Mary Hartman Posted May 16, 2009 Author Share Posted May 16, 2009 yes, i think we all agree she has the right to her own beliefs...the problem only came up when she voiced them in a beauty pageant...when you sign up for a pageant you forgo some of your rights as a participant...maybe she also believes crack should be made available to all school-aged children...in which case, we'd all agree, more power to her! I say put it in the bubble gum machines wtf. Nothing like a child on crack for a busy day. That equation does baffle me. But they say when your on crack you think weird things are correlated. I dunno? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 There is absolutely nothing ignorant, backwards or stunted in recogning that "marriage" is a sacred institution with a specific meaning. It's a fact. Oh please... It's not so scared that half the country chooses to reject everything it stands for. I mean when you have crap TV shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire" I mean yeah sure buddy, we're really talking about a sacred institution with specific meaning... But that's the beautiful irony of your argument. You have gay people who desperately want to get married to play a part in this sacred institution and give it specific meaning, yet you'd be happy denying that simply because it's not traditional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted May 16, 2009 Author Share Posted May 16, 2009 In reality man wrote the bible which if you pull that little equation from this entire picture this girl would be enjoying a lovely win and the gay person wouldn't care one way of the other. On a lighter note, chuckles. And it is going to be a gorgeous sunny day here. I'm sending Dog The Bounty Hunter to sort this mess http://www.aetv.com/dog_the_bounty_hunter/...ctid=1861222137 Fix it Dawg Again. I do have many religious friends and family members. We just laugh about most of it. Your choice is your own and a bit of respect is always a good thing. Respect and praise for who people are. We all have feelings. On to my morning hike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 No, this is my problem with the slippery slope that anti-gay marriage advocates want to take. They say "well, if we let the gays get married, pretty soon they're going to want marriage between a man a child or a man and a goat or a man and a tree legalized too. What next?" Well, for starters.....marriage between a man/woman and a child, goat or tree is not valid because of consent issues. A child cannot consent to marriage, a goat can't and neither can a tree. So there's no way in hell this ridiculous scenario they cook up to validate their position will ever happen. Then they say, "well if we allow homosexuality to be okay, we'll have to allow pedophilia and bestiality to be okay too. What next?" Well for starters, pedophilia and bestiality are legally rape. Children and animals can't consent to sexual activity any more than they can consent to marriage. Homosexuality, either between two men or two women is not legally rape. Can homosexuals commit the act of rape? Yes, so can heterosexuals. That doesn't mean the act of two people having sex that are the same sex is rape or even anywhere near the same level as pedophilia and bestiality. That is my problem with this argument they come up with. It's not valid on any front. I don't care what people thought 150 years ago. 150 years ago, black people were slaves, we had no electricity or telephones and people still shit outside. Should we go back to all that too? Good God no. Society, like living things, EVOLVES. We grow, we learn, we adapt and change to new ideas and surroundings. Let those who want to live in the past stay there while the rest of us march on with time. I do want to live in the past, regarding many issues. Things I can't comprehend, I spoof on. Those who want to bend over backwards and compromise their values can go ahead and march on - the road is only beginning to get steep. What's the problem with someone having feelings for a tree - it wouldn't hurt anyone to allow marraige to that? Many animals show loyalty and affection beyond human ability - how do you intefere with a clear bond that would be visable between them and a human? It's a crime for an adult to have sexual feelings toward someone that is 17 years and 364 days old right now - but will the age of what's considered an adult always be 18 years old? Look at how young people are being given unlimited freedoms and age laws constantly changing, and it you can see the mess coming in the near future. So evolve, grow, march, petition away. I adapted years ago, by isolating myself from the confusion and despair of this nuttiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Wow I guess Ms. California does not represent the views of California, whom 53% believe in what she believes in. But Perez Hiliton is right, all people who don't believe in gay marriages are a bunch of bigot fucks. Im just not sure why he hasn't called Pres. Obama a bigot fuck. He's against Gay marriages. Either way, Perez Hiltion is the type of person who outs other gays. So in my world, he is going to hell either way. and it is true, Gay marriages will lead to other types of marriages. If you search the internet, there is legal presidence that wont allow you to write a law for or against gay marriages. If two gay guys can marry, why can't i marry two women. You probably think its not right to marry two women, i don't think its right for two gay guys to marry. Liberals pick and choose who gets the rights. They never find whats fair. Is it less than 10% of the population who would get into a gay marriage, but im pretty sure that more than 50% of the population believe in Marrilee only for a man and a woman. What about their rights? Lets get this straight, i do believe in civil unions with all of the same benefits as marriages, but marriage is a religious idea and i don't know any religions that allow gay marriages. Yes i know its a word, but it means somthing to alot of poeple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 yes, i think we all agree she has the right to her own beliefs...the problem only came up when she voiced them in a beauty pageant...when you sign up for a pageant you forgo some of your rights as a participant...maybe she also believes crack should be made available to all school-aged children...in which case, we'd all agree, more power to her! So she's against Gay Marriage and voiced her opinion. Bug fucking deal! Get over it! The majority of Americans don't like the idea of Gay Marriage. I don't. But most of us (Carrie included, if you actually bothered to listen to everything she said and not just the part where she expressed a dislike of the idea) also don't understand why it would affect us, and, therefore, are like... whatever... let 'em marry. It's nasty, but if they want it that badly, more power to them. I have already expressed my dislike of gay marriage as well. But, like Carrie Prejean, I am also happy to live in a country where we have the freedom to choose. (Did you know that Carrie also said that?) I do want to live in the past, regarding many issues. So maybe you'd like to have slaves, too? Things I can't comprehend, I spoof on. Those who want to bend over backwards and compromise their values can go ahead and march on - the road is only beginning to get steep. Do you know that they think they've found a gay gene? Being gay (or lesbian) might not be a choice. It very well could be the way to their DNA is wired. What's the problem with someone having feelings for a tree - it wouldn't hurt anyone to allow marraige to that? Many animals show loyalty and affection beyond human ability - how do you intefere with a clear bond that would be visable between them and a human? Good job. You conveniently ignored the part where Electrophile talked about consent. You know, that odd condition where two people have to be in agreement over something before they can do it? A tree can't consent to marrying a human. Neither can an animal. And, BTW, neither can a child, as the age of consent is... what... 16? 18? However, a man can consent to marrying another man. A woman can consent to marrying another women. Why? They are both intelligent adults and have the mental capacity to consent. It's not like one is forcing it on the other. In all these other (bullshit) cases you're talking about, there is no consent. It's a crime for an adult to have sexual feelings toward someone that is 17 years and 364 days old right now - but will the age of what's considered an adult always be 18 years old? Look at how young people are being given unlimited freedoms and age laws constantly changing, and it you can see the mess coming in the near future. Umm... where were you in history class? Did you know that in the middle ages, a person was considered an adult at 13? Why? 'Cause most people only lived to their 20's (maybe 30's). Now we live well into our 70's and 80's. Some live even longer... into their 90's or maybe even into their 100's. So now age of adulthood is around 18 to 21. And when we start living well into our late 100's and older, that age will increase. Why? Because people live longer. There might come a time in our future when you'll be alive for 50, maybe even 60 years before you're considered an adult, but then the oldest man or women in the world might be over 200. The age of adulthood depends entirely on how long we live, and nothing else. So evolve, grow, march, petition away. I adapted years ago, by isolating myself from the confusion and despair of this nuttiness. And, as a result, you have become the nutty one. Congratulations. and it is true, Gay marriages will lead to other types of marriages. If you search the internet, there is legal presidence that wont allow you to write a law for or against gay marriages. If two gay guys can marry, why can't i marry two women. You probably think its not right to marry two women, i don't think its right for two gay guys to marry. If a guy wants to marry two or more women, and the women are fine with it, then why not? The only reason we call polygamy immoral today is because we're selfish. When in a relationship, we want each other all to ourselves. We don't want to share. But polygamy is the marriage God actually ordained (which means these monogamous Christians preaching anti-Gay Marriage because it's against God have not in any way read the Bible and are in fact, major hypocrites). And you can't use Sharia Muslims as an example of why polygamous marriages are bad. Polygamy does not mean that women have a lesser role in the house. That connotation was never part of the standard definition. It just got attached to it because the men who wrote the Bible (and, indeed, the Quran) were sexist. Liberals pick and choose who gets the rights. They never find whats fair. Is it less than 10% of the population who would get into a gay marriage, but im pretty sure that more than 50% of the population believe in Marrilee only for a man and a woman. What about their rights? Which is exactly why I'm not Liberal. Liberal's are just as idiotic and hypocritical as Conservatives. Both sides are worthless and need to disappear. Lets get this straight, i do believe in civil unions with all of the same benefits as marriages, but marriage is a religious idea and i don't know any religions that allow gay marriages. Yes i know its a word, but it means somthing to alot of poeple Who cares? Keeping Kosher means a lot to Jewish people, but it isn't a law in Israel. They have McDonald's there and they do sell cheeseburgers. Hell... I know Red Lobster has at least one restaurant open in Israel. Just because it's a religious institution doesn't mean it should be defined by the religious definition in the law, because the law should be secular. Gay marriage should be legal. If a church doesn't want to marry gay people, then fine. That's the church's choice, and no need to penalize them for it. But on the law books, the marriages should be legal. And the reason we say "marriage" and not "civil union" is because, as it is, civil unions don't have all the rights and privileges of marriage. The religious institution of marriage is what's in the law books, not the secular idea of the civil union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marolyn Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 So she's against Gay Marriage and voiced her opinion. Bug fucking deal! Get over it! i was never under it...since it's apparent rocket science is not your thing...i'll say it again... i don't care if she against gay marriage or for legalized crack...just making the point that beauty pageant judges do care what a contestant would say out in public...that is their job in selecting a winner... carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 People can do what they want to do and that is fine. But the church offers holy matrimony as a rite to bless a physical union that is considered essential for procreation. Gay marriage is not essential for procreation, so the church uses it's other holy sacraments, baptism, communion, reconciliation and confirmation, to bless gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 It is historically true in the United States that the age of consent was younger when most of society was rural. In those days, farm hands were needed in the rural south to bring in the crops to support the family. Consequently women had babies at a younger age. At that time it was considered to be acceptable, necessary and appropriate. Today, as society in the United States has become more urbanized, women are having babies much later in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 WHOA !!! You sure like to put words into someone's mouth! He said he likes to live in the past. I was just seeing how far he would take it. Honestly I was being facetious. What? Physiologically and biologically, humans are the same as the middle ages, actually maturing sooner than that time period even though we do live longer now. You're saying (and I'm NOT putting words in your mouth) Because we live longer, adulthood is delayed and as time goes on adulthood might be further delayed. So if we start living to 200 adulthood will be 60 ? (Actually, you DID say that !) GOD I hope not ! I can't imagine humans will have to wait that long for our bodies to be prime (theoretically) for marriage and reproduction. Who the fuck would want to wait till their tits were sagging and someone needed viagra till they started morally having sex ? Your answer is crazy as hell. I wasn't talking about Biology. I was talking about our positions in society as told by the outside judgment of our age. When we mature physically has nothing to do with what age we are accepted into society as adults. Some societies still see 13-year-olds as adults. I was speaking on that and that alone. It had nothing to do with biological maturation age. It had everything to do with societal age. And BTW, if we somehow manage in some distance future to live well into our 200's, I seriously doubt the maturation process would be exactly the same, unless evolution has stopped entirely for us, which means at 200 years old, the poor person would be a tiny, shriveled prune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 All I know is that you said this "The age of adulthood depends entirely on how long we live, and nothing else." You're right. I was unclear and I apologize. I was talking about adulthood as seen and defined by society, not biology. I don't see anything about societal acceptance in that sentence. Living/adulthood is biological to me. I don't ever see the age of adulthood going up. Granted, the age of legally buying alcohol went from 18 to 21 a couple of decades ago, but I'm not sure when legally adulthood was less than 18. There are some activities etc., that are allowed for people less than 18, one is being able to join the military at 17 I believe, and indeed possibly allowed to die for your country. And yes, around the world legal adulthood varies, but only in the most restrictive societies is it above 18. I think I remember 21 in some of those repressive Muslim countries. And I was talking about legal adulthood. Like I've said already, there was a time when you were considered an adult at 13 and, if you were a woman, were probably having children not long thereafter. Whether it's hormones in cows, technology or what, people ARE maturing earlier now in broader numbers, both physically and mentally. The average lifespan has increased too, but even long ago there were occasionally those who lived to be over 100, and today, many are still dying in their 50s and 60s. (Edit because I just now realize how stupid this entire thing I originally posted sounded...) True, but, again, I'm not talking about biology. I'm talking about how many years we've been alive on this earth, as defined by the man-made "age" measurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted May 17, 2009 Author Share Posted May 17, 2009 Wow I guess Ms. California does not represent the views of California, whom 53% believe in what she believes in. But Perez Hiliton is right, all people who don't believe in gay marriages are a bunch of bigot fucks. Im just not sure why he hasn't called Pres. Obama a bigot fuck. He's against Gay marriages. Either way, Perez Hiltion is the type of person who outs other gays. So in my world, he is going to hell either way. and it is true, Gay marriages will lead to other types of marriages. If you search the internet, there is legal presidence that wont allow you to write a law for or against gay marriages. If two gay guys can marry, why can't i marry two women. You probably think its not right to marry two women, i don't think its right for two gay guys to marry. Liberals pick and choose who gets the rights. They never find whats fair. Is it less than 10% of the population who would get into a gay marriage, but im pretty sure that more than 50% of the population believe in Marrilee only for a man and a woman. What about their rights? Lets get this straight, i do believe in civil unions with all of the same benefits as marriages, but marriage is a religious idea and i don't know any religions that allow gay marriages. Yes i know its a word, but it means somthing to alot of poeple Careful there, you sound like this Hilton person. You insulted all liberals, all churches, Obama and the largest part of the world with one post. I think your assuming we all follow our peers about like little ducks which most of us I THINK, do not. The world is a lot larger than America Pb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted May 17, 2009 Author Share Posted May 17, 2009 As far as peoples ages. I guess I haven't been watching carefully and people have edited posts and made it more confusing. However! I will take a stab at this one. A few centuries ago people really didn't have the time to worry about how old a person was. They were too busy trying to stay alive to begin with. The only thing which mattered was if you had become a "woman" or a "man." Biologically I think we all know testicals drop and women gain breasts and begin their periods. Age is in everyone's heads. After you become a certain age you will look mostly the same and think mostly the same until you die. Willing no major illness. People really do not give a crows butt hole how old you are as long as you are nice. When you begin to go of on tangents about a persons age is when the ball falls in YOUR COURT. This is when people begin to have issues. The human body is the human body in all its glory and little idiosyncs and if you want to make it look ugly? Well if the shoe fits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted May 17, 2009 Author Share Posted May 17, 2009 Providing you are of legal age in today's word is the today's world approach. You don't want to mess about with children. You will get yourself hurt. Apologies for going off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Do you know that they think they've found a gay gene? Being gay (or lesbian) might not be a choice. It very well could be the way to their DNA is wired. Good job. You conveniently ignored the part where Electrophile talked about consent. You know, that odd condition where two people have to be in agreement over something before they can do it? A tree can't consent to marrying a human. Neither can an animal. And, BTW, neither can a child, as the age of consent is... what... 16? 18? However, a man can consent to marrying another man. A woman can consent to marrying another women. Why? They are both intelligent adults and have the mental capacity to consent. It's not like one is forcing it on the other. In all these other (bullshit) cases you're talking about, there is no consent. They claim to have found genes responsible for every deviation known to man, including pedophiles and murderers. I'd tend to believe there are more people who are bisexual than 100% gay, and just get along better with the same sex. I'm not saying people can't do what they want sexually, just do it in private, and stop parading around and demanding all sorts of special attention and privileges. If you need to force it out in the open, don't give me shit for ridiculing you. The bullshit cases I commented on were presented by someone else, so I entertained them. There's no intelligence test required for marraige - you don't think an animal can be trained to say "I do"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 They claim to have found genes responsible for every deviation known to man, including pedophiles and murderers. I'd tend to believe there are more people who are bisexual than 100% gay, and just get along better with the same sex. I'm not saying people can't do what they want sexually, just do it in private, and stop parading around and demanding all sorts of special attention and privileges. If you need to force it out in the open, don't give me shit for ridiculing you. The bullshit cases I commented on were presented by someone else, so I entertained them. There's no intelligence test required for marraige - you don't think an animal can be trained to say "I do"? I don't understand this post at all. Could you clarify which people and what privileges you are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I don't understand this post at all. Could you clarify which people and what privileges you are talking about? Seemed clear to me, though i'm no mind reader. I read it as saying gays are flaunting their gayness in front of others and expect special attention (or privileges). Sounds like something a homophobe would say (not implying the poster of that one is). Apologies if i'm wrong. edit for typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I will take a stab at this one. A few centuries ago people really didn't have the time to worry about how old a person was. They were too busy trying to stay alive to begin with. The only thing which mattered was if you had become a "woman" or a "man." Biologically I think we all know testicals drop and women gain breasts and begin their periods. Age is in everyone's heads. A girl of eight can have breasts and menstruate and twelve is the average age this begins. Does this mean she is now fair game for a "man" to want her? source to provide proof of my first statement: http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/menstruation.cfm Maturity and being psychologically ready to engage in adult behavior is more important than a person's anatomy/physiology. Maybe a few centuries ago procreation was more important than it is in today's over populated world. A few centuries ago woman had no rights, either. btw... yes, i saw your follow-up post noting not to mess with children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I would not be overly concerned about preference, rather the level of vice that can creep into relationships. Preference will not compromise you, whereas vice will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katuschka Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Liberals pick and choose who gets the rights. They never find whats fair. Is it less than 10% of the population who would get into a gay marriage, but im pretty sure that more than 50% of the population believe in Marrilee only for a man and a woman. What about their rights? That's why gay marriage is officially treated as 'registered partnership' here. Both sides are happy, nobody complains (well, if you leave out those who refuse to use their brain because 'that's the way they were raised'). It's of course only a play with words, but it's the easiest way to make the majority happy. The real problem are the people who think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to enter into ANY kind of civil partnership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Hey... what happened to Korman's posts here? I know I responded to somebody as I quoted him (or her)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Hey... what happened to Korman's posts here? I know I responded to somebody as I quoted him (or her)... Banninated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Banninated. Ooh. Juicy details? Was it Joel? Or somebody else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Ooh. Juicy details? Was it Joel? Or somebody else? It was Joel again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonzoLikeDrumer Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 There is a very good chance that we can become immortal (never die) with in the next 20-30 years if, the right research is done. But many thing's need to be done to insure a successful existence's of perfect being's here on Earth! It's all about the DNA and making/using Nano bot's that keep our DNA that way, perfect. If we do not do the research we will continue on our currant path of doom or evoke a costly delay that will surly be more expensive in later time's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.