 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 149 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614116 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Dear All, First of all I apologize for intruding on your time, however an issue of great importance is in progress. Congress is about to vote on amending the U.S. Constitution to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples. Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. Yet our Senators will vote on this amendment in the next 48 hours. It's urgent that we speak up now. This hateful divisiveness has no place in America. Please join me in saying so, at: Equality in marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. We can't let anyone, or any group, be singled out for discrimination based on who they are or who they love. The Constitution of our great Nation has never before been amended to take away anyone's individual rights. Individual rights are the backbone of our Constitution and our country. It is these rights that unify us as a nation and people. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Jeffrey M. Williams" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*waves middle finger |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and the point of that? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I tried to sign it but my lack of US address prevented me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah yes... well unfortunately its only for US citizens |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I still support the idea of freedom of choice, we are all born with it and no one has the right to take it away . Any idea how many have signed? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no clue :-\ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what a weird thing to do.. no matter how they vote, it won't affect anyone but the people in question. the people in congress won't be harmed by allowing same-sex couples to get married, nor will they notice it if they DON'T allow them to get married (except for protests, that is...). Weird. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course they will be harmed. their precious country could be infected with sinners! /end sarcasm |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
signed. "This sort of blatant discrimination has no place in the document that forms our country. I find that it is the direct anti-thesis of our nation, whose mantra has for 200 years been openness and tolerance." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah i'm not american so I can't sign |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
... or... let's not sign it, and wait for the day when USA collapses in it's own shit and has to be rebuilt from scratch. US just has too much problems, in the past, at present, and in the future. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree with you 100%!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sorry, but even if I could have signed I wouldn't. Marriage in supposed to be a blessed sacrament, a union between a man and a woman blessed by God who will then go on and have children of their own. The way I understand this situation it is not about legal rights regarding anything other than the ability to declare themselves married (ie. they can be considered as a unioned couple and receive the same treatment as married hetero couples). Also just to note "Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. Yet our Senators will vote on this amendment in the next 48 hours." is a bullshit statement because it's not about removal of rights....it's about preventing the extension of the right to marriage to gay couples. It is about not allowing a state to decide on what is acceptable in what is still a religous event. A big difference. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you disapprove of atheist marriages too? what about marriages in which one of the partners is infertile? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's true that it's being sold as a legal issue, but i think it's more of a moral issue. and, a moral issue that's based heavilly on religious beliefs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not my country. But I would sign it if I lived there |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I cannot understand why athiests would go through a religious wedding ceremony if they didn't beleive in it. Infertility isn't an issue as the union between a man and a woman is the primary thing. Why should traditional beleifs HAVE to be extended to encompass others or risk being accused of being oppressive. It is nonsense. Homosexuals can still go through a marriage ceremony if they beleive god accepts homosexuality, they can still get the same legal rights as married couples, it's just that the government won't recognise their union as marriage. I can't see where they have an arguement. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because they don't get the estate and tax breaks that married couples get |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well of course atheists wouldn't go through a religious wedding ceremony, they go for a state wedding, which (whilst maintaining a nod of the head towards the religious tradition of the union) is primarily about obtaining the security and social prestige of marriage, and of course the concomitant tax and inheritance benefits. do you believe gay couples should not be allowed such benefits? if it is true that they can already gain exactly the same legal rights as married heterosexuals (for issues such as wills, right to determine medical treatment in case of incapacity etc) then i agree, the issue is nonsense. marriage is a privilege bestowed by the state and, as such, should be available separate of its religious connotations (separation of church and state; see: enlightenment). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Regarding the legal status of couples, if it isn't already in place then there are plans to put it into place, the gay couples will have exactly the same legal rights as married hetero couples. The whole marriage arguement is regarding the right of gay people to have their religious wedding recognised by the state. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, as you said earlier, if their interpretation of christianity sanctifies homosexual union then why should the state not recognise it as religious? does the state not recognise jewish, muslim, hindu and myriad other non-christian religious unions? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*their meaning The Homosexuals Of America. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not between anything other than a union between a single man and a single woman. For example, they do not recognise multiple marriages in the same way the UK doesn't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah. to be honest i don't much care for religion so i can't really be fucked to fight this particular corner any more. as long as they have exactly the same rights, then there's not all that much more of significance that can be done i suppose; even if the state recognises their marriage as a holy union, the state can't force billy-joe Redneck to appreciate the same. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The bible is the most ambiguous thing ever. It never actually says homosexuality is wrong. If I could be bothered to get my book then I could quote you the passage that is often used and point out where assumptions are made. But I can't be bothered to go home and get my book. I'm atheist by the way but people with strong religious beliefs fascinate me. I just can't understand them. Especially those with a complete lack of tolerance for any religion but theirs. Best Christian quote I've ever heard: "Islam is not a true religion. It's all based on a book anyway." I couldn't point out the sheer stupidity of that statement to the Christian because I was laughing too hard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's all a complicated subject, and it is deeply entrenched in political warfare. I think what is being lost is the fact that all that should be expected is equal legal rights for gay couples in relation to heterosexual married couples. Also equal rights for legally cohabiting heterosexual couples who choose not to engage in a religious ceremony. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ecnadniarb, I really don't think church weddings are much to do with religion for most of those having them now. I think it's more about the importance of the ceremony and celebration. I don't have a problem with gay marriage. Gay parenting on the other hand, is wrong imho. Surely this would hugely alter the sexual development of a child. But sorry that's nothing to do with this, probably just me wanting an argument or something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
be bothered |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No really, there's no point because it's impossible to tell him everything. He's one of those people who refutes science in every possible way unless is can help him prove something that he's saying. Then it's amazing! Everyone knows he's a dick. He thinks everyone looks up to him as a great person and leader but the truth us he's not either and no-one thinks that. AWESOME! Lee: You're very right but I fancied dragging the religion thing a bit further so I could get that anecdote in :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it has no bearing on the sexual development of the child (once you have allowed for heritable factors, if one of the gay couple is a genetic parent), or rather it is indistinguishable from a child raised by a single parent. i think a child's welfare is best protected by ensuring frequent and regular contact with two or more 'role models', at least one of each gender. this doesn't need to be as part of the traditional marriage set up though, it's the stability that's important; two gay men with an aunt or close friend female friend providing the female role model would be perfectly adequate. indeed it would be far superior to the many parents who spend little time with their children doing anything more involving than watching television. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what is the attitude towards homosexual marriage in other parts of the world? is it legal? is it governed by traditional morals based on religion? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't want to get into the whole gay parenting or gay adoption thing, but my view is that provided a child is loved then it is OK...in the case of adoption I see no reason in depriving a child of a loving home given the rather shitty alternatives available. I do agree with VLter that it would have to be ensured that exposure to both male and female role models would have to be ensured. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That would be a good idea, yeah, but still no substitute for parents of both genders. I think a child's sexual development is controlled mostly by their observations of their parents' relationship. It's all about that nature vs. nurture theory...and yes that definitely applies to how sexuality is represented on TV. One thing I wonder, is why *so* many people are gay, or have experimented in the past. 1/10? Isn't that it? Some people are genetically gay, I forget how exactly, a gene being turned off or something. But anyway surely that abnormality can't be as frequently occurring as 1/10. I just don't understand why so many people are, it seems unnatrual. But then again cars are unnatural, most of our diet is unnatural, contraception is unnatural, and I enjoy all that so who I am to talk. I'm just curious about it, is all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's something I didn't think about actually (that ecnad. brought up). Still, a lesbian couple could use a sperm bank... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The figure is actually suppose to be closer to 3/10 have engaged in some form of homosexual activity at some stage in their life. Also the idea that it is somehow unnatural is also incorrect as homosexual behaviour is present and has been observed in all species of mammal. In Greece is was commonly accepted until the Romans forced it back underground. Social conditioning is the only reason acceptance and participation isn't higher than it currently is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
homosexual or not, i think it's human nature to seek out a relationship with another human for survival and emotional needs. or maybe we are all just a bunch of horny animals that will screw anything if given the opportunity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a bit of both at different times of life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I meant how many have 'decided' that they are and live their lives that way. I know there are gay animals, but think about it this way, how is not reproducing (because of being attracted only to the same sex) going to help a species of animal survive and evolve? Ok maybe unnatural is the wrong word to use. But looking at it like that, it's a genetic defect. Doesn't matter for us of course, we don't have evolve through natural selection or anything, and I'm not suggesting that it should matter. So you could argue that it is still natural in the same way being born with six fingers on each hand is natural. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not really. It is all about sexual preference...preference being the operative word. There is going to be a time in every mans life where he finds at least one other male attractive. Whether he would vocally express this is another matter, but deep down there is a repression of those feelings because they aren't socially acceptable. In an open society sexual contact would not be a case of have to decide exclusively on one sex or the other. You fall in love with who you fall in love with. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah contentious stuff. i could write an essay about this if i had the time and inclination to research everything properly. i think that 1/10 figure is just something that's bandied about, i have no idea whether it's true. my hunch is that we might be able to discriminate between several 'types' of gayness: disclaimer: no offense or judgement intended - everyone is free to pursue whatever consensual pleasures they wish as far as i'm concerned! 1. 'genetic gayness' - prenatal hormonal and/or structural brain deviations from heterosexual development detectable in the womb; i.e. a more masculinized brain in the case of lesbians, a more feminized brain in the case of male gays. 2. 'environmental gayness' - almost certainly comes in many flavours, perhaps due to childhood sexual abuse or other experiences (probably before age 5). 3. pseudo or 'experimental' homosexuality and homoeroticism - now this is an interesting one, which you see all the time in very masculine activities such as sports teams, the fazing rituals of particular exclusive societies, etc. it may be illuminating for those who claim gayness is not "natural" to note that, in several other species of primates (eg. chimpanzees), otherwise heterosexually active males have been observed to indulge in anal sex as a means of formalizing or advertising relationships within the competitive male hierarchical structure (alpha male at the top, etc.), i.e. displaying one's dominance over the recipient. ps - the inverted commas indicate terms that could merit an entire essay of their own just to define them! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Admitting a man is attractive and getting a woody from it are two diffrent things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
NB: don't the let use of the word 'deviations' in (1) make you think i mean "deviant". big difference. and yes even (1) could have evolutionary advantages - some researchers have suggested that having a proportion of a hunter-gatherer society as non-reproductive carers for the young of others may stabilise population growth, which would otherwise be destructive to the society. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't believe that at all. What creates sexual attraction? Above all else, the simple instinct to procreate. Even if this isn't what you seek to do with a relationship, it is the driving force behind what you do. A bit of a depressing thought, but it makes sense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha. woody. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my reply was in response to ecnad. delayed because of my bloody isp (onetel), they cut me off for a while every 2 hours, bastards. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Somehow, I feel the movie Crying Game is relavant to this topic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why is male - female penetrative pornography much more popular than girl on girl pornography? Why do so called straight men like to look at cum shots and blow jobs? What about watching hand jobs? A man can be turned on by pretty much any sexual activity for anything he doesn't consider to be visually offensive. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's a good way of summarising it, Vletr. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
true. woody. i'm going home now, toodle-heterosexual-pip. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
