McCain gets slammed!!!

[Grakthis]

I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.

Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.

Thank god, I felt like I've been alone for most of this debate. lol

She's actually wrong.  There is an overabundance of straight couples wanting to adopt.  The issue is what kind of child they want to adopt.  And that is the same issue with gay parents.

The loving family comment is pointless.  The same children that the straight couples are rejecting the gay couples would also reject.

[Grakthis]

Just because it's not "biblical" or what ever doesn't mean it is wrong.

Not to be some goodie-goodie, over religious freak here but, I don't think you understand that comprimising law, especially God's, is extremely wrong. If it's not approved of in the Bible, it's wrong.

The internet is not approved of in the Bible! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[portions.for.foxes]

The amount of flawed logic in your post baffles me.

Uhh....

Marriage between two men is not identical to mariage between a man and a woman.  Because marriage between two men is between two men and marriage between a man and a woman is between a man and a woman.

TAH DAH!

Just like a man going down on a woman is still straight sex but a woman going down on another woman is gay sex.  And the only difference between the two acts is the gender of the individual performing the act.

See, it's nice to differentiate between things that are different by using different words.

In summary, "wow, you're dumb."

It basically boils down to one's definition and idea of the word marriage, and ours are obviously different. You missed the entire point I made in my post, I acknowledged that there was a difference in the gender of people being married, but marriage itself wasn't different - the concept of marriage, marriage as union, doesn't change from gay couples to straight couples. Thus, it's not different and shouldn't need another name.

Going back to your murder analogy, which was a pretty dumb ass analogy, murder is still murder, regardless of who is killed and why, it still falls under the umbrella concept of "murder". Marriage as well, should be a blanket concept to whomever marries, because marriage is still marriage regardless as to who is married.

"Sex" is a blanket statement that applies to all acts of sex, gay sex or straight - because it's still sex. There are different acts of sex, yes, so they are then categorized into different things.

There aren't different acts of marriage, there are different ceremonies, and different people being married, but the act of marriage and it's principle is not different itself.

I'm not going to bother splitting hairs with you, because all you ever seem to do is play the role of the devils advocate regardless of the position anyone takes. So whatever dude.

In summary, you still make no sense and your logic is still pretty flawed. Try again.

[portions.for.foxes]

I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.

Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.

Thank god, I felt like I've been alone for most of this debate. lol

She's actually wrong.  There is an overabundance of straight couples wanting to adopt.  The issue is what kind of child they want to adopt.  And that is the same issue with gay parents.

The loving family comment is pointless.  The same children that the straight couples are rejecting the gay couples would also reject.

The majority of gay couples don't have any children to reject because many states prevent them or make it extremely difficult for them to adopt to begin with moron.

[Grakthis]

It basically boils down to one's definition and idea of the word marriage, and ours are obviously different. You missed the entire point I made in my post, I acknowledged that there was a difference in the gender of people being married, but marriage itself wasn't different - the concept of marriage, marriage as union, doesn't change from gay couples to straight couples. Thus, it's not different and shouldn't need another name.

So, gay couples and straight couples sometimes/often perform the same sexual acts.

Therefore, gay sex and straight sex are not different because the sex is the same, right?

Oh, but they are both "sex" right?  So your issue is with a modifier? lolz!

Going back to your murder analogy, which was a pretty dumb ass analogy, murder is still murder, regardless of who is killed and why, it still falls under the umbrella concept of "murder". Marriage as well, should be a blanket concept to whomever marries, because marriage is still marriage regardless as to who is married.

Then why is it a "hate crime?"  It's just murder.  Why does it get a different name and additional jail time?  It's not JUST "murder" anymore.  It's become MORE than just murder.

Do you actually think a change in definitions of "marriage" would not come with special language for gay marriages?  Because the existing language is designed specifically for opposite sex marriage.

"Sex" is a blanket statement that applies to all acts of sex, gay sex or straight - because it's still sex. There are different acts of sex, yes, so they are then categorized into different things.

Oh, so you're OK with calling it "Gay Marriage" vs "Straight Marriage?"

But you're not ok with "Marriage" vs "Homarriage?"

Hahahahahahahaha.

You are the worst civil rights activist ever.  You're the kind that gives civil rights activists a bad name.

Like, I am standing here, on your side.  I want to give gay men and women all of the EXACT SAME rights as straight couples.  I want them to have the same laws, the same legal definitions, the same legal privileges as straight couples.  I even defend the MORALITY of homosexual behavior QUOTING THE BIBLE.

And you want to argue with me over the DUMBEST thing in the world.

You are OK with a modifier, but you are horrified at the idea of a new word!

You should read 1984.  We can get rid of "bad" and just say "not good."  I mean, why should we use "bad" when we can just add a modifier to good!

We shouldn't say "sad" we should say "not happy!"  Why use a new word when we can just add a modifier!  I mean, in the end, we're talking about levels of "happy."  It all refers to the same feeling!

There aren't different acts of marriage, there are different ceremonies, and different people being married, but the act of marriage and it's principle is not different itself.

Actually, the principles are totally different.  I mean, even the law discusses the importance of bearing children in marriage.  And that's not even including the various religious ceremonies.

All of the laws are designed to foster children.  So a gay marriage alters the fundamental purpose of marriage.  Which is fine, but the language of the laws would need to be changed to reflect this.

I'm not going to bother splitting hairs with you, because all you ever seem to do is play the role of the devils advocate regardless of the position anyone takes. So whatever dude.

lolz.  You've been splitting hairs with me since your first post.

In summary, you still make no sense and your logic is still pretty flawed. Try again.

Son, I've forgotten more about both religion and civil rights than you even know exist.

You don't even know what you're fighting for anymore.  You just want to rage against the machine.

Well, frankly, the machine doesn't give a fuck what you want to call your civil union.  Use whatever word you want.

But the people as a WHOLE are what define language, and the people as a whole prefer to have different words to refer to different things.

And as a whole, we prefer new words to modifiers of existing words.

We would rather say "gay" than "man who prefers the company of other men."  Because the former is specific enough and is simpler and conveys the meaning perfectly.

No one wants to say "marriage" and the have to qualify it by adding "oh, they are gay."

We just want 1 word that describes the different between a gay couple and straight couple.

If you don't like it, get pissed at the English language.  Don't act like your rights are being stepped on.

[Grakthis]

I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.

Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.

Thank god, I felt like I've been alone for most of this debate. lol

She's actually wrong.  There is an overabundance of straight couples wanting to adopt.  The issue is what kind of child they want to adopt.  And that is the same issue with gay parents.

The loving family comment is pointless.  The same children that the straight couples are rejecting the gay couples would also reject.

The majority of gay couples don't have any children to reject because many states prevent them or make it extremely difficult for them to adopt to begin with moron.

Ok?

I mean, I don't have any children to reject because I am a single male.

But it doesn't matter... cause even if i COULD adopt, I WOULDN'T.

Do you see me throwing a fit about it?

Gay couples would hit the same roadblocks straight couples do.

So this is kind of a stupid line of arguing.

Find me a bunch of gay couples who will adopt 8 year olds taken out of crackhosues who's parents are spending 10-20 in jail and don't want to have anything to do with the kid anyways, and then we'll talk about the rights of gay couples to adopt.

[portions.for.foxes]

Jesus christ, you still don't understand the definition of the word hate crime. If a gay person is murdered it's only a hate crime if they're murdered BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY. If a gay person is murdered for money, IT'S NOT A HATE CRIME.

Again, you and the sex talk, let me break it down in terms you'll understand.

Two penises together, and two vaginas together, are different from a penis and a vagina together. So, they're different acts of sex, even though it's still sex. Better now?

Yes, I am okay with a modifier, a new word isn't necessary. Under your logic I guess we'd also have to come up with a new word for gay sex, and get rid of the modifier for that.

Yes, I understand we're on the same side, but you're being a pain in the ass quite frankly, and honestly, you're the one that started the entire discussion between us, not me. I just wanted to express my half of the same side of the coin.

Alright, if the law expresses the importance of bearing children in marriage, I suppose heterosexual women and men who are infertile and unable to conceive due to a physical condition, illness, or an accident, shouldn't be allowed to marry then. Because they clearly couldn't adhere to your archaic definition and understanding of what it means to marry.

Anyways, I'm done arguing. I've already expressed my view profusely and that's that.

 

Oh, and learn to speak for yourself. You are not the voice of the people.

[soupdujour]

Y'all are stupid.

And once again you prove that you never have a single intelligent thought to contribute to well, anything.

Yes but I still manage to annoy dumb twats such as yourself, so I'm quite content.

[Suicidalboobs]

Well, I'm so far behind in the discussion now, i'm not gonna try to catch up.

Grakthis, you do make good points. But I still think, from the context of the scriptures, that it's still speaking of homosexuality. Especially of how the view was on the account of Lot when two angels came to his house.

"The internet is not approved of in the Bible! OMG!"
yeah, ok well, things not directly stated in the Bible (i.e. things not yet invented) would just be up to one's own good judgement, obviously.

[Suicidalboobs]

I didn't mean, that US laws or any other laws should just be unimportant. Of course I'd follow US laws also. God's word does say to follow the higher authorities on earth ("pay ceaser's things to ceaser") unless it conflicts someway with Bible law. I don't just blindly follow, I reason.
I'd never use the Bible as a weapon, I do love my nieghbor and hate no one. But i just feel that if something's going against a law, then it's wrong.
I know somethings in the old testament were done away with, which is an entirely different discussion, but I don't think something like this would be done away with.
Sorry if i did rub someone the wrong way. It's just a discussion.

[portions.for.foxes]

Y'all are stupid.

And once again you prove that you never have a single intelligent thought to contribute to well, anything.

Yes but I still manage to annoy dumb twats such as yourself, so I'm quite content.

Ignorance is bliss, so I don't doubt you're content. :wink:

[xxlovelyxx]

portions for foxes, you are very immature.


and well, as i can see grakthis still has problems pfft

[jessica73]

lol, jen.

I admit, that Andrew has a point, as much as it pains me. Older children and ones from the proverbial crackhouses do have a harder time being adopted than cute babies.

And, of course, there's no guarantee that you'd have a loving home. There are all kinds of people, an unfortunately not all of them are nice.

But, by allowing gay people the right to adopt, these kids would still have that much more of a chance to get out of the system.

[Grakthis]

Jesus christ, you still don't understand the definition of the word hate crime. If a gay person is murdered it's only a hate crime if they're murdered BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY. If a gay person is murdered for money, IT'S NOT A HATE CRIME.

Yes.  Thank you, pff.  I am quite aware how the law is written.  But unlike you, obv, I also know how the law is actually applied.

Again, you and the sex talk, let me break it down in terms you'll understand.

Awesome!  I love when people half as smart as me try to talk down to me... this should be entertaining.

Two penises together, and two vaginas together, are different from a penis and a vagina together. So, they're different acts of sex, even though it's still sex. Better now?

Hahahahahahahaa.  See, you still don't get it.  I guess I am giving you too much credit.

See, a man performing oral sex on another man is performing the SAME SEX ACT as a woman performing oral sex on a man.

So, they are NOT different acts of sex.  The only difference is the two people involved.

Yes, I am okay with a modifier, a new word isn't necessary.

Maybe it's not "neccesary" but why is it "offensive?"

Are you offended that short pants are called "capris?"  OMG! THEY ARE BOTH PANTS!  WHY DO YOU NEED A DIFFERENT WORD FOR THEM?!? IT'S SO INSULTING TO PANTS!!

Under your logic I guess we'd also have to come up with a new word for gay sex, and get rid of the modifier for that.

That would be nice.  I immagine we will eventually.

Yes, I understand we're on the same side, but you're being a pain in the ass quite frankly, and honestly, you're the one that started the entire discussion between us, not me. I just wanted to express my half of the same side of the coin.

No.  Actually, YOU'RE being a pain in the ass.

Are you aware that the sticking point for millions of Americans is the word Marriage?  They are perfectly willing to give gay couples the same LEGAL rights as straight couples, but they are not willing to call it marriage.

How stupid and petty is it that the gay community isn't happy with that?  They don't want the same rights as straight couples.  If they did, they would say "Ok... give us civil unions then."  No.  They want to REDEFINE A WORD that is already in common usage.

And guess what, it's setting back gay rights by a decade or more.

Alright, if the law expresses the importance of bearing children in marriage, I suppose heterosexual women and men who are infertile and unable to conceive due to a physical condition, illness, or an accident, shouldn't be allowed to marry then. Because they clearly couldn't adhere to your archaic definition and understanding of what it means to marry.

Wow, you're clueless.  I hope you grow up someday and learn to actually have a conversation that doesn't revert to quoting the opinons of other people.

The law expresses the importance of bearing children in marriage because, in theory, a male and a female can marry for that purpose.  It doesn't matter if they did in practice or not.

In theory, an infertile couple can still bear children through a surrogate mother or other fertility methods.

In the case of a gay marriage, there is no possibility of child bearing.  Even a surrogate mother would not be THEIR child any more than my brothers step-daughter is his child.

It's the possibility of children that requires a distinct wording.  Like it or not, the law still defines parenthood using genetic paternity first and foremost.

Anyways, I'm done arguing. I've already expressed my view profusely and that's that.

You sad little boy.  You've been "done arguing" 4 times now.  Learn some self-control.

Oh, and learn to speak for yourself. You are not the voice of the people.

Keep telling yourself that.

[portions.for.foxes]

I'm not going to bother reading your post, because I really don't feel like dragging this on anymore, and I know if I read it I'll just want to retort back, so just have a really awesome day Andrew. :wink: