Ah, yet again another "gay marriage thread". Forgive my writing and a somewhat long passage as well as the typo in the thread name(feel free to fix it Borg/vile :D), but anyway-

GAY- The naughtiest word in the English language

No other social issue in the past couple years, at least on Allforums ;), has been so ardently debated as homosexuality. It is definitely a topic with which much has to be taken into consideration. I’ve compiled these opinions on it through my own experiences and learning, as well as the consensus after reading debates involving homosexuality on-line at varying websites including this one. I will touch briefly on gay parents adopting children, gay couples getting married, and the debate over being gay in general, as well as the social aspects of it. I have not quoted anyone or used names or articles, just purely my thoughts. These findings are in no way infallible, as they are my own conclusions, assumptions, and reasoning. I also may need to refine, change, or further complete my views upon this subject, and that very well may happen. Let us begin-

Gay parent adopting a child:
Some gay couples want to adopt children.
Some straight people think this should not be allowed, as children need a father and mother, and the resulting “preference” of the parents will lead to gay children.
I believe that children are neither born straight or gay, but they are born with reproductive organs that “prefer heterosexuality”, for reproductive reasons of the species. Sexuality will come naturally as the children grow, and there is no way to stop it. Neutrality on the part of the parents, meaning they do not enforce their own reproductive activities or love making with the child (discussing or presenting it in an explicit and abrupt manner), will result in it coming naturally; some, but not a total affect will come as a result of the parental preferences and their actions..
There is nothing particularly wrong with this occurring, for many adults crave to have a family to love and raise, and provided the parents handle their job correctly (not forcing or purposefully influencing the children) nothing will come upon the children.
They may have chosen to be with someone whom they cannot procreate with, but what of infertile heterosexual couples? those with genital problems? those with age crises? those with mental disorders? histories in crime? And so on.
But there is indeed an issue to be raised over adopting infantile humans by gay couples. The ability for two of the same sex to fulfill the duties of a duo of genders in order to raise a child through its early year(s) is open for questioning. A child is taken away from its parents if they are abusive, either mentally, physically, or in both ways. Why should that not go for gay couples?

Gay couple getting married:
There is a big issue made out of this, propelled by both sides.
Some of the reasons for it may include:

Equal treatment under the law with gay and straight couples
Abilities to do things with your significant other that married couples can
Marriage is about love, not necessarily children
”A problem with being treated different for the supposed way they were born”

Some reasons against it may include:

That is the way it has always been
Religious reasons as to why it is wrong
Man and Woman have “hook-ups” that are opposite for a reason
Marriage is primarily for reproduction
It is the “cornerstone of societies”
”It is not natural; it is a choice”
Marriage is between man and woman-and cannot be changed
”Children should not be shown this deviance”


First, I shall draw from familiar documents-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.- Declaration of Independence

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;- Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

Religion is no reason to hinder other people from living their life if they are not a member of that faith. It is not the government’s job or right to make laws based upon religious doctrine, or impede the abilities of people to have their ‘unalienable rights’. All are equal under the law.
Next, a document you may not be too familiar with, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we as a member of the U.N. and world community are obliged and swore to uphold:

Article 16
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

And so I conclude that the government, or religious affiliation (Please tell me of what religion abhors love and companionship, homosexuality is not all sodomizing each other, just as heterosexuality is not all intercourse)of any people, cannot hinder people from their rights and freedom. I would also like to address that into today’s evolving society, people are living more free lives and technology/culture is advancing so that our lifestyle can and has been changing---in short, marriage is not specifically for procreation anymore.

Next, to say it is a choice is false. Find every gay person in the world, and survey them—would they say they chose to be this way? Doubtful. It came naturally.
However, just because it comes naturally does not mean it is normal—note: the male genitalia and female genitalia are “tailored” for each other.
Also, shielding your child from homosexual deviance should not be an issue. I should hope that you do not openly discuss heterosexuality with your children, it could bring on serious psychological issues for the child to have to deal with. When the child grows and develops, it will be able to determine for themselves as it is a natural process. No amount of gay couples walking down your neighborhood will keep your child from growing up and going “Ewwww” as they goes through puberty; although that situation may lead your child to have a higher tolerance for individuals with an alternate lifestyle.

A key point to the entirety of the argument is the idea of a civil union:

Civil Unions-
Guaranteeing the same rights to registered gay couples under the law as it would for a registered married couple. This represents a compromise between both sides.
The pro- side of the issue gets what they wanted, equal rights under the law while on the other hand the con- side gets to preserve the meaning of marriage. However, the pro- side would prefer their union be called a marriage also, as this is not equal representation under the law despite the fact that they get all the rights, the term civil union “downgrades” their status. The con- side in the meantime merely wants to separate apples from oranges, you do not call an apple an orange just to make the apple not feel left out of the whole orchard---it is an apple.

Homosexuality
Now to leap around to various topics involving homosexuals and the societal issues…

It is my standing belief that humans are born as beings without sexual preference, and not until they bloom into their adolescent period does the sexuality begin, where the area between the legs begins to mean something aside from equipment that relates to the toilet.
It is also my belief that it is not a choice. That it comes naturally, like being left-handed…a small portion of individuals possess this difference, but it was not their decision, it is just the way their body functions.
Therefore, I see it as wrong to discriminate against those who are gay.
Also, relating gay marriage to sodomy is like saying straight marriage is nothing but reproductive activities. Now in modern society, marriage has become about two consenting individuals in love. Marriage does not necessarily have to be physical, but merely a partnership where trust, love, and friendship flourish. In the same context, homosexuals may be a relationship built upon feelings, not actions.
One more thing to touch on is making differentiations between those who are straight and gay, depending on the individual case, the homosexual may have different thought processes than a normal male/female, and these more feminine/masculine thoughts can lead to a different outlook on life. To be brief, there is the possibility of more difference than just sexual preference in those faced with this condition. So that is one thing to take into consideration.
I have often heard the defense that “it hurts no one, and so its not bad”, but who decided that? Since when is that the foundation of what is allowed and moral?


All in all, these are hotly debated issues that will be determined (by our government) in the very near future, that is unavoidable. I, personally, am against gay marriage for the reason of protecting the institution of marriage, but support civil unions getting the same rights as that gives them what they want and is guaranteed under documents that our government is based upon/swore to. As for the adoption circumstance, that goes into question per case of the parents, the child, the economic and care situations, and motivations. Homosexuality is an abnormality that needs not be shunned, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be praised. You must question if you are not gay, what effect will this directly put upon you, and if your children are really “at risk”. You must question if you are gay, what your incentives and reasons for these actions are, as well as their necessity towards you. We as an American culture are very diverse, and this topic calls to mind where our limits, and prejudices really are today.

So, what do you guys think? Feel free to voice your opinions. Share your views on it, debate it (as there are some questions left wide-open), and think about it. G’day and enjoy :)

Originally posted by Evakian
I, personally, am against gay marriage for the reason of protecting the institution of marriage
Protecting it from what, exactly? How will allowing people who love each other to marry mar the institution of marriage? And if you are so anxious to protect it, why aren't you suggesting that we take it out of the government entirely, as it's apparently a religious thing that the government has no business in.

Protecting it from what, exactly?

Protecting the meaning of marriage. Gays getting "married" is a different type of union/partnership.

And if you are so anxious to protect it, why aren't you suggesting that we take it out of the government entirely,
as it's apparently a religious thing that the government has no business in.

A religious marriage is a different issue than one recognized by the government. When not done for religious purposes, it can be used for purely social or legal reasons. It allows certain rights and different treatment under the government that benefit the couple who have decided to elevate the status of their relationship.
How about a different proposal: it is considered civil union no matter what "preference of the relationship", and given the same rights. That way marriage is left to the hands of religious organizations and their members decisions. Sound good? It keeps the religious part out of government, and religious viewpoints out of the issue altogether.

Originally posted by Evakian
How about a different proposal: it is considered civil union no matter what "preference of the relationship", and given the same rights. That way marriage is left to the hands of religious organizations and their members decisions. Sound good? It keeps the religious part out of government, and religious viewpoints out of the issue altogether.
Isn't that what I just suggested?

Isn't that what I just suggested?

Perhaps broadly hinted at it, but not necessarily very explicit :)

Anyway, i am glad at least someone read my post, i spent 20 minutes typing that up :(

Come now allforums, where are your voices?

Body: 10 Retarded Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans

:)

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

@$%@#$%@#$ air conditioning...;)

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Pet owners make that stuff up...they pretend as if they know what their dog is thinking they can "see it in their eyes". the dogs can't understand you and you can't understand them...period

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Gay relationships have been around a long time too...pederastic relationships in Ancient Greece were almost a right of passage for boys sometimes.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.

There are religions...such as Islam (where homosexual desires are not looked down upon, but homosexual actions were, so it was a different situation), Taoism and others see no problem with it.

All in all, exaggerated...but rather humorous post OD.
------------------------------------------------------------

Now, c'mon folks step up to bat.

And here's some more subject material:
What do you think the repercussions of allowing it, or not allowing it, will be?

"Love is the expression of one's values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another." Ayn Rand

We should not tell people that they are not in control of their lives simply because you are offended or disagree, that is slavery.

Originally posted by Evakian
What do you think the repercussions of allowing it, or not allowing it, will be?
Well, firstly, gays will be allowed to marry, obviously. The "Christian" Right's heads will explode. Every natural disaster will be blamed on God being mad that the gays were allowed to marry. And other than that, life goes on as normal.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Well, firstly, gays will be allowed to marry, obviously. The "Christian" Right's heads will explode. Every natural disaster will be blamed on God being mad that the gays were allowed to marry. And other than that, life goes on as normal. There's nothing "normal" in the gay lifestyle/choice. No matter how much you click your heels and wish it so. It's an alternative sexual lifestyle/choice.

The only "Christians" in todays world who blame natural disasters on God that i've seen are the radicals. I find it hard to believe that every post made about a fucking liberal has to come with a disclaimer, yet here we have a so called moderate or whatever the hell this admin claims he is, making blanket statements about religion and its followers.

Originally posted by HaVoK

The only "Christians" in todays world who blame natural disasters on God that i've seen are the radicals.

Patently false.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are as fucking mainstream religionist as it gets.

They BOTH continue to claim that natural disasters that befall the populace are likely the result of God showing his wrath and displeasue.

Originally posted by Evakian
Protecting the meaning of marriage. Gays getting "married" is a different type of union/partnership.

?!?!?

You claim gays being married is somehow "different"

Sooo....... in your view, the overarching determinant of what constitues a "marriage" is vaginal sex.

Guffaw.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are as fucking mainstream religionist as it gets.

For the mere fact they are on TV and radio all over the place does not make them upstanding christians who espouse the true principles of the religion.

They BOTH continue to claim that natural disasters that befall the populace are likely the result of God showing his wrath and displeasue.

That's....because they are morons

Sooo....... in your view, the overarching determinant of what constitues a "marriade" is vaginal sex.

Read through my original post, i think i made a point to explain marriage is not just sexual activity.

You claim gays being married is somehow "different"

You think a union of two gays/lesbians is not different from a man/woman?

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are as fucking mainstream religionist as it gets.

Originally posted by Evakian
For the mere fact they are on TV and radio all over the place does not make them upstanding christians who espouse the true principles of the religion.

Not so fast.

There was NOTHING in the argument about being "upstanding" or about "espousing true principles".

The claim was that "only radicals blame natural disasters on God".

Roberston and Falwell are NOT 'radicals' in terms of where there religious views fit into American society. Far from it.



They BOTH continue to claim that natural disasters that befall the populace are likely the result of God showing his wrath and displeasue.

Originally posted by Evakian
That's....because they are morons.

Ok. They're morons.

But you have not in the slightest made the case that they are "radicals".

Because they are NOT radicals, but are instead mainstream icons of the religious faction in America.



Originally posted by Evakian
You think a union of two gays/lesbians is not different from a man/woman?

The only substantive difference i can think of is that there is no penis entering a vagina. (pardon the graphic description, but i don't know how else to put it)

Because they are NOT radicals

For the record, i am christian, and i disagree with these men...and consider them very radical in their views--such as the blaming of a hurricane on God's Wrath instead of natural processes.

but are instead mainstream icons of the religious faction in America

Very sad but true.

There was NOTHING in the argument about being "upstanding" or about "espousing true principles".

To be radical is not to be/do those things. They are not, and so are to be taken as radicals.

The only substantive difference i can think of is that there is no penis entering a vagina.

So coitus is the only differentiation between straight relationships and gay relationships?
Hmmmm....odd viewpoint, perplexing...

""Because they are NOT radicals""

Originally posted by Evakian
For the record, i am christian, and i disagree with these men...and consider them very radical in their views--

Unfortunately, they have a HUGE influence and following among the American people, many of whom regard Robertson and Falwell as the epitome of Christianity.


""There was NOTHING in the argument about being "upstanding" or about "espousing true principles""


Originally posted by Evakian
To be radical is not to be/do those things.

Such a statement, even if we were to accept it as valid, does NOTHING whatsoever to refute the ----"""only radicals blame natural disasters on God""--- claim.

The definition of radical is NOT ---"a person who is not upstanding and who does not espouse true principles"

The only substantive difference i can think of is that there is no penis entering a vagina.


Originally posted by Evakian
So coitus is the only differentiation between straight relationships and gay relationships?

Yes......penile/vaginal sex is the primary difference i can think of between a "gay marriage" and a "straight marriage".

If you know of others, please feel free to apprise us of what they are.

Unfortunately, they have a HUGE influence and following among the American people, many of whom regard Robertson and Falwell as the epitome of Christianity.

Well, that's a problem seeing as how Christ is the epitome of christianity.

The definition of radical is NOT

That may not serve as the exact and proper definition, but it serves as a summary.

If you know of others, please feel free to apprise us of what they are.

What about procreation? The difference in a relationship for two genders? The different task that is brought upon same-gender couples raising children that the normal couples do not have to face?

Yes......penile/vaginal sex is the primary difference i can think of between a "gay marriage" and a "straight marriage".

Are you saying that sexual activities are the basis of marriage???

""If you know of other (differences), please feel free to apprise us of what they are.""

Originally posted by Evakian

What about procreation?

Right. Procreation. The act that involves penile/vaginal sex. That's the difference I was talking about.

Originally posted by Evakian

[b]The difference in a relationship for two genders?

Ok. I'm listening.

Please explain the differences of a man/woman who love each other, and a same/same gender who love each other.

Originally posted by Evakian

[b]The different task that is brought upon same-gender couples raising children that the normal couples do not have to face?

Huh? Like what??

Originally posted by Evakian

[b]Are you saying that sexual activities are the basis of marriage???

You said that ""Gays getting "married" is a different type of union/partnership"".

I just said that the only difference I can think of is in the form of sex. I would like to hear your explanation of how it is a "different type" of partnership.

Right. Procreation. The act that involves penile/vaginal sex. That's the difference I was talking about.

Ahh, i see..it's just that coitus is not employed for purely reproductive purposes, that's why i brought it up.

Please explain the differences of a man/woman who love each other, and a same/same gender who love each other.

It can prove a much different task to create a relationship with someone of the opposite gender as opposed to those who go for those that are the same. Nature is create in opposite but equal sides, light/dark, empty/full, male/female. Each are tailored to coexist with the other, and in the case of human gender---it can affect the persons mental and physical capacities and capabilities, leading to different responsibilities and a relationship that would differ from one of two gay men/two lesbians and how they were to maintain such association.

Huh? Like what??

Men and women have opposing traits, not just physical but mental. Their culmination of these two traits to create a full parent and the application of it to raise a child works out with the child's growth, whereas a same sex couple does not necessarily have such options.

I just said that the only difference I can think of is in the form of sex.

Which i disagree, "opposites attract", two of the same just does not create an identical relationship that comes from a man and woman.

I would like to hear your explanation of how it is a "different type" of partnership.

The mere fact that they are missing one half of the equation can lead to some lofty problems. The inability to procreate, as well as the homogeneity of the mental traits affects it and makes it different. The biggest similarity is love involved in the relationship, but it definitely shoots off from there in many respects.

But before we develop into a different conversation-
Please feel welcome to ask any questions about the original post if you wish, share your views on it, and continue the discussion. Have a good day and good luck :)

Great post OD. He failed to refute them, made jokes, then went on his way...

Originally posted by Evakian

But before we develop into a different conversation-
Please feel welcome to ask any questions about the original post if you wish, share your views on it, and continue the discussion.

The thing, for me, that is the hardest to fathom is your --"I am against gay marriage for the reason of protecting the institution of marriage"-- stance.

How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect you personally?

How is "marriage" being harmed?

He failed to refute them, made jokes, then went on his way...

I did not attempt to refute them since i agreed with them (they may or may not have been outlined in my original post if it was even bothered to be read), as they were overall true in a sense. Plus, i am the kind of person who makes jokes even at funerals if the opportunity arises.

How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect you personally?

more ways than it would you, apparently.

How is "marriage" being harmed?

It is being changed in its meaning i suppose.

I would rather just keep it to civil unions recognized by the government, then religious organizations take care of whether it is marriage in their community or not, since as long as we've had religion, marriage has been somehow tied to it. That way it is not a problem and all sides can agree to their compromise comfortably

Undoubtedly some tennessee hick will say "them gays R destroying mah childrun and need to be killt!"
And some san francisco gay will say "How dare they attack my rights, its all so sickening, ick, bleh!"

(my nomination for most bizarre notion ever posted on AllForums) "Dear FreeThinker,
We will need to fight with nukes to continue living. A few thousand nukes will simply require us to work hard to rebuild."_______tberthel

BWAHAHA i love it!

""How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect you personally? ""

Originally posted by Evakian
more ways than it would you, apparently.

The fact that that is the best answer you can come up with to that particular question speaks volumes.

The fact that that is the best answer you can come up with to that particular question speaks volumes.

Go and fill some volumes about it and come back and give them to me, i don't understand your point.

The ONLY difference in a male/female relationship and a male/male or female/female relationship is how they have sex.

I believe that the people who are adamantly against gay marraige are influenced by their reaction to the physical sexual acts of homosexuals. For whatever reasons, they can't get past the idea of what these people do to have sex.

Funny how much time Christians spend worrying about how and what other people do sexually. It's like a requirement to stay in the club.

The fact that that is the best answer you can come up with to that particular question speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Evakian
......i don't understand your point.

The point is that you have no answer for the question.

Like the vast majority of people in this country against gay marriage, you will maintain it's somehow "wrong" but are at a loss as to explain how it will harm you.

If I don't fuck with you, you shouldn't fuck with me.

That's my stance on this issue, and all social issues for that matter.

Originally posted by Freethinker


Roberston and Falwell are NOT 'radicals' in terms of where there religious views fit into American society. Far from it.

But you have not in the slightest made the case that they are "radicals".

Ahhh but that's where you're wrong. The thing is you CANNOT get any more RIGHT-Wing than Robertson and company... that would qualify them as radicals. And also they in NO WAY hold a "mainstream" view of christianity on what the basis of these hurricanes were.... the sheer fact that Robertson would even CLAIM to know what the hurricanes were for proves how out of touch he is. He is like you FT... in need of an ego check. IF there is a God.... only HE would know... not me, and definitely not Pat Robertson.

I believe that the people who are adamantly against gay marraige are influenced by their reaction to the physical sexual acts of homosexuals. For whatever reasons, they can't get past the idea of what these people do to have sex.

Don't worry, i do not fall into that category

Like the vast majority of people in this country against gay marriage, you will maintain it's somehow "wrong" but are at a loss as to explain how it will harm you.

Whoa whoa whoa

How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect you personally?

This was about the effects it will bring upon society, me, and you.

The question of 'harm' was later addressed, while the comment you are attacking was about "effects".

In any case, murder and rape will probably and hopefully never effect me personally ;), but i am still against such things. Crime rates are low in my area, but i am still against stealing regardless of the possibility of theft of my property.
Keep in mind many of the people in this country are as entitled to speak their mind as you are, and they have their own reasons as to why...just as you do. Rather then making them look bad or make them seem incompetent, just accept the fact that the disagree with you.

The fact that that is the best answer you can come up with to that particular question speaks volumes.

No one said it was the 'best' way to answer it, but it seemed a fitting way to do so for me.

The thing is you CANNOT get any more RIGHT-Wing than Robertson and company... that would qualify them as radicals.

hahaha yep

He is like you FT... in need of an ego check.

*laughs hysterically*

Originally posted by Evakian
In any case, murder and rape will probably and hopefully never effect me personally ;), but i am still against such things. Crime rates are low in my area, but i am still against stealing regardless of the possibility of theft of my property.
You missed the point. Murder and theft obviously harm someone. Explain how two guys or girls getting married harms someone.

You missed the point. Murder and theft obviously harm someone.

Ahh yes, but we were discussing how it effected me personally :D
But, yes, i understand borg...

Explain how two guys or girls getting married harms someone.

Aside from possible health risks that can be associated, and the "deviance" that warps the children's minds, and.. ;)

heheh kidding

Define what you mean as "harmful" in this situation, if you would be so kind.

How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect you personally? ........Like the vast majority of people in this country against gay marriage, you will maintain it's somehow "wrong" but are at a loss as to explain how it will harm you.[/b]

Originally posted by Evakian

Whoa whoa whoa
This was about the effects it will bring upon society, me, and you.

Ok.

How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect society, me and you?



Originally posted by Evakian
The question of 'harm' was later addressed, while the comment you are attacking was about "effects".

Ok.

How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect society, me and you?

Originally posted by Evakian
Keep in mind many of the people in this country are as entitled to speak their mind as you are, and they have their own reasons as to why...just as you do. Rather then making them look bad or make them seem incompetent, just accept the fact that the disagree with you.

Ok. I'll keep that in mind.

But....how does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect society, me and you?


Originally posted by Decka
The thing is you CANNOT get any more RIGHT-Wing than Robertson and company... that would qualify them as radicals.

Noooooo.......that would qualify them as garden variety American citizens, right in the mainstream of the dominant political ideology in this country.

It has occured to me that one of the reasons that some are oppused to gay marriage has to do with economics.
That is, the insurance companies not wanting to pay out benefits, something they don't always like to do with STRAIGHT people. Just a thought.

In any case, murder and rape will probably and hopefully never effect me personally , but i am still against such things Stupid....you really don't get it do you Evak...

"it's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark...." - Kerny

How does allowing Steve and Burt in Podunk Iowa to have a marriage license affect you personally? . BTW whoever said this please don't. It's the same lame argument that Trav tried to use against gay marriage. More appropriatly you should be asking "how does gays getting married negatively effect you?" sorry to be nitpicky but its a big difference.

If I don't fuck with you, you shouldn't fuck with me. That's my stance on this issue, and all social issues for that matter. yup

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Protecting it from what, exactly? How will allowing people who love each other to marry mar the institution of marriage? And if you are so anxious to protect it, why aren't you suggesting that we take it out of the government entirely, as it's apparently a religious thing that the government has no business in.

I agree. the government should not be into the marriage promotion game. The government should give everyone domestic partnership rights. If a couple wants to go to a church and get a special ceremony done to be "married" they should get to do that. if gays cant get a ceremony done at a church its not the governments problem. they can have their own ceremony. This way, everyone wins. We all have the same rights and titles under the federal government, and religious people can still have their own ceremonies at their church. In the whole gay marriage fiasco, the one thing I have always called for was compromise. We give gays the rights of a married couple, they call their marriage a life mates, domestic partners or whatever tehy want. Anyone wanting to get married should be ready to do a little compromising, because compromise is a HUGE part of marriage. anyone going into a marriage thinking they will change their partner is setting themself up for failure.

Originally posted by Travh20
I agree. the government should not be into the marriage promotion game. The government should give everyone domestic partnership rights. If a couple wants to go to a church and get a special ceremony done to be "married" they should get to do that. if gays cant get a ceremony done at a church its not the governments problem. they can have their own ceremony. This way, everyone wins. We all have the same rights and titles under the federal government, and religious people can still have their own ceremonies at their church. In the whole gay marriage fiasco, the one thing I have always called for was compromise. We give gays the rights of a married couple, they call their marriage a life mates, domestic partners or whatever tehy want. Anyone wanting to get married should be ready to do a little compromising, because compromise is a HUGE part of marriage. anyone going into a marriage thinking they will change their partner is setting themself up for failure.
I fully concur, Trav, and have held that stance for some time now.

What if gays did find a church that recognized their union as a marriage? Would you recognize it then or would you continue to look for another reason to deny it?

Originally posted by Tapeworm
What if gays did find a church that recognized their union as a marriage? Would you recognize it then or would you continue to look for another reason to deny it?

it wouldnt mater if I recognized it or not. we would all be getting recognized by the government as domestic partners. they could go to a church and be called the flying spaghetti monster super marriage for all I care. and if gays didnt recognize my christian marriage I dont give a shit either. we will allb e dong our own thing, and we wont have to worry about if someone accept s it or not.

Originally posted by Travh20
the government should not be into the marriage promotion game. The government should give everyone domestic partnership rights. If a couple wants to go to a church and get a special ceremony done to be "married" they should get to do that. if gays cant get a ceremony done at a church its not the governments problem. they can have their own ceremony. This way, everyone wins.

Bravo. Excellent.

Of all the posts of yours that I have read here, that one demonstrates the clearest thinking, and the most concern for fairness and equal rights.

I applaud you.

I agree. the government should not be into the marriage promotion game. The government should give everyone domestic partnership rights. If a couple wants to go to a church and get a special ceremony done to be "married" they should get to do that. if gays cant get a ceremony done at a church its not the governments problem. they can have their own ceremony. This way, everyone wins. We all have the same rights and titles under the federal government, and religious people can still have their own ceremonies at their church. In the whole gay marriage fiasco, the one thing I have always called for was compromise. We give gays the rights of a married couple, they call their marriage a life mates, domestic partners or whatever tehy want. Anyone wanting to get married should be ready to do a little compromising, because compromise is a HUGE part of marriage. anyone going into a marriage thinking they will change their partner is setting themself up for failure.

Get on the ball Trav! Borg and I already suggested that in the first few posts :D

I fully concur, Trav, and have held that stance for some time now.

Yet another vote

Of all the posts of yours that I have read here, that one demonstrates the clearest thinking, and the most concern for fairness and equal rights.

I applaud you.

And another.

What if gays did find a church that recognized their union as a marriage? Would you recognize it then or would you continue to look for another reason to deny it?

We are equal under the government, and hold different faiths in this situation. The other parties faiths do not concern me and i do not concern theirs, so it is neutrality..nor must i recognize it as marriage and they don't have to recognize my church's marriages as marriage. It makes little difference.

they could go to a church and be called the flying spaghetti monster super marriage for all I care. and if gays didnt recognize my christian marriage I dont give a shit either. we will allb e dong our own thing, and we wont have to worry about if someone accept s it or not.

Actually, not sure Pastafarians sanction marriage ;)

Originally posted by Freethinker
I applaud you.

Ahhhhhh - it's the endtimes!!! Those fundie novels were right!

HAVOK wrote:
There's nothing "normal" in the gay lifestyle/choice.

There is nothing normal about typing on a computer keyboard, but you are doing it.

TRAV wrote:
In the whole gay marriage fiasco, the one thing I have always called for was compromise. We give gays the rights of a married couple, they call their marriage a life mates, domestic partners or whatever tehy want.

How noble of you to consider it a compromise to "give other people the same rights you have". Look everyone, Trav is willing to let people have rights in exchange for them not calling their relationship what he calls his relationship...what a guy!

LOL, what a slogan, "homosexuality! as natural as typing on a keyboard!"

I say it is a compromise becasue I am willing to give up the word marriage and all be recognized by the government as simply "doemstic partners" when it comes to handing out the rights and responisiblities of married couple. I dont understand you insistance on using the word marriage. I thought all along the push was for equal rights, not some pissing contest about wording. clearly, its more then just being able to visit a sick partner in the hospital, its about elevating homosexuality to "normal" behavior, which it is not, no matter what labels you attach to it. so if you pull a yasser arafat and decide you want the whole enchillada you will wind up getting nothing, its that easy. If you want to get married, start acting like you are ready for marriage and show you are williing to meet us half way, or as we call it, compromise.

I thought all along the push was for equal rights, not some pissing contest about wording.

You are pissing just as much as the other side about the word marriage.

I say it is a compromise becasue I am willing to give up the word marriage

You don't own the word marriage, so you can't "give it up".

I dont understand you insistance on using the word marriage.

I don't understand your insistance on not letting gay people use it.

If you want to get married, start acting like you are ready for marriage and show you are williing to meet us half way, or as we call it, compromise.

I am married.

Straight people have the rights of marriage along with the use of the word marriage. I don't see how you consider it a compromise to allow gay people to have one of the two things straight people have. What are you giving up in this "compromise"? Please tell me.

Originally posted by Travh20
If you want to get married, start acting like you are ready for marriage and show you are williing to meet us half way, or as we call it, compromise.

I don't believe I have to show anyone I'm "ready for marriage" except my partner, and I won't compromise when it comes to my rights.

which is why you will get nothing in the end. you flew to close to the sun

Now he is comparing your rights to Icarus flying too close to the sun. Come on Vile, when will you learn...you must compromise when it comes to your rights.;)

Of course Trav still has not explained what he is "compromising". He will still be able to use the word marriage and he will still have the same rights gay people would be getting, so he would not be giving anything up.

I am willing to give up the word marriage altogether in regards to the federal government. marriage will only be a word isued by a church, if you want it. as far as rights and responsibilities granted by the government go, we are all domestic partners, gay and straight. The government will no longer recognize anything called marriage, only a legal joining of two people, or 3 people, or 5 people or whatever I suppose. If a relgious couple wants to get "married" in the site of god they can, in a church if a gay couple wants to hold a ceremony and call themselves married, so be it.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I don't believe I have to show anyone I'm "ready for marriage" except my partner, and I won't compromise when it comes to my rights.
When I see you in person, I'm going to beat this confession out of you: IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS TO CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU'RE GIVEN EVERY RIGHT A MARRIED COUPLE IS! (Of course I was kidding about the "beat" part, but not really...)

I have to say that I agree with Trav. If the government doesn't change the reference across the board, then you shouldn't get to call a Cadillac a Lincoln. Both vehicles get you to and from your destinations, and both have an engine and four wheels, but we're not classifying them under the same category of car. They're indisputably different. I know you want them both referred to as "cars", but the way the system is structured currently, they're not. I'd be willing to concede the argument if the government would refer to any given marriage as a "domestic union", but I don't see the gay populous as willing to compromise at all. They're not fighting that fight - our government shouldn't be in the marriage business, and in regards to that, I think we agree. Given the obvious, if gays truly wanted "equal" treatment, then they should be pushing for legally binding relationships to be recognized as unions. At least it would make their argument look as if it were about equality. As Trav said, it isn't about rights, it's about validating their lifestyles, and there's just no way you're going to get 90% of the populous to do that.

In a nutshell:
Originally posted by Travh20
If you want to get married, start acting like you are ready for marriage and show you are williing to meet us half way, or as we call it, compromise.
Now that's fair. I don't see how you can view it any other way.
Originally posted by dnamertz
You don't own the word marriage, so you can't "give it up".
In America, a man and a woman being wed under the respective state they lived had rights to it first, so I'd say that makes it ours first and foremost. Instead of bending societal norms to accommodate a minority, how about respecting the view of the majority? Remember - this isn't about "rights". Is that too much to ask?

I see that some people in this nation still firmly believe in separate but equal. :(

Originally posted by Tapeworm
I see that some people in this nation still firmly believe in separate but equal. :(
Separate but equal failed because it was implemented poorly; too little thought and not enough follow-through. That aside, I'd have NO problem calling it a union across the board - why do gays have an issue with that?

I see that some people in this nation still firmly believe in separate but equal. :(

white, black, brown, yellow, red, purple, green, orange, blue----all people have equal rights, but that doesn't mean there isn't African American or Caucasian or otherwise on various legal forms.

IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS TO CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU'RE GIVEN EVERY RIGHT A MARRIED COUPLE IS!

*nods*

They're not fighting that fight - our government shouldn't be in the marriage business

*nods*

In America, a man and a woman being wed under the respective state they lived had rights to it first, so I'd say that makes it ours first and foremost.

???

Instead of bending societal norms to accommodate a minority

We're talking about legal recognition here...not societal norms. A government needs not be involved, allow the recognition of domestic partnerships between consenting adults---the society is not obliged to view it as marriage, but the government and society are differing bodies.

how about respecting the view of the majority?

That is not what America is about, we are allowed to live our lives the way we choose. Everyone is entitled to the same treatment---and no one is to be deprived of it because the larger half says no. If the nation was to be forced into Christianity because the majority is, that is not fair.

See what i mean? That's not what we stand for as a nation.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
When I see you in person, I'm going to beat this confession out of you: IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS TO CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU'RE GIVEN EVERY RIGHT A MARRIED COUPLE IS! (Of course I was kidding about the "beat" part, but not really...)


It's a violation of my rights if they call my relationship something different from your relationship under the law. As to what they call these relationships, I don't care if they're called marriages, civil unions. or eggplants, as long as the name is the same for everyone.

Trav, I agree that the best solution would be for government to get out of the marriage business altogether, but if you think calling your relationship a marriage and mine a civil union is a compromise on your part, I think you're mistaken, and I refuse to compromise my rights...would you compromise yours?

you dont have to comprimise anything under my pan. I get the word marriage applied by my church, not by the government. if you have a gay church and a gay pastor to give you a marriage so be it, thats your decision. under the eyes of the government though, we are all "civil unions"

Originally posted by Travh20
you dont have to comprimise anything under my pan. I get the word marriage applied by my church, not by the government. if you have a gay church and a gay pastor to give you a marriage so be it, thats your decision. under the eyes of the government though, we are all "civil unions"

Perfectly acceptable to me.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Separate but equal failed because it was implemented poorly; too little thought and not enough follow-through. That aside, I'd have NO problem calling it a union across the board - why do gays have an issue with that?

Separate but equal failed because it was a poor idea. I can't speak for all gays, but I doubt many of them would have a problem with being treated equally under the law. It's not about the word "marriage" it's about having a different word applied to gays than is applied to others.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It's a violation of my rights if they call my relationship something different from your relationship under the law.
How? Which "right" is being violated? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here - I just don't see it...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
How? Which "right" is being violated? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here - I just don't see it...

The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens the equal protection of the law.

and how would recieving ity under a different name deny you equal protection? how is a word protecting you?

TRAV wrote:
I am willing to give up the word marriage altogether in regards to the federal government. marriage will only be a word isued by a church, if you want it.

PRAETORIAN wrote:
I'd be willing to concede the argument if the government would refer to any given marriage as a "domestic union", but I don't see the gay populous as willing to compromise at all.


I agree with both of you that the govt should not be in the marriage business, but your side is not pushing for that any more than the other side. I don't think that will ever happen, so your compromise is kind of a fairy tale. The issue at hand is one where the government IS involved in handing out marriage licenses and that is why gay people are pushing for that same treatment from the government.


The government will no longer recognize anything called marriage, only a legal joining of two people, or 3 people, or 5 people or whatever I suppose.

Trav, what happened to your slippery slope? Are you willing to allow 5 people to have a government sanctioned union just because its not called "marriage"? What if a brother and a sister want to have an incestual "union"?

If the government doesn't change the reference across the board, then you shouldn't get to call a Cadillac a Lincoln.

Wouldn't they both be registered as an automobile? The government doesn't issue a "drivers license" for the Cadillac driver and a "automobile operators permit" for the Lincoln driver.

Originally posted by Travh20
and how would recieving ity under a different name deny you equal protection? how is a word protecting you?

For the same reason that "separate but equal" did when it was appied to blacks and whites. It's a subtle form of discrimination, and it codifies into law that two groups of people are different, and not equal.

I never said a "word" was protecting me.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I agree with both of you that the govt should not be in the marriage business, but your side is not pushing for that any more than the other side.
We don't have to. If we decide to marry, it'll be a marriage, end of story. However, if the gays were pushing to remove the word marriage from government, I'd be willing to bet that LOTS of people wouldn't fight them if they thought about how logical the argument was to do so. Gays aren't pushing to have the word removed because they're seeking to validate their relationship, period.
Originally posted by dnamertz
Trav, what happened to your slippery slope? Are you willing to allow 5 people to have a government sanctioned union just because its not called "marriage"? What if a brother and a sister want to have an incestual "union"?
Totally bogus argument. Out of all the questions I've see you ask (and MANY of them are good), this is the lamest one I've witnessed.
Originally posted by dnamertz
Wouldn't they both be registered as an automobile? The government doesn't issue a "drivers license" for the Cadillac driver and a "automobile operators permit" for the Lincoln driver.
I suppose we could always use the automobile analogy to further our point, but my argument was simple: we shouldn't call an apple an orange. Are the relationships different? Of course they are, and we'd be kidding ourselves if we saw it any other way. Do the people involved love one another? Absolutely, but their relationships aren't the same.

Originally posted by The Praetorian

I suppose we could always use the automobile analogy to further our point, but my argument was simple: we shouldn't call an apple an orange. Are the relationships different? Of course they are, and we'd be kidding ourselves if we saw it any other way. Do the people involved love one another? Absolutely, but their relationships aren't the same.

Blacks and whites are different but we recognize that the law should be blind to such differences. Why should the law recognize the differences between gay/straight relationships?

We don't have to. If we decide to marry, it'll be a marriage, end of story.

Exactly why I don't buy Trav's claim that he is "compromising". He says he would like government to be out of marriage altogether, but hes not pushing for it...its just talk.

However, if the gays were pushing to remove the word marriage from government, I'd be willing to bet that LOTS of people wouldn't fight them if they thought about how logical the argument was to do so.

I actually think it would be harder for them to accomplish that than what they are trying to accomplish now. Many people would fight them on that. They would need other people pushing with them before they could remove government from marriage.

Totally bogus argument. Out of all the questions I've see you ask (and MANY of them are good), this is the lamest one I've witnessed.

I totally and completely agree with you. My argument was sarcastic. It was the same lame slippery slope argument that Trav (and others) have been making, so thanks for agreeing with me that it is lame. The point was that if gay marriage is going to lead to polygamist marriages or incestual marriages (as is the claim), then gay civil unions (or whatever you want to call it) would equally have to lead to polygamist or incestual civil unions. Do you want the government sactioning these types of relationships whether they're called marriages or civil unions?

Are the relationships different? Of course they are, and we'd be kidding ourselves if we saw it any other way. Do the people involved love one another? Absolutely, but their relationships aren't the same.

Many relationships are different. Many marriages are different. Some marry for money, some marry to have kids some do not, some marry after knowing each other for a few days, some get pregnant first....but they are all called the same thing.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens the equal protection of the law. Does equal mean "exact"? I dont think that is neccessarily so. With the differences between hetero and homo relationships there will never be anyhing that could ever be "exact".

Originally posted by HaVoK
Does equal mean "exact"? I dont think that is neccessarily so. With the differences between hetero and homo relationships there will never be anyhing that could ever be "exact".

EDIT: That sounds a lot like"All men are created equal, some men are more equal than others" :)

Again, I have to ask, why should the law recognize any difference in gay/straight relationships?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
EDIT: That sounds a lot like"All men are created equal, some men are more equal than others" :) :)









Originally posted by Vilepagan

Again, I have to ask, why should the law recognize any difference in gay/straight relationships? Because there ARE differences in gay/straight relationships.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Because there ARE differences in gay/straight relationships.
No differences besides the way in which they have sex. And that isn't a big enough difference to not allow gays equality...and for that matter, it isn't even a valid reason to begin with.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Because there ARE differences in gay/straight relationships.

That doesn't really answer the question...there are differences, but why should those differences be codified into law?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Separate but equal failed because it was implemented poorly; too little thought and not enough follow-through.

Yes, they should have separated scum like you from the rest of humanity. Your white hood is stained David Duke. I have grown tired of your thinly veiled racist remarks. I could care less what you think or say at this point. Garbage in, garbage out. The real tragedy happens when you pass your ideas (that you probably inherited from your parents) to your children. And then they spew the same shit as their father onto my children and innocence is lost...forever. I'm not only ashamed of you but I am ashamed for you as you should be ashamed of yourself. Goodbye. It's been a real eye-opener.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
Yes, they should have separated scum like you from the rest of humanity.
They have. I'm educated; I live in a nice house, drive a nice car, have made some money, and learned to laugh at people like you. I'd say I haven't done that poorly.
Originally posted by Tapeworm
Your white hood is stained David Duke. I have grown tired of your thinly veiled racist remarks.
Is that a conclusion or simply the place where you got tired of thinking? No doubt that you and I see the world through different eyes, but I'll gladly take the perspective of reality over your nonsensical babble any day. Stereo instructions are more interesting than you, and far less vapid to read. Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if you weren't afflicted with the same amentia most other idealists are, but then again...
Originally posted by Tapeworm
The real tragedy happens when you pass your ideas (that you probably inherited from your parents) to your children.
Me....Children??? I bet you thought it was just a coincidence that both your parents were 17 when they had you? Don't worry; I won't be having any kids until I'm making more money than you'll ever see in a lifetime. I'm confident that'll be at least 5 to 10 years from now, Skippy, so relax.
Originally posted by Tapeworm
And then they spew the same shit as their father onto my children and innocence is lost...forever.
God, I hope so. ;)
Originally posted by Tapeworm
It's been a real eye-opener.
No shit, cock-knock, it certainly has, and thanks for playing along.

Originally posted by The Praetorian

Me....Children??? I bet you thought it was just a coincidence that both your parents were 17 when they had you?

Damn Prae, not cool.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Damn Prae, not cool.
Oh, but you think his comments were? First of all, he took offense to the separate but equal remark when all I was doing was referring to gay marriage, not blacks. I can't help it that he's predisposed to being sensitive about every issue involving (so to speak) "civil rights". I have a difference of opinion, and I was stating it fairly and without malice. Apparently, he had a problem with that. All I'm saying is if someone takes a shot at me, then I'm firing back. I'll admit I was trying to be rude with that remark, but I'll be damned if I take shit from some sickly peckerwood who marches in parades to prove the nothingness of being. Remember, he got nasty first - not me.

Perhaps calling another black "Toby" has something to do with it. That or some of your past comments about Sickle Cell Anemia being a good thing. Sure, I got nasty first.

Neither of those comments were directed at you anymore than the lyrics from your popular rap "artists" are directed at me for being "the devil". You talk about racism as if your people don't contribute to the problem. Fact: The federal government’s own crime statistics reveal that 90 percent of all violent interracial crimes are committed by blacks on whites, not the reverse. Given that blacks only constitute about 13 percent of the population, a black person is 50 times more likely than a white person to commit a violent interracial crime. Are you still wondering why I have a problem traveling through your neighborhood in broad daylight? Oh, that's right...you'll only get pulled over if you go through mine, and the funny thing is, you wonder why...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
They have. I'm educated; I live in a nice house, drive a nice car, have made some money, and learned to laugh at people like you. I'd say I haven't done that poorly.
And that makes you not scum? :o

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Fact: The federal government’s own crime statistics reveal that 90 percent of all violent interracial crimes are committed by blacks on whites, not the reverse. Given that blacks only constitute about 13 percent of the population, a black person is 50 times more likely than a white person to commit a violent interracial crime. Where did you get these statistics Prae? Not doubting you, just want to see them for myself and maybe learn a little more.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Where did you get these statistics Prae? Not doubting you, just want to see them for myself and maybe learn a little more.
I saw it somewhere, Havok - give me some time to find it, and I'll get back to you. And to all others...NO, I'm not making it up!

Originally posted by Overdose
And that makes you not scum? :o
Well, if it does, then so be it - I'm scum.

The federal government’s own crime statistics reveal that 90 percent of all violent interracial crimes are committed by blacks on whites, not the reverse. Given that blacks only constitute about 13 percent of the population, a black person is 50 times more likely than a white person to commit a violent interracial crime.

Hopefully you do not think the reason that those stats are higher for black people is because they are black. I believe its a result of the conditions they are born and raised in...its a cycle of poverty that is hard to get out of. Its not an excuse, just a explaination of why the stats are so un-even.

Are you still wondering why I have a problem traveling through your neighborhood in broad daylight?

Do you have a problem with the neighborhood or the skin color of the people who live in it. I think its the neighborhood, but when you make comments like that it could make you come off as being racist. I don't feel safe driving through poor neighborhoods, period.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Do you have a problem with the neighborhood or the skin color of the people who live in it. I think its the neighborhood, but when you make comments like that it could make you come off as being racist. I don't feel safe driving through poor neighborhoods, period.
Okay, fair enough, you're right - I don't feel safe driving through poor neighborhoods, either. I didn't mean for my comment to come off as "racist", I was just pointing out the common denominator of said neighborhoods when crime stats are what they are.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Where did you get these statistics Prae? Not doubting you, just want to see them for myself and maybe learn a little more.
According to US Department of Justice figures, in 1993, there were 1.4 million violent crimes of inter-racial violence nationwide. Eighty-five percent of them were committed by blacks against whites. A white is fifty times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by a black person than the other way around. Not surprisingly, the first hate-crime conviction to be appealed to the Supreme Court involved a black perpetrator and a white victim. The politically righteous, who are pushing the current legislation, will be in for some surprises should the law they are proposing go into effect.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1168

If you are looking for an interesting source of crime stats, go here:
http://www.jabpage.org/features/racestat/racestat.html

Originally posted by Evakian

GAY- The naughtiest word in the English language

It's even worse in Russian - it's the three-letter-accronym for the traffic police: G.A.I. - whose affection for bribery means they are called DAI by many of us, as Dai/Day is Russian for 'Gimme!'

Originally posted by dnamertz
Hopefully you do not think the reason that those stats are higher for black people is because they are black. I believe its a result of the conditions they are born and raised in...its a cycle of poverty that is hard to get out of. Its not an excuse, just a explaination of why the stats are so un-even.

I agree... people try to call me racist when i say i'm not a big fan of today's black CULTURE... racism is hate for no reason... i have alot of characteristics i could list off for reasons to dislike the black culture.

And its not even a big thing for me.... just pet peeves...

Originally posted by Decka
I agree... people try to call me racist when i say i'm not a big fan of today's black CULTURE... racism is hate for no reason... i have alot of characteristics i could list off for reasons to dislike the black culture.

And its not even a big thing for me.... just pet peeves...
I'll agree with you there. Hip hop culture is incredibly dumb and annoying.

I'll agree with you there. Hip hop culture is incredibly dumb and annoying.

I agree too...even when its Eminem.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I'll agree with you there. Hip hop culture is incredibly dumb and annoying.

Aww Dawg, don't be hatin'! :D


*shivers* Hip hop/gangster rap culture is one of my biggest pet peeves.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
According to US Department of Justice figures, in 1993, there were 1.4 million violent crimes of inter-racial violence nationwide. Eighty-five percent of them were committed by blacks against whites. A white is fifty times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by a black person than the other way around. Not surprisingly, the first hate-crime conviction to be appealed to the Supreme Court involved a black perpetrator and a white victim. The politically righteous, who are pushing the current legislation, will be in for some surprises should the law they are proposing go into effect.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1168

If you are looking for an interesting source of crime stats, go here:
http://www.jabpage.org/features/racestat/racestat.html Thank you sir. :) Getting ready to start reading now.

I'll agree with you there. Hip hop culture is incredibly dumb and annoying. What it has become yes. It used to be good and there still are a few good groups still out there but they are very very few and far between. Just another example of corporations destroying the soul and intent of a movement for sensatinalism and devaluation.