Something for everone to research about,Esp GAYS: God DETESTS HOMOSEXUALITY!! Read in Genesis the story of prophet Lot who lived in the kingdom of 'Sodom'. He was a discendent of prophet David n lived during the age of Prophet Abrahem.The land of Sodom was crushed coz the people practiced homosexuality n incest...btw,ever wondered where the term 'Sodomy' came frm???
Anyone else thinks she looks like a young Diane Lane? I have always liked Mandy Moore. She has more talent and more brains than Britney fucking Spears.
wow canada does have everything including a country that would protect them in case they were attacked and only the population of one of our american states.
@xdestin82x There's more than just the ditzy 'OMG like totally' fake. Mandy tried on the mature, together, nurturing personality, decided she liked it, and wears it all the time. Gag.
I'm glad she feels the same way that I do. Marriage is about love and this shouldn't even be an issue. Divorce is a bigger problem and it ruins so many marriages
you know whats funny ppl always carry on a bout marriage is a right, the law blablabla but LISTEN marriage is a creation and pratise from God, he ordained it, he named it he sees it as a man joining with a WOman in HOLY matromony and then sealing it with intercourse, now two men OR women, IT;S JUST NOTTTT marriage you can't
Um, no. Wrong. Religious marriage might be "ordained of God" but civil marriage not-- it is separate and different, and it's ordained by the government. It's sad that you don't understand that.
Keep your ideas about religious marriage in your church-- you can still discriminate in your church about who can get married, and that won't change.
But CIVIL marriage needs to be equal for everyone. That's why Prop 8 was overturned.
@despicableme101 or maybe people arent so obsessed with some way old ment to be "rule" from a way old old old book. we are in the 21 century, its not bad to make some updates on that stuff and actually do what you want. :P and why does it bother you? i'm straight but it doesn't hurt me if some gay or lesbians marry eachother, its a way of saying that you are ment to be together for the rest of your life...let them do it... sorry for babling about this^^
@despicableme101 Marriage has been around centuries before the hallucinogenic mushrooms that produced your religion even started to evolve. You can keep segregating whomever you want within your religion like the bigot you wish to be, of course.
Keep your nose out of other people's lives.
Oh and, any religion that is is as pathetic and bigoted as to deny people their rights based on what kind of crotch they prefer isn't worth to be married under anyway, regardless of your sexual orientation.
you know whats funny ppl always carry on a bout marriage is a right, the law blablabla but LISTEN marriage is a creation and pratise from God, he ordained it, he named it he sees it as a man joining with a WOman in HOLY matromony and then sealing it with intercourse, now two men OR women, IT;S JUST NOTTTT marriage you can take someones creation and call it what you want. it;s just that simple gezzz
I still really don't understand the thing with the US, what is the problem with gay people? If you love someone and you wanna marry that person, why is it wrong? Love is the most important thing in the world, no matter if you love a woman or man.
I live in the Netherland and in our country, we're like, you are gay? So what! We are all people. We will all live our life and we all will die some time. Gay or not.
@BelieveIT1051 Also, I think your hippie comment is a little offensive. I'm not against your Christ. Believe in whatever you want to believe, and worship whatever god makes you happy.
"I'm not against your Christ, I'm against your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
Because these are rights given by the state and not the church they need to be recognized to every citizen who falls under those peramiters (Gay, Straight, Man, Woman, Black, White, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian). There really is no other way to look at it. Because laws are being passed about it when you talk about marriage in the legal sense it is discrimination to not allow everyone to participate.
But this isn't about who should get the right to marriage. We all believe we should have equal rights. The issue at hand is the definition of marriage. The definition is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. All citizens of legal age should be able to enter into this union, including homosexuals. The problem is that they don't want this union. They want to redefine it to suit their preference in sexual partner. That is NOT a civil right. The ability to redefine marriage is reserved for the voters
But this isn't about who should get the right to marriage. We all believe we should have equal rights. "
IF marriage is a right (and Loving said it was) and rights are individual choices unless there can be shown a legitimate government interest (and the defenders of prop 8 failed utterly to do that) then this is very much about equal rights.
You can't be for equal rights but not for people being equal.
@BelieveIt1051 "The 1 man 1 woman union is a right. Calling a same-sex relationship a marriage is not a right. "
Funny how you still can't explain why. If something is a right then it can only be denied for a legitimate gov interest. But after page after of comments all you can come up with is that somehow straight people wont' get married if gay people do.
Your paranoid fantasies do not constitute a legitimate gov interest.
I have explained why. Marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else. Thus, that is what citizens have a right to. Calling a same-sex relationship a marriage is not a right because it's not in the Constitution nor in any law.
Same-sex "marriage" is not a right. Therefore it can be denied for any reason. However, society has plently of legitimate reasons to protect marriage as it currently exists and block expansions of it by judges and legislators.
@BelieveIt1051 "I have explained why. Marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else."
That's not an explanation. That's just your personal opinion and you have yet to explain why your opinion should effect what others can do. Indeed, that was the original question, why do YOU get to decide for others?
Marriage is a right, the courts have ruled so for decades now. Not opposite sex marriage, not same sex marriage, marriage.
Hate to jump in in the middle... but I'm not against saying that homosexuals cannot get married in a church. The church is separate from the state so they can make any rules about who is allowed in or out of their institution. The big difference is that when marrage became an act defined by the state as low it can no longer be referred to as a religious institution because it is a state institution. So the state gives individuals who are married certain rights over those who are not.
actually, has anyone thought that the whole idea of marriage is a legal contract and is really a waste of time and energy? how about just staying with a person because you want to? how about just staying with a person not because of changing surnames and being tied down but because he/she is someone you love? if that happens in all societies, the concept of love would go at a whole new place......
@VWYL900802 It would be and for many it is (many couples never get married) except there are all these legal issues that require some kind of contract to resolve: child care, hospital visits, social security, survivor benefits, ect ect...
Like it or not, a marriage contract resolves these issues better then the plethora of alternative contracts.
Not to mention if someone wants to be married then why stop them?
@booley no, i'm just saying that marriage is in essence a contract, to brand yourself that you are "tied down" to another. and the one your are referring to is not marriage, but a prenup.
I'm not implying for people to stop legalizing, I just think that it's a culturally stupid legal verification. if people are doing something about it, go ahead. I just think that it's stupid. Why brand yourself when you can stay young and love freely?
The legal aspects certainly are. But that's because the law can't account for such personal issues as love.
Sometimes love fades or one of the people dies. So there has to be some basis to decide practical matters such as what happens to the property, who takes care of the kids, survivor benefits, ect.
@booley there's something called a will. you don't need a marriage to get that. and real love does not need a legal verification. you just know by heart.
Marriage is a comitment and a true testament of love. Cohabitation is not. "Free love" is not love at all. Would you want your significant other to be of a mindset that they can drop their relationship with you and find someone else in the name of not being tied down?
Yeah, the same-sex "marriage" side has argued that. They've said it's just a contract, which is all the more reason to oppose them. It just goes to show how lowly they think of marriage.
Love was in the best place before hippies and deviants came along to screw it up. Tradition is tried and true. We must return to that. Believe it!
She's so hot in so many ways! I even like her music and I'm kind of a metal person :P I don't know about this break your heart every day of the week shit but she's still so hot.
yes, and there is a reason why the Roman empire crumbled from within. .. homosexuality was rampant, and was a sin at the time. It still is, but that does not mean that we are to hate the person engaging in it. To love the person, but hate the sin, is what we are to do.
homosexuality is nature's answer to overpopulation. The world has a very beautiful and natural way of solving our problems. we need to let go of the wheel, and let it take control.
Then why was homosexuality much more prevelant millions of years ago when the human population was much lower than it is today when we have the largest population ever?
Because over the millions of years, society has grown highly dependant on religious beliefs and choked down homosexuality, and it's effects on the population.
But wait. Religion has also existed for thoudands (sorry the last post should have read thousands not millions) of years. So why was homosexuality more prevelant then than now?
if youre talking about ancient greece its because it was sucha social norm. Gay marriage was legal thousands of years ago. I think when people started finding this out around the 1800's or so they made a big deal of it because at that time homosexuality was considered a sin. I hope we can get back to a society where we can accept people for who they are.
The point is not if you accept it. The point is why you do you get more say over another's person's life then they do when they aren't hurting anyone?
Not to mention saying one accepts another for who they are but doesnt' want that person to do anything in regards to who they are just sounds like a cop out.
I don't get more say over it. I never said I did or should. 1 person 1 vote.
Really? A cop out? What if one of your loved ones were an alcoholic or a drug user? Would you accept them as a person? If so, does that mean you must also accept their addiction?
Wait a second... are you telling me that if same-sex "marriage" is legalized then only homosexuals will be able to "marry" the same sex? Why... that's unequal treatment! They would be able to marry either gender, while heterosexuals would only be able to marry the opposite gender.
Those are inherently harmful, and so is homosexuality. The Center for Disease Control found that homosexuality is more unhealthy than cigarettes and alcohol.
No I'm asking a serious question. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized, then will it only apply to homosexuals?
Well of course the CDC isn't going to say it outright that homosexuality is unhealthier than smoking, because it would hurt the anti-smoking campaign and cause the homosexual activists to flip out and protest. No, the CDC's method is more roundabout. They state the risks of smoking and homosexuality separately. Let's compare:
@BelieveIt1051 "I'm asking a serious question. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized, then will it only apply to homosexuals?"
Then seriously No. There won't be another separate form of marriage. Same Sex marriage means that gays can marry each other. Straight couples already have the right to marry who they choose.
"the CDC isn't going to say it outright that homosexuality is unhealthier than smoking"
Ah so then you admit that if the marriage law were to change it would affect my rights directly. So since that is the case, shouldn't I have a say in the matter? Shouldn't I have the right to vote on an issue that affects my rights?
And I beg your pardon, but straights don't have the right to marry whom they choose. We have the same right as everyone else, to marry 1 consenting human adult of the opposite sex who is not closely related by blood.
Well what kind of "right" is that? I only have it if I plan on using it? So does that mean I don't have a 2nd Amendment right unless I plan to buy a gun? No no, either I have the right or I don't. So which is it? If redefining marriage means a new liberty for ME, then you must admit that the redefinition affects me directly, in which case I should have a say in the matter. If it doesn't affect me, then I have no say, but then I'd have no right to same-sex "marriage" while homosexuals would.
You can assemble or not assemble. You can speak or keep silent.
The point is you decide for yourself, the choice isn't forced upon you.
Rights however are not zero sum nor finite like a pie.
IF someone speaks does not mean you lose the right to speak. IF gays can get marry that doesn't mean your right to marry a consenting adult is reduced or eliminated.
Actually rights are privileges and immunities by definition. The 4th Amendment says I can't be searched or have my property seized unless police have a rational reason and a judge agrees. Now, that demands no choice on my part.
Also, don't detract from the point. Even if I choose not to exercise my rights, that doesn't mean I don't have those rights. The rights still apply to me regardless of my choice. So back to my point. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized will that right apply to me or not?
No, rights are not privileges. By definition they cannot be.
For one, unlike a right, privileges can be taken away
For another, a right has value in that everyone has them. A privilege on the other hand has value because only some may possess it.
& you still have not shown that if gays get married your rights are reduced. Probably because you can't show that since your rights aren't reduced just because someone else has that same right.
So I have to quote the dictionary now? "Privilege: any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people." I guess the people who wrote the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution were mistaken too, right?
Only some may possess it? That's a basic and narrow definition of the word yes, but the rights we have as Americans fit that definition as well. We have privileges that people in other countries don't have.
@BelieveIt1051 Not sure what dictionary you are using. Mine lists the defintion of privilege as :a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people : education is a right, not a privilege | he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.
something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing particular pleasure
Everybody seems to know what privilege means but you
Dictionary(dot)com. Also, your definition is only one of several. Oh and by the way, even if "privilege" didn't fit the definition of "right", it would still be closer than your answer of "choice". But this is beside the point. Can we agree on the term "legal entitlement" as being a right?
Now in regard to lesbians, they too need a catalyst. A piece of plastic/rubber in the shape of a specific body part of a male. Thus their relationship type is also unnatural.
Let's use a concept I'm sure we'll both agree on. A right is a legal entitlement. How's that?
Okay, so we have estabished that a right is not based on choice, it just so happens that we Americans are legally entitled to specific choices (A.K.A. freedom/liberty). We are ALSO legally entitled to protections based on specific inborn traits, such as skin color. Well this is where we get back to the original point. It does matter if sexuality is a choice, because if it is, it's not protected.
Dude, you have no clue what a right is. Are you saying that a choice is required in order for a right to be afforded someone? That I have to make the choice to buy a gun if I am to have a 2nd Amendment right?
I already said I will answer your question when you answer mine about me having a say in the matter of marriage's definition. So answer me so I can answer back and win this debate for the conservative right.
You didn't answer it because it would defeat your argument. If marriage is redefined it will affect my rights directly, therefore I should have a say in whether it gets redefined or not. The super majority of Americans feel the same way, and that same super majority also feels that marriage should remain as it has for thousands of years, between 1 man and 1 woman. You lose.
@BelieveIt1051 "If marriage is redefined it will affect my rights directly,"
IF that's what you want to beleive.
But by your logic you are interfering with my free speech because you keep responding with your own.
And ad populum is a fallacious argument. Something isnt' right or wrong because it's popular. & since gay marriage is becoming more accepted then by your same logic that would make it right.
Responding with my own speech doesn't change any laws regarding your speech. Changing the marriage laws affects my right to marry directly.
And ya know what? I'm taking the offensive now. Let's follow your illogic, shall we? According to you, chaning the marriage law doesn't affect anyone else's rights because those people wouldn't choose to marry in the new way provided by the new definition. Therefore we can legalize polygamous, incestuous, child/adult, human/animal "marriage" too.
Now then, I have not answered your questions about what rights of mine are reduced because you have not answered my question. You answer mine first, and then I will tell you what rights of mine are reduced by same-sex "marriage" being legalized.
My question to you was, if same-sex "marriage" is legalized, will I as a heterosexual then have the right to marry one consenting human adult of the same sex who is not of close blood relationship, or will this right only apply to homosexuals?
@BelieveIt1051 "will this right only apply to homosexuals?"
That's a straw man. Having same sex marriage would not mean the creation of a special right. It would the extension to gays of rights already enjoyed by heterosexuals.
If you want to live in a marriage with someone you don't want to be married too, that's your choice. But it has nothing to do with whether millions of gay couples should be kept from marrying someone they do want to be with.
Actually it wouldn't be the extension to homosexuals the rights already enjoyed by heterosexuals, because homosexuals can get married anywhere in America now. All they have to do is marry in the same way any heterosexual would, to one consenting human adult of the opposite sex who is not of close blood relationship. So they already have equal rights. This wasn't my question though. Answer my question and then I'll show you where the special rights come in to this.
Now, you answered that question. You said that I would have that right. So here is my real question:
Seeing as how a legalization of same-sex "marriage" would affect me and my rights directly, then doesn't that mean I should have a say in whether the institution of marriage is redefined or not?
Answer that and then I will answer your question.
"IF someone speaks does not mean you lose the right to speak. IF gays can get marry that doesn't mean your right to marry a consenting adult is reduced or eliminated."
Risks of Homosexuality: AIDS, Staphylococcus, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, Parasites, Proctitus, Shigellosis, Anal Cancer, etc. And that can happen from one experience. This is also excluding all the emotional and psychological problems.
Risks of smoking: Lung/throat cancer, respiratory degradation, heart disease, and possibly allergies. And that's only possible after years of smoking.
And guess what population is most likely to smoke...
Unprotected sex is a major practice of the homosexual population, as evident by their high infection rate.
Heterosexuals can get those diseases, but their risk factor is much lower. This is because there are far less heteros who have those diseases than homosexuals. Again, this goes back to sex practices. Heteros typically do not engage in sexual activities unless they have dated the person for quite a while, and many don't have sex at all until marriage. We're also better about protection.
Sure I do. Heterosexuals can get the same STDs, but it is more difficult for them since people are physically compatible with the same sex. When people do that with the same sex however, they are not compatible, and thus physical damage is done to the body, thus increasing the risk of infection.
And yes, it has been stated by homosexual community leaders that safe sex and monogamy are considered an affront to the homosexual philosophy, which is about having no sexual restraints.
No, it is a biological fact that a penis is physically compatible with a vagina. Fluids are produced which lubricate the moving parts thus preventing friction between the flesh of the sexual parts involved. That way, fissures in the flesh will not be created. Without that, the chances of contracting an STD are far less. Not so with males, who do not produce any kind of lubrication able to reduce friction. Thus fissures are created and infection is assured either to or from the fissures.
Nothing about being gay precludes one from using protection.
And your argument doesn't even address LESBIANS or that one of the fastest growing demographics for HIV in the US are Straight Black Women. In fact, Globally, more heteros have HIV then Gays. (not surprising since there are more straights then gay men)
IF you are going to try to use science, at least learn what the science is first.
Using manufactured lube indicates that the sexual relationship requires a catalyst. Thus it is unnatural by definition.
As I've said, one of the core philosophies of the homosexual community is that safe sex practices be disregarded since they restrict physical satisfaction.
"Fastest growing" does not equal "most infected". It simply means a significant percentage of black women have been infected over a short period of time.
Oh I am going to clown you so bad in my next post...
@BelieveIt1051 "As I've said, one of the core philosophies of the homosexual community is that safe sex practices be disregarded since they restrict physical satisfaction."
And you would be wrong. (BTW straight people ALSO use Lube)
And you just undermined your argument because if what you said was so then gay people wouldn't care if they could get married or not.
And why would they use lube? They find it pleasurable to waste their money on things they don't need?
Like I told you last time, homosexuals are not looking to settle down and be monogamous. They are looking to redefine marriage and use it to justify their perverted sexuality. Same with open service in the military. They don't care about serving their country or sacrificing for it. They are just looking to use it as a political tool to gain social acceptance.
So you point out that globally there are more heterosexuals with HIV than homosexuals, then admit the only reason why is because there are more heterosexuals. So you just defeated your own argument for me. As for science and my grasp of it, I am referring to percentages. That is the number of infection cases within a particular population. Homosexuals have the highest percentage in the world, 50%. That means a homosexual male who has unprotected sex has a 50-50 chance of getting HIV. Believe it!
@BelieveIt1051 I didnt' say numbers was the only reason but it is a reason.
Nor does this in any way defeat my argument that gays are as capable of using safe sex as straights or that STDs can in fact straights as readily as gays.
& 50% of gay men don't have HIV, though half of all those w/HIV are women
Though even you now admit it's the UNPROTECTED sex that's that's the problem.
No they can't infect heteros as readily because biology shows that people are physically compatible with the opposite sex and incompatible with the same sex. Also, the percentage of heterosexuals who carry STDs is much lower than the percentage of homosexuals who carry STDs.
So no, all that crap you heard about HIV and other STDs being "equal opportunity infectors" was nothing but a pack of lies.
@BelieveIt1051 "all that crap you heard about HIV and other STDs being "equal opportunity infectors" was nothing but a pack of lies."
Besides that every credible health worker and study disagrees with you, there's also the problem that numerically of the hundreds of millions of straight people with STDs.
But you're right in that someone is trying to sell a pack of lies.
They can disagree all they want. It doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. If homosexuals carry STDs in a higher percentage than heterosexuals, then yes homosexuals have a higher chance of contracting those diseases. It's basic math.
Hundreds of millions of straights? You do realize that there are only about 300 million people total in the U.S. right? Besides, the number of homos with STDs is greater than the number of heteros, despite the fact they make up only 5% of the population.
@BelieveIt1051 "You do realize that there are only about 300 million people total in the U.S. right?"
You do realize there are 7 billion people on the planet, right?
But in any case, if you think gays are prone to STDs and the way to safeguard against STDs is being abstinate until one enters marriage, by your own logic, we should have same sex marriage.
I will correct something though. Homosexual males don't have a 50-50 chance of getting HIV. I was in error. Just because 50% of the total number of HIV infection cases in America are homosexual does not mean that 50% of homosexual males have HIV. I got ahead of myself. My bad.
However, even when using protection there is still some risk of contracting multiple STDs including HIV.
Obviously the best option is what the Bible states. Abstinence until marriage followed by faithfulness in marriage.
@BelieveIt1051 You have alot more ot correct then that. But good start.
However assuming you believe, that gays are more likely to get an STD and should not be promiscuous then when you also say "the best option is what the Bible states. Abstinence until marriage followed by faithfulness in marriage."
You pretty much just made a religious case to support gay marriage.
Actually I made a medically sound argument for 1 man 1 woman marriage. If you wish to talk about Biblical arguments we can do that. Jesus said marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman as well. So where are your retorts for these two arguments?
But you're the one who legitimized the Biblical argument by saying I had made a case in favor of same-sex "marriage". So now you say it's not legitimate because it proves you wrong? Classic liberal tactic. Use it if it supports you, reject it as invalid if it doesn't.
The medical argument said that people should remain virgins until marriage and then remain faithful in marriage. That is for the 1 man 1 woman union, not same sex unions. Again, homosexuality is about breaking sexual restraints.
No I showed it was medically based. Then I simply pointed out that it is consistent with what God told man thousands of years before medical science existed.
No you said it was medically based. But what you did was make a lot of ignorant assumptions about gay people, eventually get forced into admitting that it was the unprotected sex not being gay that led to STDs and then unwittingly make an argument in favor of gay marriage.
I think when it comes to medicine I'll listen to doctors rather then you. Especially when you can't even be consistent.
It's not just the unprotected sex, seeing as how heterosexuals also have unprotected sex. The problem is mostly the fact that the human body is not physically compatible with the same sex, and because the group think of the homosexual community promotes promiscuity. You have failed to reply to these facts yet again.
All you're doing is reading what you want and then blocking out the rest of what I write. Ignoring the facts may help you hold on to your delusion, but it won't win this debate.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, how do homosexuals promote having more sexual partners? And since when do heterosexuals promote one and only one, you're clearly confused between the words promiscuity and marriage.
@booley Yet what is so philosophical about being homosexual, or being a man is truly willing to spend his entire life devoted to another man. What is so philosophical about love? I can't understand why he doesn't understand that we're all just struggling to get by here. We're not shoving anything down his throat here, and neither do we plan to make him dike it up with another man in a stall somewhere. Our revolutions are about freedom, not vengeance...
But my best educated guess, he has a view of the world and happy sane healthy gay people who just want to be in love and happy doesn't fit in that world
Because homosexuality is a rejection of natural sex and natural love. The driving force behind the movement dictates that one must rebel against sexual restraints, such as morality (Biblical morality in particular) and monogamy.
Since when? Uh, you know that thing we call "cheating"? You know that thing we call "adultery"? Since then. Besides, when it comes to marriage we are talking about an institution created by God for man and woman, who were also created by God. So those are the rules.
@BelieveIt1051 What is natural love? Please tell me what it is. Tell me what love is.
And you're saying Heterosexuals don't cheat or commit adultery? You're telling me lil Wayne doesn't rap about shoving his penis up against 5 other women in his songs? You're telling me Tiger Woods didn't have an affair with another woman, when he was clearly married to another? You're telling me my own father did not cheat on my mother, with those wedding photos with him kissing this other woman?
Except that Jesus isnt' sayign that a marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, only that marriage can be and usually is. So where does Jesus say that two men can NEVER be married? (never mind that this academic. the law isnt' based on the bible)
Though personally I think Romans 13:10 is more relevant "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Oh you're so right. Jesus didn't say "thou shalt not...", so that must mean it's okay to go against the ONE and ONLY marriage type he stated as being valid. It's okay to marry the same sex just like how it's okay to marry children, multiple people, animals, objects, close family members, and anything else we can think of, and it's all because Jesus didn't say we couldn't. Great argument.
Jesus said "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder". That means no redefinition of marriage.
Yes it does. To use your analogy, my steak and your salad must come from somewhere. Marriage is like a serving dish. You can only serve one type of food in it. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would be like throwing salad in with steak. Though a more accurate analogy would be "like throwing fecal matter in with steak".
I failed to prove it so because I have refused to answer you until you answered my question to you. So answer my question already.
@BelieveIt1051 "To use your analogy, my steak and your salad must come from somewhere. Marriage is like a serving dish."
Wait so there's only so much "marriage" to go around? IF too many people get married then they have to go out ands buy more marriage? Make marriage in a factory? Grow it on a marriage farm?
Hey, it's your analogy. I got steak, you got salad. How does the idea of running out of food not apply to your analogy? In any case, you're getting off topic. I never said there was some quantity to marriage, I said that it comes from one source. So adding other foods to the source ruins what's in it. Marriage is not a melting pot and it's not a buffet table. It's one thing and one thing only. If we all just went around ignoring the definitions of words then we'd all sound as stupid as you.
@BelieveIt1051 Marriage is one thing, it is an expression of love. Don't make stupid insults against us, when you are in no position to. If you fail to understand that, than please do us all a favour and get off the politics that's corrupting your mind, and see why love is so beautiful in the natural world.
Jesus said nothing of same-sex "marriage" because there's no such thing. He said nothing of marrying the Eiffel Tower either, but someone did that a while back. What Jesus did was lay out the one and only plan for marriage, that a man marry his wife, they be one flesh, and not get divorced.
@BelieveIt1051 "Homosexuality is sin, therefore encouraging people to reject it is love."
No because:
1. Being gay is nto inherently harmful
2. People who are gay are generally happier when they accept themselves.
and 3. Gay people historically have felt shame, loneliness and led much more difficult lives because the prejudice against them. People like you cause harm and call it love. But that doesn't make it love. Quite the opposite.
1. False. Homosexuality causes all who choose it to be unable to have children. It also exposes them to the highest risk of a plethora of mental and physical disorders and diseases.
2. False. The Netherlands has embraced homosexuality, yet their homosexuals are more likely to abuse alcohol and commit suicide.
3. False. Homosexuals have been accepted in other countries even in ancient times, but those countries quickly fell because of it. God said homosexuality is sin. Opposing it must be love.
Name one same-sex couple that has procreated. What about the opposite-sex couples who cannot procreate? That isn't a result of their relationship type, and that's what we're talking about here. What type of relationship type qualifies for marriage? Seeing as how one of the major reasons for marriage's existance in the first place is to create a stable basis for procreation, obviously a relationship type where procreation is impossible does not qualify.
This has been flagged as spam show
Something for everone to research about,Esp GAYS: God DETESTS HOMOSEXUALITY!! Read in Genesis the story of prophet Lot who lived in the kingdom of 'Sodom'. He was a discendent of prophet David n lived during the age of Prophet Abrahem.The land of Sodom was crushed coz the people practiced homosexuality n incest...btw,ever wondered where the term 'Sodomy' came frm???
shiningwisdom529 2 weeks ago
She's one of my Role Models. I♥you Mandy. :">
thinkforpink09 2 weeks ago
Anyone else thinks she looks like a young Diane Lane? I have always liked Mandy Moore. She has more talent and more brains than Britney fucking Spears.
FM897 3 weeks ago
her voice is the prettiest ive ever heard
colorheartedgirl 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fã Clube Mandy Moore acessem mandymoorenews . com , unico fã clube da cantora no Brasil
14392luis 7 months ago
And what a cute interviewer.
iHeartCharmed 7 months ago
She is so inspiring. What a great influence.
iHeartCharmed 7 months ago
i love mandy moore
skemarawks 8 months ago
eww
HealthnLove 9 months ago
wow canada does have everything including a country that would protect them in case they were attacked and only the population of one of our american states.
reaper69316 11 months ago
Mandy has fake concern down-pat.
Nerblette 11 months ago
@Nerblette fake concern?? Yeah okay...she is anything BUT fake
xdestin82x 9 months ago
@xdestin82x There's more than just the ditzy 'OMG like totally' fake. Mandy tried on the mature, together, nurturing personality, decided she liked it, and wears it all the time. Gag.
Nerblette 9 months ago
yes. I'm weird. Still... rather be that than a moron. Are you twelve for crying out loud?
jbbb82104 1 year ago
i agree with Mandy, love is love....people need to get over it
AaliyahBrandyMonica 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate!
vechorik 3 months ago
her looks remind me of Diane Lane most of the time
pokadotguitar92x 1 year ago 5
i didnt even think she sang? weird
deanstas3 1 year ago
@deanstas3 what the hell do u mean u didnt think she sang? -___- she was a singer... first.
jbbb82104 1 year ago
@jbbb82104 ok crazy, settle your ass down.
deanstas3 1 year ago
@deanstas3 id rather be crazy than an oblivious moron....
jbbb82104 1 year ago
@jbbb82104 PHAHA! okay? weirdo
deanstas3 1 year ago
I will marry you sometimes.
iggymanoneoone 1 year ago
every country should be as cool as canada
poptopia1 1 year ago 2
Just when I thought I couldn't adore her more she mentions the Beach Boys!! She's always been a class act
riv4life618 1 year ago
I'm glad she feels the same way that I do. Marriage is about love and this shouldn't even be an issue. Divorce is a bigger problem and it ruins so many marriages
86thislove 1 year ago
you know whats funny ppl always carry on a bout marriage is a right, the law blablabla but LISTEN marriage is a creation and pratise from God, he ordained it, he named it he sees it as a man joining with a WOman in HOLY matromony and then sealing it with intercourse, now two men OR women, IT;S JUST NOTTTT marriage you can't
despicableme101 1 year ago
Comment removed
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago
@despicableme101
Um, no. Wrong. Religious marriage might be "ordained of God" but civil marriage not-- it is separate and different, and it's ordained by the government. It's sad that you don't understand that.
Keep your ideas about religious marriage in your church-- you can still discriminate in your church about who can get married, and that won't change.
But CIVIL marriage needs to be equal for everyone. That's why Prop 8 was overturned.
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago 3
@despicableme101 or maybe people arent so obsessed with some way old ment to be "rule" from a way old old old book. we are in the 21 century, its not bad to make some updates on that stuff and actually do what you want. :P and why does it bother you? i'm straight but it doesn't hurt me if some gay or lesbians marry eachother, its a way of saying that you are ment to be together for the rest of your life...let them do it... sorry for babling about this^^
Derokai 1 year ago 2
@despicableme101 Marriage has been around centuries before the hallucinogenic mushrooms that produced your religion even started to evolve. You can keep segregating whomever you want within your religion like the bigot you wish to be, of course.
Keep your nose out of other people's lives.
Oh and, any religion that is is as pathetic and bigoted as to deny people their rights based on what kind of crotch they prefer isn't worth to be married under anyway, regardless of your sexual orientation.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
you know whats funny ppl always carry on a bout marriage is a right, the law blablabla but LISTEN marriage is a creation and pratise from God, he ordained it, he named it he sees it as a man joining with a WOman in HOLY matromony and then sealing it with intercourse, now two men OR women, IT;S JUST NOTTTT marriage you can take someones creation and call it what you want. it;s just that simple gezzz
despicableme101 1 year ago
Mandy is hot. and her hair is hot too.. even his name of pornstar is hot
myfavoritejuice 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I still really don't understand the thing with the US, what is the problem with gay people? If you love someone and you wanna marry that person, why is it wrong? Love is the most important thing in the world, no matter if you love a woman or man.
I live in the Netherland and in our country, we're like, you are gay? So what! We are all people. We will all live our life and we all will die some time. Gay or not.
JustAdelaide 1 year ago
Comment removed
JustAdelaide 1 year ago
@BelieveIT1051 Also, I think your hippie comment is a little offensive. I'm not against your Christ. Believe in whatever you want to believe, and worship whatever god makes you happy.
"I'm not against your Christ, I'm against your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
ChristoListo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristoListo " think your hippie comment is a little offensive."
Hell you should have seen his earlier comments.
booley 1 year ago
Because these are rights given by the state and not the church they need to be recognized to every citizen who falls under those peramiters (Gay, Straight, Man, Woman, Black, White, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian). There really is no other way to look at it. Because laws are being passed about it when you talk about marriage in the legal sense it is discrimination to not allow everyone to participate.
ChristoListo 1 year ago
But this isn't about who should get the right to marriage. We all believe we should have equal rights. The issue at hand is the definition of marriage. The definition is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. All citizens of legal age should be able to enter into this union, including homosexuals. The problem is that they don't want this union. They want to redefine it to suit their preference in sexual partner. That is NOT a civil right. The ability to redefine marriage is reserved for the voters
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "
1 hour ago
But this isn't about who should get the right to marriage. We all believe we should have equal rights. "
IF marriage is a right (and Loving said it was) and rights are individual choices unless there can be shown a legitimate government interest (and the defenders of prop 8 failed utterly to do that) then this is very much about equal rights.
You can't be for equal rights but not for people being equal.
booley 1 year ago
The 1 man 1 woman union is a right. Calling a same-sex relationship a marriage is not a right. You lose again.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 "The 1 man 1 woman union is a right. Calling a same-sex relationship a marriage is not a right. "
Funny how you still can't explain why. If something is a right then it can only be denied for a legitimate gov interest. But after page after of comments all you can come up with is that somehow straight people wont' get married if gay people do.
Your paranoid fantasies do not constitute a legitimate gov interest.
booley 1 year ago
I have explained why. Marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else. Thus, that is what citizens have a right to. Calling a same-sex relationship a marriage is not a right because it's not in the Constitution nor in any law.
Same-sex "marriage" is not a right. Therefore it can be denied for any reason. However, society has plently of legitimate reasons to protect marriage as it currently exists and block expansions of it by judges and legislators.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "I have explained why. Marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else."
That's not an explanation. That's just your personal opinion and you have yet to explain why your opinion should effect what others can do. Indeed, that was the original question, why do YOU get to decide for others?
Marriage is a right, the courts have ruled so for decades now. Not opposite sex marriage, not same sex marriage, marriage.
booley 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 BTW, you do realize that the King James from the King James Bible you seem to be using was gay, right?
Or is that just another part of history you are going to pretend didn't happen?
Pages and pages of comments and all you have given is denial and ignorance and bigotry.
Thanks. You've shown why opposition to gay marriage is just ignorant prejudice better then I ever could.
booley 1 year ago
Hate to jump in in the middle... but I'm not against saying that homosexuals cannot get married in a church. The church is separate from the state so they can make any rules about who is allowed in or out of their institution. The big difference is that when marrage became an act defined by the state as low it can no longer be referred to as a religious institution because it is a state institution. So the state gives individuals who are married certain rights over those who are not.
ChristoListo 1 year ago
@ChristoListo " The church is separate from the state so they can make any rules about who is allowed in or out of their institution."
Exactly right. A synagogue cant' forced to marry 2 catholics. Atheists certainly don't have be married in a church.
I have a few friends who had the legal procces done long before and separate from the religious ceremony.
To deny someone a right because of animus is to create state sponsored bigotry.
booley 1 year ago
"To deny someone a right because of animus is to create state sponsored bigotry."
So does this mean you're in favor of "marriage equality" for the incestuous?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 "So does this mean you're in favor of "marriage equality" for the incestuous?"
Since the bias against incest is not based ONLY on animus or personal moral disaproval, it has no relevance to this conversation.
booley 1 year ago
Oh so you ARE in favor of denying the incestuous their right to marry? You're a bigot!
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gay marriage is all about legalization of human sexual practices or human sexual behavior, thats it
migxp1 1 year ago
God also loves everybody equally. We all think nasty thoughts or act sinfully. We have no right to determine one's happiness.
canucan 1 year ago 2
@canucan Thanks.
Not sure if you meant it that way but this is the most Christ like answer yet
booley 1 year ago
That doesn't mean God loves sin. He hates sin, and homosexuality is sin. He wants all people to reject homosexuality, nor promote it.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
actually, has anyone thought that the whole idea of marriage is a legal contract and is really a waste of time and energy? how about just staying with a person because you want to? how about just staying with a person not because of changing surnames and being tied down but because he/she is someone you love? if that happens in all societies, the concept of love would go at a whole new place......
VWYL900802 1 year ago
@VWYL900802 It would be and for many it is (many couples never get married) except there are all these legal issues that require some kind of contract to resolve: child care, hospital visits, social security, survivor benefits, ect ect...
Like it or not, a marriage contract resolves these issues better then the plethora of alternative contracts.
Not to mention if someone wants to be married then why stop them?
booley 1 year ago
@booley no, i'm just saying that marriage is in essence a contract, to brand yourself that you are "tied down" to another. and the one your are referring to is not marriage, but a prenup.
I'm not implying for people to stop legalizing, I just think that it's a culturally stupid legal verification. if people are doing something about it, go ahead. I just think that it's stupid. Why brand yourself when you can stay young and love freely?
VWYL900802 1 year ago
@VWYL900802
The legal aspects certainly are. But that's because the law can't account for such personal issues as love.
Sometimes love fades or one of the people dies. So there has to be some basis to decide practical matters such as what happens to the property, who takes care of the kids, survivor benefits, ect.
booley 1 year ago
@booley there's something called a will. you don't need a marriage to get that. and real love does not need a legal verification. you just know by heart.
VWYL900802 1 year ago
@VWYL900802 "there's something called a will."
Which can be challenged, especially when there isn't the legal precedents that marriage has behind it.
Sorry to sound cranky but do you really think that the millions of gay couples who have to deal with this problem never thought about a will?
Yes love does not need legal verification. But it's not the love that's the problem. It's proving there's a relationship.
booley 1 year ago
Marriage is a comitment and a true testament of love. Cohabitation is not. "Free love" is not love at all. Would you want your significant other to be of a mindset that they can drop their relationship with you and find someone else in the name of not being tied down?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "Marriage is a comitment and a true testament of love. "
Then al the gay couples who have been mongamous with each other for decades count or else nothing does.
By your own logic, gays should be able to marry just liek straight people can.
booley 1 year ago
They don't count because what they share isn't love. It's perversion.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
You dont' knwo what love is.
Indeed, I dont' think you are what Jesus would call one of his followers.
But that's something you have to deal with on your own.
booley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That means nothing coming from one such as you who doesn't even follow the Bible.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Right, if a brother and sister want to get married to each other, why stop them?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Yeah, the same-sex "marriage" side has argued that. They've said it's just a contract, which is all the more reason to oppose them. It just goes to show how lowly they think of marriage.
Love was in the best place before hippies and deviants came along to screw it up. Tradition is tried and true. We must return to that. Believe it!
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051
I think you have made it more and more clear that you don't really know how gay people think or why they would want to do anything.
"Tradition is tried and true. We must return to that."
So one man and one or more woman all of the same race and religion with the woman as young as 12 and considered property of the husband?
Uh huh, you don't seem to know much about traditional marriage either.
booley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 Sorry that last part should read "you can't show that your rights are reduced just because someone else has that same right."
booley 1 year ago
She's so hot in so many ways! I even like her music and I'm kind of a metal person :P I don't know about this break your heart every day of the week shit but she's still so hot.
VHDT10 1 year ago
yes, and there is a reason why the Roman empire crumbled from within. .. homosexuality was rampant, and was a sin at the time. It still is, but that does not mean that we are to hate the person engaging in it. To love the person, but hate the sin, is what we are to do.
Tidebeckons07 1 year ago
I have been to Canada more than 10 times by force. Worst country ever.
halloween1985 1 year ago
she's so beautiful with that hair cut and colour...
debesef 1 year ago
gay straight its all the same, there are no more line! - jay and silent bob strike back
lmr9890 1 year ago
who gives a shit...its 2010, gay people are out in the world...SO GET OVER IT!!!!
thenameisjoshh 1 year ago 3
I've always loved Mandy. She's not afraid to be herself. I respect her for that. And I'm glad us gays have her support. You rock Mandy!
pantopal 1 year ago 4
i love this woman
mrchrister886 1 year ago
homosexuality is nature's answer to overpopulation. The world has a very beautiful and natural way of solving our problems. we need to let go of the wheel, and let it take control.
rbecks1988 1 year ago
Then why was homosexuality much more prevelant millions of years ago when the human population was much lower than it is today when we have the largest population ever?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Because over the millions of years, society has grown highly dependant on religious beliefs and choked down homosexuality, and it's effects on the population.
rbecks1988 1 year ago
But wait. Religion has also existed for thoudands (sorry the last post should have read thousands not millions) of years. So why was homosexuality more prevelant then than now?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
if youre talking about ancient greece its because it was sucha social norm. Gay marriage was legal thousands of years ago. I think when people started finding this out around the 1800's or so they made a big deal of it because at that time homosexuality was considered a sin. I hope we can get back to a society where we can accept people for who they are.
imnevermakingavideo 1 year ago
Same-sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until 2001.
People already accept people for who they are, but that doesn't mean we accept what they do.
Besides, sexuality can and does change. So it does not define who someone is.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
The point is not if you accept it. The point is why you do you get more say over another's person's life then they do when they aren't hurting anyone?
Not to mention saying one accepts another for who they are but doesnt' want that person to do anything in regards to who they are just sounds like a cop out.
sorry but it really does,
booley 1 year ago
I don't get more say over it. I never said I did or should. 1 person 1 vote.
Really? A cop out? What if one of your loved ones were an alcoholic or a drug user? Would you accept them as a person? If so, does that mean you must also accept their addiction?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 But why do you get any vote at all in other people's lives when it has no effect on you?
I dont' get a vote in other people's marriages. Especially when I don't even know them.
And drug addiction is harmful. It does affect others in a negative way. It' s inherently harmful.
Being gay is benign. Marrying someone of the same gender is not harmful. In fact, it does a lot of good for many people.
Addiction and being gay are not the same or even comparable
booley 1 year ago
Wait a second... are you telling me that if same-sex "marriage" is legalized then only homosexuals will be able to "marry" the same sex? Why... that's unequal treatment! They would be able to marry either gender, while heterosexuals would only be able to marry the opposite gender.
Those are inherently harmful, and so is homosexuality. The Center for Disease Control found that homosexuality is more unhealthy than cigarettes and alcohol.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "are you telling me that if same-sex "marriage" is legalized then only homosexuals will be able to "marry" the same sex?"
Oh so that's willful obtuseness looks like.
I mean since i never said that ONLY gay people could marry the one they love and you're making a straw man.
"The Center for Disease Control found that homosexuality is more unhealthy than cigarettes and alcohol."
That not what the CDC said. Isn't false witness a sin in the bible?
booley 1 year ago
No I'm asking a serious question. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized, then will it only apply to homosexuals?
Well of course the CDC isn't going to say it outright that homosexuality is unhealthier than smoking, because it would hurt the anti-smoking campaign and cause the homosexual activists to flip out and protest. No, the CDC's method is more roundabout. They state the risks of smoking and homosexuality separately. Let's compare:
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "I'm asking a serious question. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized, then will it only apply to homosexuals?"
Then seriously No. There won't be another separate form of marriage. Same Sex marriage means that gays can marry each other. Straight couples already have the right to marry who they choose.
"the CDC isn't going to say it outright that homosexuality is unhealthier than smoking"
Or because that was NOT what they were saying.
Unlike you I've read the report.
booley 1 year ago
Ah so then you admit that if the marriage law were to change it would affect my rights directly. So since that is the case, shouldn't I have a say in the matter? Shouldn't I have the right to vote on an issue that affects my rights?
And I beg your pardon, but straights don't have the right to marry whom they choose. We have the same right as everyone else, to marry 1 consenting human adult of the opposite sex who is not closely related by blood.
Oh? What report is that?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "then you admit that if the marriage law were to change it would affect my rights directly."
Only if you're planning on marrying someone of the same sex, as i and others have explained almost ad infinitum.
This seems to be th e3rd post in a row where you're point requires willful obtuseness.
booley 1 year ago
Well what kind of "right" is that? I only have it if I plan on using it? So does that mean I don't have a 2nd Amendment right unless I plan to buy a gun? No no, either I have the right or I don't. So which is it? If redefining marriage means a new liberty for ME, then you must admit that the redefinition affects me directly, in which case I should have a say in the matter. If it doesn't affect me, then I have no say, but then I'd have no right to same-sex "marriage" while homosexuals would.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Rights are by definition choices.
You can assemble or not assemble. You can speak or keep silent.
The point is you decide for yourself, the choice isn't forced upon you.
Rights however are not zero sum nor finite like a pie.
IF someone speaks does not mean you lose the right to speak. IF gays can get marry that doesn't mean your right to marry a consenting adult is reduced or eliminated.
Your argument is frankly absurd.
booley 1 year ago
Actually rights are privileges and immunities by definition. The 4th Amendment says I can't be searched or have my property seized unless police have a rational reason and a judge agrees. Now, that demands no choice on my part.
Also, don't detract from the point. Even if I choose not to exercise my rights, that doesn't mean I don't have those rights. The rights still apply to me regardless of my choice. So back to my point. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized will that right apply to me or not?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
No, rights are not privileges. By definition they cannot be.
For one, unlike a right, privileges can be taken away
For another, a right has value in that everyone has them. A privilege on the other hand has value because only some may possess it.
& you still have not shown that if gays get married your rights are reduced. Probably because you can't show that since your rights aren't reduced just because someone else has that same right.
booley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@booley sorry that should read "you can't show that your rights are reduced just because someone else has that same right."
booley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 Sorry that last part should read "you can't show that your rights are reduced just because someone else has that same right."
booley 1 year ago
So I have to quote the dictionary now? "Privilege: any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people." I guess the people who wrote the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution were mistaken too, right?
Only some may possess it? That's a basic and narrow definition of the word yes, but the rights we have as Americans fit that definition as well. We have privileges that people in other countries don't have.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Not sure what dictionary you are using. Mine lists the defintion of privilege as :a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people : education is a right, not a privilege | he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.
something regarded as a rare opportunity and bringing particular pleasure
Everybody seems to know what privilege means but you
booley 1 year ago
Dictionary(dot)com. Also, your definition is only one of several. Oh and by the way, even if "privilege" didn't fit the definition of "right", it would still be closer than your answer of "choice". But this is beside the point. Can we agree on the term "legal entitlement" as being a right?
Now in regard to lesbians, they too need a catalyst. A piece of plastic/rubber in the shape of a specific body part of a male. Thus their relationship type is also unnatural.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Let's use a concept I'm sure we'll both agree on. A right is a legal entitlement. How's that?
Okay, so we have estabished that a right is not based on choice, it just so happens that we Americans are legally entitled to specific choices (A.K.A. freedom/liberty). We are ALSO legally entitled to protections based on specific inborn traits, such as skin color. Well this is where we get back to the original point. It does matter if sexuality is a choice, because if it is, it's not protected.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "so we have estabished that a right is not based on choice,"
No we have established no such thing because rights are dependent on the ability to choose whether to use them or not.
And you continue to put up a straw man. IF others can do what you now take for granted, then that does not mean you lose that right.
booley 1 year ago
Dude, you have no clue what a right is. Are you saying that a choice is required in order for a right to be afforded someone? That I have to make the choice to buy a gun if I am to have a 2nd Amendment right?
I already said I will answer your question when you answer mine about me having a say in the matter of marriage's definition. So answer me so I can answer back and win this debate for the conservative right.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 " Are you saying that a choice is required in order for a right to be afforded someone? "
No I am saying that the ability to choose is required before one call something a right.
The freedom to do what you're told isnt' really a freedom.
I already answered your question. problem was it was a loaded question based on a flawed premise so I didn't give you the answer you wanted.
& I dont' really care if you "answer" me or not.
booley 1 year ago
You didn't answer it because it would defeat your argument. If marriage is redefined it will affect my rights directly, therefore I should have a say in whether it gets redefined or not. The super majority of Americans feel the same way, and that same super majority also feels that marriage should remain as it has for thousands of years, between 1 man and 1 woman. You lose.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "If marriage is redefined it will affect my rights directly,"
IF that's what you want to beleive.
But by your logic you are interfering with my free speech because you keep responding with your own.
And ad populum is a fallacious argument. Something isnt' right or wrong because it's popular. & since gay marriage is becoming more accepted then by your same logic that would make it right.
booley 1 year ago
Responding with my own speech doesn't change any laws regarding your speech. Changing the marriage laws affects my right to marry directly.
And ya know what? I'm taking the offensive now. Let's follow your illogic, shall we? According to you, chaning the marriage law doesn't affect anyone else's rights because those people wouldn't choose to marry in the new way provided by the new definition. Therefore we can legalize polygamous, incestuous, child/adult, human/animal "marriage" too.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Now then, I have not answered your questions about what rights of mine are reduced because you have not answered my question. You answer mine first, and then I will tell you what rights of mine are reduced by same-sex "marriage" being legalized.
My question to you was, if same-sex "marriage" is legalized, will I as a heterosexual then have the right to marry one consenting human adult of the same sex who is not of close blood relationship, or will this right only apply to homosexuals?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "will this right only apply to homosexuals?"
That's a straw man. Having same sex marriage would not mean the creation of a special right. It would the extension to gays of rights already enjoyed by heterosexuals.
If you want to live in a marriage with someone you don't want to be married too, that's your choice. But it has nothing to do with whether millions of gay couples should be kept from marrying someone they do want to be with.
booley 1 year ago
Actually it wouldn't be the extension to homosexuals the rights already enjoyed by heterosexuals, because homosexuals can get married anywhere in America now. All they have to do is marry in the same way any heterosexual would, to one consenting human adult of the opposite sex who is not of close blood relationship. So they already have equal rights. This wasn't my question though. Answer my question and then I'll show you where the special rights come in to this.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Your analysis ignores a little detail..
While straight people can get married to another adult that they are romantically attracted too, gay people cannot unless same sex marriage is legal.
It kind of blows your point to dust.
Being able to conform and be just like every body else even if it kills you isn't really what most would call freedom.
booley 1 year ago
Now, you answered that question. You said that I would have that right. So here is my real question:
Seeing as how a legalization of same-sex "marriage" would affect me and my rights directly, then doesn't that mean I should have a say in whether the institution of marriage is redefined or not?
Answer that and then I will answer your question.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 Sorry that last part should read "you can't show that your rights are reduced just because someone else has that same right."
booley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"IF someone speaks does not mean you lose the right to speak. IF gays can get marry that doesn't mean your right to marry a consenting adult is reduced or eliminated."
^Strawman is made of straw.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Risks of Homosexuality: AIDS, Staphylococcus, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, Parasites, Proctitus, Shigellosis, Anal Cancer, etc. And that can happen from one experience. This is also excluding all the emotional and psychological problems.
Risks of smoking: Lung/throat cancer, respiratory degradation, heart disease, and possibly allergies. And that's only possible after years of smoking.
And guess what population is most likely to smoke...
Homosexuals.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "Risks of Homosexuality: "
No those are risks of unprotected sex.
I hate to break this to you but straight people get those diseases as well.
booley 1 year ago
Unprotected sex is a major practice of the homosexual population, as evident by their high infection rate.
Heterosexuals can get those diseases, but their risk factor is much lower. This is because there are far less heteros who have those diseases than homosexuals. Again, this goes back to sex practices. Heteros typically do not engage in sexual activities unless they have dated the person for quite a while, and many don't have sex at all until marriage. We're also better about protection.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "Unprotected sex is a major practice of the homosexual population, as evident by their high infection rate."
You affirming the consequent.
Being gay doesn't mean one can't or won't use a condom.
Not to mention you dont' seem to know much about hetero sexual practices.
booley 1 year ago
Sure I do. Heterosexuals can get the same STDs, but it is more difficult for them since people are physically compatible with the same sex. When people do that with the same sex however, they are not compatible, and thus physical damage is done to the body, thus increasing the risk of infection.
And yes, it has been stated by homosexual community leaders that safe sex and monogamy are considered an affront to the homosexual philosophy, which is about having no sexual restraints.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "Heterosexuals can get the same STDs, but it is more difficult for them since people are physically compatible with the same sex."
Now you're just making up shit whole cloth.
STDs have no problem what so ever infecting people from one gender to the other.
& if monogamy is an "affront" to "homosexual philosophy" then why would gays want to get married and be monogamous to one partner?!
You are making less and less sense.
booley 1 year ago
No, it is a biological fact that a penis is physically compatible with a vagina. Fluids are produced which lubricate the moving parts thus preventing friction between the flesh of the sexual parts involved. That way, fissures in the flesh will not be created. Without that, the chances of contracting an STD are far less. Not so with males, who do not produce any kind of lubrication able to reduce friction. Thus fissures are created and infection is assured either to or from the fissures.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Comment removed
booley 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Not all Gay men engage in Anal Sex
Those that do use LUBE
Nothing about being gay precludes one from using protection.
And your argument doesn't even address LESBIANS or that one of the fastest growing demographics for HIV in the US are Straight Black Women. In fact, Globally, more heteros have HIV then Gays. (not surprising since there are more straights then gay men)
IF you are going to try to use science, at least learn what the science is first.
booley 1 year ago
Using manufactured lube indicates that the sexual relationship requires a catalyst. Thus it is unnatural by definition.
As I've said, one of the core philosophies of the homosexual community is that safe sex practices be disregarded since they restrict physical satisfaction.
"Fastest growing" does not equal "most infected". It simply means a significant percentage of black women have been infected over a short period of time.
Oh I am going to clown you so bad in my next post...
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "As I've said, one of the core philosophies of the homosexual community is that safe sex practices be disregarded since they restrict physical satisfaction."
And you would be wrong. (BTW straight people ALSO use Lube)
And you just undermined your argument because if what you said was so then gay people wouldn't care if they could get married or not.
Again, reality disagrees with you.
booley 1 year ago
And why would they use lube? They find it pleasurable to waste their money on things they don't need?
Like I told you last time, homosexuals are not looking to settle down and be monogamous. They are looking to redefine marriage and use it to justify their perverted sexuality. Same with open service in the military. They don't care about serving their country or sacrificing for it. They are just looking to use it as a political tool to gain social acceptance.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
So you point out that globally there are more heterosexuals with HIV than homosexuals, then admit the only reason why is because there are more heterosexuals. So you just defeated your own argument for me. As for science and my grasp of it, I am referring to percentages. That is the number of infection cases within a particular population. Homosexuals have the highest percentage in the world, 50%. That means a homosexual male who has unprotected sex has a 50-50 chance of getting HIV. Believe it!
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 I didnt' say numbers was the only reason but it is a reason.
Nor does this in any way defeat my argument that gays are as capable of using safe sex as straights or that STDs can in fact straights as readily as gays.
& 50% of gay men don't have HIV, though half of all those w/HIV are women
Though even you now admit it's the UNPROTECTED sex that's that's the problem.
booley 1 year ago
No they can't infect heteros as readily because biology shows that people are physically compatible with the opposite sex and incompatible with the same sex. Also, the percentage of heterosexuals who carry STDs is much lower than the percentage of homosexuals who carry STDs.
So no, all that crap you heard about HIV and other STDs being "equal opportunity infectors" was nothing but a pack of lies.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "all that crap you heard about HIV and other STDs being "equal opportunity infectors" was nothing but a pack of lies."
Besides that every credible health worker and study disagrees with you, there's also the problem that numerically of the hundreds of millions of straight people with STDs.
But you're right in that someone is trying to sell a pack of lies.
booley 1 year ago
They can disagree all they want. It doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. If homosexuals carry STDs in a higher percentage than heterosexuals, then yes homosexuals have a higher chance of contracting those diseases. It's basic math.
Hundreds of millions of straights? You do realize that there are only about 300 million people total in the U.S. right? Besides, the number of homos with STDs is greater than the number of heteros, despite the fact they make up only 5% of the population.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 "You do realize that there are only about 300 million people total in the U.S. right?"
You do realize there are 7 billion people on the planet, right?
But in any case, if you think gays are prone to STDs and the way to safeguard against STDs is being abstinate until one enters marriage, by your own logic, we should have same sex marriage.
booley 1 year ago
I will correct something though. Homosexual males don't have a 50-50 chance of getting HIV. I was in error. Just because 50% of the total number of HIV infection cases in America are homosexual does not mean that 50% of homosexual males have HIV. I got ahead of myself. My bad.
However, even when using protection there is still some risk of contracting multiple STDs including HIV.
Obviously the best option is what the Bible states. Abstinence until marriage followed by faithfulness in marriage.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 OF course America is NOT the world and globally the HIV demographics are quite different.
But any getting back to the original topic, You did say something interesting...
"he best option is what the Bible states. Abstinence until marriage followed by faithfulness in marriage."
Assuming you actually believe that then clearly your should support gay marriage.
booley 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 You have alot more ot correct then that. But good start.
However assuming you believe, that gays are more likely to get an STD and should not be promiscuous then when you also say "the best option is what the Bible states. Abstinence until marriage followed by faithfulness in marriage."
You pretty much just made a religious case to support gay marriage.
Congrats.
booley 1 year ago
Actually I made a medically sound argument for 1 man 1 woman marriage. If you wish to talk about Biblical arguments we can do that. Jesus said marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman as well. So where are your retorts for these two arguments?
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 You brought up the Bible, not me.
And you didnt' make a an argument for 1/man/1 woman marriage. much less a medically sound one.
but if you want to bring up the Bible (which is not a basis for US law but anyway) then:
Where did Jesus ever say that marriage could not be between two of the same sex? (and dont' quote Paul. I 'm talking Jesus)
and what about that bearing false witness thing?
booley 1 year ago
But you're the one who legitimized the Biblical argument by saying I had made a case in favor of same-sex "marriage". So now you say it's not legitimate because it proves you wrong? Classic liberal tactic. Use it if it supports you, reject it as invalid if it doesn't.
The medical argument said that people should remain virgins until marriage and then remain faithful in marriage. That is for the 1 man 1 woman union, not same sex unions. Again, homosexuality is about breaking sexual restraints.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "you're the one who legitimized the Biblical argument by saying I had made a case in favor of same-sex "marriage"."
No I used YOUR logic which you made clear was biblically based.
booley 1 year ago
No I showed it was medically based. Then I simply pointed out that it is consistent with what God told man thousands of years before medical science existed.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
"I showed it was medically based."
No you said it was medically based. But what you did was make a lot of ignorant assumptions about gay people, eventually get forced into admitting that it was the unprotected sex not being gay that led to STDs and then unwittingly make an argument in favor of gay marriage.
I think when it comes to medicine I'll listen to doctors rather then you. Especially when you can't even be consistent.
booley 1 year ago
It's not just the unprotected sex, seeing as how heterosexuals also have unprotected sex. The problem is mostly the fact that the human body is not physically compatible with the same sex, and because the group think of the homosexual community promotes promiscuity. You have failed to reply to these facts yet again.
All you're doing is reading what you want and then blocking out the rest of what I write. Ignoring the facts may help you hold on to your delusion, but it won't win this debate.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 "the human body is not physically compatible with the same sex" - Are you talking about procreation here?
"homosexual community promotes promiscuity" - That's like saying homosexuals cheat, but straight couples don't...????
mrrawrlicious 1 year ago
I'm talking about all aspects of human physiology and psychology.
No, that's like saying homosexuals promote having multiple and many sex partners, while heterosexuals promote having one and only one for life.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051
What are those aspects?
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, how do homosexuals promote having more sexual partners? And since when do heterosexuals promote one and only one, you're clearly confused between the words promiscuity and marriage.
mrrawrlicious 1 year ago
@mrrawrlicious " how do homosexuals promote having more sexual partners?"
A while ago beleiveit said that monogamy is against the "homosexual philosophy"
Though when asked, he never did explain why then do so many gay people want to enter in an institution that's all about monogamy.
booley 1 year ago
@booley Yet what is so philosophical about being homosexual, or being a man is truly willing to spend his entire life devoted to another man. What is so philosophical about love? I can't understand why he doesn't understand that we're all just struggling to get by here. We're not shoving anything down his throat here, and neither do we plan to make him dike it up with another man in a stall somewhere. Our revolutions are about freedom, not vengeance...
mrrawrlicious 1 year ago
@mrrawrlicious
I can' t get into his head.
But my best educated guess, he has a view of the world and happy sane healthy gay people who just want to be in love and happy doesn't fit in that world
booley 1 year ago
Because homosexuality is a rejection of natural sex and natural love. The driving force behind the movement dictates that one must rebel against sexual restraints, such as morality (Biblical morality in particular) and monogamy.
Since when? Uh, you know that thing we call "cheating"? You know that thing we call "adultery"? Since then. Besides, when it comes to marriage we are talking about an institution created by God for man and woman, who were also created by God. So those are the rules.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 What is natural love? Please tell me what it is. Tell me what love is.
And you're saying Heterosexuals don't cheat or commit adultery? You're telling me lil Wayne doesn't rap about shoving his penis up against 5 other women in his songs? You're telling me Tiger Woods didn't have an affair with another woman, when he was clearly married to another? You're telling me my own father did not cheat on my mother, with those wedding photos with him kissing this other woman?
mrrawrlicious 1 year ago
Matthew 19:4-6 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Jesus said marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, that God is the one who made this, and man cannot negate this.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "Matthew 19:4-6 ..blah blah blah"
Except that Jesus isnt' sayign that a marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, only that marriage can be and usually is. So where does Jesus say that two men can NEVER be married? (never mind that this academic. the law isnt' based on the bible)
Though personally I think Romans 13:10 is more relevant "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
booley 1 year ago
Oh you're so right. Jesus didn't say "thou shalt not...", so that must mean it's okay to go against the ONE and ONLY marriage type he stated as being valid. It's okay to marry the same sex just like how it's okay to marry children, multiple people, animals, objects, close family members, and anything else we can think of, and it's all because Jesus didn't say we couldn't. Great argument.
Jesus said "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder". That means no redefinition of marriage.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Same sex marriage doesnt' go against opposite gender marriage at all.
No more then you eating steak goes against me having a salad.
Despite numerous weak attempts at defining this as somehow discriminating against you, you have failed to prove that is so.
"What God hath joined together let not man put asunder". That means no redefinition of marriage."
No that means no divorce. Jesus never said anything about same sex marriage. But he did mention divorce.
booley 1 year ago
Yes it does. To use your analogy, my steak and your salad must come from somewhere. Marriage is like a serving dish. You can only serve one type of food in it. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would be like throwing salad in with steak. Though a more accurate analogy would be "like throwing fecal matter in with steak".
I failed to prove it so because I have refused to answer you until you answered my question to you. So answer my question already.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 "To use your analogy, my steak and your salad must come from somewhere. Marriage is like a serving dish."
Wait so there's only so much "marriage" to go around? IF too many people get married then they have to go out ands buy more marriage? Make marriage in a factory? Grow it on a marriage farm?
That wasn't my analogy at all.
booley 1 year ago
Hey, it's your analogy. I got steak, you got salad. How does the idea of running out of food not apply to your analogy? In any case, you're getting off topic. I never said there was some quantity to marriage, I said that it comes from one source. So adding other foods to the source ruins what's in it. Marriage is not a melting pot and it's not a buffet table. It's one thing and one thing only. If we all just went around ignoring the definitions of words then we'd all sound as stupid as you.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 Marriage is one thing, it is an expression of love. Don't make stupid insults against us, when you are in no position to. If you fail to understand that, than please do us all a favour and get off the politics that's corrupting your mind, and see why love is so beautiful in the natural world.
mrrawrlicious 1 year ago
True love only exists between 1 man and 1 woman. Believe it!
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "True love only exists between 1 man and 1 woman."
And this is why you continue to fail, regardless of how many obtuse and long winded posts you make.
Because you can't (I should say won't) even recognize the basic humanity of gay couples. You fail factually, ethically and MORALLY.
Fortunately fewer and fewer people have your blindness. and all your endless ranting won't change reality.
BELIEVE IT.
booley 1 year ago
Jesus said nothing of same-sex "marriage" because there's no such thing. He said nothing of marrying the Eiffel Tower either, but someone did that a while back. What Jesus did was lay out the one and only plan for marriage, that a man marry his wife, they be one flesh, and not get divorced.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
Homosexuality is sin, therefore encouraging people to reject it is love.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BelieveIt1051 "Homosexuality is sin, therefore encouraging people to reject it is love."
No because:
1. Being gay is nto inherently harmful
2. People who are gay are generally happier when they accept themselves.
and 3. Gay people historically have felt shame, loneliness and led much more difficult lives because the prejudice against them. People like you cause harm and call it love. But that doesn't make it love. Quite the opposite.
booley 1 year ago
1. False. Homosexuality causes all who choose it to be unable to have children. It also exposes them to the highest risk of a plethora of mental and physical disorders and diseases.
2. False. The Netherlands has embraced homosexuality, yet their homosexuals are more likely to abuse alcohol and commit suicide.
3. False. Homosexuals have been accepted in other countries even in ancient times, but those countries quickly fell because of it. God said homosexuality is sin. Opposing it must be love.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago
@BelieveIt1051 "Homosexuality causes all who choose it to be unable to have children."
Apparently not counting the ones who have kids.& what about het couples who dont' have kids?
"It also exposes them to the highest risk of a plethora of mental and physical disorders and diseases."
Not according to every credible medical study. You are again confusing being gay with having unprotected sex (which some young gay men alas do.)
Again, bearing false witness.
booley 1 year ago
Name one same-sex couple that has procreated. What about the opposite-sex couples who cannot procreate? That isn't a result of their relationship type, and that's what we're talking about here. What type of relationship type qualifies for marriage? Seeing as how one of the major reasons for marriage's existance in the first place is to create a stable basis for procreation, obviously a relationship type where procreation is impossible does not qualify.
BelieveIt1051 1 year ago