aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Gay Marriages Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Gay Marriages" Watch "Gay Marriages" New topic
Author

Gay Marriages

Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006

marriage:
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

I have always held an open mind towards homosexuality. I believe it is a natural biological phenomenon and not a state of mind as claimed by its opponents. Many testimonials to my stand can be found in several discussions on this very ranch.
However, when homosexuality threatens the sacred institution of marriage I am not so open minded. Consider the case of young gay couples who now under the official status of a "couple" wish to adopt children or have children through surrogate partners. What will be the plight of these children? Will they be allowed to explore their own sexuality or will they be indoctrinated with the policy that homosexuality is the way to go? How will a gay parent explain to the child why his or her class mates at school have a mom and dad but the child seems to have two of the same. It doesnt seem so nice..
Disclaimer:
I am not homophobic.. but with the legalization of gay marriage seeming imminent, I believe its important to discuss this issue.


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

PMcK: However, when homosexuality threatens the sacred institution of marriage I am not so open minded.
ME: How do you get "sacred" out of "social and legal dependence?"
PMcK: Consider the case of young gay couples who now under the official status of a "couple" wish to adopt children or have children through surrogate partners. What will be the plight of these children?
ME: Plight? This is a plight?
PMcK: Will they be allowed to explore their own sexuality or will they be indoctrinated with the policy that homosexuality is the way to go?
ME: If you first believe that homosexuality is an innate condition and not a belief or persuasion, why would you believe that a gay couple would form for the purpose of promoting it as one?
PMcK: How will a gay parent explain to the child why his or her class mates at school have a mom and dad but the child seems to have two of the same.
ME: Is this a question about a child's understanding, or the acceptance of other children? Wouldn't it also apply to any family situation a society regards as unconventional? I can think of several 'acceptable' family relationships where a child doesn't have a mom and a dad as parents, including mine. Is a same sex couple different, or is it just a concept you're wrestling with?
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24187
    
  34

I'm not actually the most tolerant person in the world, but I'm a strong supporter of gay marraige.
Look at it this way: the law gives various benefits to married people: tax deductions, inheritance rights, medical decisions, etc, etc. Why should these benefits be denied to a couple who are gay rather than straight, if they wish to make the same lifelong comittment to one another? It's outright discrimination if they're not given the same rights, in fact. It's got nothing to do with whether you agree with homosexuality or not; it's just a human rights issue.


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Paul, are you talking about gay marriage, or gay custody and adoption rights? Seems to me these are separate issues, though there are links. Do you object to gay marriage solely on the grounds that it might support adoption and custody rights? Or are there other concerns?
Personally, I support the idea of gay marriage. I'm a bit less sanguine about the idea of a same-sex couple raising kids, but I think that comes from irrationally thinking of worst-case scenarios. There are plenty of horrific cases that have occurred under "traditional" family structures too, but society still allows that institution. Frankly, I tend to have doubts about most people's qualifications to be good parents. The gay people I know personally, I'd trust better as parents than I would the average Joe on the street, at least.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
I support the idea of "gay marriage", but I'm aganist the idea of "lesbian marriage"!


Mani
Quaerendo Invenietis
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
I support the idea of "gay marriage", but I'm aganist the idea of "lesbian marriage"!
Um, I think most of us in the conversation were using "gay" to mean male or female. I was, anyway. So Mani - why object to lesbian marriage specifically?
Or did I just miss the point of a joke?
Andres Gonzalez
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1561
Originally posted by Mani Ram:
I support the idea of "gay marriage", but I'm aganist the idea of "lesbian marriage"!

why? let them live their lifes


I'm not going to be a Rock Star. I'm going to be a LEGEND! --Freddie Mercury
Mani Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 1140
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:

So Mani - why object to lesbian marriage specifically?

Well, if all the females get married to other females, where will i get one for me?
But when the males marry other males, it is good for me, because it reduces the competition
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Marriage is pretty gay anyway, no matter who does it
Seriously though, all issues of the so-called "natural order of things" aside, how exactly does a legally recognised marriage between homosexuals threaten the traditional heterosexual marriage? How will "normal" people be affected apart from maybe feeling its distasteful? Someone explain to me.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
That's the question I was going to measure but wasn't sure if it will be intersting for too many people.
The poll is here.
Everybody's opinion will be counted!
Do we need any other options besides "yes" and "no"?
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
OK Mani, I can fully agree with that reasoning. Down with lesbians!
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
ME: If you first believe that homosexuality is an innate condition and not a belief or persuasion, why would you believe that a gay couple would form for the purpose of promoting it as one?
ME: Is this a question about a child's understanding, or the acceptance of other children? Wouldn't it also apply to any family situation a society regards as unconventional? I can think of several 'acceptable' family relationships where a child doesn't have a mom and a dad as parents, including mine. Is a same sex couple different, or is it just a concept you're wrestling with?
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Michael, i'll start off by addressing the last question first. Single parenting is entirely different from gay parenting. In the case of single parenting, the child has an official mom and dad.. just that mom and dad dont talk to each other as much as they should. In the case of gay parenting, the kid has two dads or two moms.. see the difference? Its going to be very confusing for the kid and not to mention the amount of ridicule that he or she is going to face in the lunch halls.
I do believe that homosexuality is a natural condition and not something imposed upon someone's mind. However having said that, if gay marriage is legalized and gay couples sprout up everywhere.. you are bound to see (in reasonable time) some gay parents bringing up their children with the philosophy that homosexuality is the right way. How do I come to this conclusion?? Well.. don't you see heterosexual parents today imposing the immorality of homosexuality on their kids? The same can happen with homosexual parents given enough time..
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Paul, are you talking about gay marriage, or gay custody and adoption rights? Seems to me these are separate issues, though there are links. Do you object to gay marriage solely on the grounds that it might support adoption and custody rights? Or are there other concerns?

Gay marriage will definetly lead to gay adoption / gay parenting. If you suddenly have a million couples across the country, the next thing you know they will be lobbying for adoption / parenting rights. It is inevitable in the sequence of events.. someone the other day on radio was also talking about the possible link betweengay parenting and child molestation. I did not agree with the person's argument, but it is a plausible scenario..
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
P McK: Disclaimer: I am not homophobic..
Hmmm... one could argue that some of your arguments do sound homophobic. My gay friends don't bother me in the least, so I don't see what may be upsetting to you. I for one, don't think there'll ever be enough gays to do most of the things people fear, (take over the world, end heterosexuality, corrupt the young)
Ironically in the last 10 years, one of the biggest proponents of gays turned out to be the biggest offenders of "their" so-called evils. (Catholic church leaders.)


"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
one of the biggest proponents of gays turned out to be the biggest offenders
John, did you mean to say "opponents"?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
The purpose of marriage is to "be fruitful and multiply". Legal protections are extended to this union in order to better serve this process. Historically the laws are in place to protect the wife who was often totally dependant on her husband in case she must continue to raise the family in his absence due to death or disablement. This is still often the case today. The legal protections extended to married couples are not in place because they've "made a commitment" to each other, rather that the intended purpose of the union is to provide a concrete benefit to society in the form of children who will ensure the society's continued growth. This is why legal protection is extended.
Our laws are in great part influenced by Christianity. In Christianity, and doubtless in other religions, the purpose for marriage is to have children. It's that whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing again. Our social laws regarding marriage extend from this principle. It would therefore seem that extending legal protections to same-sex couples would be incompatible with the law's intended purpose. Again, the marriage protections aren't intended to promote or recognize simply a loving commitment between two people, rather they are intended to promote the raising of a family.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Ironically in the last 10 years, one of the biggest proponents of gays turned out to be the biggest offenders of "their" so-called evils. (Catholic church leaders.)

You're talking about Paul being a homophobe, are you anti-Catholic? I would think that you would know that the issue you are hinting at is more prevalent amongst Protestant clergy than it is Catholic clergy. The "biggest offenders" my ass. Sounds more like typical anti-Catholic bullshit to me.
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
John, did you mean to say "opponents"?
as a matter of fact, YES! (I thought I had corrected that...) A classic example of a Freudian slip.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

PMcK: Single parenting is entirely different from gay parenting. In the case of single parenting, the child has an official mom and dad.. just that mom and dad don't talk to each other as much as they should.
ME: Wow. That's some seriously patronizing, ignorant crap.
PMcK: In the case of gay parenting, the kid has two dads or two moms.. see the difference?
ME: If a child has a single parent, and that parent is bisexual or gay, hm? Or is that a result of two parents not talking enough? Personally, I don't see your point. Any adult or adults that raise children well and give them a secure place in the world shouldn't have to answer to anyone else about how they conduct life in private.
PMcK: Its going to be very confusing for the kid and not to mention the amount of ridicule that he or she is going to face in the lunch halls.
ME: Maybe. Maybe the kid is a bedwetter and other kids know it. Maybe a kid has a learning disability, or a speech impediment, or maybe a child is just not well understood by his peers. Kids get crap for all sorts of things, all the time. That's no reason to try and predetermine which among law-abiding citizens are eligible to love children and raise them well.
PmcK: If gay marriage is legalized and gay couples sprout up everywhere.. you are bound to see (in reasonable time) some gay parents bringing up their children with the philosophy that homosexuality is the right way.
ME: Uh, ok.
PMcK: Don't you see heterosexual parents today imposing the immorality of homosexuality on their kids? The same can happen with homosexual parents given enough time.
ME: Put another way, you see now some straight parents bringing up their children with the philosophy that heterosexuality is the right way.
Is that good? If not, is it a crime? Lots of families raise their children with values we might find distasteful, awful, even against the best interests of society. What do you want to suggest, Paul? That gay parenting is where we draw a line and say it is these values we worry might be "passed on" to the next generation?
You may not understand the homophobic nature of your comments, Paul, but this is what it is: fear of what could happen if people who are gay have the same civil rights and allowances that are accorded to (most) people who aren't.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Hmmm, I see much of this is similar to what ME just posted, but here's my take anyway...
[Paul McKenna]: Single parenting is entirely different from gay parenting. In the case of single parenting, the child has an official mom and dad.. just that mom and dad dont talk to each other as much as they should. In the case of gay parenting, the kid has two dads or two moms.. see the difference?
In all the above cases there's a biological mother and father - but who has the ongoing active role is the issue. There are single parents where the other parent is dead. Or who's around very rarely. Or fairly often. There are cases where mom has remarried, and the kid has one mom and two dads, sorta, or even two moms. Which one gets called "Dad" or "Mom" will vary with the situation. I don't see that two moms or two days is inherently more problematic than these other situations.
Its going to be very confusing for the kid and not to mention the amount of ridicule that he or she is going to face in the lunch halls.
Well, some kids in the lunch hall may indeed be a problem. Then too, kids might be teased based on race, or religion. Or having a big nose, being overweight, being smart, having atypical fashion sense, or any of hundreds of other ways in which one might deviate from bland normalcy. Some prejudices deserve to be confronted, rather than pandered to.
[Jason]: The purpose of marriage is to "be fruitful and multiply".
Must... bite... tongue...
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

JM: The purpose of marriage is to "be fruitful and multiply". Legal protections are extended to this union in order to better serve this process. Historically the laws are in place to protect the wife who was often totally dependant on her husband in case she must continue to raise the family in his absence due to death or disablement. This is still often the case today. The legal protections extended to married couples are not in place because they've "made a commitment" to each other, rather that the intended purpose of the union is to provide a concrete benefit to society in the form of children who will ensure the society's continued growth. This is why legal protection is extended.
ME: In a word, wrong.
JM: Our social laws regarding marriage extend from this principle. It would therefore seem that extending legal protections to same-sex couples would be incompatible with the law's intended purpose. Again, the marriage protections aren't intended to promote or recognize simply a loving commitment between two people, rather they are intended to promote the raising of a family.
ME: The legal and social contexts of marriage concern property and how it is passed along. The notion of legitimizing children produced by the union, and the legal meaning of family, extends from that. Nowhere is it suggested that couples marry in order to bear children, other than to protect society's interest in how successive ownership of property takes place.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
ME: In a word, wrong.

I can play dueling Catholic links as well.
Another end of marriage is the procreation and rearing of children. As we have seen, God, Who told us to "increase and multiply", did not impose on all the obligation to marry. These words, therefore, declare a purpose for the institution of marriage. Married persons who prevent conception or procure abortion are guilty of a fundamental perversion of the married state. The Archangel Raphael told Tobias that such persons have allowed the devil to take power over them: "For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and the mule which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power." Tobias VI:17.
The Archangel later counseled that Tobias should take his bride "with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for the love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children."

JM: Our social laws regarding marriage extend from this principle. It would therefore seem that extending legal protections to same-sex couples would be incompatible with the law's intended purpose. Again, the marriage protections aren't intended to promote or recognize simply a loving commitment between two people, rather they are intended to promote the raising of a family.
ME: The legal and social contexts of marriage concern property and how it is passed along.
Legal yes, social not necessarily. Although the rest of it, regarding property, is pretty much what I was trying to say when I said:
JM: Historically the laws are in place to protect the wife who was often totally dependant on her husband in case she must continue to raise the family in his absence due to death or disablement.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Nowhere is it suggested that couples marry in order to bear children, other than to protect society's interest in how successive ownership of property takes place.
Indeed, nor are there any vows in Christian wedding ceremonies about having children.
Nowadays marriage is explicitly about love and commitment to each person in the union. The legal protections for women (or rather the poorer partner in the event of separation) have been placed on marriage relatively recently.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It would ... seem that extending legal protections to same-sex couples would be incompatible with the law's intended purpose. Again, the marriage protections aren't intended to promote or recognize simply a loving commitment between two people, rather they are intended to promote the raising of a family. - Marriage laws will protect the family if you have a family. If not, there are still protections afforded to to each partner - the law doesn't penalise those who do not have children although technically some religions might. Conversely if a gay couple adopt a child, then that family should enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexual families. Why make things more difficult for them?
The law might not be geared towards same sex marriage but laws can and should be changed to help those that want/need added protection or rights.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

If nothing else, it's interesting to see the a treatment of historical writings and evidence pitted against an ecumenical interpretation of the Old Testament.
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 1340
Pope Paul VI said that: "Each and every marriage act must be open to the transmission of life". Not everyone listens to him though.
More quote duelling. Even the bible believers can't decide really:
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/cromey2.html
Some say the purpose of marriage is procreation. The Book of Common Prayer indicates three purposes of marriage. "The union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy: for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God's will for the procreation of children...."
While same sex couples cannot have children biologically, they are quite capable of having children by adoption, in vitro fertilization, and foster care. The church allows straight couples to be married who are too old to have children, who are not physically able to have children or just plain don't want children. Procreation is not a necessary requirement for marriage. Same sex couples can pledge each other mutual joy, help and comfort in prosperity and adversity without the expectation of procreation.

[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Jason are you anti-Catholic? Nope. tend to think of myself as Christian now-a-days, even went to Catholic school for 11 years. I've been Catholic more than not. I'm absolutely outraged at what occurred with the recent scandal. Are in any way trying to convince me that anyone who is critical on that topic is anti-Catholic? What are you advocating? They didn't get enough riducule and punishment, in my eyes. I could not understand when it occurred on Long Island in the late 80's.
After living with a priest when I did full-time volunteer work, (after college), I decided that I had to be more careful, who I trusted with as my spiritual guide. (please note that Fr. Jim was by no means hurting children sexually or physically. He was just completely unrealistic and foolish, when it came to street-kids. My co-worker, sister Virginia had been murdered and he just didn't get it. I'm the one that cleaned up our blood soaked office. I quit in disgust at insistence of the stupid ways to run his organization.) So that experience coupled with the sexual allegations of the church itself, made me re-think my ties to Catholicism.
GET THIS: I had opened my mind way open when doing the social work to the point where if I really loved doing that work I would consider it as a profession. (If it hit me...) I worked with a lot of young men who had left the priesthood, and funny thing I noticed they would never say why. And I really pried. It was as if a cat bit their tongue. I knew they were hiding something, but loyalty to something prevented them form speaking ill thoughts. I did finally confirm, later on that one would witness homosexuality in the preisthood and I believe that is why these guys were quitting.
In my non-religious life I had to deal with gay rights, & women's rights and had no problem adapting to either one, yet couldn't understand why the church was so rigid, especially when they knew there was homosexuality in its ranks. I saw a female therapist at about that time and guess I had a began to have a problem with why there were not female priests, yet I was capable of doing a lot of soul-searching with a female. So I decided to be Christian and go my own way, which was a decision based on integrity and a lot of thought. Btw, IMHO, that recent scandal, completely vindicated me.
[if you would, try to take this as a civil spoken, easy tempered jab:]
So, you tell me: "Am I anti-Catholic?" That is really harsh, bro. Why do you have such a hard time hearing criticism against the Church? Are you Catholic? Does your personal identity suffer if the Church is not PERFECT?
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: John Dunn ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
Here is an interesting read on how radical Jesus was for his times:
The Desire of the Everlasting Hills : the world before and after Jesus by Thomas Cahill (Yup, same author as "How the Irish Saved Civilization") Kind of a tough book to get into, but worth it in the end. I'm just not so sure a modern day Jesus would be anti-gay. The things he did then would suggest he would be just as radical today.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
How anti-American of you happy lot ;
Bush slams gay marriages
regards
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 541
I'm a complete anti-catholic. When the catholic church in africa campaigns against the use of condoms because 'they have tiny holes that let AIDS through' and many african people believe them and get AIDS when it was preventable, then I must say I am complete disgusted. The quicker the current pope dies the better.
The idea that the church should have anything to do with the laws of any country is also extremely untasteful. If marriage is going to be written in to law then it must be completely unreligious, and obviously open to everyone of any or no faith. The particular faith aspects of marriage can be dealt with in whatever church / institution (if any) they chose to get married in.


Kim Jong II (North Korea's Dear Leader) said:Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Interesting enough. Now the affirmative argument. I can't see how or why sexual inclination should have a bearing on the legal protections of any citizen. I cannot see how a child raised by loving and responsible adults manifests anything to society but its own best interests.
If two men or two women raise a child as parents, and they do this job well, the interests of the child are served. To enter sexuality of those adults into the question, in my view, you must first determine sexuality as a belief or a trait. If you determine homosexuality is a belief -- better yet, a "rebellion" against homsexuality -- then you must show how this belief is criminal in intent. If you can't show that, you are reduced to being an American who believes in the freedoms of every citizen, in which case you hold the idea that each American is allowed to believe what they wish, whether you agree with them or not, and they are free to share their values with the children in their charge, whether you like that or not.

If you believe homosexuality is a trait, then there's really no argument at all to make. Nothing prevents a heterosexual person from believing homsexuality 'is right,' just as nothing prevents a homosexual perseon from believing heterosexuality is best. The apparent confusion is irrelevant. If the expression of sexual desire is a quality, then no doctrine can tell us where our feelings lie.
Our society does not require anyone to declare their sexuality to raise a child. We do not require that a person 'remain' heterosexual while raising a child. And we certainly know by now that naturally conceiving a child with another person is not proof of heterosexuality, much less good parenting skills.
So why the fuss, Paul?
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
Marilyn de Queiroz
Sheriff

Joined: Jul 22, 2000
Posts: 9047
    
  10
What if homosexuality is a choice rather than a natural biologic phenomonon? Of course, to believe that it is a wrong choice you would probably have to believe that God exists and that his interpretation of right and wrong is the correct one. Romans 1:18-32.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

JavaBeginnersFaq
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that's why they call it the present." Eleanor Roosevelt
stara szkapa
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 27, 2003
Posts: 321
I heard that in some cultures specifically in South America gay is the one who gives, not the one who takes. Literally a man is not necessary a gay if he has sex with another man. It sort of makes sense because when a man gets an urge it doesn�t matter when he puts his thing. I remember once there was a story in the local newspaper about a man having sex with a fence. In porn industry there is many straight man playing in gay movies (the taker part). The only reason teenagers don�t do it is it is not socially acceptable. When it becomes socially acceptable, and it will at least for kids raised by gays, I�m sure it will happen and maybe even become popular. There was time when female sexual urge was sick, there was time when masturbation was sick, there was time when gay sex was sick. What is next? Sex between straight man?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tim Baker:
I'm a complete anti-catholic. ... The quicker the current pope dies the better.

Have you ever considered taking a flight across the Atlantic and expressing your hatred of Catholics in a bar in South Boston?
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 541
have you ever thought of going in to a rough gay bar and shouting "i hate all fags"?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tim Baker:
have you ever thought of going in to a rough gay bar and shouting "i hate all fags"?

Since I don't hate gay people, it's pretty unlikely that I would consider doing this. What's your excuse?
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Tim Baker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 541
i never said i hated all catholics now did i. i never even said i hate the pope, i just said the sooner he dies the better.
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Have you ever considered taking a flight across the Atlantic and expressing your hatred of Catholics in a bar in South Boston?

Whats so special about South Boston? He could get a cheap flight up to Belfast, and depending on the bar he goes to get the same response

Sad. But true.


Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tim Baker:
i never said i hated all catholics now did i.

TB: I'm a complete anti-catholic.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Tim Baker:
i never said i hated all catholics now did i. i never even said i hate the pope, i just said the sooner he dies the better.

So if I say, "The sooner Tim Baker dies the better" that doesn't express hatred of Tim Baker?


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
What if two straight guys want to get married to take advantage of tax laws or Social Security benefits? Assuming we allow gay marriage, will you have to prove that you are gay in order to get married?
By the way, some cities have laws that permit all the benefits of gay marriage without actually calling it marriage. NYC has a domestic partner law. Would this be an acceptable option instead of marriage?
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Gay Marriages