Gay Marriage
|
Gold Member Username: The_image_dynamicSan Diego, California Post Number: 4129 Registered: Dec-06 | Why is everyone making such a big deal out of this? If they want to get married and this makes them happy, then who fücking cares? There are some people out there who think that everything should be done according to their sacred royal agenda, and for some bizarre reason this disturbs their life in some huge way. There are ads all over CL about how it is wrong and this and that. STFU and let them do whatever they want. As long as the guys keep off my dick, I couldn't care less what they do. And this also sets up some potentially cool three-ways between me and the women couples. "Yeah, I did a hot lesbian married couple" is something I haven't been able to state as of yet. |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17109 Registered: Jun-06 | The topics you bring up Brad..... You can bring the issue up but to this date the majority rules (for now). Without science two "GAy" ppl cannot reproduce. It's mother nature, therefore the masses believe it's unnatural. Until our species evolves into one that is asexual I don't see the issue going away. Whether you believe in God or Darwin it doesn't matter. The fact is you need a man's sperm and woman's egg to procreate, today. Tomorrow may bring something else to the table. Not to mention Brad all the hot chicks that are taken out of the loop.  Foot note: I hate Chris Crocker, for like 10,982 reasons and counting lol. Not because he's a fruit, but because he's getting paid to be the azz he is, even though he admits it's for fun. That's America. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Rovin1 15 = 149.1DBsTrinidad & T... Post Number: 13924 Registered: Jul-05 | marriage is a ceremony where as there r couples who r not officially hitched (& may or may not be living together) that r doing "stuff" that is only supposed to be done after marriage ... so i agree with brad though there r many who just find it "not a natural thing" ...weird concept seeing a same sex marriage but heck if it makes them happy then let it be ....... |
|
Gold Member Username: Naledge503LowDownForum.com Post Number: 3923 Registered: Jun-06 | I wonder if they will let me marry my dog? I really love her........alot. |
|
Gold Member Username: Naledge503LowDownForum.com Post Number: 3924 Registered: Jun-06 | |
|
Gold Member Username: JtownTexas Post Number: 3000 Registered: Mar-07 | ROFLMAO!!!!! "LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE!!!" |
|
Gold Member Username: RedlinerWilmington, Ma Post Number: 4458 Registered: Jun-05 | ^^ is that a guy or a girl lol sounds like a guy i wouldnt want to fu#k her/him lol |
|
Platinum Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 15845 Registered: Jan-06 | Obviouisly people don't realize the impact gaay marriages have on the entire country, financially , legally and morally! hey if 2 gaays want sex with each other thats their business...BUT don't even go and allow this MARRIAGE crap!...we ALL pay for that thru employers insurance and medical rates and legal ramifications... if ya want to act "funny" and smoke some dudes pole, fine...but don't drag us heterosexuals into it by subsidizing your medical and insurance.. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1277 Registered: Nov-04 | Well wouldn't the pole smokers and carpet lickers already be paying the same state medicare/medicaid tax, social security tax, federal tax, health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, property tax and 401k contributions that "normal" people do? I was always under the impression that these things were being payed for regardless of sexu@l orientation. I can understand that you have strong opposition to g@y marriage LK but you make a pretty stupid case for it. |
|
Platinum Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 15846 Registered: Jan-06 | Big simple examples..now tell me who's stupid! Medical insurance..if gays are MARRIED, they now qualify for "family" plan , rather than 2 individual "self only" plans... Check federal income tax tables...ya get a break if MARRIED, versus 2 SINGLE taxpayers..nevermind, the dependent added to an exemption, reducing the "ADJUSTED" gross income (AGI).. Your GOV stimulus/incentive check changes based on your tax filing status...so MARRIED gays will now get more money back SO legal MARRIAGE reduces many costs (insurance- taxes etc), which therefore becomes subsidized by others, us the heterosexual employed, retired, taxpayers, and insurance policy holders.... BTW...I could add more, like life insurance pay outs, spousal survivor benefits and monthly premiums and annuities to the GAAY spouce, Family additional driver car insurance reductions, etc... Who do U think pays for all of this..U think insurance companies just "absorb" these income losses, and same with the GOV?...if ya do, then ya need to learn more about business and the GOV.. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1278 Registered: Nov-04 | So let me get this straight, you think that you as a "normal" heterosexual married person, you are being cheated since married hom0sexuals are now able to get lower insurance and tax liabilities. Now I hope that is not what you are saying because that is absurd. You can look at it from the other side and say that heterosexual married people were actually the lucky ones since they were paying out less compared to themselves even though the relationship status was the same. A h0mosexual individual with a partner can say that the heterosexuals have actually been subsidized by the higher rates that the hom0sexuals have been paying as individuals even though they are living together sharing liabilities and such just the same as a heterosexual couple. Now, do you find it unfair that heterosexual "domestic partners" get access to the same reductions in many liabilities such as medical insurance? Now I admit I am not all that familiar with tax law in the US so I don't know what the standing is for domestic partnerships so i won't pretend to know. The differences between a "married couple" and "domestic partners" is the marriage. There is a growing trend of heterosexual partnerships that do not go to marriage but the bonds are just as strong if not stronger than in marriage. Now realizing that the people recognize this growing trend and the lack of evidence suggesting that "domestic partners" have any more liabilities in terms of insurances and such, it is reasonable that insurance companies have started to give these partners rates equal to those of married couples. Now if you can prove that reasons exist for hom0sexual couples to have higher tax and insurance liabilities than that of a heterosexual couple be my guest. I would like to hear what you have to say. To be honest I personally appreciate that at least you did not make the argument "g@y people cannot get married because they are g@y." |
|
Gold Member Username: The_image_dynamicSan Diego, California Post Number: 4140 Registered: Dec-06 | ^^ Well said Chris. LK tends to grasp at straws when confronted, but he also can be a very intelligent guy who generally makes a lot of sense. It is a fact that insurance companies tally their rates and fees BEFORE a fiscal year begins, using an average of the past years numbers, and adjust them to meet current inflation rates. So this talk about a slight difference in fees paid by homosexual couples, and in turn a higher rate paid by heterosexual couples (or singles), is ludicrous at best. The illegal immigrants in this country are costing taxpayers over 3.8 billion dollars annually. If any single issue can and should be blamed for affecting taxes, then that should. The bottom line as to why I make these kinds of thought-provoking threads in OT is: A) To create an interesting conversation and, B) To keep the OT section going. The point I was trying to raise in my original post was to say that these people out there that feel that gay marriages somehow topple their moral apple cart and throw the US into some sort of sinful limbo, need to stick to hugging their own Bible and beliefs, and stop trying to influence everyone else's interpretations. Live and let live. |
|
Platinum Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 15847 Registered: Jan-06 | Are U shittin me!...U 2 are made for each other! 1...common sense, if ya had read, would tell U , there is NO reason to prove anything, and especially that h0m0 marriages are now being penalized for being h0mo's! 2...illegal immigrants have nothing to do with h0mo marriages, other than to twist the thread when ya don't have a valid point...or didn't get an argument U wished for, and didn't get the conservative moral right wing replies U tried to bait here.. At least I provided some factual economic reasons why I'm against h0mo marriages, and how they impact all the rest of us "straight" people..again I don't care who blows who, but I do care that heterosexuals do pay for h0m0's to legally marry! hey if U 2 are into co*cksuckers getting married, more power to ya!...U can go march in the next rainbow parade and express your "welcome to the gaay nation" attitudes.. |
|
Platinum Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 15848 Registered: Jan-06 | BTW...why don't ya get real intelligent and liberal, and endorse LEGAL MARRIAGE between sheep and humans next...I'm sure U both have strong points endorsing that too! |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1279 Registered: Nov-04 | So Brad, still think LK is one of the intelligent members of the ecoustics community? It is too bad that LK is one of the Bible belt crazies. I was hoping he could provide a decent reply. |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17113 Registered: Jun-06 | I know why you bring these things up Brad and it does work to an extent. It's just hard with this group of members to spar without it ever going to fire. Some members need to post more and others need to read. As far as homosexuality? Nobody can stop evolution. It's the most powerful and intelligent force that has driven us as a species to survive and excel. Now ask yourself this: Why are we the only species to have it? (To my knowledge anyway) |
|
Gold Member Username: The_image_dynamicSan Diego, California Post Number: 4149 Registered: Dec-06 | Yeah I was hoping that too Chris. Did I not provide factual economic reasons in my post? He sure as hell didn't. And how did I compare illegal aliens to gay marriage? I simply stated that it is the number one issue affecting taxpayers, which is what his original rant was all about. I think LK is a selective reader who reads only enough to get the gist of what someone is saying, then starts to furiously type. I mean he couldn't of read what I said and came up with THAT reply. He didn't address even one of the points I made, which are fact by the way. His post made as much sense as one of those furious drunken guys shouting "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!" before passing out. I still think he is an intelligent guy, in fact I know he is, but that reply was ignorant at best. And then he has the nerve to question my staunch lifelong record of heterosexuality, which is pretty damn funny. He wishes he could have the quality of women that I have been lucky enough to be with over the past twenty or so years. And I would be willing to bet that in his life he has never been with any girls as hot as my current three. I have been called a lot of things in my life, but gay is not one of them. "Not that there is anything wrong with that" (Seinfeld) |
|
Gold Member Username: Extrmndor3Http://illuzonemu.serv..., ^^^Sick Game Post Number: 7955 Registered: Feb-06 | FU---------CKKKKKKKKKKKK those putos g@y people dont have souls.... QUE SE MUERAN LOS PUTOS!!!!!!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1280 Registered: Nov-04 | Paul, to answer your question I propose one to you, what other species of animal has as complex form of society and language as ours? There is a reason why the field of study "sociology" exists for humans and animals have "behavioral psychology". From a purely Darwinian stand point hom0sexuality is not viable and with no direct knowledge of the following myself, I would assume that the biological "anomaly" would die out. Humans are different as I think you can imagine in many ways. Because of our higher reasoning potential, and I stress potential since we have some examples of it lacking, things like hom0sexuality, abortion, things of deontological nature become important enough to argue about. LK, I still await an answer to the connections that you say exist. Please do not ask what they are as I have already stated them. Please do not say that you have already given examples as I have already shown that they suck and need further explanation. The first step towards losing is making personal attacks.  |
|
Platinum Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 15849 Registered: Jan-06 | Brad U made NO points to address, except "illegal immigrants" comment, which I did address as a non issue in a gaay marriage thread...since they have nothing in common. also I never questioned your se*xual preferences (I couldn't care less which way u go),..if U could comprehend better, I simply stated that U can express your gaay marriage welcome attitude at a rainbow parade..thats a far cry from calling ya a h0m0.. Also U are a lil too vain for me...U ain't Brad Pitt or Mick Jagger pal...and I couldn't care less who U think U are or how many people U date...and outgrew "I slept with more woman than U" childish comments, when I was 18...and won't even respond to that immaturity!...U ain't the only guy here who gets possy...I know that may come as a shock to ya and your ego..I bet there's 10, 16 yr old guys here that get more than U could ever dream of..but so what, who cares...whats your point with that ridiculous immature statement U made with your possy count.. and for U CL..I ain't no bible belt thumper...so go find another tree to piss on..U seem to make trouble everyplace U go here.. I simply stated my opinions of gaay marriages which both of U waited in "ambush", to disagree with anything that anybody had said, just to bolster your ego's...and bash and judge somebody else's opinion...no matter if U agreed or disagreed...just to hear yourselves and try and impress the others here.. Both of U, go find some 15 yr old and try your tag team routine on them, and U both can get off on that and then strut your ego's here all U want...brad U have been strutting around here like a big time rocker peacock for a long time..and I did respect your postings, until now!,,whether I agreed or disagreed..U need to come back to the planet...U ain't all u think U are.. |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17116 Registered: Jun-06 | "Paul, to answer your question I propose one to you, what other species of animal has as complex form of society and language as ours? There is a reason why the field of study "sociology" exists for humans and animals have "behavioral psychology". From a purely Darwinian stand point hom0sexuality is not viable and with no direct knowledge of the following myself, I would assume that the biological "anomaly" would die out." I don't argue that and in fact believe it. However given the current length of the evolution time table don't ya think we are waaay ahead of ourselves in this kind of change? To argue we as a species are forced to evolve at not only at an advanced rate in technology but also social and political views. Are we moving too fast for ourselves???? |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1281 Registered: Nov-04 | Well paul, I think there is a difference between evolving socially and evolving biologically. If you think about it, about a century ago slavery still existed, in areas where slavery was banned, blacks were still treated subhuman, women had no rights, many nation states that are now somewhat democratic were still being run by monarchies, we didn't know germs existed and caused disease, etc. In the past century the only things that have changed biologically is our extended lifespans. We are still the same people we were even from a couple hundred years ago. But our social standards and norms have changed dramatically. Hell, we have our first major black presidential candidate. There is no established rate at which we are to expect society to evolve and change. One prime example is Japan. It really wasn't until WWI that Japan really ramped up its societal changes. Even then the monarchy was the ruling power until its fall after WWII. In the past 70 years the japanese society has really turned into something else. |
|
Gold Member Username: The_image_dynamicSan Diego, California Post Number: 4155 Registered: Dec-06 | Cheese and rice LK, you are ridiculous. Since when have I been "strutting around here like a big time rocker peacock"? Probably the only people here that even know I am a musician are my personal friends here and the guys from chat. And I help alot of members here and rarely if ever mention what I do or who my girls are without being asked. I have many dozens of people here that would back me up on this and I doubt you even have one. You made assertions that I (and Chris) were gay and I made it clear that I am not by giving examples. It was wrong of me to compare my beautiful girls to your fat old wife, and at least I admit that now. As if I would have mentioned any of that had you not attacked us. And I made the point that it is a fact that insurance companies "tally their rates and fees BEFORE a fiscal year begins, using an average of the past years numbers, and adjust them to meet current inflation rates." This completely shoots down your whole theory about how gay marriages affect insurance rates. How you state that it raises our taxes is pretty far-fetched as well. But of course you choose to neither respond or even acknowledge this statement, because what could you say? And the topper is that we have all seen your antics in the satellite, home video and other sections where you act like a know-it-all king shit asshole and argue with everyone who disagrees with you and then try to get people banned etc. etc. And then we can go into how you always talk about how you were an ace pro athlete and coach back in the day and how your sons are carrying on your tradition and are far superior to any of us, blah blah. Not to mention your endless hate wars with Nalin Nyda and her clones. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. And you still haven't replied to anything Chris said either, in fact every post you have made in this thread has been pretty much retarded and beside the point. And YOU were the one who completely misinterpreted my original post to begin with and took it in this angry direction! But that is your typical M.O. -- avoid the points you can't argue with and cover that up with meaningless rhetoric. And like I give a flying fück if you respect my posts or not. I am here for fun and to help, not to gain some random persons respect. And finally, is it that difficult to type the word "you"? Did you contract carpal tunnel during your twenty-five year hall of fame sports career? |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17119 Registered: Jun-06 | "Well paul, I think there is a difference between evolving socially and evolving biologically." To me they are hand in hand. One dictates the other. Each depends and relies on the other. |
|
Gold Member Username: Livin_loudCOD4 Addict -PS3- Post Number: 2517 Registered: Jan-06 | i'd like to contribute some type of useful insight but i feel as to being out-leagued in that category at the moment lol. o well i'll see what i can do... i mean, yes, many people believe being g@y is socially acceptable. there are however many, many other problems in this world which dwarf that. if all the activists put their anger toward something else that could be beneficial, it would be something to behold. what people do in their own time is their business, not anybody elses. people shouldn't have to worry about others having buttsechs. just the fact people care that much shows how ignorant they can be. how are you going to tell a g@y couple who may be great at raising a child to stop, while there is hetero couples beating the sh!t out of their kids on a regular basis? honestly, are you going to sleep better at night knowing the guy who is still @ss-raping his partner isn't married? as for the financial issues, i believe Brad has summed things up and closed the book there.  |
|
Gold Member Username: PitbullguyThe Chicago area Post Number: 3273 Registered: Oct-06 | "that is your typical M.O. -- avoid the points you can't argue with and cover that up with meaningless rhetoric." That couldn't have been said any better. Perfect. Brad you have no need to defend yourself, you are one of the most highly revered members on this forum, at least to me. "To be honest I personally appreciate that at least you did not make the argument 'g@y people cannot get married because they are g@y.'" As far as I can tell, that is exactly his view. Unless I'm not interpreting his theory correctly, heter0sexual marriages don't effect our tax rates any less than hom0sexual marriages, so why is it okay for the heter0sexuals to get married, but not for the hom0sexuals. Furthermore, while I am not a hom0sexual, I find some of LK's posts in this thread to be absolutely offensive and despicable. Referring to hom0sexuals as "c0cksuckers" and "pole-smokers" is really sick man. |
|
Gold Member Username: Livin_loudPost Number: 2519 Registered: Jan-06 | i must say i think this video is absolutely hilarious however |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1282 Registered: Nov-04 | Jenova, I was giving LK the benefit of the doubt. He didn't specifically state that and used the money thing as his basis for the opposition. I was hoping that to be true but instead it is easy to see that it is a lame cover up to his insecurities and bigotry. Paul, I think I know what you mean especially in this case as hom0sexuality may very well have biological roots, still debatable but not for here. I would have to disagree with you though as biological evolution in Darwinian terms relies on genetic mutation over many generations. A few hundred years is hardly sufficient for any real genetic variation. But I will agree that our access and progress of technology is really boosting social change. Also, there is really no way to know if change is happening too soon. Evolution by concept has no grand design, it is purely opportunistic. So, we will never really know if it is too soon for g@y marriage until it happens and we see how things turn out in the current environment. And by the way LK, I have never stated what my sexu@l orientation is and there really is no reason for me to say as that is not the point of contention. The point of contention is the argument that you have made. I never attacked you, I have been attacking the argument that you have made as to why g@y marriage is wrong. I think I have made my case against your argument and would like clarifications on your views. You have not been very clear about the reasoning behind your ideas. All you have done is express your ideas. I think I am being quite reasonable tactful about this and everyone else will agree with me on that. |
|
Bronze Member Username: The_modBANVILLEUSA Post Number: 25 Registered: Feb-08 | *note* I did not read the whole thread Here is the way I look at homosexualz: There is a person that lives down the street from you. This individual thinks they are a squirrel. They go about their daily lives, but the 'are' a squirrel. This seems to not hurt you, but its just not right. On another note. WTF is up w/ not being able to type 'homosexualz' on this forum? I guess I will just refer to them as fegs from now on while posting. |
|
Gold Member Username: AdddisorderPalm Beach, Florida Post Number: 6286 Registered: Jan-06 | i dont have a problem with it, if anything less people breeding so i dont see anything wrong with that. either way if they are gayy they are going to be together so what makes a difference to us if they are married or not. yeah lk says tax brakes and sh;t but if they both married girls then it would be two couples getting tax brakes instead of one gaay couple. |
|
Gold Member Username: JtownTexas Post Number: 3001 Registered: Mar-07 | "if anything less people breeding so i dont see anything wrong with that." wanted to make this point, but I've been at work for 11 hours. one can make the arguement that heterosexual marriages are more of a detriment to the economy rather than homosessual marriages. this is because most heterosexual couples have kids. not only does that affect the economy, but this globe is already overpopulated anyway. just my .02 |
|
Silver Member Username: Gavbo211JL Audio 10w3v2, IL US Post Number: 916 Registered: Jan-05 | *If you are actually, genuinely interested on this topic then i would hope that you will read this and let me know what you think. if youre not interested you're going to waste a lot of time reading this, so i suggest you skip this post. I wish I would have caught this thread sooner. just last semester i had to do a debate on ga*y marriage for my law and society class. i was placed on the side that was opposed to ga*y marriage. now, before i start throwing facts out there, let me remind everyone that i was ASSAIGNED to this side of the argument, it was not my choice, and therefore am taking no personal stance herein on ga*y marriage. I'm just going to let it be known some of the facts and points that i discovered while taking part in this debate. also, before reading it should be known that any stated facts were gathered from reliable, collegiate approved websites. Alright lets get started. 1. Ga*y marriages are a harmful environment in which to raise children. - I can't believe no one is throughly arguing this point already in this discussion. half of our argument for our debate team was based on this single argument. Ga*y couples are ill equipped to handle situations presented by society in relations to their "children" because they have only had experience with such situations from one gender viewpoint. 2. Ga*y couples cannot have children, therefore must adopt -This leaves the child no choice as to the se*xual preference of parents, possibly putting children in a home they would not desire to be in. also, i am aware that many children are adopted soon after birth, meaning the life they are raised in is the only one they know. being adopted shortly after birth myself, i know this better than most. which may cause many of you to ask the question "how can a child know that they don't desire to be there if they don't know any differnt?". a solid question indeed, however a child growing up in a household with two ga*y parents is succeptable to much more harsh and extreme trauma, on average, than a child growing up in a hetrosexual household. leading to a desire for them to no longer be a part of that household. i will discuss this point further later. -Depending on their personal beliefs, adoption agencies may be biased in their placement of children in hom*ose*xual or heterosexual households. In order for a ga*y couple to truely have the "normal family experience" they must obviously go through the event of raising a child/children together. Unfortunatley, many people do not share their viewpoint on ga*y marriage, and this may include adoption agencies. If we allow ga*y marriage, the next fight will be over child adoption and the prejudice that ga*y couples encounter there. 3. Children of ga*y parents may be repeatedly harassed and looked down upon in society and in school. -Let's face it, we all know this. Society is still overwhelmingly against hom*ose*xuality, especially the younger, more impressionable society. Children can be vicious. everyone knows this. children of ga*y parents are more likely to be singled out, whether it be on the play ground, in the classroom, etc. Children are fragile and extremely impressionable. we already know that bullying is a huge problem in our youth in todays society. with the cultural leaders of hom*ose*xuals being portrayed as ridiculous fools, such as this chris portrayed in the video, its no wonder that ga*y children are more likely to be the targets of bullying and harrassment. That being said, there is some sort of link between higher suicide and drug abuse rates in hom*ose*xuals and their children. because much of this is recent, there is no completley solid evidence to back this claim, but lets face it, it's not that hard to believe at all. 4. Most religions consider hom*ose*xuality a sin, leading to stressed ties between religion and society, which are already suffering. -Marriage is a religious sacrament. Marriage is undeniably tied to religion in that aspect, and many religions, especially the more prominent ones in american society, are against hom*ose*xuality. It should not be called marriage. Marriage is religiously defined as a bond between a man, a woman, and God. Technically, atheists should not be allowed to get married either. This is a fact that most people forget.. the idea and tradition of marriage is a sacrament within religion, not just a ceremony that legally binds two people. if hom*ose*xuals want a ceremony that legally binds them, marriage is rooted in religion, and christian religion is against hom*ose*xuality, then why are they so opposed to civil unions? because it's not the same? the boundaries and guidelines of marriage have been established and set for hundreds of years, they should not be changed. civil unions should be equal to marriage so that they are awarded the same rights, but marriage should stay with its religious ties. 5. The ga*y lifestyle is one that is proven by scientific research to lead to lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases. -I wish i could find this website i used in my debate, but im just stating the facts that i can remember off the top of my head from the debate. however, it wasnt hard at all to find many different studies, done by respectable sources, that link these troubling facts to the hom*ose*xual lifestyle. 6. (let me specify, i am in no way joining the already ongoing argument on this topic. i'm just stating what i learned. taking no sides, just hoping to better inform people interested on the topic.) If ga*y marriage is legalized, the impact on Social Security will be disastruos. It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system for these millions of new dependents who will be entitled to survivor benefits. -The point being raised here is NOT that hom*ose*xual couples should be entitled to less because of their se*xual preference. The fact is that the sudden shock will be too great for our already struggling social security to handle, and may just be the final straw. i feel as though it is safe to say that within the first couple months of ga*y marriage being legalized, we can expect an extremely high number of ga*y marriages, possibly into the millions. Our social security is already struggling. When the time comes that these couples are entitled to survivor benefits, the strain put on on social security could quite possibly drive it in the ground. it's not the fact that they will be recieving it, it's the fact that many of them will be recieving it around the same time. couple this with the average marriage rate already in place for hetrosexual couples, and you have a real problem. social security is already struggling, and adding millions of people to it all at once is only going to cause extreme damage. 7. State and municipal governments will be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new spouses and other dependents. -Once again, it's not that they are recieving it. it's that theyre all recieving it around the exact same time. can you image the increase that will have to be made in taxes when all of a sudden there are millions of new dependents added around the exact same time? these systems function now because they work at a steady, consistent rate. We have found a fairly (keep in mind i say fairly) good balance between birth, marriage, and death rates in the u.s., and it allows things like our health insurance to work at a steady, consistent rate. stacking on millions of people all at once will almost undoubtedly put a huge burden on this well functioning system. and we all know what the government does when they need more money.. they raise YOUR taxes. I hope anyone that has read this has become a little more knowledgable about this subject. I apologize for the length, but i wanted to get all of the facts that i had out on the table. once again, my opinion is in no way stated through these facts, they are just what i learned through research for my debate. "In the pursuit of knowledge....." |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17135 Registered: Jun-06 | ^^^Good post. I agree our fragile economic structure cannot possibly handle the surge it would cause. Not to mention the snowball effect it would have on other groups who will demand the same benefits. Not to change the subject but I have to frown on the families of 911 victims receiving a very large financial compensation as well. That's a slap in the face to anyone who lost a loved one in ANY act of war. The same is true for what the residents of New Orleans feel they're "entitled" to. Americans are developing into very greedy, opportunistic ppl. We want the heavy payday and as easy a ride as possible. That might be a reason so many Americans are against immigration. Put the social economic facts aside and you have much harder working ppl willing to work for much less. That hurts the "average American's" bottom line. Another side of the debate is whether or not h0mosexuality is a trait you're born with or one that is developed through social experiences through a young life. You can argue that if it's a choice it's one that comes with consequences. (Meaning the stresses of living a h0mosexual lifestyle). If it's a trait that comes with birth then one can argue that they are entitled as much as comparing dwarfs and albinos to anyone else. The impossible part is proving it. Do I care what ppl do in their own homes? No. Do I wish that lifestyle upon any of my children? Heeeeell no. Bearing and raising your OWN children is a natural wonder that I want my own kids to experience. I believe in the balance a woman and man bring to a home. Sometimes a part of me wishes I was raised in the 50's. Things were so much less complicated back then. The world is evolving, faster than I'd like.  |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1283 Registered: Nov-04 | Hey Gavin, great for you to join in with a civil attitude. I realize that the points you make may not reflect your personal opinion so don't take any offense with my comments. I completely agree on you points concerning children. That is one place where I still have some reservations concerning hom0sexuals and their journey towards general acceptance. It will be quite traumatic for the children as children are quite mean at the elementary school age. But I do see places where there may not be much difference or even improvement over current situations. Usually those that genuinely want children are much more likely to treat the children and raise the children better. It is simple psychology. If you desire something, you will do your best to nurture and keep it. I personally would rather see a hom0sexual couple raise a single child well than see hundreds of neglected children that are beaten routinely. I don't know if the home environment would really be so bad that it would scar a child's psyche. Points 1,2 and 3 are very good points, but I see them more as questions than answers. I doubt there is real definitive proof that puts beyond doubt that a hom0sexual environment would be harmful to a child's development. I see your third point being more about social acceptance than a reason against g@y marriage. People's minds change routinely. European countries already sees this union as being something that is deserved. It is just a matter of time before that happens here. Your point on religion and g@y marriage is a good one if you only are considering a religious marriage. That is something that will never change. But, the point of contention is a legal marriage which has nothing to do with religion. So this is really a moot point going more for the emotional sentiments of people as opposed to making any real arguement. I would really like to see the scientific reserach done on the life expectancy thing. I can't really comment on that until I see the source of that statement. I still don't see how g@y marriage would affect SS, taxes, insurance, etc. to the extent that you and LK brought up. To me , as I stated above, everyone has been getting a free pass. I am not 100% familiar with the money related things in the past, but I would think that during women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement that a lot of these things came up as well. Again, I am not familiar with previous tax laws and insurance dealings so excuse me if I am wrong. Paul, the debate that you talk about is a good one but moot for this discussion. |
|
Gold Member Username: PitbullguyThe Chicago area Post Number: 3280 Registered: Oct-06 | "I would really like to see the scientific reserach done on the life expectancy thing. I can't really comment on that until I see the source of that statement." Personally I have to believe that sort of thing is a result of nurture rather than nature. I'm sure you could find all sorts of statistics about how certain races are more likely to commit crimes and such. And i would find it ludicrous for someone to tell me that it's because it's embedded in their DNA to do evil things. A much more reasonable explanation is because they tend to grow up in different, less positive environments. The adoption thing is a really tricky issue to me. I mean the only g@y couple that I really know well, is IMO perfectly capable of raising a child, and they would be good parents. However, i'm also an el natural kinda guy, and the fact is 2 men or 2 women can't make a baby naturally. And I think it's VERY important to note what Paul mentioned about the parental balance that a man and woman provide. Important discussion in this thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 1233 Registered: Apr-06 | "Your point on religion and g@y marriage is a good one if you only are considering a religious marriage. " There is actually a bit more to it than that. In spite of the fact that as Americans we claim separation of church and state, the simple, undeniable reality is that one of the reasons for the existance of *any* government is to create laws which help guide its citizens to act in a more moral way. Now given that by and large, American morality is based on Judeo-Christian teachings (which in no uncertain terms view h0mosexuality as an abomination), it is no wonder that roughly half the states of the union have passed ammendments to their constitutions banning g@y marriage, and that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was overwhelmingly passed in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. |
|
Gold Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 1234 Registered: Apr-06 | I will note though that g@y marriage doesn't bother me or offend my morality. While I'm Christian, I do my best to subscribe to the school of "be nice to other people" and I tend not to worry about the business of others. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1284 Registered: Nov-04 | Ok, you didn't get my point. There is a difference between a religious marriage and a legal marriage. The current dispute is over legal marriage which is why all the hom0sexuals are being married in government buildings by government clerks, no religious leader in sight. I know where the US has its roots in its legal doctrine. the banning in the many states in the US is not solely from judeo-christian beliefs but largely from lack of acceptance of the hom0sexual community. Religion acts upon our emotional beliefs, not rational beliefs. Not saying religion is useless or bad, but most of the time decisions made solely on religion are often times a logical farce. |
|
Gold Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 1235 Registered: Apr-06 | "Ok, you didn't get my point." I understand what you're saying, but I want to point out that religion presents a far greater hurdle than simply getting married in a church versus in city hall. "I know where the US has its roots in its legal doctrine. the banning in the many states in the US is not solely from judeo-christian beliefs but largely from lack of acceptance of the hom0sexual community." Why don't you think the hom0sexual community is not accepted, if not largely because of our judeo-christian beliefs? |
|
Gold Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 1236 Registered: Apr-06 | As far as the rationality of religion, whoever claimed religion was rational or logical? It is nonetheless a force to be reckoned with if g@ys wish to marry, legally or religiously, in this country. |
|
Gold Member Username: PitbullguyThe Chicago area Post Number: 3281 Registered: Oct-06 | I don't think religion should have any place in this discussion. The fact that religion played such a large role when our legal doctrine was made, is really unfortunate to me. Our founding fathers probably never put much thought into their religious practices, like so many christians these days seem to do. Instead they probably just went to church twice a year on easter and x-mas and did a sudoku in the back pew during the sermon. I'm not knocking them though, I mean as long as they drank the magic wine and got their sins forgiven it's all good right? To say religion can't be based on rationalistic and logical arguments is crazy! Some of the greatest religious philosophers of all time based their philosophies solely on logical arguments. It pains me to see the way people sheepishly and thoughtlessly carryout the religious practices that they were taught instead of examining all the options and going with what they really believe is right. Sorry if I'm straying from the OT. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1285 Registered: Nov-04 | Using religion as the structure for an arguement usually leads to a dead end where the person can no longer argue using rationality and instead has to rely on personal sentiment. The reason I bring up the difference between religious and legal unions is because people tend to think they are one in the same when they really are not. Religion in terms of marriage is not a big hurdle in marriage in itself. it is a problem since religions leaders seem to think they also have political say when they don't even pay taxes. I can guess as to what you mean by "greater hurdle" but it would be better for you to elaborate on that. Almost all societies condemn homosexuality regardless of their religious backgrounds so saying judeo-christian beliefs are the reason for homophobia is ridiculous. I don't know what studies have been made for wild animals but I can guess that they aren't well received either. |
|
Gold Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 1237 Registered: Apr-06 | "I don't think religion should have any place in this discussion" I think it is paramount to this discussion. It is the base of morality for billions of people worldwide, which in turn is the base of the laws which rule this land. "Instead they probably just went to church twice a year on easter and x-mas and did a sudoku in the back pew during the sermon." I wouldn't count on that... Our founding fathers were certainly God fearing, men, although they understood that some separation of church and state was needed to prevent the corruption of both. "To say religion can't be based on rationalistic and logical arguments is crazy! Some of the greatest religious philosophers of all time based their philosophies solely on logical arguments." Certainly there is some logic in most religions, but they all require a leap of faith to some extent or another. "I can guess as to what you mean by "greater hurdle" but it would be better for you to elaborate on that." As noted above: our Judeo-Christian beliefs provide us with a moral code. That moral code is, one way or another, translated into our laws, as laws are fundamentally based on the morality of the people. As such, until that cycle is broken, g@ys are pretty well screwed. "Almost all societies condemn homosexuality regardless of their religious backgrounds so saying judeo-christian beliefs are the reason for homophobia is ridiculous." It should be noted that the Judeo-Christian religions and Islam, which has its basis in Judaism, covers a pretty large portion of the globe. |
|
Gold Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 1238 Registered: Apr-06 | "Using religion as the structure for an arguement usually leads to a dead end where the person can no longer argue using rationality and instead has to rely on personal sentiment." It has nothing to do with personal sentiment or rationality. If the Vatican says h0mosexuals are an abomination, billions of people listen. It isn't something you can argue with. |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17186 Registered: Jun-06 | Good debate. Thanks Brad. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1286 Registered: Nov-04 | Stephen, that is exactly my point. If you ask the average christian about there beliefs they have no way to really substantiate them. If the Pope is able to say that and have that many people follow, why bother believing in God in the first place? Why bother with God's rules if the Pope can make up his own? And why the pope? My bible knowledge is a bit rusty, but I don't recall the pope and the whole church system being in the Bible or Jesus promoting a bureaucratic organization of his teachings. Regarding general homophobia. What most people forget is that the founding fathers of western philosophy, arguable the basis of judeo-christian beliefs were almost all hom0sexual. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle were either g@y or accepted the g@y population and had no issues with it. Yes the relations were typically between teacher and pupil and ended soon after being married to woman, but it was an acceptable relation to have, in the bedrock of western civilization. Jenova, I know of a few the philosophers you are talking about, and many have had modern philosophers pick them apart even with contemporary revisions to their original ideas. Even Descartes, one of the most influential philosophers of modern time, had a hell of a time trying to argue God and religion. Paul, as long as people like LK stay out of it we should be good. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1287 Registered: Nov-04 | Also, if you want to use religion as a basis for an argument you are going to have to prove the "why". Why should I believe what the Pope says? Why should I listen to what the Bible says with the corollary question being, Whose interpretation of the Bible am I supposed to believe? These types of questions can be repeated to all religions and belief systems. If questions like those cannot be answered then religion really has no place in this discussion despite the fact most people do. |
|
Gold Member Username: JtownTexas Post Number: 3007 Registered: Mar-07 | "I wouldn't count on that... Our founding fathers were certainly God fearing, men, although they understood that some separation of church and state was needed to prevent the corruption of both." not to pick you apart, but I'm pretty certain the guy that wrote the Constitution as well as a few others were Deists. Which isn't exactly "God-fearing." |
|
Gold Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 1239 Registered: Apr-06 | "If you ask the average christian about there beliefs they have no way to really substantiate them." Nor do they need to. That is the power of faith and belief. "And why the pope? My bible knowledge is a bit rusty, but I don't recall the pope and the whole church system being in the Bible or Jesus promoting a bureaucratic organization of his teachings." The pope is considered infallible when it comes to religious views, according to Catholics, and certainly his views impact many outside of the Catholic Church as well. "Also, if you want to use religion as a basis for an argument you are going to have to prove the "why". Why should I believe what the Pope says?" I'm not saying YOU have to believe anything the Pope says; I certainly don't. I'm saying though that if g@ys want any hope at equality, they're going to have to overcome that hurdle, although the Pope is busy making himself obsolete all the time these days. "not to pick you apart, but I'm pretty certain the guy that wrote the Constitution as well as a few others were Deists. Which isn't exactly "God-fearing."" http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243 That pretty much sums things up for me. |
|
Platinum Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 15850 Registered: Jan-06 | Since Christopher Lee and all his troublemaking aliases here have stalked me and pushed me away from using the satellite forums here no more (which I quit using awhile back), and now trying to do the same in this OT area by again following me and advising me NOT to post here... Put this in your bong and smoke it!...its exactly what U do NOT want to hear! http://rapidshare.com/files/124681618/2_roosters.WMV.html |
|
Gold Member Username: PitbullguyThe Chicago area Post Number: 3285 Registered: Oct-06 | I don't know anything about "rapidshare". Can i download that safely or is LK trying to poison my computer? |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17187 Registered: Jun-06 | "I wouldn't count on that... Our founding fathers were certainly God fearing, men, although they understood that some separation of church and state was needed to prevent the corruption of both." Sadly as both entities have grown stronger over the centuries we have stone by stone uncovered just that.. Even a heterosexual couple has financial hurdles through the church in order to get married. You don't need to attend church, they just need to have you in their books as a financial contributor to the organization. As long as you mail in your weekly contribution you were considered a practicing member. They don't count heads at the door, only the deposits. Heck, they recommend that 30% of your income belongs to them. Church has become a multi billion dollar business and like politics with money comes power, then corruption. I understand there are bills to pay. I have them too. Would I be a bad "practicing Catholic" if I grabbed a twenty out of the collection basket when I needed it instead of putting one in? |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17188 Registered: Jun-06 | Pit, it's just a music video about how you won't see two roosters together out in the barn. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1288 Registered: Nov-04 | As expected, you have yet to make a contribution to this thread LK. I have no problems with you and never have. In fact, I have never been in conflict with you until this thread. I have actually backed you up concerning Nalin Nyda and her retardedness so I don't see what you are talking about. I am in no way restricting you to contribute to this thread, I am in no position to do that. I actually asked you quite politely to substantiate your views and you have yet to do so. If you really want to continue in this discussion please bring something worthwhile discussing to the table. I think everyone that has contributed to this thread will agree that your posts are quite uncalled for. |
|
Gold Member Username: Extrmndor3Http://illuzonemu.serv..., ^^^Sick Game Post Number: 7957 Registered: Feb-06 | IM THE ONLY ONE THAT THINKS THE VIDEO WAS HILARIOUS.... HAHAHAH |
|
Platinum Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 15851 Registered: Jan-06 | I can see now see who is who here... Pitt,,,if U think I would plant a virus here for U or others, then I have no use for U...or respect! Chrisopher Lee...U bashed me 100x in the satellite forums, and U yourself know nothing about satellite, and then come her claim you"re the Virgin Mary...all pure and innocent! U people can jerk each other off all U want...and pat each other on the back and bash anyone U dislike or disagree with...I simply voiced an opinion and now I get thrashed ...U all showed me what U really are...I'm out of here too...gonna deal with some adults that are NOT 2 faced...or can accept a difference in opinion, without bashing another or insuinating false things like a virus....this kiddie crap is over ..later...MUCH later! BTW ...Lee...U have done a great job here running people off the site in various forums..soon U can talk to yourself and give yourself an erection!...U're another one who ain't "all that"! Chad is the only and most honest respected guy here who I would ever trust!...really thought many others here were "stand up", but I can see I was wrong about most....and guys like Lee, have 1 sole purpose here, and its NOT good...and the rest agree, just NOT to cause waves...but U all deal with whatever, the satellite forums isn't the worse here, as I thought!...I'm outtie! |
|
Platinum Member Username: WingmanaliveA pic is worth 1000 posts!! Post Number: 17205 Registered: Jun-06 | IMO I don't think Chris has confronted/argued with you LK in any way since I've been here. Unlike me I've only seen him in home audio. I personally enjoy the new flock of members of the forum coming to drink in the OT section. That's what it's for. Now don't go accusing me to be some wacko from the sat section also lol. |
|
Gold Member Username: PitbullguyThe Chicago area Post Number: 3288 Registered: Oct-06 | LK you seem to have problems with quite a few members on this forum. These same people don't seem to have problems with anyone else. Who's the common denominator? This isn't grade school dude, people don't have time to spend hunting you down trying to pick on you for no reason, if you wanna believe that's what's going on, so be it. Personally I'm really sick of being falsely accused of bashing and not accepting the opinions of others when those denouncements couldn't be further from the truth. If you wanna keep posting here, you have every right to do so, and you're more than welcome as far as i'm concerned. But i think you need to evaluate yourself a little more honestly in terms of the way you voice your opinions and talk to people. |
|
Gold Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 1289 Registered: Nov-04 | Well anyway, why don't we try to get back to the discussion at hand. I don't think I need to add to what everyone else already knows. |
|
Gold Member Username: •cam•BC Canada Post Number: 2527 Registered: Nov-06 |  Read the title and thought of that picture. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Vt_aholeUSA Post Number: 93 Registered: Jun-07 | lmao |