words, I am only attacking a belief, not a people. If you are so thin-skinned that you can't stand to have your ideas or beliefs subjected to scrutiny and criticism, then perhaps the Backroom isn't the place for you.


but no your right i have no point ~;)

As the famous African adventurer said: "If the Foo shits, wear it."

~;p

[Goofball]

Then you have missed the jest of my postion on the issue.

OT: Sorry Red, but I've watched you make this mistake long enough to be certain that it is not a typo.

Let me help you out:

jest http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Djest) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (jhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifst)
n.

A playful or amusing act; a prank. See Synonyms at joke (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joke).
A frolicsome or frivolous mood: spoken in jest.
An object of ridicule; a laughingstock.
A witty remark.
As amusing as your arguments often are, I believe the word you are looking for is:

gist http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgist) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (jhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifst)
n.

The central idea; the essence. See Synonyms at substance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=substance).
Law. The grounds for action in a suit.
Okay, let's proceed.


Its amazing that Goofball will attack the American postion on the issue

There you go again. Being anti-gay marriage is not an American position, since all Americans are not anti-gay marriage.


but he is very silent on the other countries - many of them western European which also do not recogonize same-sex marriage.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, Red. The U.S. is one of the few places where democratic governments are actually taking the extreme measures of amending their constitutions to specifically preclude gays from marrying. Hence, many of the discussions that crop up in the Backroom deal with gay marriage (or lack thereof) in the U.S.

Sorry, but I have made my views of those who are in favor of discriminating against gays quite clear, and they extend to any who hold those views, not just Americans. You should hear the arguments I have with my Canadian friends who are anti gay marriage. They certainly do not get immunity.

The hypocrisy card won't work here, my friend.


And he says he is only bashing Republicians - lets see you bash the French politicial parties for not have same-sex marriage, or the labor party of Britian for not allowing same-sex marriage, or anyother party for that matter.

Sounds good to me. You name 'em, I'll bash 'em. Start a thread...

[Redleg]

OT: Sorry Red, but I've watched you make this mistake long enough to be certain that it is not a typo.

Let me help you out:

jest http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Djest) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (jhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifst)
n.

A playful or amusing act; a prank. See Synonyms at joke (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joke).
A frolicsome or frivolous mood: spoken in jest.
An object of ridicule; a laughingstock.
A witty remark.
As amusing as your arguments often are, I believe the word you are looking for is:

gist http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgist) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (jhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifst)
n.

The central idea; the essence. See Synonyms at substance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=substance).
Law. The grounds for action in a suit.
Okay, let's proceed.

Typo - if that is how you want to argue fine - it seems that your want to be condesending (SP) in this discuss now doesn't. Fine two can play that way



There you go again. Being anti-gay marriage is not an American position, since all Americans are not anti-gay marriage.

Did I say all again you want to play a little word play - let me play along. I did not say all - Now did I.

Neither party of the American Politicial spectrum has as a talking point same-sex marriage. However since you want to quantify my statement as refering to all[b] Americans, lets review your statements in the American Way thread again. You clearly stated [b]American's and only refered to the Republician Party after the fact. So in essence using your same logic - you were refering to all Americans in your first sentence. You can not have it both ways Goofball.

The American Way:

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless you are gay, in which case you should be ashamed of your filthy, abnormal self and stay in the closet where you belong if you don't have the decency to suppress your sexual identity and marry and have kids while making both you and your spouse miserable because of your burning repressed sexuality."


Clearly if my statement means all then this one of yours also means all







The squeaky wheel gets the grease, Red. The U.S. is one of the few places where democratic governments are actually taking the extreme measures of amending their constitutions to specifically preclude gays from marrying. Hence, many of the discussions that crop up in the Backroom deal with gay marriage (or lack thereof) in the U.S.


And why is that being done - because instead of approaching the issue through the legislative means the few who wish for same-sex marriage are using the courts to force their view of society on the majority. Marriage laws are based upon the desires of society, Homosexuality is a behavior which like any other behavior can be regulated by laws dedicated by society. When a group attempts to change behavior laws through the courts - others can attempt to have the laws quantified in more specific matter through the legislative process. This is what has happened in Canada - where the legislative process was used to modify or change the law. However it seems because the direction the United States has taken on the issue - you feel its okay to insult American because we don't think the exact same way you do - nor do we think the way you want us to. Again meets the defination of being a bigot - the term you applied to me incorrectly - but demonstrate yourself everytime this issue comes up.



Sorry, but I have made my views of those who are in favor of discriminating against gays quite clear, and they extend to any who hold those views, not just Americans. You should hear the arguments I have with my Canadian friends who are anti gay marriage. They certainly do not get immunity.

The hypocrisy card won't work here, my friend.


And yet it has - because you have shown a clear hypocrisy on the issue, when it comes to other nations and again with the above attempt to disclaim that you were refering to all Americans in your little statement. Which you were clearing refering to Americans in your first sentence.

Gays are not a protected class of citizens - they are just like everyother American that I know. When you show me that regulating behavior is a discrimination - then maybe you can get away with calling it discrimination. When it comes to behavior - society gets to decide by the legislative process what it will accept.

When the scientific studies can prove beyond any doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition that one is always born into - then the sub-group of homosexuals will be entitled to special protections to insure they are not discriminated against. However until then - the society gets to determine through the legislative process - not the courts, and not the hateful rethoric you have been using.




Sounds good to me. You name 'em, I'll bash 'em. Start a thread...

Named three already.

Germany, France, and England do not recongize same-sex marriage. Pick anyone you want - its fairly easy since there are very few countries that recongize same-sex marriage.

[Goofball]

Typo - if that is how you want to argue fine - it seems that your want to be condesending (SP) in this discuss now doesn't. Fine two can play that way

Lighten up Red. I was simply pointing out a mistake you make repeatedly and trying to correct it for you. I wasn't trying to condescend to you or imply that the mistake had anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's why I clearly stated "OT" before commenting.


Did I say all again you want to play a little word play - let me play along. I did not say all - Now did I.

No, but the lack of any other modifier such as "conservative" or "Christian" before the word American typically implies that the thing you are describing as American (in this case, being anti gay marriage) applies to all Americans. But hey, if you say you didn't mean all Americans, I'll take your word for it.


Neither party of the American Politicial spectrum has as a talking point same-sex marriage. However since you want to quantify my statement as refering to all[b] Americans, lets review your statements in the American Way thread again. You clearly stated [b]American's and only refered to the Republician Party after the fact. So in essence using your same logic - you were refering to all Americans in your first sentence. You can not have it both ways Goofball.

The American Way:

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless you are gay, in which case you should be ashamed of your filthy, abnormal self and stay in the closet where you belong if you don't have the decency to suppress your sexual identity and marry and have kids while making both you and your spouse miserable because of your burning repressed sexuality."


Clearly if my statement means all then this one of yours also means all

C'mon Red. Splicing out parts of posts that disprove your point is, quite frankly, beneath you. You forgot one very important part of my post. Let me help you (the important bit is in bold):


"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless you are gay, in which case you should be ashamed of your filthy, abnormal self and stay in the closet where you belong if you don't have the decency to suppress your sexual identity and marry and have kids while making both you and your spouse miserable because of your burning repressed sexuality."

Oh, wait.. I got mixed up.

That's the Republican Way.

My bad...

Clearly, I was not referring to all Americans.

Try again.


And why is that being done - because instead of approaching the issue through the legislative means the few who wish for same-sex marriage are using the courts to force their view of society on the majority. Marriage laws are based upon the desires of society, Homosexuality is a behavior which like any other behavior can be regulated by laws dedicated by society. When a group attempts to change behavior laws through the courts - others can attempt to have the laws quantified in more specific matter through the legislative process. This is what has happened in Canada - where the legislative process was used to modify or change the law. However it seems because the direction the United States has taken on the issue - you feel its okay to insult American because we don't think the exact same way you do - nor do we think the way you want us to. Again meets the defination of being a bigot - the term you applied to me incorrectly - but demonstrate yourself everytime this issue comes up.

Sorry Red, where did I call you a bigot? You are the first one to use that word in this conversation. Easy there Tex, the disco's open all night.

At any rate, I don't care how you want to rationalize it. Just because the majority of Americans vote in favor of discriminating against a group based on their sexual orientation doesn't make it right.



Sorry, but I have made my views of those who are in favor of discriminating against gays quite clear, and they extend to any who hold those views, not just Americans. You should hear the arguments I have with my Canadian friends who are anti gay marriage. They certainly do not get immunity.

The hypocrisy card won't work here, my friend.And yet it has - because you have shown a clear hypocrisy on the issue, when it comes to other nations and again with the above attempt to disclaim that you were refering to all Americans in your little statement. Which you were clearing refering to Americans in your first sentence.

Yes, if you only quote the first sentence of my post. Let me give you another statement of mine you can splice apart and twist to try to villify me:

I, Goofball, think all pregnant women should have abortions. But I only think they should have them if their lives are in danger from the pregnancy.

There, that one should keep you busy for a while.


Gays are not a protected class of citizens

No, they certainly are not. They are one of the most discriminated against groups in western society.


they are just like everyother American that I know.

No, they're not. They are not allowed to marry the person they love.


When you show me that regulating behavior is a discrimination - then maybe you can get away with calling it discrimination. When it comes to behavior - society gets to decide by the legislative process what it will accept.

Just like "society" decided once that slavery was okay.

Majority may rule, but it's not always right.


When the scientific studies can prove beyond any doubt that homosexual behavior is a genetic condition that one is always born into - then the sub-group of homosexuals will be entitled to special protections to insure they are not discriminated against. However until then - the society gets to determine through the legislative process - not the courts, and not the hateful rethoric you have been using.

I don't give two farts and a tin whistle whether homosexuality is genetic or not. As far as I'm concerned, not allowing gays to marry is no different than not allowing Christians, blacks, or left-handed people to marry.

And I have been using no "hateful rhetoric," Red. Stop getting your panties in a twist. The most aggressive word I have used is discrimination.



Sounds good to me. You name 'em, I'll bash 'em. Start a thread...Named three already.

Germany, France, and England do not recongize same-sex marriage. Pick anyone you want - its fairly easy since there are very few countries that recongize same-sex marriage.

And as far as I'm concerned, people in those (or any) countries who are in favor of not allowing gays to marry are guilty of practicing unfair discrimination.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, wait.. I got mixed up.

That's the Republican Way.

My bad...


Clearly, I was not referring to all Americans.

Try again.


Your still mixed up because its not the republican way but that of most Americans. Why do you think we all took offense? Maybe you only meant to smear republicans but obviously all of us took offense and rightfully so. Again anyone who doesnt agree with you on this is a bigot. Well my friend on this subject Im afraid you have shown the most bigotry Ive seen on these boards. Only your view is right and moral. Youve said as much.


Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
goofball- it seems pointless to argue with you,


No, it's just pointless to argue with me when you're wrong.

And thers more but this is going no where.

[Redleg]

Lighten up Red. I was simply pointing out a mistake you make repeatedly and trying to correct it for you. I wasn't trying to condescend to you or imply that the mistake had anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's why I clearly stated "OT" before commenting.

Like I said you decided to go down that path did you not?




No, but the lack of any other modifier such as "conservative" or "Christian" before the word American typically implies that the thing you are describing as American (in this case, being anti gay marriage) applies to all Americans. But hey, if you say you didn't mean all Americans, I'll take your word for it.


Just like you expect me to take your word that you did not mean all Americans with your statement. Fair enough.



C'mon Red. Splicing out parts of posts that disprove your point is, quite frankly, beneath you. You forgot one very important part of my post. Let me help you (the important bit is in bold):


Not splicing out parts of post - using the same arguement you are using about other people's meaning.



Clearly, I was not referring to all Americans.

Try again.


Clearly you were not referring to all Americans when you said just Republicans - however before that one can not be so sure.



Sorry Red, where did I call you a bigot? You are the first one to use that word in this conversation. Easy there Tex, the disco's open all night.


About 12 monthes ago in a thread about this same topic.



At any rate, I don't care how you want to rationalize it. Just because the majority of Americans vote in favor of discriminating against a group based on their sexual orientation doesn't make it right.


Behavior is just that behavior. So I guess its discrimination to have laws that are against sex with minors. I guess its discrimination to have laws that state minors can not drink. You claim that its discrimination to say no to same-sex marriage. But clearly homosexual behavior has not been determined to warrant a protected class of citizens. So once again what Rights are being violated?



Yes, if you only quote the first sentence of my post. Let me give you another statement of mine you can splice apart and twist to try to villify me:


Like I said two can play the word game you are pursueing.



I, Goofball, think all pregnant women should have abortions. But I only think they should have them if their lives are in danger from the pregnancy.

There, that one should keep you busy for a while.


I got absolutely no problem with the current laws about abortion in the United States. This thread is not about abortion but same-sex marriage. It seems you are wanting the United States to accept same-sex marriage without the people have a voice in what direction their society takes. How very noble of you - maybe you should run for office and become a despot.



No, they certainly are not. They are one of the most discriminated against groups in western society.


Once again regulating behavior is not discrimination. You are throwing out buzz words - and then accusing others of rationalizing. Yea right.



No, they're not. They are not allowed to marry the person they love.


The current laws are not based upon emotion. When the law is about the emotion of love then you can claim discrimination



Just like "society" decided once that slavery was okay.


Apples and oranges. Where is the individual's right being violated?



Majority may rule, but it's not always right.


When it comes to laws that govern society and behavior, its majority rule because I live in representive democracy - where the people have the right to decide what course their society takes.



I don't give two farts and a tin whistle whether homosexuality is genetic or not. As far as I'm concerned, not allowing gays to marry is no different than not allowing Christians, blacks, or left-handed people to marry.


however you feel about it - the current laws in the United States do not are not discriminatory



And I have been using no "hateful rhetoric," Red. Stop getting your panties in a twist. The most aggressive word I have used is discrimination.

hell some of its already present in this particlur post - you wanted to play word games - well two can play that game now.
[quote]
And as far as I'm concerned, people in those (or any) countries who are in favor of not allowing gays to marry are guilty of practicing unfair discrimination.

Well then start threads about their unfair discrimination against allowing same-sex marriage. However I have never seen you argue or use hateful rethoric and sarcasm unless its directed at American's on this issue.

[Beirut]

I also feel that the fact homosexuality causes people to think of bestiality and other sexual deviation is more the problem of the homosexuals, not anyone else.


"The fact?" Are you serious?

Having grown up around gay men (and women), I can assure you sir that bestiality is as absurd a notion to them as it is to us hetero-types.

I don't know where you get your info, but you may rest assured that in this case it is not only ridiculously wrong, but mind bendingly and blisteringly wrong.

[PanzerJaeger]

I must not have said that right. My point was:

Many people naturally relate homosexuality to all kinds of sexual deviation and they shouldnt be scorned for their thoughts.

We seem to be crossing a dangerous path where not only is it wrong to not tolerate homosexuals, which is not acceptable in the western world, but its also wrong to think poorly of them.

People shouldnt be made to feel guilty if they dislike the homosexual lifestyle and find it disgusting or whatever - they are not the problem.

[Don Corleone]

Well, like I said last night, this issue is getting really old and tired for me. I don't know if I buy Andrew Sullivan's argument (gay conservative, editor of New Republic) that it will smoothe out promiscuity among gay men, but even if it doesn't, I've gotten to a point where I say BFD.

Now, if they start making a joke out of marriage, and demand that the institution change to meet their needs, then I'll jump back in. Until then, I'm focusing my energy on dealing with a much more serious threat to the family... adultery, and those scumbags who leave their spouses when children are involved, like that @ss-hole, Lance Armstrong. I hope he gets hit by a truck this time. His wife nurses him through chemotherapy and radiation, working her ass off to support him and their family, and when he gets famous he drops her for Sheryl Crow. I hope he rides off the side of an Alp and loses the other testicle.

[Redleg]

People shouldnt be made to feel guilty if they dislike the homosexual lifestyle and find it disgusting or whatever - they are not the problem.

No they should not be made to feel guilty about disagreeing with someone's behavior. When that disagreement about someone else's behavior begins to erode to wanting to restrict their individual rights and personal well being then those individuals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Beirut]

I must not have said that right. My point was:

Many people naturally relate homosexuality to all kinds of sexual deviation and they shouldnt be scorned for their thoughts.

That's fair. But still misguided of them to think that way. For my part, I would to look into the deviations of those straight and narrow (minded) who think homosexuality is a "Go directly to Hell, do not collect $200" sin. How many of them are wearing chicken suits while receiving a thoughroughly heterosexual spanking from a woman dressed in Saran Wrap? Deviations know no bounds. ~;)


We seem to be crossing a dangerous path where not only is it wrong to not tolerate homosexuals, which is not acceptable in the western world, but its also wrong to think poorly of them.

People can think what they want. But the bonerheads who campaign to have God smite all homos into the Hellfires of Satan's Depths and declare them to be mentally deficient and evil are exactly as ridiculous and annoying as the homos who parade around in dresses and panties during gay pride parades. The only difference is that at least the homos are smilling.



People shouldnt be made to feel guilty if they dislike the homosexual lifestyle and find it disgusting or whatever - they are not the problem.

You are completely correct. As long as they keep it within reason. Likewise, the homos should shut the hell up and stop whinning all the time. And yes, I tell my gay brother and his friends this all the time.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's fair. But still misguided of them to think that way.

So you are the judge on whats right and wrong thinking on this matter? Im sure those with the opposite position are saying the same about your views.


How many of them are wearing chicken suits while receiving a thoughroughly heterosexual spanking from a woman dressed in Saran Wrap? Deviations know no bounds.

Very few I would venture. I would bet money that this is far more prevelant among homosexuals. Besides homosexuality isnt a deviation now is it?


But the bonerheads who campaign to have God smite all homos into the Hellfires of Satan's Depths

Who are these people. Ive never met one?


and declare them to be mentally deficient and evil are exactly as ridiculous and annoying as the homos who parade around in dresses and panties during gay pride parades. The only difference is that at least the homos are smilling.

The only difference is that we all agree that all these people are nuts and deviants ~D

[Beirut]

So you are the judge on whats right and wrong thinking on this matter? Im sure those with the opposite position are saying the same about your views.

In our discussions of Middle East politcs are you not playing the the judge of what's right and wrong thinking on the matter?

We each think what we think and pass our judgements along those lines. Mine cannot be any worse than someone elses.


Very few I would venture. I would bet money that this is far more prevelant among homosexuals. Besides homosexuality isnt a deviation now is it?

Re-hee-hee-heeally. :dozey: You think the straight folks abstain from the tie-me-up-and-make-me-moo-like-a-cow school of sexual behaviour?

I thought you were over 18 and knew about the world. ~;)


Who are these people. Ive never met one?

What? you want pictures?


The only difference is that we all agree that all these people are nuts and deviants ~D

I don't think homosexuals are deviants any more than heterosexuals. I've known many, many gay men for years and years and the only real difference between us is I like the womenfolk and they like the menfolk. The rest of everything is pretty much the same. (Except they tend to to dress better.)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In our discussions of Middle East politcs are you not playing the the judge of what's right and wrong thinking on the matter?

Nope. I may say I cant understand your position and I might think you are missguided but can you claim to think any differently of my position on the subject? Im just pointing out there are two sides to every story.


We each think what we think and pass our judgements along those lines. Mine cannot be any worse than someone elses.

Well I pretty much said that. You took it as an attack . But some peoples opinons are based on nothing more than feelings.


Re-hee-hee-heeally. You think the straight folks abstain from the tie-me-up-and-make-me-moo-like-a-cow school of sexual behaviour?

Nope but he was talking about holy rollers and I think their less prone to this sort of thing. That is unless their a priest ~D


I thought you were over 18 and knew about the world.

You would be surprised what I know .


What? you want pictures?

Names would suffice. Pat Robertson comes to mind but I cant remember him asking god to smite all homosexuals.


I don't think homosexuals are deviants any more than heterosexuals.

So then do you think no ones a deviant or everyones a deviant or do YOU get to pick and choose whats considered deviant. All homosexuals and most heterosexuals for that matter are deviants IMO.


I've known many, many gay men for years and years and the only real difference between us is I like the womenfolk and they like the menfolk. The rest of everything is pretty much the same. (Except they tend to to dress better.)

The only deviation were speaking on here is sexual .

[Beirut]

I'm exhausted and I'm sorry I don't have the brains or energy to answer your post as it should be answered, suffice it to say...

:bow: You're at least mostly right about everything.

G'night.

[Goofball]

Lighten up Red. I was simply pointing out a mistake you make repeatedly and trying to correct it for you. I wasn't trying to condescend to you or imply that the mistake had anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's why I clearly stated "OT" before commenting.Like I said you decided to go down that path did you not?

Hmmm. What path are you talking about? The "try to helpfully correct a guy who keeps making the same linguistic mistake over and over again so he doesn't sound so silly" path?

I probably shouldn't have done it. Because it obviously got your back up, and then you tried (quite unsuccessfully; I mean come on Red, look where J and E and G and I are in relationship to each other on the keyboard) to claim it was a typo to save face, and took everything I said after that to be a personal attack. Be honest with yourself, correct your mistake in the future, and leave it behind you. Maybe you'll avoid that triple bypass jammer when you're forty if you do.

And bringing up the fact that I called you a bigot a whole year ago?

Come on, man. Again: beneath you.

Let it go my friend. You'll live a happier life.



C'mon Red. Splicing out parts of posts that disprove your point is, quite frankly, beneath you. You forgot one very important part of my post. Let me help you (the important bit is in bold):Not splicing out parts of post - using the same arguement you are using about other people's meaning.

Red, Red, Red, Red, Red....

I really don't know what to say.

You spliced out part of my post in order to give it a whole new meaning, which would set you up a rather simple straw man to take down rather than facing the truth of my statement.

It was obvious and blatant and if you can't admit that, well, then we really have nothing more to talk about.

I have to say Red, I have lost a lot of respect for you in this thread.

Sorry man.

Have a good weekend.

[Samurai Waki]

Why should I care if a gay person gets married or not? I've never been personally hurt by one, or had too much to drink one night and ended up in the back seat to my horror (after passing for 3 hours) to wake up in an unkown car with a transvestite who comments on how great it was. Honestly, tell me who are homosexuals really going to hurt? I'm pretty sure I'm not afraid of them. they're not plague ridden or are horrible abominations of human life. Sure some might be real fruit cakes (or in womens case) really masculine.

Remember Gentleman "The only thing to fear is fear itself."

[Ser Clegane]

Then you have missed the jest of my postion on the issue.

Actually my post was not directed at you, Redleg.

It was directed at those who use the slippery slope argument and consider gay marriage to be the first step towards marriage between humans and livestock/appliances.

I read your posts that precede my post and your approach seems to be a bit different.



To include your own country of Germany if my memory serves me correctly.


Well - during the last elections I voted for the party that considered legalization of gay marriage as a major goal. Unfortunately, even after winning the elections a law that would take care of this issue could not be pushed through against the resistance of the conservative party.
Considering the current political situation in Germany and the likely outcome of the next elections it is unfortunately very unlikely that such a law will be passed anytime soon - however, I will continue supporting the party that has the legalization of gay marriage on its agenda.

Thus I congratulate the Canadian people for achieving what we in Germany have failed to achieve so far.

[Redleg]

Hmmm. What path are you talking about? The "try to helpfully correct a guy who keeps making the same linguistic mistake over and over again so he doesn't sound so silly" path?

That was not an attempt to be helpful Goofball it was done in a condesending (SP) manner. Helpful would of been to PM - not public. Couple of other things also.



I probably shouldn't have done it. Because it obviously got your back up, and then you tried (quite unsuccessfully; I mean come on Red, look where J and E and G and I are in relationship to each other on the keyboard) to claim it was a typo to save face, and took everything I said after that to be a personal attack. Be honest with yourself, correct your mistake in the future, and leave it behind you. Maybe you'll avoid that triple bypass jammer when you're forty if you do.


Yep you shouldn't of - nor should you attempt this little lecture either - I would say it is beneath you - but your past comes back to haunt you again.



And bringing up the fact that I called you a bigot a whole year ago?

Come on, man. Again: beneath you.


When you quit trying to say its discrimination - using such rethoric as you did in the American Way thread - then I will stop bringing it up.



Let it go my friend. You'll live a happier life.


Maybe you should follow your own advice. By the way I am very happy with my life - and frankly you started playing with words - it seems you don't like it when someone plays back.



Red, Red, Red, Red, Red....

I really don't know what to say.


Then say nothing at all.



You spliced out part of my post in order to give it a whole new meaning, which would set you up a rather simple straw man to take down rather than facing the truth of my statement.


Actually you have not taken it down - what you have attempted to do is say when Americans say American's it means all, but it doesn't apply to you when at the end of the post - you put in something about it being just Republicians.



It was obvious and blatant and if you can't admit that, well, then we really have nothing more to talk about.

SO was your statement - and it seems you don't want to admit it either. But at least I am not upset - I am playing the exact same word play game you are.



I have to say Red, I have lost a lot of respect for you in this thread.


Then don't discuss same-sex marriage with me - our view points are different, and your use of certain terms will always insure I respond back in the same manner in which I precieve your comments. The United States is a democracy and it has the right to establish the laws in which it wants to live by.

Notice not once did I bash Canada for following its legislative process to allow same-sex marriage. However you bash on America every chance you get about not allowing same-sex marriage.

So the loss of respect is mutual. The difference is Goofball I respect your country enough not to bash it for following its democratic principles and following its established procedures for changing the laws of your country.

The lack of respect and courtesy to another because of a different viewpoint was first done by you. It seems that you don't like it when its direct back at you - using the same word play that you yourself like to use in your rethoric



Sorry man.

Have a good weekend.


And I am sorry - you think that I am upset about this little discussion - part of me was just messing with you, and part was to make a point about your hateful rethoric directed at others on this topic.

Allow the United States to decide what direction we want our society to take, and when you stop the stupid Republician bashing and American bashing on the same-sex marriage issue - then maybe we can have an honest discussion on the issue. But throwing out charges of discrimination, making snide comments like the American Way thread, using condesending methods in an arguement doesn't help your arguement at all.

Have a good weekend yourself. Enjoy the cooler weather in Canada - take a weekend picinic in the woods - some wonderful forests are in Canada.

Take a break from the discussion - and realize that while we will disagree with each other on issues - to the point that both will be petty in their arguements - which indeed we are both guilty of.

[King of Atlantis]

goofball- you misread my post, when i said all americans, i didnt mean every last american, i meant not just republicans, it is a belief common in all groups in america, and your statistics did prove that. I am sorry that confusion was my fault :bow:

AND STOP saying we are all acting like republicans :furious3: . That is the whole point of this little argument. Me and Gwain(i believe ~:) ) are not republicans, but were still offended by your post in which you were generalizing a bipartisian belief to try and slander republicans.

And why do all the supporters of gay marriage think the animal example is bad. You claim we are being discrimative of gay people, but if that is true then you are being VERY discrimative of animal/whatever lovers. :furious3: