MA KO's Ban on Gay marriages

[ktangelprncss]

Denying te rights of gays is wrong! It's just as bad as back in the 50's when there were the jim crow laws. everyone deserves equal rights! If you love someone you should be able to legally marry them, unless you're too young. Although i'm straight, I have abesoutely nothing against gays! It's just a diffrent lifestyle than mine, whay should I be aginist it? I just wish the world was just free of predjudisim.
P.S. It's great to see so many people here who are so open-minded about it! In my school most people object it, they think there's somthing wrong with me cuz I think its morally right to accept it.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Deedlit [/i]
[B][color=009966]And who's to say that gay people don't love each other enough to get married?

I don't approve of gay marriages, but people are given the free agency to do as they will, and if they love each other so much that they want to get married, then let them. The government should not try to prevent it since they're the ones that are always looking for ways to "uphold the constitution", and this ban violates that.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=deeppink]Did you even read my whole post? You do know that I'm the one who put this up here right?
Sorry, sometimes I get defensive.
[/COLOR]

[Arcadia]

[size=1]I don't think anybody's said this yet, and it's a valid point in my opinion, so here I go.

I think most will agree that the idea that gay marriage is wrong is based in religious beliefs. For our government to make laws out of those beliefs is absolutely ridiculous - what happened to the seperation between church and state?

And to say that it's "man's natural inclination" isn't true at all. Check out half the other countries in the world - granted, most of them are what we like to think of as "third world countries" and are thus "inferior" to us (note the sarcasm), but they do it. Are you to say that it's not natural then, when they're the closest to primitive we've been in quite some time? In fact, you could argue that man has only had sex in your "natural" way for these thousands of years because it was the only way they could reproduce and keep on living.

In fact, in a lot of countries, marriage isn't about love at all - it's about financial/social/political stability. If you ask any anthropologist what marriage is, they'll tell you it's the right to have sexual relations with another person. When you look at it that way, it's pretty "natural".[/size]

[SadClown]

What countries are you talking about specifically because there are quite a few third world countries who have much more strict laws than we do and only a handfull who are more leniant. All I have to say about the whole religion this is Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel...then what?

[Arcadia]

[size=1]The best example I can think of would be the Trobriand Islanders, from Africa, I believe. Most of Africa, in fact, could probably qualify for this. Woman/woman marriages are sometimes preferred in some of these sub-Saharan societies because it actually gives them more freedom. Some Native Americans actually celebrate those with "two spirits".

As for the thing about religion.. I think you kind of missed my point. Let me explain it better. The idea that marriage is a holy sanction between a man and a woman comes from religious ideology. To hold the nation's standard at that, then, when it's clearly stated in the constitution that there is a definite seperation between what happens in the church and what happens in the state, seems a little hypocritical to me. It ought to be focused on the union of two people who [i]love[/i] each other, and not on the union of two people of the opposite sex.

I hope that helps to clear it up a little more.[/size]

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]Actually, they are fairly similar...

They both are unwanted, and both come from having unprotected sex.

The actual problem is highly different, but we are looking at issues rather than specifics.

TN was quite right... AIDS is a problem for homosexuals, like teen preganancy is for heteros. Of course there are differences, but there are also similarities. It is just something they struggle with.

Yet somehow AIDS is worse than teen pregnancies... because the :cough: methods are different. How fair is that? [/B][/QUOTE]

I am still standing by what I said earlier. AIDS is a problem for a vast majority of people and there is no cure, you can't just take a pill to get rid of it like you can with getting pregnant. I also doubt there are many people out there who consider pregnancy a disease (aside from like Carrie's mom)

Both though are usually caused by peoples carelessness.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arcadia [/i]
[B][size=1]I don't think anybody's said this yet, and it's a valid point in my opinion, so here I go.

I think most will agree that the idea that gay marriage is wrong is based in religious beliefs. For our government to make laws out of those beliefs is absolutely ridiculous - what happened to the seperation between church and state?

And to say that it's "man's natural inclination" isn't true at all. Check out half the other countries in the world - granted, most of them are what we like to think of as "third world countries" and are thus "inferior" to us (note the sarcasm), but they do it. Are you to say that it's not natural then, when they're the closest to primitive we've been in quite some time? In fact, you could argue that man has only had sex in your "natural" way for these thousands of years because it was the only way they could reproduce and keep on living.

In fact, in a lot of countries, marriage isn't about love at all - it's about financial/social/political stability. If you ask any anthropologist what marriage is, they'll tell you it's the right to have sexual relations with another person. When you look at it that way, it's pretty "natural".[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=royalblue]I definately have to go with Arcadia on this one. As long as history has been recorded there are records of marriage contracts. Basically no form of love, just money, conveniance and land.
There are some even more interesting stories to the whole arranged Marriage thing. I read this book called Royal scandles. Interesting stuff-King James the first of England was a bit of a flamer. As was Queen Mary who was 1/2 of the William and Mary monarchy.
Oh, and if you want more fun you can read this:
[i]SUMMARY: A psychologist claims that a group of lesbian monkeys in Japan shows that Darwin's theories of evolution are incorrect.

A psychologist claims that a group of lesbian monkeys in Japan shows that Darwin's theories of evolution are incorrect.

Paul Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, has been studying the sex lives of Japanese macaques.

According to Darwin's theory of sexual selection, said Vasey, the male monkeys should compete amongst themselves for access to potential mates -- but the macaques don't follow that pattern.

A colony of 120 wild macaques in the mountains in Kyoto shows enormous sexual diversity, including female-female relationships. Females will reject the advances of a pursuing male in favor of their existing female partner 92.5 percent of the time.

"If females are choosing female sexual partners over male reproductive partners," Vasey told the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "that suggests a pretty fundamental revision of sexual selection theory.

"We've got females that are competing for males with other females, we've got males that are being choosy, males that are sexually coercing females ... we've got females sexually harassing males that don't want to copulate with them, we've got females that have sex with each other, we've got females that are competing with males for other females, we have females that are mounting males."

Vasey said it is clear the females are deriving sexual pleasure when they mount other females. In some positions, he said, a female will rub her clitoris against her partner's back, while in others, "it's common for females to masturbate with their tails" where there is no direct genital contact.

"The traditional evolutionary theory says you do things in order to reproduce," he said, "so why would you do all this non-reproductive sex? To me, that's a really compelling evolutionary puzzle."[/i]

In conclusion, I don't think we'll ever understand what normal human (or animal) behavoir really is. We just understand what mainstream human behavoir is.[/COLOR]

[Boba Fett]

[COLOR=green]I support Gay marriage, simply because it's the right thing to do. How can you be so cruel as to deny two people who presumably love each other very much from legalizing their union? What right do you have to impose your opinions on them? It's not going to ruin your life, or affect you in any way.

It's sad that people would want to deny this to other people, who happen to be different.[/COLOR]

[Guest Hamster King]

ok,maybe my post was alittle over the top and not needed,but im still against it. Sure,give them the right to do it,but some people will still dislike it(like me).I do not hate the people who are gay,but i do hate what they do.*sigh* but i guess you guys are right,and they should be allowed to do it. ether way way,i still think its a bad thing. maybe the government brainwashed me.

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i]
[B][COLOR=green]I support Gay marriage, simply because it's the right thing to do. How can you be so cruel as to deny two people who presumably love each other very much from legalizing their union? [/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]
Following in that vain,
Who's to keep humans and animals from legalizing their union?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Following in that vain,
Who's to keep humans and animals from legalizing their union? [/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=crimson]Wow! How did you get so amazingly stupid?
Beastiality and Homosexuality [b][i]aren't[/i][/b] the same thing at all. Posts like that are just going to get this topic shut down.[/COLOR]

[Justin]

What of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel? They sinned, that's why they're humans. We do not worship them.

As for gay unions: A godly nation is blessed by the Lord. But it's obvious that America is not a godly nation. I say, let people do what they will do. I can't expect anyone who is not a part of my faith to act according to my faith, can I?

As I see it, one sin is the same as another. The idea of "lesser and greater" sins are just according to personal and society-based stigmas. Some sins are harder for me to combat than others. Some don't even appeal to me. That can be a personal disposition, or one imposed by society around me.

So, therefore...whatever. Personally, I define marriage as a union between a man and woman. But that's also how I define sex. Since that obviously doesn't matter, why should my definition of marriage?

Leaders cannot make nations godly ones if the people they lead do not follow them. Not that that matters to any of you, but if this were I godly nation, my answer to this question would be different.

-Justin

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][COLOR=crimson]Wow! How did you get so amazingly stupid?Beastiality and Homosexuality [b][i]aren't[/i][/b] the same thing at all.
[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]
I was following everyone's logic.
"Two things love eachother, It's a free country, let them do it!"
There's nothing in your DNA that makes you gay, it's a life style.
So is Beastiality.
You can't dismiss someone saying they're prejudice to gays while you're prejudice to Beastiality.

[Dan L]

My view is pretty much the same as Justeh's here.

(funny that you posted it just as I was about to :p)

I see no reason why gay people can't get married. Marriage is just as much a pagan custom as it is a religious custom as it is a Christian-specific custom. In other words, marriage hasn't always been a Christian or Jewish thing, and it isn't only a Christian or Jewish thing.

So in terms of marriage for gays- I see no issue there, ie. there's not really a lot I can do about it because you don't believe as I do anyway.

However seeing as my God created man to be with woman, I would question the morals of any (Christian) Godly man sanctifying that unity in a religious sense.

This isn't a way of bashing you- this is a simple statement. My faith does not condone this sort of relationship, thus this sort of relationship should not be santified by someone of my faith. Much as I son't really like this analogy it's the only one I can think of- it's like going to the KKK to undergo some ceremony whereby you express your love for black people.

Now, the church shouldn't adopt a KKK approach towards gays- Jesus loves you regardless, and so should we- but the point is that we can respect your sexual orientation, but I ask only that you respect our beliefs and don't force us to sanctify a relationship we don't believe to be the will of our God.

Beyond that I see no issue with marriage in a legal sense. The law has elements of Godliness in it, but at the end of the day, the law is written for the people, and if the people aren't Godly, then the law of the land has no need to be.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]I was following everyone's logic.
"Two things love eachother, It's a free country, let them do it!"
There's nothing in your DNA that makes you gay, it's a life style.
So is Beastiality.
You can't dismiss someone saying they're prejudice to gays while you're prejudice to Beastiality. [/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=royalblue]You'll have to excuse me, my sarcasm is working over time tonight. Give me a good concrete example of how Beastiality is the same as Homosexuality and I'll give you my next paycheck.
Tell me, how can a dog give you anything but a completely platonic relationship? Does your dog ask you to hop into bed? I didn't think so.
Again, I do appologize for my sarcasm.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B]I see no reason why gay people can't get married. Marriage is just as much a pagan custom as it is a religious custom So in terms of marriage for gays- I see no issue there, ie. there's not really a lot I can do about it because you don't believe as I do anyway.

However seeing as my God created man to be with woman, I would question the morals of any (Christian) Godly man sanctifying that unity in a religious sense.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue]Paganism is a religion, they mention it as a religion in the military chaplin handbooks. However, this isn't a discussion on religion.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=darkblue]I do think that your argument about homosexuality not being condoned by Christianity is an interesting one. So I'm going to reply accordingly.
My husband's aunt is a lesbian. Her and her partner have been together for over ten years. They also attend a Lutheran church in the city of Rochester and are good friends with a pastor there. Maybe that really doesn't prove anything. But maybe that also proves that same sex couples aren't necessarily ungodly and scorned by members of the church.
Still on the church topic. There was a priest a few years back up in the Rochester Catholic diocese who was ratehr liberal. He not only condoned gay partnerships, he presided over their unions outside of church. Needless to say, he was ex-communicated, but he did what he thought was right.[/COLOR]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][COLOR=blue]Paganism is a religion, they mention it as a religion in the military chaplin handbooks. However, this isn't a discussion on religion.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=darkblue]I do think that your argument about homosexuality not being condoned by Christianity is an interesting one. So I'm going to reply accordingly.
My husband's aunt is a lesbian. Her and her partner have been together for over ten years. They also attend a Lutheran church in the city of Rochester and are good friends with a pastor there. Maybe that really doesn't prove anything. But maybe that also proves that same sex couples aren't necessarily ungodly and scorned by members of the church.
Still on the church topic. There was a priest a few years back up in the Rochester Catholic diocese who was ratehr liberal. He not only condoned gay partnerships, he presided over their unions outside of church. Needless to say, he was ex-communicated, but he did what he thought was right.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

Paganism [i]is[/i] a religion, but is also quite a broad definition, ie. that there are various forms of it. What I meant was it's a pagan custom as much as it's a religious custom- ie. Religions such as Islam, Hinduism, etc.

w.r.t. your point about the lesbian couple who are friends with a minister- there was a short thing I said in my post which may have gone un-noticed:

"Now, the church shouldn't adopt a KKK approach towards gays- Jesus loves you regardless, and so should we"

There is actually a gay couple living next door but one to us- and the guys who live next door, we're kind of in community with because we all do the same course at church, so I guess you could say they're just our neighbours. Anyway, They've been invited around for dinner a few times, because Jesus said one very important thing:

"Love your neighbour"

And he said that with reference to everyone being your neighbour.

Here's the thing:

It's not the [i]people[/i] which God doesn't condone, but the relationship itself. But then, we Christians have many areas of sin in our life which God does not condone- but we live by [i]grace[/i]. That means that despite our areas of sin, God still loves us.

The church shouldn't [i]sanctify[/i] it because God doesn't condone it. There are many areas of sin in the lives of many Christians, yet they don't go to church to have the preacher pray blessings over our sin. However they [i]do[/i] go to church to meet God, who loves despite our lifestyle.

Jesus showed love to a woman caught in adultery- I think if he met a gay man on his journeys (something unfortunate in the fact that he didn't), he would have shown the same love to him. A person's actions doesn't make them "condemnation fodder", however it [i]is[/i] important to realise that the actions themselves aren't condoned by God.

So.. that's the idea- love the [i]people[/i] but don't condone the sin. Welcome them in to the church, but don't give them any illusions about what your beliefs are. Believe me, you can still befriend a gay man or a lesbian woman, while believing that the relationship itself is not condoned, but not thinking a single condemnational thought about them.

[Justin]

I want to add on to Dan's last post...

He made the point that Jesus loves you regardless of anything. This is true. So, why should Christians have to change who they are if Jesus will love them anyway? Because we love Him too. It's often a slow process, but God makes His children better and closer to Him as they walk with Him.

Once again, myself and Dan are in perfect accord: You can easily love and condone the [i]person[/i] without condoning what they do. The easiest way to minister to the non-Christian is through the demonstration of the love of Christ. Perfect love. Love that knows no degree.

As for a minister who [i]does[/i] sanctify unbiblical marriages...he will plead his case before the Lord just like the rest of us. God will judge him at that time. I place those kind of things in the same catagory as the Spanish Inquisition and "killing for Christ"...they are the acts of men, not God. And the men who commit them in the name of God will(as I said above) plead their case before the Lord when it is time.

Anyway, I don't see much more use for me in this thread. Just to stae the fact, my PM inbox is always open, for those who may have questions.

-Justin

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]I was following everyone's logic.
"Two things love eachother, It's a free country, let them do it!"
There's nothing in your DNA that makes you gay, it's a life style.
So is Beastiality.
You can't dismiss someone saying they're prejudice to gays while you're prejudice to Beastiality. [/B][/QUOTE]

How can you say that "there's nothing in your DNA that makes you gay"? I doubt that you're a scientist, or that you've done significant research on this particular topic. I'm quite curious as to what knowledge allows you to state so confidently that homosexuality is a matter of choice. Please, enlighten me.

I'm speaking from personal experience when I tell you that no one [i]decides[/i] to suddenly become gay. Why would anyone want to be tormented at school? Why would anyone choose to lead a "lifestyle" that subjects him to the disappointment and disapproval of his closest friends and family? Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual can be [i]incredibly[/i] lonely and painful. Are you willing to stand behind your assertion that people choose their sexual orientations? If so, then why don't gays and lesbians simply turn straight when they're forced to face homophobia?

~Dagger~

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]I was following everyone's logic.
"Two things love eachother, It's a free country, let them do it!"
There's nothing in your DNA that makes you gay, it's a life style.
So is Beastiality.
You can't dismiss someone saying they're prejudice to gays while you're prejudice to Beastiality. [/B][/QUOTE]

There has been studies that show gay people have a different genes than straight people. Something along the XXY or XYY gene, while straight people have genes that differ. This is not the case in all persons studied, but in the majority.

Beastiality is NOT a life style. Beastilaity is having sex with animals. Usually done by people who can't get any from anyone else, gay or straight. Having sex with animals is done by people who need to get their rocks off... there is NO lifestyle involved.

This is about HUMANS loving one another.... different genes again.... this is a world run by HUMANS, we tend to do things that pretain to HUMANS. Gay people are HUMANS.... You think there's a key word here?.... this whole debate has nothing to with any other species by HUMANS. I dunno why anyone, stupid or not, would bring up animal sex..... not that it makes a difference, just make you look like the idiot here, not us.

Anyway, your sig is WAY to long. Please shorten it.

[Guest rttocs77]

Along the lines of banning gay marriages, I still don't see why the US Army bans gays and lesbians. They say they have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, but people are still getting discharged because of homosexuality. They say it lowers troops morale. What the f-ck? You can't be around someone because of their sexual preference. I want to say to a lot of the homophobic troops out there 'don't flatter yourself, a gay guy in your division probably wouldn't want you anyway.'

It leads me to my detest of Jesse Jackson again (hehe), he would start sh-tting bricks if the army started discharging people because they were black. I don't see how it is any different with people who have different sexual orientations.

If I controled the US (trust me, it would be a much better place ;) ) I would start teaching kids about how different people like different people. I would teach them at a very early age that it doesn't matter, then maybe (after a generation has passed) people wouldn't even think twice on whether or not a person was gay or straight.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]Along the lines of banning gay marriages, I still don't see why the US Army bans gays and lesbians. They say they have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, but people are still getting discharged because of homosexuality. They say it lowers troops morale. What the f-ck? You can't be around someone because of their sexual preference. I want to say to a lot of the homophobic troops out there 'don't flatter yourself, a gay guy in your division probably wouldn't want you anyway.'
[/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=teal]Keh, my husband is a Specialist in the US Army. He thinks the don't ask don't tell policy is a load of crap, but of course, he used the three letter word for crap. :laugh:
I think part of the reason they have that screwed up policy is because they want people to be more concerned with a soldier's sexual preferance than what high ranking NCO is raping some low ranking enlisted person or beating his wife. (No, I'm not being unsupportive or unpatriotic. It's actually something I've read about and heard about from other soldiers.)
I'd like to use a quote from Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers to simplify the stupidness of some military rulings- A man beside me in Nam is a man beside me in Nam. What he does in his bed is his own business.
I have to agree with the whole don't flatter yourself part as well, I had to explain this to an ex of mine after I dumped him. I said-You don't have to worry about a gay man wanting you for his partner, gay men have better taste.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=purple]As for the comment on homosexuality being a sin, mention the book in the Bible that says that, and I will convert back to Christianity.
I think it's a bigger 'sin' to deny someone the right to marry than to call their lifestyle a sin. Why don't you just hand out some de-gaying tapes as well? Of course, that's just my opinion.
Personally I think God would just be happy to see his creations happy reguardless.[/COLOR]

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][COLOR=royalblue]You'll have to excuse me, my sarcasm is working over time tonight. Give me a good concrete example of how Beastiality is the same as Homosexuality and I'll give you my next paycheck.
Tell me, how can a dog give you anything but a completely platonic relationship? Does your dog ask you to hop into bed? I didn't think so.
Again, I do appologize for my sarcasm.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]
LMAO.
The only thing offending about your "sarcasm" is the lack there of.
No offence, but that's not "sarcasm". You're far too nice to effectively use "sarcasm". I know people who are Gods at it.

At any rate.
Instincts are the only mental information stored in your DNA.
If one claims that some one can be instinctively drawn to the same gender, it's only logical to assume one can be instinctively drawn to other species.

I brought this idea to light so you can see that you can't rap on some one who doesn?t like gays(Which, in your opinion is in your DNA) while you rap on those who love animals(Which must be your DNA too, because apparently, in your opinion, DNA stores you likes and dislikes).
I think both are wrong.
But I also agree with Justin.
He's everything I need to be.












I'll take that paycheck now.
I've got what you said in wrighting.
Don't make me take you to court.
I'm currently Blackmailing friends in high places.
I'll win

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]LMAO.
The only thing offending about your "sarcasm" is the lack there of.
No offence, but that's not "sarcasm". You're far too nice to effectively use "sarcasm". I know people who are Gods at it.

At any rate.
Instencts are the only mentail information stored in your DNA.
If one claims that some one can be Instenctly drawn to the same gender, it's only logical to assume one can be Instenctly drawn to other species.

I brought this idea to light so you can see that you can't rap on some one who doesn?t like gays(Which, in your opinion is in your DNA) while you rap on those who love animals(Which must be your DNA too, because apparently, in your opinion, DNA stores you likes and dislikes).
I think both are wrong.
But I also agree with Justin.
He's everything I need to be.












I'll take that paycheck now.
I've got what you said in wrighting.
Don't make me take you to court. [/B][/QUOTE]

What rubbish. Perhaps ChibiHorsewoman should give you her paycheck out of pity so that you can buy a clue. You speak down to people as if you know what you're talking about. How dare you sit here and dehumanize the entire institution of marriage.

How can you compare a relationship between two consenting individuals with the sexual [b]abuse[/b] of an animal? An animal cannot have a sexual [b]relationship[/b] with a person. Do you understand what a marital relationship entails? A marriage is a mutual [b]commitment[/b]--legally speaking and otherwise. An animal cannot consciously commit. There's no understanding between the parties. They operate on instinct alone. Animals cannot love the same way people do. They don't choose mates for the same reasons humans do. There's certainly no emotional bond in mind. Obviously, they can't even communicate with us by saying whether they want to be in a relationship or not. There's no clear sign that the action's coerced. Comparing homosexuality to love outside the species altogether is silly. Grow up.

Lastly, animals are not citizens. They do not have civil rights and they do not get married. How can a couple consisting of a man and a horse enjoy joint parental custody or tax benefits when one is not a citizen and a horse is incapable of parenting a human child?

But, bah, if you can't understand the differences between homosexuality and beastiality, there's no hope for you at all. I feel silly for even wasting my time by diving into the issue and explaining it to you.

Having said that, please spare us from any further nonsense regarding the subject. I don?t even care to see you refute this--because there is no argument.

I would like to see you put more effort into your post quality and posting things of value instead of inane logic unbecoming of even a three year old.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charles [/i]
[B]What rubbish. Perhaps ChibiHorsewoman should give you her paycheck out of pity so that you can buy a clue. You speak down to people as if you know what you're talking about. How dare you sit here and dehumanize the entire institution of marriage.
[/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=deeppink]LMAO! I have to wonder if my $40.00 pay check will really cover the clue he needs to buy. He may have to borrow. Of course, since it's in writing and all, maybe I should do it out of the goodness of my heart.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]I brought this idea to light so you can see that you can't rap on some one who doesn?t like gays(Which, in your opinion is in your DNA) while you rap on those who love animals(Which must be your DNA too, because apparently, in your opinion, DNA stores you likes and dislikes).
I think both are wrong.
But I also agree with Justin.
He's everything I need to be.
I'll take that paycheck now.
I've got what you said in wrighting.
Don't make me take you to court.
I'm currently Blackmailing friends in high places.
I'll win
[/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=red]First I think I should say a prayer for Justin (nice guy really, I've talked with him on AIM when I had it. I think we get along despite our differences :)) since he has people like Bloodsin wanting to emulate him.
Next, I've never said anything about homosexuality being determined by DNA, don't go putting words in my mouth that you don't know the meaning of.
As for the paycheck I don't owe that to you for 3 simple reasons 1. you didn't provide any [b]concrete evidence[/b] to prove that Beastiality is the same as homosexuality. Instead all you did was sprew idiotic dribble that not even a toddler could be proud of.
2. You made a mockery of marriage. What I share with my husband is [i]nothing[/i] like whatever you think is shared between humans and animals. It's also not close to what is shared between people in a civil union or marriage. Unless you think that what your mom and dad share is the same as what you and Fido or Furball share. In that case I'll pity your parents. Or pity you, your choice :therock:
3. Between the grammar, the spelling and the overall lack of maturity on your part, I don't think you'd know what to do with anything larger than $2.00.
Therefore, I don't believe your argument will hold up in court, good day.[/COLOR]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]At any rate.
Instincts are the only mental information stored in your DNA.
If one claims that some one can be instinctively drawn to the same gender, it's only logical to assume one can be instinctively drawn to other species.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Is it also logical to assume that one can be instinctively drawn to species that no longer exist? To plants? To geographical features such as Mount Kilimanjaro? To a specific variety of fungi, or perhaps one's right foot?

I'm not sure that I understand exactly how your "logic" operates. If you don't want to explain it here, then please feel free to PM me.

~Dagger~