Ask Mud, He watches OZOriginally Posted by palme
Arent they called bitches?
I support marriage
I support civil unions
I don't support either
I don't care either way
The Redneck Queen of the Lounge
Ask Mud, He watches OZArent they called bitches?
Retired~ AR-Hall of Famer
Yep, that's what they are called.
See I knew watching that show would come useful one time in my life
AR-Hall of Famer
Thats a whole different story. Being locked up can change the mentality of any man or women. It's like guys who serve 20+ year sentences and get released into the public. it is a total culture shock, they know nothing of a life different except what is behind bars and usually end up going back because they can live that life.
Comparing guys coming out gay and staying gay is like apples and oranges. Being raped or being turned into somones bitch is a whole different ball game were talking about. You cant compare normal life to prison life, 2 different worlds.
abstrack@protonmail.com
The Redneck Queen of the Lounge
Have you ever been in prison? Then don't give me that liberal b.s.
Not all of them stay for 20 yrs and it totaly kills the choice idea.
I have expierenced many different things in my life and have many friends that have been changed by certain things in their lives.
AR-Hall of Famer
Never prison but I have served my fare share of time in the county. Nothing to compare but never the less i have had my share of time being locked in a 2 man pod. I also have many old friends that are locked up for killing and robbery. Some of them are still doing time andsome of them served less than 10 years. The guys who served shorter sentences, some of them went back and some of them never did and made something out of their life. My point is that is just 2 different ball games.
abstrack@protonmail.com
Anabolic Member
Originally Posted by abstrack
Comparing guys coming out gay and staying gay is like apples and oranges. Being raped or being turned into somones bitch is a whole different ball game were talking about. You cant compare normal life to prison life, 2 different worlds.
Um, I think what you're talking about is what's called "opportunistic homosexuality." It's something that happens when guys are away from women for extended periods of time. When the women come back, the gay sex stops.
--Tock
The Redneck Queen of the Lounge
[QUOTE=palme
Question would you still love your kids if they became gay?[/QUOTE]
Yes I would love my kid no matter what, even if he slept with sheeps like big ole legs.
National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
I'm pro gay marriage. (Big surprise huh?)
If gay couples build a life together, if one is sick or dies, the other should have legal rights to property, money and other benefits. As it stands now, they do not. I've heard stories of families not speaking to their gay child for 20-30 years and when they die taking everything. That isn't right.
Diet Specialist
ditto
Anabolic Member
Originally Posted by Symian
Bible passages on homosexuality:
Genesis 19:1-29
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Sym
That's all well and good, but it doesn't apply to non-Christians.
--Tock
Whiney Member
I guess I don't fully understand some things involving the whole issue:
1.) What exactly do gay couples want. Not a slam here at all. I have heard about a gay couple and one goes to the hospital and can't go visit their signifcant other in the hospital because only immediate family allowed. I don't like that. But, what I need is a bigger picture of what all will be gained, and lost for that matter.
2.) I know very well that gay couples could (and do) make GREAT parents...no doubt there. But....
My concern with this issue is that it seems greedy. Let me explain...adopting a kid is for a couple (gay or hetero) to enjoy the love of being a parent and raising offspring. Seems fine and dandy at this point. But, I don't think it's fair for the child for a number of reasons.
For one, growing up is hard business...adding in the complications a child will have to face because of having gay parents seems to put a needless amount of challenges to a child that they should never have to endure. Not that they wouldn't have supportive and good parenting...it's just a cruel world out there to begin with. I think that any gay person can truly attest to the fact that it's a cruel world sometimes.
Secondly, there's some things in life that kid's shouldn't have to understand until a certain age. Growing up in a gay parent situation will, at some point, cause a kid to have to try and understand some things in life that they really shouldn't have to for years to come.
Again...I'm not saying that gay couples wouldn't be good parents....please don't misunderstand what I'm concerned about. I really don't care what 2 people do with their lives...but when you have children involved, well, then their is a party involved that didn't get to make any decisions for themselves.
My last concern regarding gay marriage is this...the sanctity of marriage is already at an all time low. The divorce rate is above 60% here in the USA. People don't take their wedding vows serious enough, and as soon as things start getting tough in the marriage, they bail out and get a divorce. Unfortanutely, usually there are already kids involved in the marriage by the time the parents quit trying to make it work...whole different topic though.
So, I don't want the value of a marriage to go down hill any more than it already is. I don't know that allowing gay marriages will do this, but I have a feeling that it is a strong possibility. The gay friends that I have, god bless them, are not the "marrying" type. Although they may truly settle down with 1 person sometime in the future, I don't see it happening anytime soon. I don't want to generalize an entire population off of my handfull of gay friends, but I am afraid that gay marriage divorce rate will be even higher than the hetero divorce rate (as hard to believe as that is).
I'll quit now....please don't take my questions and ideas as any type of personal attacks...that's not how they are intended. As a matter of fact, I'm really open to whole issue, but I really need to know more about all parties involved.
peace,
ttgb
National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
I have the opposite experience. Most of my gay friends have been together for 7-10 years. They are the marrying type. So I don't see the divorce rates being higher than hetero marriages. I have some gay friends who are whores, but then, I have some straight friends who are bigger whores. So in the end I'd think it would be the same.
Whiney Member
That's good feedback...thanks for reading my long post. You are probably right...be about the same rate. Which isn't good...but doesn't have anything to do with this topic.
peace,
ttgb
Whiney Member
Bump
Anabolic Member
I spent about a year in therapy with a psychiatrist (expensive, too), and one of the things he told me was that half of all marriages end up in divorce, and half of what's left is misery incarnate. He said that there's only about 25% of the population that are actually suited for marriage.
From what I've seen, I am inclined to agree (he was right on lots of other things, too).
So, if half of straight marriages fail, probably half of gay marriages will, as well. Of the other half that's left, well, the miserable ones may stay together for "the good of the kids," but if the gay marriages don't have kids, those relationships will probably fail as well.
So, ya, I can see gay divorce rates beating out straight divorce rates, but primarily because of the lack of kids to hold things together.
I think a happy marriage will always be the ideal, one that everyone will hope to acheive, but humans being what we are, not too many will make it. It would help an awful lot if kids could learn how to have healthy relationships at home, but so many parents are either so screwed up themselves, or they don't have time to do things right, that the kids lose out. Probably remedial training in how to have healthy relationships would help . . .
Since I'm in that 75% unsuited for marriage (thanks to my folk's dysfunctional marriage), I'd need some of that remedial training myself.
That's about all I can say about that . . . it is what it is . . .
--Tock
AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
people want to have a contract denoting inheritence rights, medical, etc - I cant see any problem with that no more than 2 people making any other type of contract - but marriage, NO
Because it is part of the agenda to make marriage just seem like a civil contract - and that is not what it is - the same way that parenting has been devolved to almost something that you pick up at the grocery store - and that is not what it is.
and say what you will - the desire to engage in homosexual acts is a LEARNED response - doesnt mean that some may indeed have a predisposition (I would say spiritually so, but many of you dont believe in that so I will say genetic) for homosexual acts.
See, when it all boils down to it "gayness" is simply one thing - a person wants to have sex with people of the same gender - thats all it is - but they want to couch it in so much BS, lifestyle, blah blah etc - its just ****ing someone of the same gender - thats all - and in the end, it is not enough that they do this (which I could care less, since everyone is entitled to their own way) they are determined to convince everyone that sex with same gender is just as "moral" as sex with the opposite - and if they cant raise themselves up then society will see to it that it lowers the institution of marriage untill it is no longer considered anything but a piece of paper given by the state for convinient financial reasons a la the Soviet Union
AR-Hall of Famer
Doesnt being married by a court of law or justice of the peace and not a church denote just a civil contract? Dont we as heterosexual humans do that already? Some choose to get married in curches by a minister of that religion and some choose just to get a piece of paper stating that they are married by law of the state. Same binding contract between 2 people just a different institution has issued it.
abstrack@protonmail.com
Retired~ AR-Hall of Famer
Agreed....... In the end when the two parties end the marriage everything is split up among both just like any other binding contract would.
Anabolic Member
1) Huh . . .
2) For all practical matters, it is a civil contract. Sure, you can skip the legal part of filling out the forms at the Courthouse and just have a church ceremony, but for all practical matters, it doesn't mean much.
All that gay folks are asking for are the same legal recognitions that you straight folks get when you sign those papers at the Courthouse. That's it. Why should that be a problem?
3) Gay folks haven't done anything to influence the problems that straight folks have with their marriages or with their kids. There's some gay and lesbian couples who, after intense scrutiny by adoption agencies, take up some of the slack for those kids from failed heterosexual marriages.
. . . I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't know what you're talking about . . .
4) And you know this from what?
Having been gay all my 48 years and had lots of time to figure this out, I don't think you're correct. I grew up amongst a bunch of heterosexuals, never knew any gay people in school, in fact, I didn't even know what the word "gay" meant until after I was in the USAF (which is NOT the best time or place to discover such things, let me tell ya).
So despite having been surrounded by straights, watched 'em on TV, had heterosexuality modeled for me day after day everywhere I went, I turned out gay.
I've lived with this for 48 years, and you're gonna tell me how I wound up gay? Ok, Einstein . . . You tell me how.
5) Not quite. Homosexuality is sex with the same gender. "Gayness" covers the accompanying lifestyle. Friends, spouse, abuse by those who don't know what they're talking about, abuse by those who like to beat up queers, discrimination, forming friendships with other people in the same situation and socializing together.
Didn't they teach you any of this in school? No? Did they want you to be ignorant about the gay lifestyle and about gays and lesbians? Shame on them . . .
6) Tsk tsk tsk . . .
7) Let me ask you this . . . if ****ing is "all it is" for gays, why isn't ****ing "all it is" for straights?
8) . . . and just how is gay sex less moral than straight sex?
9) I am not a religious person. Lots of people aren't. Lots of straight atheist couples regard marriage as purely a civil matter where the government recognition of their coupleship makes a practical difference. There's all sorts of social benefits that come with that recognition; cheaper taxes, cheaper insurance, cheaper season tickets at the opera, that sort of thing. Plus there's the intangible thing about "being married" that makes a coupleship seem a bit more, um, "special" than any of their other relationships.
Some religious folks like the "spiritual thing" they get from going through a religious ritual, which is fine by me; nothing wrong with that. But I don't think there should be a requirement that everyone submit to a religious ritual to have the government's legal recognition of their coupleship. That's going just a bit too far, IMHO.
10) or like the "quickie" drive-through marriages (and divorces) in Las Vegas? Oh yah, those marriages are a real boon to society . . . yep . . . get those love puppies ****ing ASAP, have a bunch of kids, get tired of each other and the yapping kids, leave the kids with the folks, and run away in different directions. Oh yah. Sure, pick on gay couples instead of problems like this. Right. **** up the US Constitution with an amendment.
Sounds like something the Soviet Union would do, allright . . .
Not to sound condescending or anything, but Cycleon, Boopsie, you don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. I've lived with this for 48 years . . . you need to spend some time with me and learn a thing or two about gay people.
--Tock
Whiney Member
So why would passing a "civil union" law not make the gay population happy? That would allow the same legal recognitions.
Oh yeah...you didn't read my long post.
peace,
ttgb
Anabolic Member
If all 50 states passed civil union laws for both straights and gays, that would do the trick. Make everyone happy. Then let the churches determine who they want to marry.
--Tock
Retired~ AR-Hall of Famer
How is becomeing a gay a learned responce? What about those that become gay but lived in a heterosexul home?
banned
You beat me to it.......I believe its part of the chemical makeup
Anabolic Member
I believe it is because "Uncle Feely-hands" was a bit touchy.
Anabolic Member
I believe it is because "Uncle Feely-hands" was a bit touchy at family reunions.
The Redneck Queen of the Lounge
That is more true than ever will be admitted on here.
Respected Member
I think gay people should be able to get married.......haven't yet heard a good reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Retired Vet
Always knew you were an arse bandit, your gonna get it tonight, lol...
Respected Member
Arse bandit??You crazy old bugger!!
I am compltely liberal when it comes to social issues with a few exceptions. It is quite possible that Canadians are just being swayed by the media pushing popular opinion on people that gays should be able to marry. The same thing happened with marijuana legalization when the media started champioining it's cause......now many Canadians, young and old, think both are a good idea.
Associate Member
Why would anyone care if two fags wanted to marry each other?
Respected Member
My point exactly.....although I was trying to be a little nicer about it than that.
Whiney Member
I understand what you are asking...even though your political correctness leaves some room for improvement.
Okay, lets pass a new law that says "ttgb gets all of the free AS he can possibly use." How would that law negatively affect anyone? It wouldn't...but would it be the "right" thing to do? I would think of it as a good law, and as a US citizen don't I have that right if that's what I truly believe in? The logic seems somewhat comparable.
Just throwing some thoughts out for discussion.
peace,
ttgb
Respected Member
ttgb, I see what you are saying but one thing differs in your scenario. Saying you get free AS implies a free loader in the scenario. It affects those who are paying for you and everybody else who opts for the 'free AS'. Society would pay and what benefit(s) would it receive?
I think a better questions would be 'How does legalization of steroids negatively affect anyone?' or 'How does legalization of gay marriage negatively affect anyone?'
Whiney Member
When laws are added, deleted, or amended in the United States (and elsewhere I would assume), it is typically done for the "better good of the nation" and to have a positive affect on the "overwhelming majority."
How does this apply to gay marriage?
peace,
ttgb
Whiney Member
bump...nobody addressed this....
Anabolic Member
Originally Posted by tryingtogetbig
When laws are added, deleted, or amended in the United States (and elsewhere I would assume), it is typically done for the "better good of the nation" and to have a positive affect on the "overwhelming majority."
How does this apply to gay marriage?
peace,
ttgb
I don't know previous laws were typically passed for the "better good of the nation" and positively affect the "overwhelming majority." Congress passes laws granting special tax exemptions to big businesses all the time; it's quite often done as a favor to those who make significant campaign donations.
During the Clinton years, the Army (or was it the Marines? whatever) said they didn't want any tilt-rotor aircraft, but the corporation making them had given so many congressmen big campaign donations (and promised more) that congress bought 'em the ****ed things anyway.
. . . The War On Drugs is supposed to be for the good of the country, but all it's done is put half a million people in prison and cost the taxpayers billions of $$$. It hasn't changed anything, either. People are still gonna get their weed, smack, AS, whatever, prices are gonna go up, buyers are gonna have to do business with shady characters, and organized crime and Terrorists make big profits which they use for other mischeif. Now, that crap is definately NOT good for the American public.
One aspect of granting gays the same marital rights as straights has to do with the tendency for the country to extend equal rights to more and more poeple over time. It took a Presidential proclaimation and later a constitutional amendment to give blacks equal rights with whites. Later, it took a constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote.
Ya, the US Constitution is a document that ensures citizens have their rights, and that no group of people should be unfairly deprived of the rights that another group enjoys. Extending the legal benefits of marriage to gays fits right in with one of the main goals of the Constitution: Equal rights for all citizens.
Now what President Bush and a bunch of other (expletive deleted) want to do is reverse this process. They want to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would restrict equal rights to a group of citizens, and do so primarily because of a few verses in the Bible. There is no doubt in my mind that the folks who created the US Constitution would recoil in horror at such a thing, and would
*** Bitch Slap *** Bitch Slap *** Bitch Slap ***
anyone involved in such an effort. Restricting rights ain't what the Constitution is all about. It's about preserving them for the people. Extending marital rights to gays and lesbians is all part of that. Continuing that process, I would say, is good for the entire country. Going backward, IMHO, would be another indication that the Government is assuming more control over our private lives . . . I don't know about you, but IMHO, that's not a good thing.
--Tock
AR-Elite Hall of Famer~
Hey tock....... seriously ........ a question...
a civil union is recognized by most insurance agencies??
a civil union is recognized by the state in cases of death without a will ??
a civil union provides all the "rights" that "marriage" does in the case where the spouse becomes ill???
NOt trying to start something... just want to know.....
The answer to your every question
Rules
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
Don't Let the Police kick your ass
Anabolic Member
1) I don't know. It would depend on how the insurance laws and the laws governing Civil Unions in that particular state were written.
2) same as #1. But a civil union would probably be more susceptable to legal challenge in case of death . . .
Say the two gay guys lived in Vermont, one dies, and the surviving parents (who never approved of the situation) decide they are going to try to get their kid's assets. With a regular marriage, they wouldn't get very far. If the civil union in that state doesn't cover situations like this, then the parents very likely would be able to gain posession of their kid's assets.
3) again, it depends on how the laws are written in any particular state. I haven't looked in detail at what Vermont or Canada offer, because as I live in Texas, the civil union would not be given any legal weight at all.
--Tock
National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
That is very true. How will adding an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriages benefit everyone? It doesn't.
Anabolic Member
Adoption-Inheritence-Pensions-..not an issue. These degenerates just want to make a statment to normal folks...queers have been schlong sucking for years..it has never been an issue until recently.
Sodom and Gomorrah all over again. Next child molester will want absolute immunity to diddle with your young'uns.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote