servbot128 : Where in the world did you get the idea that I'm okay with gay marriage? If you had read my previous post, you wouldn't have made that mistake. To quote: "I'm against homosexuality, completely and wholly". I didn't feel the need to repeat what I had already talked about.

mrfe : WHATEVER!!!! YOUR TO DAMN IGNORNAT TO EVEN CARE!!!!!!!

Mod Edit: Enjoy your three day ban. Please remember to keep your posts in this forum on topic and respectful. You don't have to agree with other people. In fact, the great thing about the debate forum is that it's a place to disagree with each other. But please, remember to do it respectfully (that goes for everyone).

servbot128 : You've been requested before to stop spamming and flaming. Your posts are not adding anything of value to this thread and just instead ruining the thread. I don't want to have to close a thread that is otherwise fine, so I will have to request you remain out of this thread if you can't make posts without senselessly yelling at other members.

Also, if I do see this thread derail into a flame war, I won't think twice about closing it.

I've always been of the opinion that as long as it's not hurting anyone, people should be allowed to do what they want. If the same gender wants to be together, they should do that if it makes them happy. I don't understand why people get upset about it. I have my views on the world and stuff, but what other people believe is none of my business and I don't have the wherewithall to get up on my high horse and decide that because I wouldn't do it myself, it just plain out isn't right.

I understand the religious aspect to it to an extent, though not religious myself. However, if you do not believe in homosexuality, I believe you should not be a homosexual. Beyond that, I don't believe anyone should have a say. I wouldn't dream of trying to dictate what is right and what isn't for others to do to be happy and to make a family/life for themselves, and it kinda bums me out that people think that's acceptable. I believe everyone deserves to lead their lives the way they think is right, as long as it's peaceful and not harmful to those around them.

As for gay marriage, I think people should be able to get married and joined in life regardless of their gender. I know the bible says between man and wife, but having same gender couples doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is whatever you want it to be. If a Christian wants marriage to be a pure thing between a man and a wife, it still technically is, since men and women get married every day. To say that SOMEWHERE OUT THERE, TWO MEN GOT MARRIED LIKE I GOT MARRIED RUINS THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!! is childish. Marriage should have a deeper and more personal meaning to everyone, and it's more symbolic than just words in a book. So to say that because gays are allowed to marry ruins it for all the straight people is a really sour grapes attitude. I say whoever wants to get married, get married, be together, and do whatcha wanna do.

I'd hafta agree with what KG said. Basically, if people want to do something, let them do it. As long as it doesn't affect anyone negatively, it shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't matter if you think it's wrong to do. If you feel it's wrong, just don't do it yourself. You shouldn't condemn others for doing it. We're not talking about murder here.

A lot of Christians will say that homosexuals should not be married because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, what if said homosexuals aren't Christians? Should they still be held accountable by what the Bible says? Everyone has a right to practice their own religion. If their belief set is one in which gay marriage is okay, then they should be allowed to follow that through without anyone getting in the way. It's not like you tell Jewish people that they can't get married unless it's in a church and by a priest... why do we need restrictions on marriage based on a particular religion's holy book?

Gay marriage is just wrong.

its pretty sad that people are so obssesed with the image of there bond that they want to bar people from union.
If you think gays being married devalues it, you got married for the wrong reason. The world would be better if people stoped dictating other peoples lives. Its democracy, everyone is entitled to equality

Gays should be married, they want to, and it's not the end of the world if they do.

As much as I understand from a religious standpoint- I really don't understand it from a religious standpoint, really.

If gays are sinful, that would imply that being gay is a choice. Which it's not. Why did God make people to automatically be sinful? To have a larger population in hell? It sounds incredibly stupid.

Click here for a flowchart that I got from an "infamous" imageboard that I feel invalidates the majority of opinions that are against the matter, and just leaves the ones that are too stupid to answer. (Link is puush, so it won't expire until I delete it.)


And, a more controversial opinion, which makes my gay friends angry when I say it, but, as much as I support gay marriage, I feel that homosexuality is actually a DNA difference, not necessarily a birth defect. It's something that is part of the human mind. Because, people are born with it, and it's more or less a difference in genes. Maybe one of the chromosomes is sexuality, or something. It's not normal, obviously, but people who do have it should certainly have their rights. This may sound out of line, but yes, general idea in humans is to reproduce, continue their families, which is not generally in the mind of the homosexual, unless they consider surrogacy or something.

Yeah. Going to opt for the non politically correct view here. Homosexuality is a deviancy, which simply means it is against the overwhelming preference of the entire population. Homosexuality was also categorised as a mental disease up until the 1970's ( google it), until its promotion served a greater purpose. To pre-empt those who suggest homophobia is present here, let me say this: it is any humans right to be disgusted by something. This is not a phobia. To categorise it as a phobia, and enshrine it in law, effectively means conditions like arachnophobia, and agoraphobia should also be illegal, and punishable in a court of law. It simply disgusts me, as is my right as a human being. Gay marriage is abhorrent, and the fact that society debates whether or not is should be allowed, spells disaster for the future of the human race. Whether it is admitted or not, the founding principle for the gay rights pressure groups is the destruction of the family unit. It has to be (google it). How exactly does that make you feel?
I love my family and do not want it destructed whilst 4% of the population lobby for rights to do exactly this.
I am in no way religious, just awake.

Saunter77 : Awake? I'm guessing that means you also are awake on the whole cause of 9/11 and the Holocaust, both being faked, right?

Yes, and for long periods of time, people were killed for being "Witches", being left handed was considered sinful and a representation that you are a son of the devil, and those with real mental diseases were cruelly tortured in hospitals, where they were almost always killed. People realized this was wrong, much like how they were wrong to believe that Homosexuality is a mental disease.

In most cases of "Homophobia", it's just plain ignorance. Not an actual fear. Why it is labeled as "homophobia", I don't know, but it's generally to describe those against homosexual rights, not those scared of people who like the same gender.

Actually, having the right to Gay Marriage isn't disgusting, nor inspiring disgust, but just a natural born right, really. Just like normal marriage and interracial marriage. Assuming you're from the US, I should probably point out that the nation was founded on the rights of having "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". This follows the right to marry. What makes marriage such a thing that it is exclusive to ONLY straight men and women?

If you try to argue the idea that "They can't have children, so they're a hindrance to the population", then might I point out two things: 1) A lot of people can be sterile ("google it"), and I can guarantee a majority of those who ARE indeed sterile are straight, so should they be outlawed from having natural rights? Specifically, our natural born right to the freedom to marry? I mean, I don't see too big of a difference between a Sterile couple getting married and a homosexual couple getting married. But then again, I don't see the difference between a straight and homosexual marriage either.

2) Quite a lot go with 1 of two of these specific options: 1) If it's a homosexual male couple, they donate their sperm to a sperm bank, allowing others to have children, or to get a host for their biological child. 2) If it's a homosexual female couple, they just become a host. Does this fix any "Not contributing to the population" issues for you?

Also, if anything, those oppressing gay rights, not allowing them to marry, are the ones who are contributing to the "destruction of the family unit", simply because they aren't allowing them to live a happy life and become a family. Homosexuals having rights have no negative effects on other straight couples.

Religious or not, ignorance is ignorance, Nya~.

Gay marriage is just legal bonds between two gay people, it does not force straight people to have sex with them.

People will still have gay sex with one another with or without a law saying they can or cant.

As for family values, lets face it a lot of peoples familys are fked up anyway and they are all straight.

Even without gay people this country is beyond mental as it is. People think they can somehow eliminate gays and colored people from society lmfao... It's way to late for that.

Whites are becoming minority and who knows straight people may become the next minority after that. The good news is we will all be dead before it happens so it wont matter.

You have been taught well, through school and the media. Your views can be found in all the newspapers throughout the world. I don't come in from any angle, just the facts, and very fortunately for me, I have the free time to reason and ponder things through to a conclusion, something you do not have the benefit of, clearly. All I go by is history. Ask yourself, who defines progress? To what end? Change. but to what? And why? Do you think things happen by chance, or are designed that way? Think about it for more than five minutes. It is clear you have not read your history books, which I suggest you do. When you have, you will agree that the promotion of homosexuality is prevalent in toady's society. 
I refuse to let others do my thinking for me, and perhaps you should do the same. 
I am not American, but Scottish. Awake to me, at least, means thinking for myself. If you choose to use the medias technique of bracketing me into a certain group, it is your your own loss. I have read my history books, and can see the pattern. You have not, and regurgitate the opinion of others. Good for you.
I have no real views on 9/11, for you to assume otherwise without asking reveals a quality of your character you may have preferred to kept hidden.

Saunter77 : Actually, I try to think of what's best for the human race, and what's right for every, and also how "Equal Rights" should be, in fact, "Equal".

I don't go with the media at all. More often, actually, there's prejudice and bias against gay rights, rather than them saying they should be included in "EQUAL Rights".

Also, yes, I do look through history and study it quite nicely. It has shown me, and here's the funny part, that the bad guys are the ones who win, actually. Want some examples? Hitler with the persecution of the Jews, the Spaniards with the "colonization" of the Americas (Brutally slaughtering the Natives, bringing disease, etc etc), the Slavery system (Yes, I do know that it actually started out as them selling out their own men who were labeled as outcasts, prisoners, etc, but it quickly turned to abuse once they took the non-criminals , before you try to put that argument against me), and let's not forget the Egyptians and all sorts of things that went on with them.

Actually, I wasn't assuming anything. I was simply making a joke out of how you worded things. Most of the time, you only see crazy conspiracy theorists use the term "Because I'm awake" or "Wake up, people".

By "most of the time", what you actually mean is the term the media has given you to use. That you use the word "crazy" along with it, rests my case on that point. Your history is somewhat off as well, you simply regurgitate the nonsense that is the history books. You touch upon something when you state that the winners always dictate what is recorded as history. The correct books will tell you who is a 'winner', and it always seems to be the same philosophy, generation after generation, regardless of the people whose names are recorded in history books. This alone should tell the sentient reader something.
To address your Hitler point, look into who funded the Nazi Party into existence. If you are not waylaid by people spinning you off up into the heavens, you will find a link between Prescott Bush ( George W Bush's granddad) and the foreign policy he established to enable the funding. Then, if you have more than two minutes to spare, consider why this happened, perhaps look into the now declassified Operation Paperclip (thousands of Nazi scientists were given a free passage to the USA and housed and given employment for the US government), look at the founding principles of the Nazi Party (they were Socialist), maybe wonder why we are told we live in a socialist society today, ponder what socialism REALLY means, then, if you have time, link in Charles Darwin's social engineering tool ( survival of the fittest, natural selection) and see that it is a creed that asserts that better gened people have the right to rule over what they see as inferior gened commoners. To Darwin, God was dead, and within us all, we evolve to a higher consciousness (read his book Origin of the Species), then tie this in with the New Age movement, where God is a part of us all, everything is one, all must be accepted (this goes into the Humanitarian view here, where the actions of paedophiles etc is not their fault, it is in the DNA and a human behaviour, therefore it is acceptable, but I wont bore you with that) and you have a good view of why we are actually debating this issue. 
Nothing happens by chance. It is by design, and the boring history books tell you this clearly. You wont find it in CNN or the BBC, or any newspaper you read. There is no short cut to the reading.
PS- I am having fun...

Saunter77 :
You dont want the family unit to be destroyed, not destructed.
First:
Arachnapobia is the fear of arachnids, primarily spiders. If you saught there extermination, banning, acted sadisticaly toward them etc then thats a different matter.
You can think its gross but you dont have the right to persecute people, so banning them, attacking them, casting them out, all illegal.
Eye colour is a deviancy. Height is a deviancy. Evolution is deviancy. If minority traits are undesirable perhaps we should kill the native americans. Or latinos. Theyre a minority.

Gays were classed as mentaly unsound.
Blacks were classed as animals.
Ciggaretes were good for you.
Britain would rule the world for ever.
The sun orbited the earth.
Often our initial assumptions are incorrect.
But back to the family unit thing.
This is something that always stupifys me.
How exactly, by not allowing gay marriage, will that preserve the family unit? The gays will just stop being gay?
Or is it that currently theyre kicking doors in and forceably spliting families.
Its like the claim that gay marriage will reduce birth rates. Because if people can marry theyl switch to gay mode?
Gays having rights dosent mean your family gets split. If your family is only valuable so long as its the same as every other, then I think you dont understand the point of the thing. Your family is what you interpret it as. It dosent get changed by the government.
They could change family to mean custard, you can just disregard it and carry on as before.

Nazis socialist
Thats open to interpretation and debate. The russians claimed to be socialist too, but were quite different. Now russia is capitalist and, oh, look, still arse holes.
Who is entailed by "we".
Very few societies are socialist.

MegaRevolution1 :
"bad guys are the ones that win."
Given that half of what society considered acceptable in the past is now regarded as wrong the majority of historical figures can seem bad, even if they were good by standards of the time.
Like lincoln.
Absolute arse.

But.
Your examples arent the bad guys winning.
Its all a matter of timescale.
If a guy robs someone and is caught a month later its not a victory. Not a definitive one anyway, its fleeting.
Hitler watched his hundred year reich crumble in a matter of years. He had to kill himself knowing what the russians would do to him.
And the jews survived, he failed in his goal. Henry ford however preached much the same as hitler and got away scot free. His companys still loved, as is... Walt disney. Those are victorys.
Spaniards, mmm, they got theres, the usa took there northern teritories, including cuba, france conquered there home land, there colonys used the opportunity to declare independence, they enjoyed years of spanish flu(deadly), and civil war wrecked the nation, and resulted in oppresive fascist rule for many years.
Slavery. Thats to broad, you never actualy stated an individual who won.
And the egyptians. A great many pharos live happily while ruling fiercly, but that was the same world over at the time.
Since the romans however, its been conquered over and over, from the macedonians, ottomans, british, italians, germans, and britain again. And now they suffer at the hands of dictators and extremists.

thenumberone : Hate to go offtopic here, but yeah, I completely understand what you mean. In fact, I actually wrote a bit of an essay with a similar format as what you said (timescale), Nya~.

thenumberone Wow. Allowing a lot to be revealed there about you. Yep, you've swallowed it all very nicely, and give a good regurgitation (yet again) of what you've read. For you to explain what Arachnophobia is shows we are on different wavelengths. I was making a point which is still valid.
Look, if all you guys want to just accept everything, and not question why and what things were like before, and who and why a perennial philosophy rears its head throughout history in different guises, just go right ahead.
I make this prediction, and save it in your minds, because all of you will be accepting of it.
According to Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of Charles) the next stage to mankind in the near future is to start to practice inter generational sex. To you and me, that means paedophilia, which Darwin actually had a name for (read the book The Next Million Years) and I hope you all enjoy watching that on your tv sets.

Saunter77 :
You've alreadry revealed plenty about your self.
Incidentaly,being related to a historic figure dosent make peoples statements true.
Paedophillia is when one partner is under age. Not if theres an age gap.
But hey, its not you thats wrong, its everybody else. Yup, that must be it.
Despite failing to answer ANY questions, and simply stating another outlandish theory to each post.
Does your "wavelength" involve a tinfoil hat?
=p

thenumberone : Yeah, tinfoil hats indeed, can't you come up with anything you havent read or saw within the media?
I have no definitive answers. You expect me to satisfactorily answer all the questions? Clearly, the answers are a matter of your own personal perception. I'm sure no one can disagree with that...
If you were to read between the lines of my posts, something that you wont be able to do whilst watching the latest film, or football game, is to see that EVERY person should make the effort to read about things that have happened historically, think about the whys, then cross reference this with other material etc. I do realise that not many people have the time to do it. I am fortunate in that way.
Now, if you were to read the correct books, you would find, quite objectively, a recurring theme, or, philosophy running concurrent with the peoples who have occupied positions of authority, or celebrity. This is very hard to escape once you look a little further into the names and their belief systems. What conclusions you then draw, is of course up to yourself, but it gains nothing to be subjective when reading about history.
I believe I have revealed nothing about myself other than I like games, I like to post and debate with others, and I like to read a lot, and think about why things change, and who benefits from the changes. You know, logical thinking. 
If I believe a pattern exists, it is because so many people tell you it does, in their own words. Sadly, these are often buried in boring books, fifty years old, that no one has the time or inclination to read.