Threeway

5/12/2009 6:16:18 PM

there aren't enough pictures of hot lesbians on this page

5/12/2009 6:21:24 PM

Yay

5/12/2009 6:25:18 PM

hot or not, those pictures were annoying.

5/12/2009 6:25:29 PM

i'm sorry christine, but if you want a real discussion, it shouldn't be in chit chat

if you bring up homosexuality in chit chat, it had better be hot lesbians doing sexually explicit things

5/12/2009 6:27:34 PM

they weren't lesbians
they were lizards
I hate attention-whoring, tongues-fully-extended camhores

5/12/2009 6:28:52 PM

like the discussion would be any better in the soap box. Hooksaw or whatever his current equivalent is would go off about this and that thing he loves that Rush Limbaugh said, and everyone with half a brain would give up and leave.

5/12/2009 6:30:02 PM

OK. I think that's enough creepy for 1 day.

5/12/2009 6:43:28 PM

djeternal ftw...lol at ambrosia saying those pics are annoying

btw i like urbandictionary's definitions a lot better than Supplanter's

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=marriage

5/12/2009 7:47:46 PM

yay

5/12/2009 8:25:24 PM

I don't agree with homosexuality at all.

I think homosexuality is a poor life choice.

However, I really don't care what you do in private.

I don't think our government should waste any time/money on the issue.

But whatever legal decision is made, I really don't care; there's no legal reasoning why same sex marriage shouldn't be legal, but I really don't care to see it.

5/12/2009 10:01:10 PM

can I ask why? is it a religious reason or something else?

5/12/2009 10:56:36 PM

If I had to guess, I'd go with pure ignorance.

5/12/2009 10:58:12 PM

yay

5/12/2009 11:00:23 PM

I'm just saying that I don't want a dick in my ass by any means, but it's none of my business if another dude does. So I would be curious to know what the objections are to homosexuality, other than religious.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:01 PM. Reason : a]

5/12/2009 11:01:04 PM

Oh, I'm not the most pro-homosexual person on here by a long shot.

But I just find it amazing that in this day and age there are still people that think that homosexuality is a choice.

I mean, those are the same kind of people that believe every word in the bible is literal translation and dinosaur bones are things planted by the devil to give power to the unbelievers.

5/12/2009 11:04:19 PM

But mama says that Jesus planted dinosaur bones to confuse us.



[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:32 PM. Reason : fail ]

5/12/2009 11:31:09 PM

a man ought not to get his jollies sleeping with another man. it just ain't right.

definately NAY for faggots.

this includes the wemminz.

5/13/2009 12:10:37 AM

It would be fine if idiotic flamers didnt insist on constantly announcing to the world that they are gay and basically thrust their personal choices in my face

5/13/2009 8:49:09 AM

^^ Having an opinion is fine; using the pejorative is not.

^ There are always extremes in the world, and it's not any different for gays. I'm in support of same-sex marriage, and I think it's disappointing that people equate these things only to the most outlandish things. The whole reason gays have pride parades and so forth is because society tells them to sit down and shut up every other day of the year. How is their choice being thrust in your face?

5/13/2009 9:07:48 AM

i agree with Willy Nilly and JCASHFAN...

remove the tax penalties for being single, be able to purchase insurance for anyone, be able to write anyone into a living will, be able to carry a card to determine who should be able to visit you in the hospital (regardless of whether or not you are "related"), basically remove all the hurdles and level the playing field and it becomes a non-issue.

marriages and unions are typically issues of churches...due to separation of church and state, the government should not offer incentives to be "married" or tell you how you can or cannot marry.

social conservatism FTL, fiscal conservatism FTW

5/13/2009 9:25:25 AM

6

1/27/2010 8:13:31 PM

I don't care what someone else does. But if I live with Melissa for 7 years then would we be considered married?

1/27/2010 8:21:25 PM

Anyone should be able to marry anything/anyone. Its a religious idea not a governmental one. Married people should not receive tax breaks.

1/27/2010 8:25:12 PM

yea

1/27/2010 8:43:25 PM

queer thread

1/27/2010 8:46:27 PM

Quote :

"But I just find it amazing that in this day and age there are still people that think that homosexuality is a choice."

Given the fact that I just had coffee this morning with a man who was once gayer than Elton John, I'd say that you're the ignorant one. He was in the gay scene in NYC for a decade, had an 8-year live-in partner, and now has been happily married for 9 years and has two kids. He has no remaining physical attraction toward men.

Gay Marriage? I'll be the first - yes, the government should be involved, and NO, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage regardless of what any future court or legislature says. They can't make a square circle, either.

1/27/2010 8:46:33 PM

Quote :

"I think homosexuality is a poor life choice. "

if it was that easy...
women are the most difficult to date IMO and I would not say most people 'chose' to be ignored by their family

1/27/2010 8:56:00 PM

Quote :

"Given the fact that I just had coffee this morning with a man who was once gayer than Elton John, I'd say that you're the ignorant one. "

Given the fact that one of my best friends is a gay man I would say the exact same to you.

yeah of course, some people may go back and forth on what they want, but for the most part it is soooo not a choice.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2010 8:57:48 PM

Quote :

"Gay Marriage? I'll be the first - yes, the government should be involved, and NO, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage regardless of what any future court or legislature says. They can't make a square circle, either. "

wat. why should the government be involved in marriage at all?

ahhhh before you know it people will start marrying pens and pencils and coke cans!

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 8:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2010 8:59:14 PM

yea

1/27/2010 9:00:55 PM

looking at the high divorce rates maybe they should just do away with marriage all together

1/27/2010 9:02:03 PM

yea!! when you bring in divorce it is actually straight people ruining the sanctity of marriage. so boom boom busted!

1/27/2010 9:03:03 PM

nay

1/27/2010 9:06:42 PM

Quote :

"I mean, those are the same kind of people that believe every word in the bible is literal translation and dinosaur bones are things planted by the devil to give power to the unbelievers. "

aaaaahahahahahaha. this made me laugh.

1/27/2010 9:09:05 PM

Quote :

"And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt action rifle so that Man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals. Amen. Amen."

1/27/2010 9:10:24 PM

if they pay taxes, they should have the same rights as everyone else.

1/27/2010 9:12:14 PM

Quote :

"yeah of course, some people may go back and forth on what they want, but for the most part it is soooo not a choice."

Well, you're clearly quite wrong, but on this topic it actually does not matter.

If homosexual desires cannot be altered, and are hard-wired from birth, it is entirely irrelevant to whether homosexuality is immoral and whether the state should allow for same-sex marriage.

Even if you convince me that homosexual desires are entirely genetic, and cannot be changed, that does not have any effect on anything. Just because someone is born with a desire to do something does NOT make that thing morally acceptable, nor imply that the state should affirm it as 'equal' with anything else.

What is moral or what should be state-sanctioned is not determined by what natural desires we are born with.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 9:14 PM. Reason : a]

1/27/2010 9:13:12 PM

its the governments job to regulate morality?

why is it immoral? because the bible told you so?

and why is it that conservatives are always arguing against big government but want the government to heavily regulate social issues.



[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2010 9:14:57 PM

^^What?

I mean they know it's not totally genetic, cause if that was the case if one identical twin was gay then the other would be too, but that's not how it works.

They also know it's not totally enviornmental either, cause if that was the case if one person is a household was gay then they all would be gay, but that's not how it works.

The fact that it is being debated is for religious reasons...and for the most part quite a bit of Protestant denominations have said that it should be allowed...so if religion is going for it now then why is there such a huge debate?

There should be no laws that do not allow two consenting adults to get married.

1/27/2010 9:18:41 PM

Quote :

"its the governments job to regulate morality? why is it immoral? because the bible told you so?"

Why do I have to answer these questions and you don't?

Why is homosexuality morally permissible? How is it even possible to have a government that doesn't regulate morality?

Culture and government are outcomes of the philosophical and religious presuppositions of the people. That's inescapable. Your view of government is determined by your philosophical and religious commitments, and so is mine....but I'm the only one who has to defend that or be ashamed of it?

1/27/2010 9:19:12 PM

Quote :

"Why do I have to answer these questions and you don't?"

The burden of proof should be on the one wanting to take away rights.

1/27/2010 9:32:51 PM

Yay. I don't see why it's still not legal.

1/27/2010 9:33:59 PM

Quote :

"tax breaks for all"

1/27/2010 9:35:26 PM

Anyone against same sex marriages is an idiot.

1/27/2010 9:35:47 PM

Quote :

"its the governments job to regulate morality?"

yep
killing another person is immoral, hence murder is illegal
having sex without consent immoral, hence rape is also illegal

laws are made to put the government's hand in regulating the morality of its people

1/27/2010 9:38:46 PM

that's not at all why those things are illegal, just fyi.

1/27/2010 9:39:28 PM

Quote :

"The burden of proof should be on the one wanting to take away rights."

The burden of proof is on you to show that there exists a right to marry someone of the same sex, and you have to defend the religion and philosophy underlying that.

This is exactly what I was referencing.

You are operating under some form of a philosophical principle that says that only actions that harm others are immoral and/or that government has no authority to disallow a contract that is voluntary on all sides.

That's your 'default' and you are treating me as if I believe the same thing....which is why you believe the burden of proof is all on me.

It's not, because we don't have the same operating principles.

You don't have to defend your system or framework, but I do, evidently. The burden is as much on you as it is on me.

[Edited on January 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM. Reason : a]

1/27/2010 9:39:46 PM

Quote :

"that's not at all why those things are illegal, just fyi."

why then, oh knowledgeable one?

1/27/2010 9:42:01 PM

Quote :

"killing another person is immoral, hence murder is illegal"

the government murders people all the time by way of execution, which is still legal

1/27/2010 9:44:25 PM