California Overturns Gay Marriage

And?
I called nobody a nazi, I have no picture so big you can't download it.
but the video is way funnier than most of this thread
I meant the rather insignificant posting. That whole "Yeh I agree LOL" bit.



You go spam king isn't exactly contributing to the debate... It was just a joke.
 
It was you who said that you did not always agree that the wishes of the majority should be the deciding factor. Well,... that's democracy, if you don't agree with it, you are denying the basic tenet of democracy. You can't have it both ways, it's like saying I agree with the law, but want to break it when it suits me.

Your views are like those of the homos, you want these antisocial elements to be able to have the respect due to those who live by the rules yet not have to abide by them themseves.

If they commit anti social acts they won't get respect.

Very nicely put. Rob has said repeatedly that the majority should not rule in what he refers to "as personal lives of it's people". When and who decides in what government intervenes. Sounds like it should be Rob.

Rob could you enlighten us on what you think should be legal?

Marijuana?
Heroin?
Crack cocaine?
Incest?
Rape?
Murder?

It is obvious he feels he could decided for us all.
Drugs should be legal after all it is done in private.
Just because thousands are dieing in Mexico in drug wars, shouldn't matter as it has not effected Rob.
 
I'm not the only one who believes that their should be exceptions.
But the majority of voters do not, end of story, you can twist and squirm all you like there is no way that a democratic system is going to allow itself to be dictated to by the minority in the long term.
Even though this is not something in which the law should interfere. It should be the churches decision whether or not to marry two people.
Actually, it varies on your community. For example, I go to a liberal arts college, and the people here are very accepting of different ideas... They're open to change. And they're the ones who will survive... Not the folks who are closed-minded and who won't change for anything. I can't remember whose signature it used to be but "Too thick to care, and too old to change" or something to that effect... Doesn't work anymore... Either change, or be left behind.
We are changing or attempting to change, the Californian voters changed to say that homo marriages should not be recognised, it is you and your type who are against the change. Yessss,... I know,... you argue that there should be exceptions, to satisfy the selfish minority, .... Well, I'm sorry, but there are not.
We have already gone over the "Not something in which the law should interfere" debate several times. There is virtually nothing which is unaffected by the law of the land or public opinion, and in this case they amount to the same thing.
Thank God... I've said I'm through arguing 4 times now.
Obviously your god is of no assistance,... neither is the tooth fairy believe me I've tried it, or any other imaginary being. If you wish to stop, you will have to stand on your own two feet and be responsible for your own actions. It is your decision not god's, or that of anyone else.

Ain't it a b@stard when the majority won't let minority self interest groups have their own way. You'll have to move to another planet I think.:wink:
 
Last edited:
I meant the rather insignificant posting. That whole "Yeh I agree LOL" bit.



You go spam king isn't exactly contributing to the debate... It was just a joke.

Actually I was encouraging TOG
My opinion about gay marriage is totally my own, just like everybody else's is, personally i don;t think they should marry, since theres no religion anywhere on earth that says that 2 of the same sex can marry, but then I really don't care one way or another since in all reality its not me that has to live with that decision
 
Yes yes yes, I know, never "force" per say. But encouragement is polite force if you ask me. Now, I don't know about you, but I've never seen gays pushing their agenda on children. Children aren't the ones that matter... If the adults accept it as an OK thing, then the kids will learn to not see it as different. I've never seen it promoted among children as something to be applauded. Even in your articles earlier, there was never mention of "It's good to be gay." Simply "It's not a bad thing if you're gay."


Rob - you are not hearing me. Encouragement is not polite force, don't put words into my mouth please. Re 'Pushing the agenda', that is what I have been complaining of in our schools, and you are supporting it here, and applauding it.

Children are precisely what matters; adults have not right to decide it is OK for them, as a political decision; it is much more important than that. The fact is, it is different and I do not consider it 'good to be gay' - that is some of the political pushing by the gay lobby that I am saying tries to influence young kids. Whilst I have been friendly with gays and have relatives, who were/are gay, some particular favourite relatives like my uncle who was a Physical Training instructor in the Army and emigrated to Greenwich Village, New York as a still young guy, and spent his life around the YMCA gym, still a great gymnast and a fiery character until ripe old age. He shared his flat throughout that time with an air-pilot. He was always most discreet, never mentioned to his family that he was gay, or discussed it. We all loved him, a big family and all our kids, and he would come stay with us when he was back in the UK for holidays.

Who knows if that was a sexual relationship or not - that was nobody's business. But he never promoted it or recommended it to others.

I consider it be a sad life-style. I just do not applaud the practice, or want kids to be introduced to it as perfectly natural.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be offended by my response. All I did was answer your two statements. When I quoted them they were the last two sentences of your post I was responding to. The rest of your post were comments I made to Rob. You had added your thoughts and I read them. Since they were self explanatory what did you want me to comment on? You had not added anything new to the discussion.

The top portion is the post I responded to and leaving it all in would have made my response confusing. I guess it would have been better to leave a space between the two sentences.
There is a space in between the two sentences, if you will go back and read my actual post; your quote.

Actually I was encouraging TOG
My opinion about gay marriage is totally my own, just like everybody else's is, personally i don;t think they should marry, since theres no religion anywhere on earth that says that 2 of the same sex can marry, but then I really don't care one way or another since in all reality its not me that has to live with that decision
Thank you, I think. ;)

Good post. It doesn't affect you, why care?
 
Good post. It doesn't affect you, why care?
Your question wasn't directed to me and I'm not answering on his behalf, but,.... I dunno, it prolly doesn't have any effect on me either, but I feel there is a principle to uphold, for the betterment of society as a whole, not everyone does everything purely for selfish reasons. I feel that, that is good enough reason to be involved.
 
Very nicely put. Rob has said repeatedly that the majority should not rule in what he refers to "as personal lives of it's people". When and who decides in what government intervenes. Sounds like it should be Rob.

Rob could you enlighten us on what you think should be legal?

Marijuana?
Heroin?
Crack cocaine?
Incest?
Rape?
Murder?

It is obvious he feels he could decided for us all.
Drugs should be legal after all it is done in private.
Just because thousands are dieing in Mexico in drug wars, shouldn't matter as it has not effected Rob.
Drugs incest and murder all harm people. The only time I can even think of homosexuality harming someone is someone contracting HIV or another STD (which can also be contracted through heterosexuality). Gays aren't hurting you, it's not like they're dying.


Again seno, California is only one state...


I'd rather you didn't bring my God into it... That phrase is just an expression, not actually thanking the Lord that you are going to bed... I'm a strong believer in God. I don't care if you think He doesn't exist, I think he does. You're entitled to your own opinion, and I'll pray for you.
 
Which is why I've also said for the most part to this part of this issue... For the most part, homosexuality is not a choice. My room mate has never been with a girl. My room mate has never kissed a girl, he's just never felt any attraction to them. That's not his fault... That's something that happened when he was being created. Not a product of his environment.

Could you supply sources to support your contention that being Gay and/or lesbian is caused by a biological difference and not by choice? If you want to claim it is common knowledge then sources will be easy.


If you review this link, you will know it is expected that you support your contentions with verifiable sources.

Drugs incest and murder all harm people. The only time I can even think of homosexuality harming someone is someone contracting HIV or another STD (which can also be contracted through heterosexuality). Gays aren't hurting you, it's not like they're dying.
While aggressive drug treatment has reduced the number of HIV cases progressing to AIDS, it has not eliminated death.

Earlier you claimed Gays hurt no one. Now it is OK because if it isn't hurting me? A High School friend of mine died of AIDS before he was forty, before they developed a lot of the treatments available now. Yeah, he was Gay but I liked him anyway.

If you had taken a college Health Education course you would know that the chances of, non drug using, purely heterosexual couples contracting HIV is rare. Often attributed to blood transfusions or heterosexuals working in health care were exposure to disease is greater.
Again seno, California is only one state...
California is one of 30 states that have passed laws against homosexual marriage. California is also a "bell weather state", which if you have taken a Political Science course will know what that means. Go to this link to confirm the number of states banning homosexual marriages:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1852263,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

I look forward to being enlightened about homosexuality being biological.
 
Again seno, California is only one state...
where the homosexual movement has attempted to overthrow the determination of the majority, the very point we are debating.

I'd rather you didn't bring my God into it... That phrase is just an expression, not actually thanking the Lord that you are going to bed... I'm a strong believer in God. I don't care if you think He doesn't exist, I think he does. You're entitled to your own opinion, and I'll pray for you.
We can't bring him, or her into it, no more than we can bring the boogie man into it,... they are all figments of the somewhat overactive imagination.
 
Earlier you claimed Gays hurt no one. Now it is OK because if it isn't hurting me? A High School friend of mine died of AIDS before he was forty, before they developed a lot of the treatments available now. Yeah, he was Gay but I liked him anyway.
Gays hurt no one. Aren't you included in no one? Sorry to hear about your friend, but is limiting his freedoms really the answer to slowing AIDS?

If you had taken a college Health Education course you would know that the chances of, non drug using, purely heterosexual couples contracting HIV is rare. Often attributed to blood transfusions or heterosexuals working in health care were exposure to disease is greater.
Still not sure how that affects you. And if you had taken any high school Health Education course you would know that STDs can be spread very easily. I would know; I sat through the d**n things. They gave plenty of sources for their findings, and really I considered it all a bunch of crap meant to scare me. But do note that this is what's being taught in schools, and incorrect information is (usually) not in the curriculum.
California is one of 30 states that have passed laws against homosexual marriage.
Remember that at one time 46 states did not allow women to vote; dozens of states passed laws creating Segregated public buildings. Just because that's how the law is and that's how the people voted doesn't mean that it's morally correct; 50% of Alaska voted for Ted Stevens, who was under criminal investigation.
 
Could you supply sources to support your contention that being Gay and/or lesbian is caused by a biological difference and not by choice? If you want to claim it is common knowledge then sources will be easy.
Then show me where it is only by choice.


Chukpike said:
If you review this link, you will know it is expected that you support your contentions with verifiable sources.
Indeed it is... I haven't seen a source from you yet, though... That was between me and Wolfen... He can take a joke.

Chukpike said:
While aggressive drug treatment has reduced the number of HIV cases progressing to AIDS, it has not eliminated death.

Earlier you claimed Gays hurt no one. Now it is OK because if it isn't hurting me? A High School friend of mine died of AIDS before he was forty, before they developed a lot of the treatments available now. Yeah, he was Gay but I liked him anyway.
Tell me ONE person who has been hurt by a homosexual who didn't partake in homosexual activities.
Chukpike said:
If you had taken a college Health Education course you would know that the chances of, non drug using, purely heterosexual couples contracting HIV is rare. Often attributed to blood transfusions or heterosexuals working in health care were exposure to disease is greater.
Yes, it's rare, but I can personally guarantee you that sexually transmitted diseases are not JUST transmitted through homosexual activities. AIDS can be caught by a heterosexual JUST like it can be caught from a homosexual.
Chukpike said:
California is one of 30 states that have passed laws against homosexual marriage. California is also a "bell weather state", which if you have taken a Political Science course will know what that means. Go to this link to confirm the number of states banning homosexual marriages:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1852263,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

I look forward to being enlightened about homosexuality being biological.
I'm a freshman in college, it's my first semester... I've never taken a PolySci course, but... Somehow... Beyond me.. I know what it means already. Look man, you're new to these forums, so I'm gonna let you in on a little secret... Age means nothing in here. I can argue just like an old man can. I can debate just like the rest of the old farts. But one thing I don't stand for is being talked down to because of my age... Unless we're talking about a personal experience had by someone else (EG the war in Iraq) I have just as much right to debate it as you do. So don't treat me like I'm some 6 year old whining about one thing or another. Treat me like you would a peer of yours. Because I can fight just as well as they can.[/rant]


Now, just because California is a bellweather(it's actually only one word, BTW) state doesn't mean that it's going to influence the entire country... They also elected Arnold Scwartzenegger as their governor... And in fact, they have one of the largest homosexual populations by "same sex un-married partner" households in the nation... Showing here... http://www.city-data.com/top2/c11.html


And we can go ahead and add The Other Guys responses in with mine as well. Good post TOG.
 
Rob Henderson:471809 said:
Which is why I've also said for the most part to this part of this issue... For the most part, homosexuality is not a choice. My room mate has never been with a girl. My room mate has never kissed a girl, he's just never felt any attraction to them. That's not his fault... That's something that happened when he was being created. Not a product of his environment.

Then show me where it is only by choice.

You are the one who claims that Gay's are born that way. I have requested your source.

International Military Forums rule:
Rule 6. Please provide sources (links preferred) for things you have posted if requested by other members. Lack of sources may be considered spamming!

Until you comply with this rule I see no reason to respond to anything you post. I will consider failure to comply as spamming.
 
Gays hurt no one. Aren't you included in no one? Sorry to hear about your friend, but is limiting his freedoms really the answer to slowing AIDS?

He was dead before this was an issue. If he was alive it would not change my position. If it had been an issue then, I would not had a problem expressing to him my objections.

Still not sure how that affects you. And if you had taken any high school Health Education course you would know that STDs can be spread very easily. I would know; I sat through the d**n things. They gave plenty of sources for their findings, and really I considered it all a bunch of crap meant to scare me. But do note that this is what's being taught in schools, and incorrect information is (usually) not in the curriculum.

Not sure what you thought was a bunch of crap. Apparently you did not believe that "STD can spread very easily"?

Remember that at one time 46 states did not allow women to vote; dozens of states passed laws creating Segregated public buildings. Just because that's how the law is and that's how the people voted doesn't mean that it's morally correct; 50% of Alaska voted for Ted Stevens, who was under criminal investigation.
Rob's comment was, "Again seno, California is only one state...", I pointed out it was not only one state as I am sure you know.

It's good you feel a need to stand up for Rob. But it would be nice if you responded with something pertinent.
 
You are the one who claims that Gay's are born that way. I have requested your source.

International Military Forums rule:
Rule 6. Please provide sources (links preferred) for things you have posted if requested by other members. Lack of sources may be considered spamming!

Until you comply with this rule I see no reason to respond to anything you post. I will consider failure to comply as spamming.
Then I should consider anything you say spamming... As you have shown me no evidence to the contrary.


But whatever... Here you go.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html
 
You are the one who claims that Gay's are born that way. I have requested your source.

International Military Forums rule:
Rule 6. Please provide sources (links preferred) for things you have posted if requested by other members. Lack of sources may be considered spamming!

Until you comply with this rule I see no reason to respond to anything you post. I will consider failure to comply as spamming.

Then I should consider anything you say spamming... As you have shown me no evidence to the contrary.


But whatever... Here you go.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

Great you have supplied a reference. Here is the first sentence: (unedited)

"A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference."

Appears to confirm? Sheep? That is your supporting evidence. Come on, you could have done better than that by going to a Gay site.

At least you complied and it shows you have a sense of humor.

Then I should consider anything you say spamming... As you have shown me no evidence to the contrary.

I never claimed that homosexual behavior was caused by biology or only by choice so I do not need to supply a source. Of course you know that.

I have been reading and posting to these forums for about a year now, so I am new. I have learned a lot from reading even if I do not always contribute. I have learned that just because someone has made a lot of posts does not mean they have anything to say.

I know that you post a lot, almost daily, and one topic you post to quite often is Answer a Question with a Question. I guess that is practise for what you do here.

I will never have as many posts as you, since I prefer Quality over Quantity.
 
Great you have supplied a reference. Here is the first sentence: (unedited)

"A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference."

Appears to confirm? Sheep? That is your supporting evidence. Come on, you could have done better than that by going to a Gay site.

At least you complied and it shows you have a sense of humor.



I never claimed that homosexual behavior was caused by biology or only by choice so I do not need to supply a source. Of course you know that.
Then let me bring you a BETTER quote from the SAME article.


"The differences are almost identical to those identified by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay in his studies of the brains of gay men."

By the way, the sheep study is essential here because "they are the only animal where the males may naturally express exclusively gay sexual preference." So it would be natural to do a study on sheep... But he HAS done work on gay men as well. This is not some BS joke. It's SERIOUSLY proving me right.

Chukpike said:
I have been reading and posting to these forums for about a year now, so I am new. I have learned a lot from reading even if I do not always contribute. I have learned that just because someone has made a lot of posts does not mean they have anything to say.
Did I ever say I made a lot of posts? Did I ever use that once in my argument? No. I have been here for over 3 years. Granted, I did take a leave of absence for a bit, but I've been posting here (serious posts, not just the Never Ending Stories)for a long time. And I have one of the most serious members of this forum, someone you wouldn't know, PJ24, on record as saying I am an extremely smart kid and that my debating skills are better that most of the crap on this forum. I'm not boasting per say, I'm trying to tell you that I'm not to be taken lightly.
Chukpike said:
I know that you post a lot, almost daily, and one topic you post to quite often is Answer a Question with a Question. I guess that is practise for what you do here.
Knock off the sarcasm/joke cracking, it's getting a little annoying. I post there, but that's only for fun. I'd still post there if it didn't increase my post count. It used to give you MilBucks, but I still post there even though it doesn't anymore. I'm not doing it for some online recognition... I'm doing it because it's fun. Now when I get out of the Never Ending Stories section, I'm a different person. I'll be your best friend in there, but if you argue with me in here, I'm not going to give in because I'm your friend. I'm going to defend my view.
Chukpike said:
I will never have as many posts as you, since I prefer Quality over Quantity.
Again, I never said anything about you having as many posts as I do, but as far as this forum goes, I'm the regular. I'm the one that's held my own with some of the most ferocious debaters in here... Guys like bulldogg, PJ24, P80, Chief Bones (when he used to play in here.) the list goes on... But I can promise you that I'm not just some 18 year old punk. I'm here to be taken seriously, to have a decent argument with someone who happens to be informed on the issue I'm arguing. Not to be treated like I'm a child who shouldn't be taken seriously. Ask any of the usuals on here, I'm very much a quality poster.
 
"The differences are almost identical to those identified by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay in his studies of the brains of gay men."
By this I assume you are inferring that homos have brains and thought processes, more closely aligned to those of sheep, than the straight population?

I've seen a Monkey eating his own excrement too, but I have no desire to do so myself. No doubt, neither he nor his type see anything wrong in that, but they are only dumb beasts, as a human, I have somewhat higher aspirations and expectations.

The majority of the human race I have been able to overcome the more distasteful urges and lack of control which is quite acceptable in the animal kingdom.

You have hit the nail on the head without realising it saying in fact that homos lack control, social skills and thought processes normally expected of socialised human beings.

Your "point" further lowers my opinion of homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
By this I assume you are inferring that homos have brains and thought processes, more closely aligned to those of sheep, than the straight population?

I've seen a Monkey eating his own excrement too, but I have no desire to do so myself. No doubt, neither he nor his type see anything wrong in that, but they are only dumb beasts, as a human, I have somewhat higher aspirations and expectations.

The majority of the human race I have been able to overcome the more distasteful urges and lack of control which is quite acceptable in the animal kingdom.

You have hit the nail on the head without realising it saying in fact that homos lack control, social skills and thought processes normally expected of socialised human beings.

Your "point" further lowers my opinion of homosexuals.
Seno, did you READ the article? If you read it, then you know what the quote means from context.
 
Yep,... and I can see quite clearly what it implies, homosexuals lack the self control and social skills to be straight, their brains and thought processes are more closely assimilated with the lower orders of animals.

Your "Context" is a subjective quality, if you are looking for different results the "facts" can be interpreted to suit your needs, thus my interpretation, and it has just as much validity as your interpretation, and a damn sight more credibility from the visible evidence.

It falls right into line with my view that homos merely lack social skills and higher thought processes in regard to their behaviour in a civilised and socialised world. They want to drag human socialisation back to the level of the "animals".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top