I meant this part specifically:

Oh.


Well, it depends on the time you're looking at. The modern legal apparatus of marriage is definitely intended to protect property rights, next-of-kin and power of attorney.

Prior to the late 1800s women couldn't inherit property, so saying marriage is traditionally about property is pretty wrong. I mean, except for the sense that the woman is the property.

Oh if I could only go back 2,020 years and punch Jesus into amnesia.

Then you'd come back to the present into the Church of Brian. And LO! The LORD said unto his followers 'I'm NOT the messiah! Now **** off!' and all was good.

If you look at what Jesus said historically, or even as written in the bible, I think he'd be pretty damn upsed with what's happened to 'his' religion

He hated the idea of being called a messiah for the start =p


And Jon`C's last post (and previous one) echos my feelings exactly.

I wonder if some point in the future after much oppression things will flip and straights will no longer be able to -say- marriage, merely using "the M word" instead.

stat, you're trolling, so we're done.

Jon, I think you're reading a lot into what I'm saying that isn't there. I feel like by saying "I like guns, the constitution, don't like the idea of homosexuality, and live in Oklahoma" you guys tend to assume a lot about me that isn't true. Perhaps it would help to mention that I was born and raised in suburban California, then spent my later childhood in Phoenix, AZ before living in a moderately sized town in OK, and my dad is a french-canadian immigrant who lived in Maine. I have a lot of very different influences, and anything I have picked up while here in Oklahoma, I did so willingly.


Nowhere did I refer to some "golden age" of american morals or anything. I wasn't trying to make any point with that statement. You should know, as an atheist, I'm basically a moral relativist...that's simplifying things a bit, but when it comes down to it, right and wrong is what we make it. That's why I find the constant shifting of society funny. It just struck me at that point as I was thinking about the topic, so I mentioned it. I know it wasn't terribly profound...it wasn't meant to be.


I am curious about this. You don't think we should have separate bathrooms?


I agree. That's why I said that I think it's silly that everyone is caught up so much in the semantics of it. Take semantics out of it and have the real discussion: "should gays be allowed the same legal rights of union as heterosexuals?" I think the answer is yes.


Wrong. I admit that I haven't heavily researched the issue, but I think it's not so simple as being "born gay" though that is definitely part of it. I think a lot of people are "born gay" (I'm sure there must be degrees of this, accounting for bisexuals and any other sexual preferences), and perhaps some never experience the environmental trigger that allows them to admit it, and others do. I also think there is a good chance that some people are (excuse my terminology) "turned gay" by early life environmental factors which are not under their control, even if they are not entirely "born that way". I certainly don't think that anyone is sitting on a bench eating ice cream and suddenly thinks "hey I think I'll be gay!"



I am aware of how you could think that's my stance, but it's not. First of all, I never said I "hated" anything. I don't hate the idea of homosexuality. I just don't particularly like it. To use your words, I also DON'T "hate the fact that someone is gay". I have no problem with someone being gay. It does not reflect on them as a person in any negative sense to me, except indirectly. (Which is to say, I have never had much in common with most gay people I've met, so I tend to not be friends with them.)

I refer you to what I said about my blind friend. Of course blindness is, to me, inherently much worse than homosexuality, and I don't mean to compare them in that sense, I am comparing them because you can be born blind, or you can become blind through no fault of your own, and I don't like the idea of being blind. I don't think any less of blind people I know, and I don't think there is anything wrong with being blind. I just think it's not as good as being able to see. I think homosexuality is not as good as heterosexuality because it is not a good way to develop a family. Sure, I think you can have a perfectly functioning family and raise great kids as a gay couple. I don't see why not.

Basically I admitted this to myself this way: If I could choose between the entire country being gay, or the entire country being straight, which would I choose? I would choose straight. Obviously I'm biased, but I also know that if everyone was gay, the fundamental family dynamics of our culture would not exist. Reproduction would no longer be between two people who love each other, but would rather have to go through a surrogate....well, I'm digressing.

The point is that it is a small thing...it is simply my own PREFERENCE for heterosexuality. There is no hate involved.

To compare to your Judaism analogy...I PREFER atheism to judaism...because I, personally, believe that judaism is false. But I don't hate anything about it. I don't dislike or hate and jewish people, and I certainly don't think they should have their rights limited in any way.


Edit:
Okay, I also think I should clarify a bit regarding the blindess/gay thing. I think the key difference there is a matter of degrees. As I said, I think that the difference between being gay and being straight is such a small thing. If someone came to me and said "Hey, do you want your friend to be able to see 20/20?" I would of course say "Yes!". Being visually impaired is a huge part of who he is as a person, that is obvious, but I think that the benefits of sight would greatly outweigh the disadvantages of changing who he is. I think he would agree with me. However, if someone asked me if I wanted a gay friend of mine to be straight...I'd say no. The tiny biological benefit he gained would be completely outweighed by changing who he is as a person. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I know I have a tendency to make my ideas about as clear as mud.

Jon, I think it's you who always says that everyone human being has some form of natural preference for things like them, and a natural prejudice against things that are not like them. You refer to it in regards to race. I'm simply acknowledging that this is true for myself in regards to sexual preference. If you think there's nothing at all wrong with homosexuality, then why aren't you taking guys up on their offer when they hit on you, or even hitting on them yourself if there's no girls at the party? It's your preference. That's all I'm saying here.

Jesus would haul your skinny nerd ***. He was a ripped *** ****ing ancient carpenter.

I don't know what trolling means in Okie redneck English, but Wikipedia defines it as follows: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." That seems more like what you've been doing.

A small sacrifice to ensure that human development wasn't retarded some 1,000 years.

I wonder if he even existed at all, everything about him was written post-mortem.

It's almost certain that he existed, check out the work of the Jesus Seminar to learn about the historical Jesus. They don't come to any definitive conclusions, but they outline from text how the historical Jesus thought and acted based on scholarly consensus and multiple attestation between sources.

For what it's worth, as Massassi's most prominent homosexual, I don't find Bob's views offensive or even wrong. Some of you more "open-minded" heteros try to overcompensate a little too much when trying to appear comfortable or supportive of us homos - and show yourselves to be a little close-minded as a result.

I, somewhat like Bob, find the thought of heterosexuality extremely unappealing. Even disgusting. However, I fully support hetero rights and have many hetero friends.

So wait, not trying to be an insensitive prick, just more curious then I should be.
You like butt sex with a man, but not vaginal with a woman?
Answer if you want or don't, It doesn't really matter other then trivial information.
E: Like as in, Could watch without shuddering or looking away. Find not disgusting, etc.

Spoilered so not to offend.

The only reason I can stand seeing vaginal sex is because a penis is involved. Still kinda gross.

Vin, you don't get to speak for all gays just because you're the most prominent one here. I wouldn't have a problem with Bob saying "I don't find homosexual sex appealing." But the way he consistently phrases it -- "I don't like the idea of homosexuality" -- sounds like it means something very different.

There are lots of kinds of sex that I don't want to have. But I don't have to express that in a way that makes it sound like I find them morally or conceptually distasteful.

In fact, when the issue of legality comes up, I don't see why the **** he thinks his own personal preferences are even relevant. (To be fair, though, at the beginning of the thread he was very civil and didn't even bring up the fact that he "doesn't agree with homosexuality". I just don't see why he felt it necessary, or useful, to mention it later.)

Vin, thanks, I appreciate that. And as long as I can trust you not to try to make heterosexual unions illegal ;), you can trust me to support fully equal rights homosexual unions (although I am sorry, it's gonna be kind of tough to find candidates who support that AND all my other views around here, haha).

Vornskr:


If they are not morally or conceptually distasteful, then why don't you want to have them yourself? I'm simply saying that by very definition, if you have a preference for something, that means you have some sort of problem, however slight, with the alternatives. No one wants to admit this, because they're afraid of sounding insensitive, but it's true.


It's completely not. Like I said earlier in the thread, I fully support completely equal rights to equal unions for heterosexual and homosexual couples, primarily BECAUSE my own preferences are completely irrelevant.

The only reason I brought them up (and I had to look back to even remember how they CAME up) was because I was trying to illustrate the point that they can easily be considered separate concepts (by pointing out that I preferred one over the other), and therefore we needed (as a society) to quit squabbling over whether or not they are the same thing, and get to the point: should it be "allowed".

I didn't mean to make the whole thing a discussion about my views (instead of the law), but I also am not afraid to discuss them.

I think Bob has cleared up his position, and I apologise if I overreacted. The problem was more with your analogies than your actual position. In this case, straight talking about the issue is much less ambiguous than analogies to everyday activities.

No apology necessary, and I'm sorry if I have been unclear. I admit, I overuse analogies. But straight-talk often inflames people just as badly if not worse, especially on such a sensitive subject. It usually takes a whole discussion like this for me to find the right phrasing to get my idea across, so thanks.

There isn't anything to 'like' about homosexuality. It's something that's there that you'll simply have to accept. 'The idea of homosexuality'... I don't even understand what you're trying to say.

I don't like 'the idea of gravity'.

I wasn't referring just to sex, Tibby brought that up.

I'm not gay, but I really like the idea of two guys getting it on.

I totally like the idea of gravity. It's an awesome idea.

I don't know, the thought of two massive bodies being constantly attracted to eachother sort of grosses me out.

That's hot.

Makes me think of mb and his momma.

MB wasn't born, he has existed since the beginning.

It's ok that they're attracted to each other, it's the meeting of the objects that's sinful.

like "cancel all emissions regulations first day in office"

China knows what's up

She really said that? lol i help economy :downs: what is externality

Actually I just re-checked it and apparently it's just stuff relating to global warming, because hurf hurf manbearpig

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/24/whitman-says-shed-suspend-8216green8217-initiative/

no actually not because of "hurf hurf man bear pig" she said specifically that she would suspend, not cancel ab-32, most of which has not even gone into effect.



sounds a bit different than "hurf hurf man bear pig" to me.

heres the interview that the quote came from.

www.flashreport.org

dont know much about the site the interview is on so i cant guarantee that it is not some sort of fox news "right wing crack pot" site, but there you have it.