It's SkyBIRD and calling people names is not helping your cause one bit.

I agree. Maybe you should address Skykelp with your complaint though, don't ya thinK?

August,

let him have his way. He probably already lost this place, and sooner or later he will realize it. I recommend to simply ignore this troll, and period.

Reminds us of the good ol' times, doesn't it? :lol:

If Skybirds misspelling was anything other than an accident common to those of his nationality then I would. However yours are deliberate insults and there's a difference.

And there we have it.

Umfuld = No matter your beiefs, I can assure you gays are people too, and you should have no rights that they do not have.

Skybird = Troll!

I don't think it was a misspelling. And my variations on his name were a direct response to that.

Regards
-Umsy

Yeah you're right I guess. Conversing with him is about as challenging as poking ant hills with a stick, at least when I debate with you i have to think.

Guys, simply saying you got the better of someone because you have no valid point to make is pretty pathetic. It's my guess that this thread did nothing to change anyone's point of view either way. But as for simply stating the case and debate, you lost baldy in my opinion. But, I'm just a troll trying to show off my new college education. Plus, I've got a lot of growing up to do, so I wouldn't put too much stock in my opinion.

Umfuld, thanks for your response.

Actually, Umfuld has a valid question getting lost in all the noise. Should hetero couples who don't intend (or cannot) have children be allowed to get married or not?

Very interesting attitudes displayed here.I actually have two friends, both from Eastern Europe, one is gay and the other straight (they don't live in the same city). The straight one is very left wing in his views and also very homophobe...the gay fellow is a bit more conservative and supports gay marriage. This is not relevant but just interesting.

I really want to say I support gays cause that leaves more women for us. :rotfl:

I also must confess that I am in fact, a lesbian.

Sorry again. :oops:

Lighten up guys.

Well, yes Joe. Mainly because it would be impossible for any government to ever prove a couples true intent or ability to have children. Making it even more difficult is that both intent and ability can change over time and advances in medical science.

For example, should permission to marry be denied based on an 18 year olds intent? For how long would such a denial be in effect? How would the government handle a bad diagnosis either way? People can have children regardless of matrimonial status so what about accidental pregnancies among people who have declared their intent not to reproduce? What about people that said they did intend to have children but then used birth control to prevent a pregnancy? Could a child of parents that were denied the ability to marry be able to sue the government that issued the denial because it hurt his or her chances for a good two parent home environment?

Bottom line here is no government can ever hope to effectively prohibit something it cannot either quantify or enforce. It would be the height of stupidity to even try.

He might as well have asked what if the government prohibited the sky from being blue on sunny days. Of course it goes without saying that any hope of creating a useful discussion on the subject went right out the window due to his rude and abrasive manner.

Hypothetically then. Yes or no? Why is it so hard to answer for you?


Edit: Not even hypothetically. What about a 90 year old man and a 90 year old woman. See, I'm not just tying to be a wang by repeatedly asking this question.

Here's what I hope you'll do. Consider telling that couple, the 90 year old man and 90 year old woman, who are both dying of cancer and want to be married before they die, that they can't get married because marrige is only meant for raising children (or for whatever reason you may have).

Think of the cruelty in that. That's what you are doing to every gay couple who want what everyone but them can have. I just want you to open your heart for a moment and think about what you are arguing against. Forget that you're just on the internet killing time, and saying whatever may pop into your head.
Think about what you are saying, and why, REALLY WHY, you want to deny these people the dignity of marriage.

It's the 21 century, you know? This kind of discrimination will end eventually. It always does. Why are you fighting against what is so clearly right? Why?

You say marraige has always been this or that. Well, not really. Marriage has always meant different things at different times, and places. Even in the West, a wife was considered more or less a piece of property. In fact, the legal definition of rape (since you are so keen on definitions) used to indicate that no wife could ever claim her husband raped her.
This was the law in the U.S not too long ago. A man had the right to take his wife by force, legally. And there was nothing she could do about it.
This definition was changed. Just as impling marriage is the sole province of a man and woman couple will be changed, eventually.

Why do you want to tell that 90 year old couple on their death beds that they can't be wed? Why do you want to tell any two human beings they can't be wed? Really? Why?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You crazy girl, ah.... I mean guy. :up:

I too have always felt like a lesbian trapped in a mans body.


Bada boom chish.

You guys do know I was joking...I am not a gay woman but a straight man. :o

Ok, I like the same things as a lipstick lesbian seeking butch lesbian. I am very masculine, I only play gritty WWII games and dislike quiche and drinks with umbrellas (well I like Long Island Iced Tea, and the YMCA song by the Village People....but that's it).

Think of the song "Macho Man" by the Village People and you'll get what this forum should be...


NO NO NO...scratch that.:arrgh!:

Where is Graham Chapman to shut this thread down?