Ny votes against......

[AROCES]

So the internet makes people anti gay? I have moved on, I'm waiting for you guys to catch up

Then don't worry about a 2,000 year old book.

[The Silver Thong]

Then don't worry about a 2,000 year old book.

You mean the bible has no influience on people today hmmmmm interesting take you have there Aroces but I think quit a few people think being gay is anti god. There for we have all this whinning about letting gay people get married. Religion man.

[AROCES]

You mean the bible has no influience on people today hmmmmm interesting take you have there Aroces but I think quit a few people think being gay is anti god. There for we have all this whinning about letting gay people get married. Religion man.

Alright, seems like I need to explain further.

Unlike 2,000 years ago when the Bible is just the source of knowledge for most people, the world now is smaller and with the world wide web people worlwide are now more educated and can see and learn beyond a 2,000 year old book.

So, whatever they decide on or believe in is basically their own decision, and then they vote. Now you dont favor the result, but dont have too much fume for you cant win em all.

[The Silver Thong]

Alright, seems like I need to explain further.

Unlike 2,000 years ago when the Bible is just the source of knowledge for most people, the world now is smaller and with the world wide web people worlwide are now more educated and can see and learn beyond a 2,000 year old book.

So, whatever they decide on or believe in is basically their own decision, and then they vote. Now you dont favor the result, but dont have too much fume for you cant win em all.

Let me make this clear. People vote based on faiths that they were brought up with hence if the bible says it's a cardinal sin people believe it. Religion influences voting plan and simple. If not for religion Aroces what is preventing people from voting yes? if it wasn't for religion people wouldn't care nearly as much about other peoples business.

[AROCES]

Let me make this clear. People vote based on faiths that they were brought up with hence if the bible says it's a cardinal sin people believe it. Religion influences voting plan and simple. If not for religion Aroces what is preventing people from voting yes? if it wasn't for religion people wouldn't care nearly as much about other peoples business.

Religion influence, Liberal influence, conservative influence, you name it.

The bottom line is people voted for their preferred society, like I said, you just cant have it all.

[Cadetak]

You mean the bible has no influience on people today hmmmmm interesting take you have there Aroces but I think quit a few people think being gay is anti god. There for we have all this whinning about letting gay people get married. Religion man.

Religion isn't a huge contributing factor with homophobia. It's a front or a way to hind behind one's real feelings and motives. At least when considering Americans and other western populations.The Bible actually provides very support to back homophobic actions and thoughts. There is actually more support in the Bible for other 'sins' that everyday Christians ignore then there is for homosexuality.

If religion was such an influential factor in developing homophobia then religion would also greatly focus other things...how many people actually waited till they were married?

Homophobia's true source is the all to common one...the base human fear and reject that which we do not understand and that which is different. The same cause as any prejudice. Prejudice is a survival mechanism of sorts.

[Cadetak]

Alright, seems like I need to explain further.

Unlike 2,000 years ago when the Bible is just the source of knowledge for most people, the world now is smaller and with the world wide web people worlwide are now more educated and can see and learn beyond a 2,000 year old book.

So, whatever they decide on or believe in is basically their own decision, and then they vote. Now you dont favor the result, but dont have too much fume for you cant win em all.

The internet only shows you what you want to see. What makes one boy search Atheism into google and another Christianity?

Is it coincidence that Christian family in a Christian majority location will produce children will turn out christian? That locations can be conveniently be boiled down to Red States and Blue States?

A little sociology and psychology goes a long way.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The "next they will marry their dogs" crap is exactly that...crap.

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Kids= not adults

Animals = can't consent

Heck, don't care if it goes to man/woman/man/man/woman or what ever. As long as no one is coerced and everyone is carrying their weight, I really don't care.

Nibs

Two consenting adults? Well you do know that the definition of the age of consent is different in every state (and even more different in other countries) and that it is defined by the people through their representation.

Those who are pushing the so-called gay-rights agenda are trying to take away the right of the people from having a say on defining marraige and on having any say how homosexual behavior is treated in society.

So if the people are not allowed to have representation on what is right and wrong in regards to how gender and sexuality is treated in society under the law then what guarantee is there that the next sexual rights campaign by the left-wing will not be to tell the people that they can no longer have any representation on the issue of age of consent.

I can hear it now:

How does it hurt you if other parents raise their children to become married at an earlier age? Why do you want to force your morality on how other people raise their children? Teens are going to do it anyway and they always have so why not make it legal and allow them to marry?

Many other countries allow the age of consent and marraige at much younger ages then most states here in the U.S. today. Why should the people be allowed to have a say on how society defines the age of consent for marraige?

In my opinion the entire gays rights movement is designed to take away the people's right to representation on all issues of sexuality.

You say it could never lead to things like "marraige to a dog" but in Sweden (one of the first countries to move towards so-called gay rights) they also decrimilized animal sex. Shortly after now it is seen that animal sex has become a problem and the movment has grown. This flys in the face of your claim that such a possibility is crap.

Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality

Sexuality is a not a hard-wired fixed thing. People are not born with fixed sexual preferences for all of life. Sexuality may have biological and genetic factors to it but it is behavioral even more.

Unless you are going to claim that people are born being attracted to animals?

My position is that the people have a right to representation on how right and wrong in regards to sexuality is declared by the society that they live in.

[Cadetak]

Two consenting adults? Well you do know that the definition of the age of consent is different in every state (and even more different in other countries) and that it is defined by the people through their representation.

Those who are pushing the so-called gay-rights agenda are trying to take away the right of the people from having a say on defining marraige and on having any say how homosexual behavior is treated in society.

So if the people are not allowed to have representation on what is right and wrong in regards to how gender and sexuality is treated in society under the law then what guarantee is there that the next sexual rights campaign by the left-wing will not be to tell the people that they can no longer have any representation on the issue of age of consent.

I can hear it now:

How does it hurt you if other parents raise their children to become married at an earlier age? Why do you want to force your morality on how other people raise their children? Teens are going to do it anyway and they always have so why not make it legal and allow them to marry?

Many other countries allow the age of consent and marraige at much younger ages then most states here in the U.S. today. Why should the people be allowed to have a say on how society defines the age of consent for marraige?

In my opinion the entire gays rights movement is designed to take away the people's right to representation on all issues of sexuality.

You say it could never lead to things like "marraige to a dog" but in Sweden (one of the first countries to move towards so-called gay rights) they also decrimilized animal sex. Shortly after now it is seen that animal sex has become a problem and the movment has grown. This flys in the face of your claim that such a possibility is crap.

Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality

Sexuality is a not a hard-wired fixed thing. People are not born with fixed sexual preferences for all of life. Sexuality may have biological and genetic factors to it but it is behavioral even more.

Unless you are going to claim that people are born being attracted to animals?

My position is that the people have a right to representation on how right and wrong in regards to sexuality is declared by the society that they live in.

Your talking about mob rule.

[a vampire wears my boxers]

im going to go into a trance. the following is the transcript from when i ate magic fungi in the forest with bill o'reilly and the klan.

whew, here i go: the power of hate compells me! the power of fear compells me! grabba-dabba-wobba-snobba-pluresteralamenturadoof!

i must say that all this homosexual marriage talk really hurts me. to see two women wanting to get married? thats two women who don't want ME. this angers and frustrates me. why do those 2 girls not want me? and those two guys over there? why arent they hitting on my sister? this confuses me! they are not like me! i am not happy about this, i want to ensure that they are not happy as well. most nights i sit around the dinner table with my wife and kids (total fabrication) and discuss how those gay folks are ruining the world. they just look so damn happy with their partners, almost like i am. i cannot stand for this. they are not real citizens! while im on the subject, i think black people still count as 1/5 of a person. never should have let those savages run amok in MY america! women vote? ha! the only thing they need to vote on is whats for dinner tonight or missionary vs missionary. rrraaarrrggghhhh!!!! look at me. now look in a mirror. if we aint at least 75% the same, then to hell with you buddy!

cracka-smacka-poopa-scoopa-rullo-bullo-sarah palin! wow. im back. damn, that sucked. can anyone else say nutshell?

[Render]

what is it with ppl focussing on trivial things and pretending that will fix the world, while it'll make no difference whatsoever?

It's like this craving for nihilism.

[AROCES]

The internet only shows you what you want to see. What makes one boy search Atheism into google and another Christianity?

Is it coincidence that Christian family in a Christian majority location will produce children will turn out christian? That locations can be conveniently be boiled down to Red States and Blue States?

A little sociology and psychology goes a long way.

The internet only shows you what you want to see???

Really, so tell me who is controlling the censorship of the internet, do you live in Iran or some communist country?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

what is it with ppl focussing on trivial things and pretending that will fix the world, while it'll make no difference whatsoever?

It's like this craving for nihilism.

because at the end of the day, all that matters is how we treat each other.

Everything else is window-dressing.

[Cadetak]

The internet only shows you what you want to see???

Really, so tell me who is controlling the censorship of the internet, do you live in Iran or some communist country?

You took it the wrong way I think, what I meant was that you will only end up at web pages you choose to go too, can only teach you exactly what you want to learn. We only go to areas of our interest...so it is unlikely that we will exposed to anything drastically different or be able to grow through the internet. As evident by UM itself, even if the information or facts are available it doesn't mean anybody will go looking for them or even accept them if they do.

Unlike a professor who may teach you things you never really wanted to know(calculus!) the internet or even the library will only give you the information you want, and with controversial subjects that have no clear answer(ethics, religion, politics) your also only get the information you like and discard the information you dislike.

[Kimi81]

Two consenting adults? Well you do know that the definition of the age of consent is different in every state (and even more different in other countries) and that it is defined by the people through their representation.

Those who are pushing the so-called gay-rights agenda are trying to take away the right of the people from having a say on defining marraige and on having any say how homosexual behavior is treated in society.

So if the people are not allowed to have representation on what is right and wrong in regards to how gender and sexuality is treated in society under the law then what guarantee is there that the next sexual rights campaign by the left-wing will not be to tell the people that they can no longer have any representation on the issue of age of consent.

I can hear it now:

How does it hurt you if other parents raise their children to become married at an earlier age? Why do you want to force your morality on how other people raise their children? Teens are going to do it anyway and they always have so why not make it legal and allow them to marry?

Many other countries allow the age of consent and marraige at much younger ages then most states here in the U.S. today. Why should the people be allowed to have a say on how society defines the age of consent for marraige?

In my opinion the entire gays rights movement is designed to take away the people's right to representation on all issues of sexuality.

You say it could never lead to things like "marraige to a dog" but in Sweden (one of the first countries to move towards so-called gay rights) they also decrimilized animal sex. Shortly after now it is seen that animal sex has become a problem and the movment has grown. This flys in the face of your claim that such a possibility is crap.

Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality

Sexuality is a not a hard-wired fixed thing. People are not born with fixed sexual preferences for all of life. Sexuality may have biological and genetic factors to it but it is behavioral even more.

Unless you are going to claim that people are born being attracted to animals?

My position is that the people have a right to representation on how right and wrong in regards to sexuality is declared by the society that they live in.

Why do you feel it's you're right, or anyone else's right to choose rather or not 2 other people can get married?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Why do you feel it's you're right, or anyone else's right to choose rather or not 2 other people can get married?

If the state is going to recoginize that marraige and make it by law that no one can discriminate against it (or suffer a penalty in court) then it is my right to have representation on that issue of law. No one is stopping two people from living together or from making commitments to eachother but we should have representation on how the issue is dealt with publically and on how it is taught to children especially.

If the state is going to claim that you have to treat homosexuality as being equal to heterosexualiy why shouldn't the people have a right to representation on that issue? I am not trying to strip anyone of their right to representation on this issue but you and others are trying to strip my right.

If a salesman shows up to work on the day of a big client meeting in drag and claims that he is now coming out as gay, why should the company have to fear discriminating against this guy based upon a law that they had no representation on creating? I guess in your mind they should just say "oh how nice" and just send him on to the big meeting in drag. Pathetic.

One guy at my work was a swinger and he actually was even showing pictures of the sick stuff he and his wife were doing with multiple other people at work. I think that he was a disgusting sick pig and I feel sorry for his two children to have such sick parents but in your mindset I guess we shouldnt judge him and that his relationship choices should be respected.

Another guy who was gay at my work place continually started arguments with people and blamed every problem he had at the job with the claim that he was being discriminated against because he was gay. The company was scared to death to fire him and continually pandered to him. He finally left on his own and quit. It is ridiculous though that this type of scenerio should exist without the people having any representation on the issue at all.

[Kimi81]

If the state is going to recoginize that marraige and make it by law that no one can discriminate against it (or suffer a penalty in court) then it is my right to have representation on that issue of law. No one is stopping two people from living together or from making commitments to eachother but we should have representation on how the issue is dealt with publically and on how it is taught to children especially.

If the state is going to claim that you have to treat homosexuality as being equal to heterosexualiy why shouldn't the people have a right to representation on that issue? I am not trying to strip anyone of their right to representation on this issue but you and others are trying to strip my right.

If a salesman shows up to work on the day of a big client meeting in drag and claims that he is now coming out as gay, why should the company have to fear discriminating against this guy based upon a law that they had no representation on creating? I guess in your mind they should just say "oh how nice" and just send him on to the big meeting in drag. Pathetic.

One guy at my work was a swinger and he actually was even showing pictures of the sick stuff he and his wife were doing with multiple other people at work. I think that he was a disgusting sick pig and I feel sorry for his two children to have such sick parents but in your mindset I guess we shouldnt judge him and that his relationship choices should be respected.

Another guy who was gay at my work place continually started arguments with people and blamed every problem he had at the job with the claim that he was being discriminated against because he was gay. The company was scared to death to fire him and continually pandered to him. He finally left on his own and quit. It is ridiculous though that this type of scenerio should exist without the people having any representation on the issue at all.

All this amounts to the fact that you disagree with alternative lifestyles,

and wish to inflict you're views on others and make them live a lifestyle you deem accectable......well life doesn't work that way. Live and let live.

Oh,and that Swinger Guy sounds pretty cool, probrably has some awesome stories

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

All this amounts to the fact that you disagree with alternative lifestyles,

and wish to inflict you're views on others and make them live a lifestyle you deem accectable......well life doesn't work that way. Live and let live.

Oh,and that Swinger Guy sounds pretty cool, probrably has some awesome stories

I am not trying to force my views on anyone. I am for everyone having equal representation on the issue. It is you who are trying to strip others of their right to representation on this issue and claim that we all have to accept your view on this by threat of a lawsuit.

It tells me alot about you that you think that swinger guy and his wife are cool for having sex with multiple strangers.

[AROCES]

You took it the wrong way I think, what I meant was that you will only end up at web pages you choose to go too, can only teach you exactly what you want to learn. We only go to areas of our interest...so it is unlikely that we will exposed to anything drastically different or be able to grow through the internet. As evident by UM itself, even if the information or facts are available it doesn't mean anybody will go looking for them or even accept them if they do.

Unlike a professor who may teach you things you never really wanted to know(calculus!) the internet or even the library will only give you the information you want, and with controversial subjects that have no clear answer(ethics, religion, politics) your also only get the information you like and discard the information you dislike.

If people end up at web pages they choose to go, that to you is a problem? You want to choose for them and tell them what to accept, for you think you know what is good for them, right?

RESEARCH, and discussion forum are all over the web. I believe you are talking about the conspiracy or hidden secrets on gossip columns that you cant find on the web.

So you really just arguing for argument sake.

[+DieChecker]

I am not trying to force my views on anyone. I am for everyone having equal representation on the issue. It is you who are trying to strip others of their right to representation on this issue and claim that we all have to accept your view on this by threat of a lawsuit.

It tells me alot about you that you think that swinger guy and his wife are cool for having sex with multiple strangers.

Ditto. I am sick of people who say others are denighing others rights, while stating their OPINION is correct and everyone should follow THEIR standard. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

[The Silver Thong]

Ditto. I am sick of people who say others are denighing others rights, while stating their OPINION is correct and everyone should follow THEIR standard. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

What rights of your's are being taking away because a gay couple wants to marry? None.

Might as well take away womens rights as well as we all know they should just stay in the damn kitchen all day. It's not "their" standard what does that mean?

As far as some total idiots go, bestiality is most often done in a heterosexual aspect with both women and men being involved. It's rather disgusting to think of but then again I'm straight as can be but think homosexuals should have the same rights. FFS marriage is a nightmare, let them join the freak show we call marriage.

Gays getting married has absolutely nothing to do with anyone but the 2 involved. For those that think they have a right to limit others is a sign that they themselves are insecure of there own sexuality. Very clear here that the most vehement about gay marriages are by those that fear it for some under lieing reason. Maybe their gay themselves and hate it/themselves for having those feelings and the only way to undermine there thoughts is to lash out against those that don't fear coming out of the closet hmmmmm. I do see a fair bit of closet homosexuality here.

Marriage has become a joke in western culture 50 plus % fail and damn why is that? Gays? No, religion has put a strangle hold on people and they are breaking free from the shackles of a dogma that has been set upon us from religions conception. Marriage means no more than a legal contract and religion does not like that even though it was religion that put those measures in place in the first place. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[ninjadude]

I am not trying to force my views on anyone. I am for everyone having equal representation on the issue. It is you who are trying to strip others of their right to representation on this issue and claim that we all have to accept your view on this by threat of a lawsuit.

No matter how many times you say this, it still is not true. No one is repressing representation. The question is and has been that gay marriage have the same legal rights under the law.

[+DieChecker]

No matter how many times you say this, it still is not true. No one is repressing representation. The question is and has been that gay marriage have the same legal rights under the law.

Filing Lawsuits to force States to pass laws that are Pro-Gay marriage is not bypassing representation? I know that that is not the case in every state, but it certainly has been tried over and over again, being repealed only by popular vote in most cases. And, it was the legislatures of many of those states that forced the popular vote. So, that sounds like trying to bypass representation to me.

I don't have problem with it being Gays. I would have the same issue if it was people trying to legalize certain drugs, or guns, or trying to get something banned, like pit bulls. There should be a vote somewhere, not just some circuit court judge making a unilateral partisan decision.

[shaka5]

There should be a vote somewhere, not just some circuit court judge making a unilateral partisan decision.

so we need to vote on giving equal rights to human beings?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

so we need to vote on giving equal rights to human beings?

This isn’t about equal rights for human beings it is about trying to make different types of behavior equal.