Attention gay folks!

[Zylka]

So "red herring" means valid comparison which is contrary to your personal lifesty

Sure, and as such - think you can handle your grandchildren exchanging vows with farm animals? If "society" so deems that that is a valid marriage, I'm sure you'll accept. By the way, society hasn't even close to accepted what you have - and they won't. That's just my opinion, as could be that the comparison to ignorant and late, temporarily constructed racial ruling of the past is a red herring.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

[Agathon]

Zylka

Is it true that deep down inside you're really a w@nker?

Why compare homosexuality with child molestation, incest or bestiality unless you are just trying to crap on the gay people here?

(and don't bother coming up with some coprophilic interpretation of the last remark)

[edited because it made my rude word look worse than it was]

[MrFun]

I wonder with the high rate of rape and divorce among heterosexuals?

Does that mean that being heterosexual is corrupt, and therefore, they are not entitled to marriage?

[Agathon]

Actually I am pig sick of this ****ing censorship system. Every time I write **** it prints **** or **** which are far ****ing worse in my ****ing opinion because it's bound to be taken by the reader to be the worst possible **** letter word.

And not swearing is not a ****ing option either. **** it.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Agathon
Zylka

Is it true that deep down inside you're really a w@nker?

Why compare homosexuality with child molestation, incest or bestiality unless you are just trying to crap on the gay people here?

(and don't bother coming up with some coprophilic interpretation of the last remark)

[edited because it made my rude word look worse than it was]

Yes, I know do feel guilt in that it comes off as a straight comparison... but my examples are exaggerated cases on the theme to demonstrate that tweaking definition of tradition can be irritating to EVERYONE

...and why is it molestation with an 8 year old? If society so progresses enough that 8 year old are comparable to 18 year olds of today - does it not lie in the social definition?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by MrFun
I wonder with the high rate of rape and divorce among heterosexuals?

Does that mean that being heterosexual is corrupt, and therefore, they are not entitled to marriage?

Huh? Not only is that absolutely irrelevant, you've left out the fact that rape and abuse is higher in homosexual relationships (I could only guess that divorce would therefore be higher as well)

So, what are you saying?

[Boris Godunov]

Re: So "red herring" means valid comparison which is contrary to your personal lif

Originally posted by Zylka
Sure, and as such - think you can handle your grandchildren exchanging vows with farm animals? If "society" so deems that that is a valid marriage, I'm sure you'll accept.

Red herrings AND slippery slopism in one thread. Tsk.

By the way, society hasn't even close to accepted what you have - and they won't.

Upward trends, my lad. This ruling is proof of that, as is the increasing number of localities around the world where gay unions are being recognized. Compared to the number of people who supported gay marriage 20 years ago, the numbers look quite favorable for my side, very dismal for yours. And as more of the conservative old bigots die off and are replaced by the increasingly younger, more tolerant generations, you will continue to see an upward trend.

You may not like it, but you will be welcome to hole yourself up with David Duke, Jesse Helms, the Taliban, and other like minds so you can commisserate on how low society has fallen. You can even plot to blow up a few Federal buildings, if that makes you feel better!

That's just my opinion, as could be that the comparison to ignorant and late, temporarily constructed racial ruling of the past is a red herring.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Bland, empty food, however. I did not compare the nature of interracial and homosexual marriages, merely pointed out that, despite your lame appeal to the "definition" of a traditional institution, we have plenty of examples of such definitions changing as society as recognized its wrongs and sought to right them. No red herring, simple observation of facts.

[Zylka]

Re: Re: So "red herring" means valid comparison which is contrary to your personal

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

You may not like it, but you will be welcome to hole yourself up with David Duke, Jesse Helms, the Taliban, and other like minds so you can commisserate on how low society has fallen. You can even plot to blow up a few Federal buildings, if that makes you feel better!

I expected more from you as well... is it not ok to be opposed to the inclusion warping of a tradition, or does one always fall into the FEDERAL BUILDING EXPLODING/ TALIBAN SUPPORTING/ BABY EATING category as a result? Do you wish me to bring up equal examples of upstanding pro homosexuals? No, because I don't see you in the same gutter - that's just my achilles, I suppose.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zylka


Huh? Not only is that absolutely irrelevant, you've left out the fact that rape and abuse is higher in homosexual relationships (I could only guess that divorce would therefore be higher as well)

So, what are you saying?

That's not true, either. Getting statistics from Falwell?

Abuse in homosexual relationships, according to many studies, is statistically the same with heterosexual relationships, when averaged.

Gay male relationships tend to have higher rates, while lesbians have lower. This is consistent with the heterosexual trend that men are more likely to be abusive to their partners, regardless of gender.

I'll also add that another problem with gay abuse (which is a problem, no doubt about it) is that there does not exist, in many cases, the kind of support network heterosexuals have to deal with it. Many courts have been unwilling to deal with complaints and accusations of such abuse, precisely because such relationships have been deemed as less than worthy of their attention.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: So "red herring" means valid comparison which is contrary to your pers

Originally posted by Zylka


I expected more from you as well... is it not ok to be opposed to the inclusion warping of a tradition, or does one always fall into the FEDERAL BUILDING EXPLODING/ TALIBAN SUPPORTING/ BABY EATING category as a result? Do you wish me to bring up equal examples of upstanding pro homosexuals? No, because I don't see you in the same gutter - that's just my achilles, I suppose.

Well, I'm glad all you had left to reply to was my troll.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's not true, either. Getting statistics from Falwell?

Abuse in homosexual relationships, according to many studies, is statistically the same with heterosexual relationships, when averaged.

Gay male relationships tend to have higher rates, while lesbians have lower. This is consistent with the heterosexual trend that men are more likely to be abusive to their partners, regardless of gender.

As I stated, and as you've agreed abuse and rape in homosexual relationships is higher. My fault that homosexual was used in the male sense, but it doesn't make it any less true. Either way, I wasn't the as*hole who brought such an inane point up in trying to discredit the failure rate of one side or another. Should I not play on others' terms, anymore?

[Zylka]

...and just who are these "David Duke, Jesse Helms, Falwell" fellows, anyway? I myself come up with opinions from my own moral stance, not charismatic speakers, dirty indy mags or militantly indignant organizations who can't create their own institutional rituals, rather than stretching and staining another (which the current members take offense to, SURPRISE!)

Yes, we breeders are all afraid of change. Marriage was built upon the man and woman, if you envy such an idea, build your own clubhouse - not a tacky addition on to ours

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zylka
As I stated, and as you've agreed abuse and rape in homosexual relationships is higher. My fault that homosexual was used in the male sense, but it doesn't make it any less true. Either way, I wasn't the as*hole who brought such an inane point up in trying to discredit the failure rate of one side or another. Should I not play on others' terms, anymore?

As I said above, a serious problem is the way in which reports of abuse are handled. Instituting gay marriage might be a way of decreasing abuse, in that light. Encouraging stable, monogamous gay relationships by offering the legal benefits of marriage is a positive thing, isn't it?

Abuse tendencies are indeed irrelevant, though, just as drunk driving shouldn't mean a ban on driving for everyone.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zylka
Yes, we breeders are all afraid of change. Marriage was built upon the man and woman, if you envy such an idea, build your own clubhouse - not a tacky addition on to ours

Gays HAVE been partaking of their own civil unions for a long time. But here's the kicker...they aren't legal, hence gays don't get the legal benefits and protections provided. How, sir, would you suggest we build are own "clubhouse" then? We can't very well make up the laws to protect the relationships, either.

And once more, foundations are nice, but not particularly relevant. You will note I already dispensed with your silly notion of "definition," as if such things were fixed. "Foundation" is just rewording that, and it is still irrelevant. The foundation of religious worship was once animal sacrifice. Good thing that times change.

[Zylka]

To tell you the truth I haven't been too interested in learning of this topic, and am not sure of the core incentives for heterosexual marriage, or why they are offered. If the benefits of offering these benefits are across the board, I can accept homosexual unions with such offers... just not under the same traditional tag of marriage. Sorry, the label may seem irrelevant - but that's just my conservative self