Once upon a time there was a gay prince

[Skybird]

Is this really necessary...? :nope:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,471424,00.html

If nature doesn't turn the exception into the norm - political agendas can help that! We should have 33.3% heterosexual couples in society, 33.3% gay couples, and 33.3% lesbian couples - to display the EU's (or in tbis case: Britain's) moral superiority and super-perfect tolerance.

Nothing against homosexual people as long as they do not try to turn their difference into status and prestigious advantages or play up upon them. But why officially propagating homosexuality?

I'm sure we will not wait long before the EU picks up the British example. We already have anti-racism laws preventing to vote against ongoing immigration as enforced by governments on their people opposing this policy. We could have according sex-laws as well. Or maybe we can have obligatory "change-sexes!"-years at school, so that all teenagers must behave like homosexuals at the age of 15 or 16 so that they know how it feels and will tolerate it more afterwards.

The increasing absence of brain activity in political authorities and public offices surprises me time and again. Maybe they alraedy had their brains eaten up by a Martian parasite worm.

Morals leave quality, and go quantity instead.

Nothing beats the brothers Grimm, btw. :up: :D

[Happy Times]

Sick.

[Skybird]

One or two more years, and I will take it as an insult if somebody would eventually call me "tolerant".

[STEED]

This is a typical gay agenda and I am fed up with BS. :mad:


They also want primary schools to teach kids all about gay sex, in my book that's sick.

[3Jane]

It's about damn time the socialy retarded actualy did move into the 21st century.

[kiwi_2005]

This is just pure madness.

[THE_MASK]

If any teacher read that to my kids they had better watch out !!!!!!!!!!

[TteFAboB]

The Penguin story is a lie. The male penguin eventually dropped his accomplice to join up with a sexy lady. That book is a fraud and if it continues to be propagated as a true story the author should be sued for false advertisement. There are enough cases of animal homossexuality out there to go about creating a false one.

Sex is irrelevant. Nobody should care about what another man does in his bed. The problem with this story of marrying princes is that it is another evidence that the Occident is loosing what it had built of most valuable: universalism.

An intransitive man that cannot be distinguished by class, race, sexual practice or religion. Not anymore. Before being considered a man, you must first affirm an identity: female, black, lesbian, gay, whatever.

We are walking towards a Medieval Age of identities. Each individual must seek his (mental) guild to install himself into and then start calling for special rights to his category.

More often than not these identities seek to affirm themselves against the majority. A real Democracy is the regime of the majority, protected from the minorities, that respects and protects these same minorities. These minorities are protected because they are inserted in universal rights.

Infiltrating schools with gay ideology is a complete loss of focus. From an universalist quest of teaching the average of human conquest, the school begins to seek who-knows-what under the guise of "repairing injustices".

When Social-Democracy corrodes itself it opens room for the destruction of these same minorities that contribute to its corrosion. In Muslim countries gays were and are killed. In Communist and Nazi countries gays were and are killed. In many third-world undemocratic countries gays are killed. Democracy is the only system where a gay can survive out of the closet, with noted exceptions. Yet, all homossexual organizations seek its destruction and pervertion into a fragile "democracy-of-he-who-shouts-louder".

Dig your own graves. The death of universalism will take us back in time like no time-machine could do.

[Skybird]

Homosexuality exists. It even is not rare in the animal world. But it nevertheless is the exception from the rule, and an abberation in that understanding that evolution planned mammals and birds, I think also all reptiles, and most fishes to have two sexes that need to come together in order to create new life, and secure the survival of the species. seen that way, homosexuality may be tolerated, and must not be punished, but never it must be declared as a natural normality that stands equal in it's evolutionary meaning and natural function beside heterosexuality. I knew gay men, and it was not the smallest problem, neither for me, nor for them, that we worked together at university. I am no homophobe. And interestingly, the two gay guys I have in mind found the exhibitionist behavior and the neurotic blowing up of gayness by gay-activists as disgusting and distasteful as I did, and still do. I think most gays or lesbians probably just want to be left alone and avoid being put into the daily headlines by some hysteric activists being on a crusade against us "intolerant" heteros. I also think that a majority of them does not wish to see laws changed so that they have equal rights to raise children like heterosexual couples: mother and father. Which I also strongly oppose. If this would be like nature wanted things, it would have taken care of that long time ago, I assume. A homosexual couple is not a pack of wolves were the whole pack takes care of the youngsters if the parents get killed. So, to some degree homosexuals are like albinos. Both are real, both have a right to be, but both should not be considered to represent the norm of natural normality, or nature's intended goal. they are not.

I had no problem with all this - until it was turned into somebody's "agenda". By doing this, I and moderate, tolerant people like me get turned into people who feel so very much repelled and disgusted that they choose to turn into "radicals", "extremists", "intolerants", whatever - you name it.

Clever.

[CCIP]

I have nothing against 'awareness' and 'tolerance', but I think we need to distinguish between that and propaganda. It's a fact that kids' can be impressionable and, rather than promoting tolerance to exceptional behaviours, this just normalizes them. Normalizing a behaviour that is and should be relatively exceptional is, by default, promotion; promotion to uncritical minds is propaganda.

The effort is better-spent putting the adult homophobes in their place (of which there are many more than pre-adolescent ones) instead of raising gay-friendly kids.

Again, don't get me wrong, I have several homosexual friends and colleagues whom I support, but you'll never see me waving any pink/rainbow flags around. I agree, the line should be drawn at 'agenda'.

[Boris]

I'm usually a liberal kind of guy, but this is just stupid. This just sounds like homosexual recruitment to me. If someone is gay they will know it at some point in their life, kids don't need that kind of influence at a young age. These books could give kids the impression that there is some kind of a choice involved.

[Letum]

I have nothing wrong with gay characters in children's books.
If its a good story than that's all the kids are bothered about.

It makes a interesting topic. Whats wrong with it?

[ASWnut101]

Some of these people (the people who are putting them in schools) just need to be beat back into reality with a bat. Unbeliveably sick, twisted, and did I mention sick? "Oh, the kids don't have a problem with it, just the parents" Well listen you stupid fa**ot (Mark), do you really think that these third grade and second grade kids actually have that complex thinking yet? You actually belive they can think for themselves at that level? You're still teaching them how to recite the alphabet, and yet you are trying to preach homosexuality to them?! That's brainwashing, if you ask me.:stare:


Looks as if Mark needs a good `ol fashioned A** whooping. I would like to lead the charge. Sick a** ******!



-ASW

[CCIP]

I have nothing wrong with gay characters in children's books.
If its a good story than that's all the kids are bothered about.

It makes a interesting topic. Whats wrong with it?
As I said, I think it's the normalization and (possibly) glorification tendency. I hadn't read the book in question, of course, but I think taking an exceptional behaviour and presenting it to kids as norm can be problematic because kids are not smart enough to be critical about it.

I don't think socially that's a good thing. Mind you, I'm equally (if not more) opposed to religious instruction in early schooling for the very same reason.

[edit]

By the way, I have nothing against gay characters, don't read into it so much. I think they can be very educational! I am more wary of gay books as such, though. There's a fine ideological line there, I believe.

[SUBMAN1]

Quite simply a repeat of history - the moral decline of every society happens at some point in time. Gays have always been a part of it and always will. PC I think is another part of it. Quite simply put - the decline will continue until there is nothing left to fight for, nothing left to defend for, and this time I think it will be Islamic tribes instead of Germanic tribes that over-run what is left of our morally challenged society.

Make no mistake, no terrorist can do harm to our nations outside of a pinpr*ck. It is only us/we that will bring our great nations to its knees. The Islamic terrorists simply are the tiny mouse that push us over the edge.

Welcome to history all over again.

-S

[Letum]

I have nothing wrong with gay characters in children's books.
If its a good story than that's all the kids are bothered about.

It makes a interesting topic. Whats wrong with it?
As I said, I think it's the normalization and (possibly) glorification tendency. I hadn't read the book in question, of course, but I think taking an exceptional behaviour and presenting it to kids as norm can be problematic because kids are not smart enough to be critical about it.

I don't think socially that's a good thing. Mind you, I'm equally (if not more) opposed to religious instruction in early schooling for the very same reason.

[edit]

By the way, I have nothing against gay characters, don't read into it so much. I think they can be very educational! I am more wary of gay books as such, though. There's a fine ideological line there, I believe.
All happy endings are "glorifications" of the story, so it certainly glorifies the gay relationship. I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that the two princes have a glorious relationship!

The book does not "normalizes" gayness. The book that "He was introduced to one princess, two princesses" so clearly the normal thing in this book is for him to marry a princess. All it says is that it is ok to marry another prince......and it is!

I don't see what makes a gay prince bad for children, but a straight prince good?
Back when I was 5 or 6 I would have said that if I was a prince I wouldn't have wanted a princess anyway because "girls are yucky!" (or something like that!).



Quite simply a repeat of history - the moral decline of every society happens at some point in time. Gays have always been a part of it and always will. PC I think is another part of it. Quite simply put - the decline will continue until there is nothing left to fight for, nothing left to defend for, and this time I think it will be Islamic tribes instead of Germanic tribes that over-run what is left of our morally challenged society.

Make no mistake, no terrorist can do harm to our nations outside of a pinpr*ck. It is only us/we that will bring our great nations to its knees. The Islamic terrorists simply are the tiny mouse that push us over the edge.

Welcome to history all over again.

-S

I find it hard to express my utter disgust towards your bigoted and ill informed point of view. You talk about "gays" and "Islamists" in the same way Hitler talked about the Jews.

[THE_MASK]

This has really made me mad . Teachers can read it to themselves as often as they like . But read it to my children and i will start swingin (my fist that is) .

[bookworm_020]

I have nothing wrong with gay characters in children's books.
If its a good story than that's all the kids are bothered about.

It makes a interesting topic. Whats wrong with it?
As I said, I think it's the normalization and (possibly) glorification tendency. I hadn't read the book in question, of course, but I think taking an exceptional behaviour and presenting it to kids as norm can be problematic because kids are not smart enough to be critical about it.

I don't think socially that's a good thing. Mind you, I'm equally (if not more) opposed to religious instruction in early schooling for the very same reason.

[edit]

By the way, I have nothing against gay characters, don't read into it so much. I think they can be very educational! I am more wary of gay books as such, though. There's a fine ideological line there, I believe.

Do kids realy understand this at such an early age?? Would it just be better to concentrate on teach reading, writing and math? It's a shame that schools have to teach everything now, such as road safety to washing hands before eating. Teachers should just be able to teach what they are there for.

My Parents are teachers, each time one of these new schemes or plans come along it just takes away time to concentrate on the basics.

There are some students who benifit, but most of these things should be done by the parents. Teaching kids about Homosexuality at this age is pointless as few would realy understand it. Older kids would, but teaching them this young is pointless.

[SUBMAN1]

I find it hard to express my utter disgust towards your bigoted and ill informed point of view. You talk about "gays" and "Islamists" in the same way Hitler talked about the Jews.
I find your comments disgusting as well since you take me out of context to compare them in the way you did.

Go take a history lesson and you might change your point of view.

-S

[Letum]

I have nothing wrong with gay characters in children's books.
If its a good story than that's all the kids are bothered about.

It makes a interesting topic. Whats wrong with it?
As I said, I think it's the normalization and (possibly) glorification tendency. I hadn't read the book in question, of course, but I think taking an exceptional behaviour and presenting it to kids as norm can be problematic because kids are not smart enough to be critical about it.

I don't think socially that's a good thing. Mind you, I'm equally (if not more) opposed to religious instruction in early schooling for the very same reason.

[edit]

By the way, I have nothing against gay characters, don't read into it so much. I think they can be very educational! I am more wary of gay books as such, though. There's a fine ideological line there, I believe.
Do kids realy understand this at such an early age?? Would it just be better to concentrate on teach reading, writing and math? It's a shame that schools have to teach everything now, such as road safety to washing hands before eating. Teachers should just be able to teach what they are there for.

My Parents are teachers, each time one of these new schemes or plans come along it just takes away time to concentrate on the basics.

There are some students who benifit, but most of these things should be done by the parents. Teaching kids about Homosexuality at this age is pointless as few would realy understand it. Older kids would, but teaching them this young is pointless.

Do you think kids are more able to understand hetrosexual relationships? Why?
What is it about 2 guys loveing each other that makes it harder to understand then a girld and a guy loveing each other?

[SUBMAN1]

Do you think kids are more able to understand hetrosexual relationships? Why?
What is it about 2 guys loveing each other that makes it harder to understand then a girld and a guy loveing each other?

Sorry that I didn't catch on to the fact you were gay. I apologize for that. Still, it does not make me change my personal opinion that the lifestyle is immoral.

-S

[Tchocky]

Quite simply a repeat of history - the moral decline of every society happens at some point in time. Gays have always been a part of it and always will. PC I think is another part of it. Quite simply put - the decline will continue until there is nothing left to fight for, nothing left to defend for, and this time I think it will be Islamic tribes instead of Germanic tribes that over-run what is left of our morally challenged society.

Make no mistake, no terrorist can do harm to our nations outside of a pinpr*ck. It is only us/we that will bring our great nations to its knees. The Islamic terrorists simply are the tiny mouse that push us over the edge.

Welcome to history all over again.

-S

Hang on. Homosexuality is moral decline? Whose morals exactly? And where does Islamic terrorism come into this?

btw I don't think Letum stated his sexuality. It's also irrelevant, but your assumptions put your previous posts in an interesting new light.

I think that there's nothing wrong with teaching this kind of thing, but it's not the responsibility of the schools, and certainly not at that age :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Hang on. Homosexuality is moral decline? Whose morals exactly? And where does Islamic terrorism come into this?

btw I don't think Letum stated his sexuality. It's also irrelevant, but your assumptions put your previous posts in an interesting new light.

I think that there's nothing wrong with teaching this kind of thing, but it's not the responsibility of the schools, and certainly not at that age :nope:

There are clearly two seperate subjects in my post. Not sure why you are making them into one. At the end of the Roman empire, you had the incursion into roman lands by the Germanic tribes. The second time around, it will be the Islmic tribes this time. If you are aware of history, you would know this.

I am throwing letum a white flag because I did not know I was stepping on his sexuality, and trying to back off. I am not sure why you are dropping into this for me trying to apologize.

Take a history course and you will find out when the basics of society - ie. teaching children that having sex with the same sex is OK, you break up the very fabric of a society itself, and eventualy it will lead to its downfall. It is simply one factor in the overall way that things fall into place.

-S

[Letum]

Sorry that I didn't catch on to the fact you were gay. I apologize for that. Still, it does not make me change my personal opinion that the lifestyle is immoral.

-S
I suppose for you calling me gay is some kind of insult right? :shifty:

As it happens, I am not gay, but that doesn't really have much relavance anyway!



*Edit* :


I am throwing letum a white flag because I did not know I was stepping on his sexuality, and trying to back off.
what on earth do you mean by that? Please explain.

[Tchocky]

There are clearly two seperate subjects in my post. Not sure why you are making them into one. At the end of the Roman empire, you had the incursion into roman lands by the Germanic tribes. The second time around, it will be the Islmic tribes this time. If you are aware of history, you would know this. Sorry. Been living in bubble. Will rectify.
Let's stop modeling ourselves on the Romans, they didnt have telly. This isnt the "second time around".
I am aware of small chunks of history, but since it's more of a collective agreement than a record I can't very well know it all. What I don't see is the correlation between the fall of the Roman Empire and a children's book.
I am throwing letum a white flag because I did not know I was stepping on his sexuality, and trying to back off. I am not sure why you are dropping into this for me trying to apologize. Um, because nobody on the thread had declared a sexuality, and it loooks like you're assuming one from a post. Not that important though, nevermind.
Take a history course and you will find out when the basics of society - ie. teaching children that having sex with the same sex is OK, you break up the very fabric of a society itself, and eventualy it will lead to its downfall. It is simply one factor in the overall way that things fall into place. There's a fabric to society? News to me. Looking out my window I see rats racing. Maybe I should move. Same-sex sex? What's wrong with it? It's not hurting anyone. Unless it's really bad sex. Which we can all agree helps no one.
More to the utilitarian point, what's it to you? (a general "you", not "you-SUBMAN" )

[SUBMAN1]

I am throwing letum a white flag because I did not know I was stepping on his sexuality, and trying to back off.
what on earth do you mean by that? Please explain.

I am trying to apologize if I stepped on your toes here. Since you say I didn't, then forget about it. And no, it was not an insult - shessh! The way you defended the lifestyle I thought I was openeing up a can of worms! Sorry already!

Anyway, on to the subject of morals - what exactly are morals anyway? Explain this first since mine are obviously different. If you care to see where I am coming from, my morals extend from nature itself as a start. Anything that goes against nature has always not survived. Only man can artificially make a society survive based on laws that are against nature. Does this make it OK? If we clone people, does this make it OK? If you make a superhuman race to rule over the rest of us, does this make it OK? Maybe my views are a bit conservative.

We can also move this into a religious realm. Again, you butt up against the very things I describe above.

So I guess this really brings ones view into our personal views of morals and how it relates to nature as a whole. Where do morals stop?

Then we can stop at where children come into play. That is the ultimate goal of my writting on this thread - is it OK to say to a child - it is OK if you are a boy and you can sleep iwth boy #2 all you want? That is the ultimate thing to answer here.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

There are clearly two seperate subjects in my post. Not sure why you are making them into one. At the end of the Roman empire, you had the incursion into roman lands by the Germanic tribes. The second time around, it will be the Islmic tribes this time. If you are aware of history, you would know this. Sorry. Been living in bubble. Will rectify.
Let's stop modeling ourselves on the Romans, they didnt have telly. This isnt the "second time around".
I am aware of small chunks of history, but since it's more of a collective agreement than a record I can't very well know it all. What I don't see is the correlation between the fall of the Roman Empire and a children's book.
I am throwing letum a white flag because I did not know I was stepping on his sexuality, and trying to back off. I am not sure why you are dropping into this for me trying to apologize. Um, because nobody on the thread had declared a sexuality, and it loooks like you're assuming one from a post. Not that important though, nevermind.
Take a history course and you will find out when the basics of society - ie. teaching children that having sex with the same sex is OK, you break up the very fabric of a society itself, and eventualy it will lead to its downfall. It is simply one factor in the overall way that things fall into place. There's a fabric to society? News to me. Looking out my window I see rats racing. Maybe I should move. Same-sex sex? What's wrong with it? It's not hurting anyone. Unless it's really bad sex. Which we can all agree helps no one.
More to the utilitarian point, what's it to you? (a general "you", not "you-SUBMAN" )

Thanks. For the most part, i feel better. The whole point is, I am not trying to step on anyones toes while posting my views of things. Maybe I am playing the PC side of things, but this is a forum and I don't want to upset the whole world over a thread.

-S

[IRONxMortlock]

I don't see any problems with a book like this being read in school. I raise my son by the following system so it's unlike he will become gay - http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html

[THE_MASK]

This explains how i feel about the subject .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0dybAaZWuI

[Letum]

Anyway, on to the subject of morals - what exactly are morals anyway? Explain this first since mine are obviously different. If you care to see where I am coming from, my morals extend from nature itself as a start. Anything that goes against nature has always not survived. Only man can artificially make a society survive based on laws that are against nature. Does this make it OK? If we clone people, does this make it OK? If you make a superhuman race to rule over the rest of us, does this make it OK? Maybe my views are a bit conservative.

eei! now there's a BIG question and one people have been trying to answer since the dawn of philosophy.

The big problem for moral philosophy is Hume's "is - ought gap".Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem)
The is-ought gap means that rational, cognitive morality based on observation is impossible.

Your view of morality fails the is-ought test from the start, however I will comment further on other aspects of it.
1) You say your morals "extend from nature itself". I find this a little unnerving as much of nature seams very immoral to me:
In nature a species will kill off its competitors without mercy. You can see this everywhere in nature from the petri dish to the plight of the red squirrel. Nature is genocidal.
In nature many animals kill innocent animals of the same species for non-essential personal gain. Nature is murderous.
In nature a animal will steal food from other animals with out guilt. Nature commits theft.
There are countless other examples. Nature is not moral. In fact in many ways morality goes against nature. It is in my nature to eat my neighbors pie when I see it is unattended, but it in in my moral sensibilities that I do not steal the pie.

2) You say "Anything that goes against nature has always not survived". This is quite obviously wrong. with out all the, very unnatural, technology humans have employed; the human population would be a tiny fraction of it's current size.

3) As you point out, not everything unnatural is moral. you give the strange example of the creation of a a "superhuman race". Other examples might include the use of unjustified torture, witch is neither moral nor natural. However, this does not in turn mean that everything natural is moral as shown in section 1). The only conclusion that can be made is that weather something is natural or not has no bearing on weather or not it is moral.



In order to avoid the is-ought gap, I take a rather existential, and perhaps even hedonistic, view on morals. As it is impossible to make moral conclusions from observations; I do not do so. Instead, I learn what I can about the moral decision to be made and then decide which course is the most compassionate. I then take the most compassionate course, not because it is right or wrong, but because I take pleasure in doing so.
The result of this is that I take what could be called "positive moral decisions" because I take pleasure in doing so; rather than taking what could be called positive moral decisions on the basis of cognitive moral system that would inevitably be unconformable and (literally) impercievable.
The downside to my view on morality is that as a non-cognitive view is can not be used to show that something has a moral value and ultimately relies on each individual making his or her own decision which would then be indisputable on moral grounds. However I believe that, given enough knowledge, freedom of mind and intelligence, everyone would eventually make the same individual moral decision.

Note that there are many areas I have not explored here due to time and post length, so feel free to ask me to expand on any part. :)




Then we can stop at where children come into play. That is the ultimate goal of my writting on this thread - is it OK to say to a child - it is OK if you are a boy and you can sleep iwth boy #2 all you want? That is the ultimate thing to answer here.


I'm interested in what you are saying here, but don't fully understand what it is your saying. Could you expand?

[Letum]

I don't see any problems with a book like this being read in school. I raise my son by the following system so it's unlike he will become gay - http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html

Bwahahaha! that site is fantastic! The readers letters are a real hoot! :D Thanks a lot! *bookmarks*

[CCIP]

Then we can stop at where children come into play. That is the ultimate goal of my writting on this thread - is it OK to say to a child - it is OK if you are a boy and you can sleep iwth boy #2 all you want? That is the ultimate thing to answer here.


That would require some clarifications; "by who (can it be said)?" is one thing.

Personally, I reject objective morals flat-out. Morals don't exist for me. There are, however, common-sense issues. Such as the fact that people are socially conditioned; is the society willing to take responsibility for possibly conditioning children as... how to say this... ideologically disposed towards homosexual behaviour. Are we willing to deal with possible consequences of normalizing it? By no means should it be criminalized nor looked down on, but is it not both a natural pre-desposition AND a social choice? In which case, shouldn't we sit down and consider questions of pre-disposition?

Mind you, I think this is a pretty minor social problem myself. I'm far more concerned about adults as I said. I'm also far more concerned with much more serious problems the North American society has towards sexuality in general and the confused (and value-overloaded) perceptions of it that the kids get.

My personal answer is that the society (or rather the establishment), not quite being as accountable and ever-right as it might seem, really isn't ready to take responsibility for something like that when it comes down to it.

It's not in a position to teach morals because its own morals are a mess, assuming there are morals at all (see above). It's not in a position to ideologically condition children on that private a level, because it has a lot of ideological issues and schisms of its own. The only people who can and should are those who are personally vested in the kids. And that I think are the parents, and/or other people close to them. At the end of the day, they will be the ones responsible. Otherwise someone will always play the blame game.

It's parents we should really be teaching about these things, but we (i.e. the society) aren't because parents are stubborn, more critical and thus harder to work with, and we're lazy like that and would rather program the kids.

[IRONxMortlock]

I don't see any problems with a book like this being read in school. I raise my son by the following system so it's unlike he will become gay - http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html
Bwahahaha! that site is fantastic! The readers letters are a real hoot! :D Thanks a lot! *bookmarks*

Yeah, a friend just pointed me toward that site today. I've had a quiet afternoon here at work so I've spent it trying not to roll off my chair with laughter while reading through its articles.

[Skybird]

I don't see any problems with a book like this being read in school. I raise my son by the following system so it's unlike he will become gay - http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html
That list is a hoax, yes...!?

[Letum]

I don't see any problems with a book like this being read in school. I raise my son by the following system so it's unlike he will become gay - http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html That list is a hoax, yes...!?

More "satire" than "hoax".

[Skybird]

All it says is that it is ok to marry another prince......and it is!
I disagree. Western constitutions usually put the family (mother, father, child(ren) ) under special protection by the community (state). This is to give the most weak ones (children) best protection, and to give the community future perspectives concerning number of members.

Referring to German constitution, it literally say that the FAMILY is under protection by the state. It does not say that it is the couple male-female itself. but where there are just two adults, even if they have consent not wanting to have children, eventually there COULD be children. For that reason, and for the reason of practical handling the "protection for family" thing in reality, child-less couples that marry usually can take much, but not all the same benefits like couples with children (they do not get financial aid for raising children, for example). Point is, the intention is to make a difference between people who eventually will have children and raise them, and people who doesn't. That is what today marriage very much is about: protect families, that are more vulnerable and dependant due to the fact that there are children.

Also, hetero-sexual close relationships are by far the norm of living-together between two adult people. I see no reason why we must wish to change that naturally emerged conditon by re-educating people, nor do I see a right for a minority to impose their will of redefine that norm on the many. Let them peacefully live in their being-different. that is enough, in my opinion. Gay couples are not treated different than hetero couples that decide against marriage, or are not yet be married (by which they give up certain financial helps and tax reliefs). I fail to see this as discrimination of gays. Non-married hetero couples than also could get angry of not benefitting from the status of being married, like married couples. If rejecting that difference - what specially protected status then would be left for families? The difference remains that the gay couple can never have children by themselves, while a hetero couple eventually will have children. complain to nature for that arrangement, but that'S how it is. I simply laugh about that scientist whom many years ago I heared of, and who said that he think it is popssible to surgically implement artificial wombs under male'S left arm where they could carry out and give birth to childkren that got previously polaneted there. that is simply sick perversion. Hey I want to have wings so that i can fly!

If gay marriages are redefined and put on equal status in rights with hetero-couples, then this is a relativising of the family, and de facto it's specially protected status is neutralised. but I think it is important that this special status of a family remains, even more so when considering that it already is under massive fire in modern life by state-driven demands to gain state-access to their education as early as possible, that multi-generation families already are a model that has almost died out, that small core families also are at braking point due to the fact that both fathers AND mothers often need to be away all day for reasons of their jobs. The meaning of "zuhause" (home) and "Elternhaus" (no exact English translation except home again) more and more looses importance, and meaning. And this we pay dearly for.

It is not the last reason why western societies also have so few children that populations are shrinking.

It is allowed for adults no matter what sexes to live together if they wish. and that is enough. Damaging the institution of family by gay "marriages" therefore is no option for me. I insist on families being seen as something special, and that they have a far higher contribution to make for the community, than homosexual couples. I see no reason why gays should be seen as equal in rights to families, since this is not true for singles as well. Giving singles the same rights and benefits like families also would harm the special stratus Western laws and constitutions guarantee for families.

And as I said two of my postings before, homosexuality is a reality and exists, but it is no natural norm - it is the exception from the norm. Gay marriages give the impression that gay couples are kind of a norm, or a natural thing. They are not. Again, they are an exception (that is to be tolerated, but must not be equipped with special rights that are only founded on being an exception from the norm).

Like albinos have no pigments and could want to sue nature for that as long as thy want (or not), homosexual couples lack the ability to have children by their own. While some argue that gay couples should be given the right to adopt children and raise them like hetero couples, I oppose that trick to equalise gay marriages to normal families as well.

Families are already under pressure, and that is one of the reasons, the major reasons, why there are so few children in Western societies. So nobody expecting me to accept further harming their specially protected status. Neither for economical reasons, nor for reasons of gay marriages.

[Sixpack]

In friggin Holland I estimate 8 out of 10 guys in front of the TV camera of so called entertainment shows are gay. And damn exhibitionistic about it too alas.

Many of the biggest 'stars' in this sorry place called a country are extremely gay.

Needless to say I cant stand watching Dutch made entertainment programs.

Aamof: When I (very rarely) watch, I only watch some NGC/Discovery (seen most already) and top movies (at least 4 out of 5 stars).

Skybird, how in the world can we stop all this garbage ?! Are most of our fellow citizens indeed such spineless meek morons ?

[TteFAboB]

The right to idolize must guarantee the right of repulse. If homossexualism is to be pushed over people, then those who are repelled by it must have their right to step away ensured aswell.

Equal rights, universal rights.

[StdDev]

So...
There are these two gay guys sitting on a bench in Golden Gate Park...
Just watching the world go by..
When a beatutifull girl walks by them, one of the guys nudges the other and says.. " ya know... sometimes I wish I were a lesbian"...

[SUBMAN1]

Anyway, on to the subject of morals - what exactly are morals anyway? Explain this first since mine are obviously different. If you care to see where I am coming from, my morals extend from nature itself as a start. Anything that goes against nature has always not survived. Only man can artificially make a society survive based on laws that are against nature. Does this make it OK? If we clone people, does this make it OK? If you make a superhuman race to rule over the rest of us, does this make it OK? Maybe my views are a bit conservative.
eei! now there's a BIG question and one people have been trying to answer since the dawn of philosophy.

The big problem for moral philosophy is Hume's "is - ought gap".Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem)
The is-ought gap means that rational, cognitive morality based on observation is impossible.

Your view of morality fails the is-ought test from the start, however I will comment further on other aspects of it.
1) You say your morals "extend from nature itself". I find this a little unnerving as much of nature seams very immoral to me:
In nature a species will kill off its competitors without mercy. You can see this everywhere in nature from the petri dish to the plight of the red squirrel. Nature is genocidal.
In nature many animals kill innocent animals of the same species for non-essential personal gain. Nature is murderous.
In nature a animal will steal food from other animals with out guilt. Nature commits theft.
There are countless other examples. Nature is not moral. In fact in many ways morality goes against nature. It is in my nature to eat my neighbors pie when I see it is unattended, but it in in my moral sensibilities that I do not steal the pie.

2) You say "Anything that goes against nature has always not survived". This is quite obviously wrong. with out all the, very unnatural, technology humans have employed; the human population would be a tiny fraction of it's current size.

3) As you point out, not everything unnatural is moral. you give the strange example of the creation of a a "superhuman race". Other examples might include the use of unjustified torture, witch is neither moral nor natural. However, this does not in turn mean that everything natural is moral as shown in section 1). The only conclusion that can be made is that weather something is natural or not has no bearing on weather or not it is moral.



In order to avoid the is-ought gap, I take a rather existential, and perhaps even hedonistic, view on morals. As it is impossible to make moral conclusions from observations; I do not do so. Instead, I learn what I can about the moral decision to be made and then decide which course is the most compassionate. I then take the most compassionate course, not because it is right or wrong, but because I take pleasure in doing so.
The result of this is that I take what could be called "positive moral decisions" because I take pleasure in doing so; rather than taking what could be called positive moral decisions on the basis of cognitive moral system that would inevitably be unconformable and (literally) impercievable.
The downside to my view on morality is that as a non-cognitive view is can not be used to show that something has a moral value and ultimately relies on each individual making his or her own decision which would then be indisputable on moral grounds. However I believe that, given enough knowledge, freedom of mind and intelligence, everyone would eventually make the same individual moral decision.

Note that there are many areas I have not explored here due to time and post length, so feel free to ask me to expand on any part. :)




Then we can stop at where children come into play. That is the ultimate goal of my writting on this thread - is it OK to say to a child - it is OK if you are a boy and you can sleep iwth boy #2 all you want? That is the ultimate thing to answer here.

I'm interested in what you are saying here, but don't fully understand what it is your saying. Could you expand?

Your views seem flawed to me in that they are entirely of your own and not of 'reality'. You live in the flawed world you describe and if you take a course on biology, you will find the very nature that you speak of as being flawed is the very nature that has brought you to the point you are now through natural selection however much you dislike it. We can also safely say that gays were a very little part of that gene pool which accounts to the fact that they make up a very small percentage of the species population - this is because they cannot procreate. Darwins survival of the fittest are the very rules you live under so get used to it.

When it comes to morals, morals are an offshoot of the natural desire of our species to survive. What you are advocating is a change of those very core beliefs that has led to our species survival for as many years as it has. I won't go into it much on a society scale when Skybird already has above, but the point of it all is how it affects the children who are your future and the progression of your genes. That is what I mean when I write above about telling them it is OK - and that is the very problem. The guidance for proper survival is becoming cloudy and that is bad for the species as a whole. Nature has a way with dealing with species that become cloudy like this - it is called extinction. It may not seem all that likely right now with modern society, but I beleive that this modern society as you see it around you can fall back into the dark ages and there all of this will be a much bigger problem.

Now as far as the lifestyle itself - If that is what they want to do, then fine. Keep it to themselves and I don't care. However, when you start trying to force my thoughts on the issue, start trying to mess with the core values of a society through things such as marriage, which in turn tells my children that it is OK to be gay, then I start having a problem with it. Just my two cents.

-S

[StdDev]

<SNIP>

Your views seem flawed to me in that they are entirely of your own and not of 'reality'. You live in the flawed world you describe and if you take a course on biology, you will find the very nature that you speak of as being flawed is the very nature that has brought you to the point you are now through natural selection however much you dislike it. We can also safely say that gays were a very little part of that gene pool which accounts to the fact that they make up a very small percentage of the species population - this is because they cannot procreate. Darwins survival of the fittest are the very rules you live under so get used to it.

Since, as you imply "gay unions can produce no offspring", and yet gaydom (is that a word?.. maybe gayishness?) obviously exists, it would seem to argue that there is no genetic basis for being gay.
Letum's "reality", while obviously not yours, is no less "real".. I'm confident it works for him.


When it comes to morals, morals are an offshoot of the natural desire of our species to survive. What you are advocating is a change of those very core beliefs that has led to our species survival for as many years as it has. I won't go into it much on a society scale when Skybird already has above, but the point of it all is how it affects the children who are your future and the progression of your genes. That is what I mean when I write above about telling them it is OK - and that is the very problem. The guidance for proper survival is becoming cloudy and that is bad for the species as a whole. Nature has a way with dealing with species that become cloudy like this - it is called extinction. It may not seem all that likely right now with modern society, but I beleive that this modern society as you see it around you can fall back into the dark ages and there all of this will be a much bigger problem.

Morals are merely a belief set that one uses to guide them through life, they can be good or they can be bad.. and the distinction between the two is relatively subjective. Society usually has a big influence on what you percieve as "moral" or "immoral" ie. it is not a good thing to kill other human beings (yet there are certainly some individuals who do deserve such!). Other aspects of what you percieve as moral or immoral are a result of how you were raised (personally I think people who watch "reality based" TV shows NEED "re-education" at the states expense.. but I dont persecute these people.. because of my "moral" set).
Societies need for progeny in order to continue itself is way over, in fact society would benifit from a "thinning of the herd".


Now as far as the lifestyle itself - If that is what they want to do, then fine. Keep it to themselves and I don't care. However, when you start trying to force my thoughts on the issue, start trying to mess with the core values of a society through things such as marriage, which in turn tells my children that it is OK to be gay, then I start having a problem with it. Just my two cents.
-S

Most people now days also feel that "If that is what the gays want to do, then fine". Where your belief system differs from mine (and I suspect Letums and others) is that it is OK to let children know that it is OK to be gay.. if that is what they want.. it is NOT OK to be violently homophobic.
In other words.. "son.. there are gay people out there.. they aint rattle snakes, and if you leave them be, they will leave you be. It is only a lifestyle choice that they made".
If you want to teach your children that "gay is wrong", that is fine too, that is the natural outcome of your belief set. But just because I feel there is a different moral stance to take here does that mean I am orbiting Uranus? ( no puns implied here please).

Let me ask you a question.. and I am only interested in the answer.. not to make judgments about you or anything because of your answer.. as I said (or tried to say) your belief system is OK with me.. it's just not my choice.
If you had a child who was gay, would you love them less or think less of them?

[SUBMAN1]

Let me ask you a question.. and I am only interested in the answer.. not to make judgments about you or anything because of your answer.. as I said (or tried to say) your belief system is OK with me.. it's just not my choice.
If you had a child who was gay, would you love them less or think less of them?
The answer to the question is that it would be more of me thinking that I had failed personally. I don't hate gay people, I just don't want the lifestyle pressed upon me or anyone else that I think goes against the grain of what is right, and I will never accept it.

ANd to answer your question as to why gay people exist given the gene pool - this is called a genetic anomoly in science. It is similar to nature giving a moth a different color - happens all the time, but if that moth stands out, it will most likely be the first target of a predator. Same in people - some people will get cancer. Plain and simple.

And no - it is not OK to be gay, which is why the majority of people don't accept it. I understand there is a PC crowd however...

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Subman1 "The answer to the question is that it would be more of me thinking that I had failed personally."

Same question my sister and brother-in-law had to answer when their adopted Korean son advise he was gay. Yep, my nephew, first year of college came home stating he had a boyfriend. My sister is torn up and wonders were she went wrong. Do I love my nephew any less....NO WAY. He is still the kid we picked up at the Philadelphia Airport 20 years ago. He will always be my nephew and he will be a productive part of society. I have no fear of his success in life even though I do not believe in homosexuality or the agenda of homosexuals. A lot of this group are very productive people. Probably more than some of the straight arrows I know!

As far as pushing this issue on small children, I do not think it is right. Young adults I do not have an issue introducing this material. At this point, the can form their own opinions that are not influenced by the likes of Sponge Bob Square Pants. :o

[SUBMAN1]

Subman1 "The answer to the question is that it would be more of me thinking that I had failed personally."

Same question my sister and brother-in-law had to answer when their adopted Korean son advise he was gay. Yep, my nephew, first year of college came home stating he had a boyfriend. My sister is torn up and wonders were she went wrong. Do I love my nephew any less....NO WAY. He is still the kid we picked up at the Philadelphia Airport 20 years ago. He will always be my nephew and he will be a productive part of society. I have no fear of his success in life even though I do not believe in homosexuality or the agenda of homosexuals. A lot of this group are very productive people. Probably more than some of the straight arrows I know!

As far as pushing this issue on small children, I do not think it is right. Young adults I do not have an issue introducing this material. At this point, the can form their own opinions that are not influenced by the likes of Sponge Bob Square Pants. :o

Yep - you hit the nail on the head with this. My thoughts exactly.

-S

[StdDev]

Let me ask you a question.. and I am only interested in the answer.. not to make judgments about you or anything because of your answer.. as I said (or tried to say) your belief system is OK with me.. it's just not my choice.
If you had a child who was gay, would you love them less or think less of them?
The answer to the question is that it would be more of me thinking that I had failed personally. I don't hate gay people, I just don't want the lifestyle pressed upon me or anyone else that I think goes against the grain of what is right, and I will never accept it.

OK..
The only thing here that bugs me is the word "pressed". I dont believe there are any gay people who were forced into their lifestyle at gun point or anything..
I understand that you dont think gay is right.
I was probably brought up very similar to you.. it is not a lifestyle choice I would make.. but I consider being "gay" as important (or as moral if you like) as liking reality TV.. dont really understand the attraction but I accept that some people do.


ANd to answer your question as to why gay people exist given the gene pool - this is called a genetic anomoly in science. It is similar to nature giving a moth a different color - happens all the time, but if that moth stands out, it will most likely be the first target of a predator. Same in people - some people will get cancer. Plain and simple.

Would seem to be a "prevalent re-occurance of an abnormality" to me.
If it were a "genetically" based condition (I'll even let you call it an abnormality) I would expect to see a higher incidence of other socially frowned upon sexual attractions.. animals, electronic appliances, plants, etc.
I'm not going to say that you are wrong.. I will say that I personally doubt that there is a "gay" gene.
The statistical chance of an "aberation" like this constantly and continuously reappearing is damn near nill. If there truly is a gay gene I would think it more likely a "normal and natural" entity within the human genome that requires some specific (and relatively rare) conditions in order to be expressed.



And no - it is not OK to be gay, which is why the majority of people don't accept it. I understand there is a PC crowd however...
-S

Again a word/definition issue.. the term "accept"... has conotative implications that I disagree with.. "don't agree with", "don't adhere to", "don't like" even.. but most people DO tolerate it. (even tolerate is not quite the right word.)

Like many "heteros", I feel that it is allright for gay people to be gay.. it's their choice. And they are not any less because of their choice.. they are only different (almost like being "texan" :p ).

... and I would rather be labeled "gay" (even though I am not) than PC!
(even if I was or am!)

[SUBMAN1]

OK..
The only thing here that bugs me is the word "pressed". I dont believe there are any gay people who were forced into their lifestyle at gun point or anything..
I understand that you dont think gay is right.
I was probably brought up very similar to you.. it is not a lifestyle choice I would make.. but I consider being "gay" as important (or as moral if you like) as liking reality TV.. dont really understand the attraction but I accept that some people do.

When I say pressed, it refers to forcing ones opinion on you that it is normal. A way that this could be construed is through allowing gay people to marry. These married people show children that being gay is normal and a good thing, for which it is not.

Would seem to be a "prevalent re-occurance of an abnormality" to me.
If it were a "genetically" based condition (I'll even let you call it an abnormality) I would expect to see a higher incidence of other socially frowned upon sexual attractions.. animals, electronic appliances, plants, etc.
I'm not going to say that you are wrong.. I will say that I personally doubt that there is a "gay" gene.
The statistical chance of an "aberation" like this constantly and continuously reappearing is damn near nill. If there truly is a gay gene I would think it more likely a "normal and natural" entity within the human genome that requires some specific (and relatively rare) conditions in order to be expressed.

I don't beleive their is a gay gene either. From research, I think it is best described as an abnormality of the brain that makes a person predisposed to being confused sexually. They aren't born gay persey. It stems from a condition refered to as hypersexulity (someone correct me if I misspelled it). The best way to describe it can be demonstrated with a cage of rats. Put a few rats in a cage and you will have normal sexual relations among the rats. Put a bunch of rats in a cage in close proximity, and this is where the hypersexuality comes from - without getting into detail, the rats have sex constantly. A number of them that can be pre-determined will screw pretty much anything, and this is what I believe is the same thing that happens in society - we have huge cities where you have a number of humans living in close proximity, and I think our society is very sexually oriented for the same reasons. A certain number of people will become gay in this situation.

Again a word/definition issue.. the term "accept"... has conotative implications that I disagree with.. "don't agree with", "don't adhere to", "don't like" even.. but most people DO tolerate it. (even tolerate is not quite the right word.)

Like many "heteros", I feel that it is allright for gay people to be gay.. it's their choice. And they are not any less because of their choice.. they are only different (almost like being "texan" :p ).

... and I would rather be labeled "gay" (even though I am not) than PC!
(even if I was or am!)

Again, it was not tolerated, even in the immediate in the past, and the only thing that changed is that PC entered the arena. Same thing happened in the Roman empire. FInd me a better word to describe it then.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Although I too agree that there is no 'gay' gene, I do however agree and seen medically, some individuals that produce more of female hormone but this is a male producing the hormone. And the same for females producing more male hormones than female hormones. In this instance, it is truly a medical issue. What sex the individual most feels comfortable with is up to them. These people are the ones that I feel truly sorry for because chemically, their bodies are handing out very strange signals to the brain.

Above and beyond that, I feel, from my experience with my nephew and his boyfriend, this was his CHOICE. I do not believe he has any hormonal imbalance or something in his brain is directing him to do this.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

im all for human rights bla bla bla etc... but homosexuals, they all rounded up, and sent to prison camps or executed, cuz homosexuality is taken it too far, dont **** with mother nature cuz if we do then our race will become extinct. :nope::nope::nope: l, every year at that stupid gay pride march in downtown toronto i throw eggs at the bastards, and gay prides in serbia lol dont exist the morons tried it one time, and boy o boy did the police beat them up

homosexuals dont deserve to live with us natural NORMAL human beings (homosapiens) evolved (or designed:doh:) for males to mate with femals and produce offspring so the offspring can keep our race alive, if the rest of the world dont do something soon, then our race will die out.. (at least our planet will get better due to less polution:arrgh!:)

[SUBMAN1]

Although I too agree that there is no 'gay' gene, I do however agree and seen medically, some individuals that produce more of female hormone but this is a male producing the hormone. And the same for females producing more male hormones than female hormones. In this instance, it is truly a medical issue. What sex the individual most feels comfortable with is up to them. These people are the ones that I feel truly sorry for because chemically, their bodies are handing out very strange signals to the brain.

Above and beyond that, I feel, from my experience with my nephew and his boyfriend, this was his CHOICE. I do not believe he has any hormonal imbalance or something in his brain is directing him to do this.

Exactly - I would be best described as a sexual confusion - not a drive to do it. So yes, I'd have to agree with you that it is a choice on his part. Not sure how the female hormone would factor into the equation though. I don't remember the exact numbers from the rat study on that aspect.

-S

[fatty]

im all for human rights bla bla bla etc... but homosexuals, they all rounded up, and sent to prison camps or executed...
Right away, mein führer! :roll:

homosexuals dont deserve to live with us natural NORMAL human beings (homosapiens) evolved (or designed:doh:) for males to mate with femals and produce offspring so the offspring can keep our race alive, if the rest of the world dont do something soon, then our race will die out..
Yes, we know the imminent danger of that!
http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif

[SUBMAN1]

im all for human rights bla bla bla etc... but homosexuals, they all rounded up, and sent to prison camps or executed... Right away, mein führer! :roll:

homosexuals dont deserve to live with us natural NORMAL human beings (homosapiens) evolved (or designed:doh:) for males to mate with femals and produce offspring so the offspring can keep our race alive, if the rest of the world dont do something soon, then our race will die out.. Yes, we know the imminent danger of that!

Nice Avatar fatty

[AVGWarhawk]

im all for human rights bla bla bla etc... but homosexuals, they all rounded up, and sent to prison camps or executed, cuz homosexuality is taken it too far, dont **** with mother nature cuz if we do then our race will become extinct. :nope::nope::nope: l, every year at that stupid gay pride march in downtown toronto i throw eggs at the bastards, and gay prides in serbia lol dont exist the morons tried it one time, and boy o boy did the police beat them up

homosexuals dont deserve to live with us natural NORMAL human beings (homosapiens) evolved (or designed:doh:) for males to mate with femals and produce offspring so the offspring can keep our race alive, if the rest of the world dont do something soon, then our race will die out.. (at least our planet will get better due to less polution:arrgh!:)
We are all entitled to our opinions. But some see things differently when faced with it. My sister told my wife that here son would never come home claiming he was gay. Two years later he did just that. Not to belittle your post, there are some that just openly display what they are doing. IE, seen some men with chaps on and rear end hanging out:nope:. Not in public and not infront of my kids. My wife and I do not do that why should they? Mostly an attention getter and mostly how the world view the lesser minority that do this. Like I said, most that I know are very descrete and are productive members of society. Someone posted a few back about heterosexuals that are into animals, appliances, plants(LOL). Do we do the same with these people like you suggest with gays?:hmm: The gay marchers are looking for some publicity. The best answer is to ignore.

[fatty]

Nice Avatar fatty
Heheh, yes, I couldn't help but laugh that I got "wild night in bangkok" on this particular thread!

[ASWnut101]

Hard to ignore when they march down your front street...

[AVGWarhawk]

Hard to ignore when they march down your front street...

Ah, do what I do, change the channel or go somewhere else for the day. In my view, you become an active participant if you are standing watching. All be it an opposing participant. This is what they want. It is all about exposure, be sure. If a crowd did not show, it would not make sense to keep marching.


Kind of funny how the Bankok avatar showed up.......what next, navy dude?

[SUBMAN1]

Ah, do what I do, change the channel or go somewhere else for the day. In my view, you become an active participant if you are standing watching. All be it an opposing participant. This is what they want. It is all about exposure, be sure. If a crowd did not show, it would not make sense to keep marching.


Kind of funny how the Bankok avatar showed up.......what next, navy dude?

Its sad that they are forcing you out of your own home...

[Tchocky]

elite, don't throw eggs at gay pride marchers. Just don't

It's a simple equal/opposite reaction

Gay pride exists because gay shame exists.

[Gizzmoe]

im all for human rights bla bla bla etc... but homosexuals, they all rounded up, and sent to prison camps or executed[...] homosexuals dont deserve to live with us natural NORMAL human beings[...]

Such kind of hate speech is unacceptable. Watch what you say in the future.

[Hitman]

We already have anti-racism laws preventing to vote against ongoing immigration as enforced by governments on their people opposing this policy. We could have according sex-laws as well.

That will make an interesting combination in the future. Following the projected growth rates, imagine 1/2 population in Europe coming from 3rd world countries where homosexuals are beaten, discriminated or even executed, and 1/2 population of homosexuals. :hmm:

[Skybird]

Guys, could we keep this thread civil, please. I would hate to see this going down the drain. And I think almost all of us have made it clear where we stand anyway. Being clear about one's opinion, and defend it, is one thing, hatefilled propaganda is a completely different one.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ah, do what I do, change the channel or go somewhere else for the day. In my view, you become an active participant if you are standing watching. All be it an opposing participant. This is what they want. It is all about exposure, be sure. If a crowd did not show, it would not make sense to keep marching.


Kind of funny how the Bankok avatar showed up.......what next, navy dude?

Its sad that they are forcing you out of your own home...

No one forces me to do anything. I have hundreds of channels to watch. I do not have to go downtown to see the marchs. It is all about choice that we are allowed to have. I choose to not watch any of it. I have better things to do and better causes to support. Too each their own I guess.

[FIREWALL]

HEY ALL SH-4 is right around the corner!

Since this topic has gotten kinda nasty
why not think of something happy ? :p

[STEED]

HEY ALL SH-4 is right around the corner!

Since this topic has gotten kinda nasty
why not think of something happy ? :p

UP YOURS. :p

Hey I feel good. :lol: ;)

[FIREWALL]

HEY ALL SH-4 is right around the corner!

Since this topic has gotten kinda nasty
why not think of something happy ? :p

UP YOURS. :p

Hey I feel good. :lol: ;)

Well I know which side of the saddle you ride.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[STEED]

HEY ALL SH-4 is right around the corner!

Since this topic has gotten kinda nasty
why not think of something happy ? :p

UP YOURS. :p

Hey I feel good. :lol: ;)

Well I know which side of the saddle you ride.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Have a drink on me. :()1:

:lol: :rotfl: :lol:

[THE_MASK]

HEY ALL SH-4 is right around the corner!

Since this topic has gotten kinda nasty
why not think of something happy ? :p

Thats why i put this link in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0dybAaZWuI

[waste gate]

HEY ALL SH-4 is right around the corner!

Since this topic has gotten kinda nasty
why not think of something happy ? :p

Thats why i put this link in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0dybAaZWuI

LMAO

[joea]

I myself oppose gay marriage for the same reasons others do in this thread, and also I am pretty leery of allowing gay adoption. Actually not sure if single people should adopt, better for kids to have a male and female role model growing up. I don't see why a partnership as exists for heterosexual couples can't simply be extended in this case.

I will say attitudes vary in different countries, elite's comments (not that I support them) match others I've heard from RL friends from most ex-East Bloc countries. My comment to them is, MORE WOMEN LEFT FOR US. :arrgh!:

[SUBMAN1]

My comment to them is, MORE WOMEN LEFT FOR US. :arrgh!:

That works until one tricks you into marrying her.:-?

[FIREWALL]

HEY ALL SH-4 is right around the corner!

Since this topic has gotten kinda nasty
why not think of something happy ? :p

Thats why i put this link in htt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0dybAaZWuI)
p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0dybAaZWuI

That was hilarious.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[StdDev]

My comment to them is, MORE WOMEN LEFT FOR US. :arrgh!:

That works until one tricks you into marrying her.:-?

Hey SUBMAN1!!!!
You know the sure fire proven method to piss a female off?

[Letum]

My comment to them is, MORE WOMEN LEFT FOR US. :arrgh!:
That works until one tricks you into marrying her.:-?
Hey SUBMAN1!!!!
You know the sure fire proven method to piss a female off?

Yer, I'm fast starting to expect those kind of comments from SUBMAN. :down:
It's not even post ironic.

[SUBMAN1]

My comment to them is, MORE WOMEN LEFT FOR US. :arrgh!:
That works until one tricks you into marrying her.:-?
Hey SUBMAN1!!!!
You know the sure fire proven method to piss a female off?

I'm guessing you're going to tell me?:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Yer, I'm fast starting to expect those kind of comments from SUBMAN. :down:
It's not even post ironic.

WHoaa!! What are you refering to? I detect a tad bit of hostility here.

[StdDev]

My comment to them is, MORE WOMEN LEFT FOR US. :arrgh!:
That works until one tricks you into marrying her.:-?
Hey SUBMAN1!!!!
You know the sure fire proven method to piss a female off?

I'm guessing you're going to tell me?:hmm:

marry em.......

[SUBMAN1]

marry em.......
Considering I am a pretty good catch, I doubt I will ever have that problem! :p :smug:

All fun aside, that is pretty funny though!

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

It seems as though this discussion has concluded, and we are now rambling off-topic. This is fine enough, but I can invision someone down the road getting this thread for the first time and having it blow up again. As such, this one goes with Davey Jones.