JoeFerguson Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 I'm glad you can only refute this one point, it goes to show that I was dead on with my previous post. I'm not going to provide links to that information. A master debater like you surely knows how to use google or yahoo. There are plenty of sites that discuss the damage that can be done by anal sex. As for the attack on me, it goes to show that you are threatened by a rational argument against gay marriage. It's probably because you have yet to be able to do anything but challenge what I'm saying. I have no personal experience with the subject matter other than having been frequently woken up by the violent sound of gay "love" between neighbors at a prior residence. JF's master debating skills = Waaah! MichFan called me a lib. Waah! MichFan said anal sex is abusive. Waah! Where's the study? Waah, waah, waah! 125762[/snapback] You're right. You beat me. I am such an idiot. The attack on you was based on responses I've read from you on this entire board, not just this one thread. You're obnoxious and it has nothing to do with your stance on any issue, it's the way you present yourself.
MichFan Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 You're right. You beat me. I am such an idiot. The attack on you was based on responses I've read from you on this entire board, not just this one thread. You're obnoxious and it has nothing to do with your stance on any issue, it's the way you present yourself. JF - based on the quality of your posts I can tell you're not an idiot. With regards to my posts being obnoxious -- some in this topic have been to make a point. Most everyone around here uses sarcasm and extremist positions at times in that manner. Tennyboy makes/made a living out of it. Many of my posts have presented the case against gay marriage from my perspective in a mature manner. We've been baiting each other back and forth with our posts and I didn't know if you were doing it for fun or because you were personally bothered. Obviously it was the latter. Sorry that my comments regarding you have pissed you off so much. At the same time, I stand by my positions on gay marriage and will agressively debate based on my obviously strong opinions on the issue. I don't think anything I've said in the most extreme form is outside the realm of typical PPP banter. I also believe I have thrown out plenty of red meat for debate on the issue which can't be said of everyone taking shots at this topic.
GG Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 How about:- society for at least the last couple of thousand years has defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman - a man and a woman are the only two that can come together naturally and make a family - approx. 70% of those given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage have voted against it - the act of anal sex is unnatural, unhealthy, and in many cases both physically and psychologically abusive to those who succumb to it - homosexuality (followed by bisexuality) ignited the spread of one of the largest public health disasters of our time (HIV/AIDS) Huh, I guess I can. 125112[/snapback] Note that I mentioned civil unions, not marriage, and your answers again were from a moral standpoint, which has a religious foundation. Thus, my original question still stands.
MichFan Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 Note that I mentioned civil unions, not marriage, and your answers again were from a moral standpoint, which has a religious foundation. Thus, my original question still stands. Some differentiate between the two (civil unions and marriage), others don't. My points apply to both. With regards to a religious foundation: - society for at least the last couple of thousand years has defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman Society over this timeframe has also included atheists, the definition precedes Christianity, and it is practiced among most every society on the planet regardless of religion. - a man and a woman are the only two that can come together naturally and make a family Are you suggesting religion is behind why it takes a sperm and an egg to create life, only men have sperm, and only women have eggs? - approx. 70% of those given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage have voted against it And now religion is the basis of our voting system? Missed the memo on voting at my local church instead of my library. Hope they still counted it... - the act of anal sex is unnatural, unhealthy, and in many cases both physically and psychologically abusive to those who succumb to it I have described in previous posts the physiological basis which this comment was based upon with no need to reference any world religion. - homosexuality (followed by bisexuality) ignited the spread of one of the largest public health disasters of our time (HIV/AIDS) So now you are buying into the thought that God placed HIV/AIDS on the earth to punish gays? I thought only religious freaks felt that way. I thought you disagreed with the religious freaks. GG, there is not even a hint of morality or religion in these points. Try to avoid the kneejerk liberal reaction of taking wehatever conservative points you can't debate on gay marriage and accusing those making them of violating the separation of church and state. I have intentionally stayed away from that in this topic.
GG Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 Some differentiate between the two (civil unions and marriage), others don't. My points apply to both. With regards to a religious foundation: Society over this timeframe has also included atheists, the definition precedes Christianity, and it is practiced among most every society on the planet regardless of religion. Societies have been all over the place as to a monogomous union between a man a woman. My understanding is that sanctioned marriage was largely a religious institution, and most folk in Western society simply lived together and that's why common law was the rule of the land for administering property and transfers. As to other religions, why aren't you bringing up the rampant polygamy in other cultures defending the monogomous marriage? Are you suggesting religion is behind why it takes a sperm and an egg to create life, only men have sperm, and only women have eggs? To me this is a moral POV that is influenced by the Judeo Christian ethos of being fruitful & multiplying invoked during the wedding ceremonies. Last I checked, you don't need to be married to create life. Thus, why do you need to procreate to be in a civil union? Should infertile couples be denied benefits of civil unions? And now religion is the basis of our voting system? Missed the memo on voting at my local church instead of my library. Hope they still counted it... Care to do a survey what the rationale behind those votes is? Judging by the small sampling of the responses to this thread, I'd bet that moral reasons would be at the top. I have described in previous posts the physiological basis which this comment (in re unnatural acts) was based upon with no need to reference any world religion. Are you saying every gay relationship is based on abuse? is every straight relationship based on rape? So now you are buying into the thought that God placed HIV/AIDS on the earth to punish gays? I thought only religious freaks felt that way. I thought you disagreed with the religious freaks. And heterosexually transmitted diseases have been the cause of various health epidemics throughout our lifetime, while heterosexually transmitted AIDS in Africa is the proverbial white elephant in the world right now. BTW, wouldn't allowing civil unions among gays actually slow down the promiscuity prevalent in the gay community? GG, there is not even a hint of morality or religion in these points. Try to avoid the kneejerk liberal reaction of taking wehatever conservative points you can't debate on gay marriage and accusing those making them of violating the separation of church and state. I have intentionally stayed away from that in this topic. 126154[/snapback] Again, I spoke about civil unions, not marriage, and asked for a reason other than morality why they shouldn't be allowed?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 Many of the laws of the Old Testament dealt with the old covenant with God and his people. Many of those laws became not applicable when Jesus came along with the new covenant. Sounds like God flipflopped....... 126619[/snapback] I knew Jesus wore sandels, NOW flip-flops!? Sure he didn't where "rooster-roach killers?" On a still lighter note. I always like the saying for something that is real far away: "From here to where Jesus left his shoes!"
SJ Bills backer Posted November 23, 2004 Author Posted November 23, 2004 What you are missing is that B.S. like this is designed to divert your attention from issues that REALLY affect YOU,and I. I really don't give a rat's ass if gay people want to exchange bodily fluids by brute force by whatever means.It has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever.I've been happily married for almost 15 years,No f**king b.s. legislation is going to change that one way,or the other...... Mind your own Goddamn business. Like the 'burning of the flag' issue,(It's my constitutional free speech to kick flag burner's asses)it's a ruse designed to piss you off and make you think that these pink ass,scum,do nothing rat bastards (both parties) who run our government are actually doing something meaningful when in fact they are just pulling a rhetorical cluster f*u*c*k on you,and I. Think about it folks.Think about it long,and hard........ 125795[/snapback] exactamundo - you are a bright man... may the rays of enlightenment continue to shine upon you, BfloBart
Recommended Posts