CA allows g4y marriage

tallTyrion wrote:

But if the
Biblical definition of marriage (one man and one woman, monogamous for
life), were adhered to, sexually transmitted diseases would be
virtually eliminated in a generation.

firehouse, He's saying that if people were monogamous then STDs could be eliminated. Promiscious heterosexuals are just as responsible as homosexuals in the transmission of STDs.

Please read his post closely.

I knew this was gonna start getting ugly sooner or later.... exit stage left!!

emptytomb1 wrote:

You cannot say homosexuals aren't harming anyone, they are harming themselves. There's a reason they are told to get medical check-ups every 6 months, because the diseases they are getting kill and it's not just aids.

Are there homosexual diseases now? If people have unprotected sex, they're being stupid. It has nothing to do with sexual preference. I've plopped my weiner down in a (female) pooper or two in my time and have come out unscathed, if not a bit stinky.

Eyesore wrote:

I've plopped my weiner down in a (female) pooper or two in my time and have come out unscathed, if not a bit stinky.

Sometimes your words paint the nicest pictures.

You're no longer a recurring guest star on "the Saxons".

spectrefate wrote:

tallTyrion wrote:

But if the
Biblical definition of marriage (one man and one woman, monogamous for
life), were adhered to, sexually transmitted diseases would be
virtually eliminated in a generation.

firehouse,
He's saying that if people were monogamous then STDs could be
eliminated. Promiscious heterosexuals are just as responsible as
homosexuals in the transmission of STDs.

Please read his post closely.

Yep, I'm not exempting heterosexuals at all. In fact, without really
digging into the figures, I'd venture to say that herosexuals spread
STD's at a much higher rate that homosexuals, although per capita, you
are more likely to have an STD if you are homosexual because they
usually engage in more dangerous types of activities.

The point is not to say that homosexuals are evil or anything of the
kind, just that sexual promoscuity of any sort is a dangerous
activity and quite often, it leads to bad consequences.

And before anyone says that I'm for legislating a strict code of
conduct on sexual activity, let me point out that I did not say that
the Biblical definition of marriage should be enforced legislatively, I
merely point out that if it were followed (voluntarily), STD's would
virtually disappear.

Eyesore wrote:

emptytomb1 wrote:

You cannot say homosexuals aren't harming anyone, they are harming themselves. There's a reason they are told to get medical check-ups every 6 months, because the diseases they are getting kill and it's not just aids.

Are there homosexual diseases now? If people have unprotected sex, they're being stupid. It has nothing to do with sexual preference. I've plopped my weiner down in a (female) pooper or two in my time and have come out unscathed, if not a bit stinky.

Thanks for sharing Eyesore.....

And GTF, I think you have a lot of good points. The Black Metal comment was maybe a little silly, but no big deal..
Dont make this discussion a war,(not saying you are) there is really no need to.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

spectrefate wrote:

tallTyrion wrote:

But if the
Biblical definition of marriage (one man and one woman, monogamous for
life), were adhered to, sexually transmitted diseases would be
virtually eliminated in a generation.

firehouse,
He's saying that if people were monogamous then STDs could be
eliminated. Promiscious heterosexuals are just as responsible as
homosexuals in the transmission of STDs.

Please read his post closely.

Yep, I'm not exempting heterosexuals at all. In fact, without really
digging into the figures, I'd venture to say that herosexuals spread
STD's at a much higher rate that homosexuals, although per capita, you
are more likely to have an STD if you are homosexual because they
usually engage in more dangerous types of activities.

The point is not to say that homosexuals are evil or anything of the
kind, just that sexual promoscuity of any sort is a dangerous
activity and quite often, it leads to bad consequences.

And before anyone says that I'm for legislating a strict code of
conduct on sexual activity, let me point out that I did not say that
the Biblical definition of marriage should be enforced legislatively, I
merely point out that if it were followed (voluntarily), STD's would
virtually disappear.

Wise words, I think we all can agree with you on this TT

Thanks, bro.

Auntie Saxon wrote:

You're no longer a recurring guest star on "the Saxons".

Eyesore wrote:

emptytomb1 wrote:

You cannot say homosexuals aren't harming anyone, they are harming themselves. There's a reason they are told to get medical check-ups every 6 months, because the diseases they are getting kill and it's not just aids.

Are there homosexual diseases now? If people have unprotected sex, they're being stupid. It has nothing to do with sexual preference. I've plopped my weiner down in a (female) pooper or two in my time and have come out unscathed, if not a bit stinky.

After reading this I threw up in my mouth a little bit....I hope that doesn't turn Eyesore on.

People seem to be handling themselves with decorum so I feel I can express my opinion without fear of backlash. I believe that marriage was instituted by God as a union of a man and woman for the purpose of companionship and procreation. Both of these I consider to be essential to a marriage. I would accept civil unions for two merry people under the state but not a marriage under God and if I were part of a church that allowed it, I would look for another one. As an American I understand that I live in a represenative democracy and not a theocracy. If the majority of the people vote individuals into office that allow merry marriage then so be it. I am not accountable for others, only to myself and the only thing I can do is vote for people that I think can best get through policies that I believe in, apart from that it's out of my hands (I leave it up to God to judge society for it's sins, it is not my place to do so). Sure I can complain and argue but it would do me no good. The problem is we're not leaving it up to the voters, were letting Judges create laws they have no business making.

As a Christian I cannot accept homosexuality as anything but a sin and I will raise my children (if I ever have them) to believe it as well. Don't missunderstand me, I don't hate merry people. Although it has become a cliche, I truly believe in "love the sinner but hate the sin". If a merry person is thirsty I would give them a drink, if they were lost I would give them directions, or if they are in trouble (i.e. getting assulted or a flat tire) I would help them out. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing about merry bashing because it just makes us who believe homosexuality is a sin look like hateful barbarians. They are human beings made in God's image and are therefore deserving of love and respect but that in no way means I will excuse their lifestyle.

Well and respectfully put.

You're banned DB!

I just wanna say, I love how the board's cuss-word filter turns "G-A-Y" into "merry" whenever someone types it. It makes this thread particularly bizarre reading at times.

I personally would've lobbied to make it change the "G word" to "festive" rather than "merry" by the way, but that's just cuz I think "festive" sounds funnier.

G4Y got changed to merry because it was being used extensively as a put down or a flame. If the same thing happens to "Hetro" or "Straight" those will be changed as well. We don't put up w/bs around here [except with DallasBlack - but I think he's figured it out. haha].

Damn it DB! Stop being reasonable!

Tall Tyrion wrote:

spectrefate wrote:

tallTyrion wrote:

But if the
Biblical definition of marriage (one man and one woman, monogamous for
life), were adhered to, sexually transmitted diseases would be
virtually eliminated in a generation.

firehouse,
He's saying that if people were monogamous then STDs could be
eliminated. Promiscious heterosexuals are just as responsible as
homosexuals in the transmission of STDs.

Please read his post closely.

Yep, I'm not exempting heterosexuals at all. In fact, without really
digging into the figures, I'd venture to say that herosexuals spread
STD's at a much higher rate that homosexuals, although per capita, you
are more likely to have an STD if you are homosexual because they
usually engage in more dangerous types of activities.

The point is not to say that homosexuals are evil or anything of the
kind, just that sexual promoscuity of any sort is a dangerous
activity and quite often, it leads to bad consequences.

And before anyone says that I'm for legislating a strict code of
conduct on sexual activity, let me point out that I did not say that
the Biblical definition of marriage should be enforced legislatively, I
merely point out that if it were followed (voluntarily), STD's would
virtually disappear.

Excellent point.

Quote :

Oh, so heterosexuals don't pass STDs? You guys are pinning down homosexuals as the cause of all this crap that they're not.

Actually I've heard AIDS was started through Beastiality. Some freaks decided to
have sex with monkeys and that was how it started (however, that could just be an urban legend).

DallasBlack wrote:

As a Christian I cannot accept homosexuality as anything but a sin and I will raise my children (if I ever have them) to believe it as well. Don't missunderstand me, I don't hate merry people. Although it has become a cliche, I truly believe in "love the sinner but hate the sin". If a merry person is thirsty I would give them a drink, if they were lost I would give them directions, or if they are in trouble (i.e. getting assulted or a flat tire) I would help them out. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing about merry bashing because it just makes us who believe homosexuality is a sin look like hateful barbarians. They are human beings made in God's image and are therefore deserving of love and respect but that in no way means I will excuse their lifestyle.

Well said!

mc666 wrote:

Tall Tyrion wrote:

How about bigamy? If I want to marry two women (or more) should that be legal?

sure... it's your early grave.

LMAO! Seriously!

DallasBlack wrote:

Quote :

Oh, so heterosexuals don't pass STDs? You guys are pinning down homosexuals as the cause of all this crap that they're not.

Actually I've heard AIDS was started through Beastiality. Some freaks decided to have sex with monkeys and that was how it started (however, that could just be an urban legend).

Urban legend, my friend. Plausible, as monkeys in Africa do carry the virus, but the more likely scenario is that it was passed through eating the monkeys.

Either way, ain't nothing wrong with a little animal-loving, my friend. In fact, here is Uncle Saxon discussing the subject:

I watched that whole thing.

I am seriously scarred for life.

Oh

My

Goodness

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

spectrefate wrote:

I watched that whole thing.

I am seriously scarred for life.

Oh

My

Goodness

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ditto! And I only watched about half of it.

What's equally worrisome is how did Eyesore know such a video existed?

he probably filmed it himself