Become a member of Elftown
What is Elftown?

Page name: HF Gay Marriage [Logged in view] [RSS]

2006-11-17 19:28:23

Last author: HiddenFire
Owner: HiddenFire

# of watchers: 15

Fans: 0

D20: 7

Wiki-page rating	Stumble!
Informative:	0
Artistic:	0
Funny-rating:	0
Friendly:	0

Gay Marriage

I, [HiddenFire], am starting to get annoyed with people who do not believe in gay marriage. They do not present very good arguments to support their ideals. I will try to address several of them and explain why each is not a very good point upon which to argue. Thank god! An appeal to reason actually manages to present a logical argument against homosexuality! An argument against it is listed below.

top 10 reasons against gay marriage Also does a reasonably good job of explaining it's stance with logic. Arguments against every point are listed below.

Firstly it seems as if a great many of the people want to drag religion into the debate. Apparently Christianity is the one true religion and it seems as if the first couple was heterosexual. Not only that but the Bible does not like homosexuality, calling it a sin. All those would be valid points if religion really mattered in the issue. The fact of the matter is that this is a GOVERNMENT issue. There are SEVERAL religions and each has their own marriage ceremonies and priest who can legally marry people. There are also religions that are not so strict as to the people they are marrying. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have the government butt its head in on religious matters. So the government as no right to say “you cannot do this because it is against God’s will.” That would be religion having some part in the government and the government in religion. The government CANNOT be partial when it comes to matters like this. I know that you can’t please everyone but there are several different religions and each has their own beliefs. Should the government allow polygamy because the Mormons believe it is their sacred right? Should the Native Americans be allowed to chew hallucinogenic plants because it is part of their religious ceremonies? Because we cannot please every religion that exists in America we have to stay away from associating with a specific religion. So religion is out of the question.

Now of course someone will say “but this country was founded on Christianity.” That may be true, it may say “in God we trust” on our coins, some may swear on the bible at court, but those are historical things. The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by people seeking religious freedom! Freedom to believe whatever they wanted! Even though this country was founded by Christians it was founded by tolerant Christians. They where tolerant at the time because they where experiencing religious persecution and they knew what it was like. Apparently that feeling has been lost over the years. In any case, we are back once again to the fact that religion should have no say in the government. It says so right in the constitution.

You must also read into it a little and realize that the writers of the constitution where, in fact, agnostic. The constant use of the term "Creator" is a clear indicator of that fact. If anything the writers where making the constitution appear agnostic: recognizing the existence of something greater than themselves as the basis for morality but not limiting that force as anything specific, but rather a vague concept of devinity. History has also shown that many things such as "in God we trust" being on our currency and "One nation, under God..." in our pledge of allegiance as being little more than "pieces of meat" thrown to the religious lions to calm them and keep them from making outrageous demands.

If you are still intent on making this about religion, I urge you to read the following two essays:
http://www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html
http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html

Now all that needs to be done is come up with an argument that does not involve religion. Oddly enough most people’s arguments fall short just after comments about “Adam and Steve.” Not only is that just plain pitiful, but in my opinion it shows great ignorance. I will attempt to move right along and come up with reasons against homosexuality and their marrying and prove just how silly the logic is.

Firstly, homosexuality is against biology. It is simply not natural. Men are meant to be with women for reproductive purposes. This would imply that “Mates” are those that come together to “mate”. Since homosexuals cannot produce offspring they are not “Mates” and therefore cannot be considered a couple worthy of marriage. This is a reasonable argument at first glance but it does not stand up to scrutiny. Firstly many couples are on birth control or are incapable of having children. Should heterosexual couples be disallowed marriage just because they cannot reproduce? Then there are the sexual behaviors to consider. There are several heterosexual couples who engage in sexual practices that deviate from what biology intended. Should heterosexual couples be disallowed from being married because they have deviant sexual practices? Should the government be able to tell us how we can express our love for one another?

The next argument is thus: homosexual relationships are based purely off of sexual pleasure, not love. Some might not be able to see that two people of the same gender can actually love each other, but first let’s assume that it is impossible, that they are in it purely for the sex. Well, the fact of the matter is that a healthy marriage usually has a healthy sex life. and there are a great many people who marry because they mistake sex for love. Although these people have no business getting married in the first place it implies that any couple who wishes to be married would be required to have their relationship evaluated by the government to decide whether or not their relationship warrants marriage. Do you want the government to be able to say “no, you cannot get married because we do not think you are serious”?

The next argument is a silly one but it should be addressed. Some people are just plain disgusted by homosexuality. The idea of anal sex does not particularly appeal to me either but there are several other sexual practices that some other people may find disgusting. I could list a few of them, but I prefer to keep this dignified and I would rather not gross out my readers and lose their interest. The fact of the matter is that what I may think is “FREAKING HOT!” may be “GAG ME WITH A SPOON!” gross to others. I myself have more than a few fetishes and I would be VERY displeased if they meant that I could never marry should I wish to practice them. Not to mention, girls, that us guys would have a new excuse to not marry you: “Sorry hun, the government won’t allow me to get married, I have a foot fetish.” Certainly we do not need any more reasons to leave you hanging. ~_^

Now you might say “but they’re straight, they don’t count.” But the fact of the matter is that this is a country of tolerance and homosexuality is not illegal (even though sodomy is illegal in some places). The fact that homosexuality is not illegal suggest that the government holds the view that “gay is ok.” Not only that but the government and even a great number of those against gay marriage will say the same thing. In other words, heterosexuals are equal to homosexuals as far as rights go. So the same standards that are applied to one group must be applied to them all. And the real questions are: “Would you be willing to give up your rights for this? Do you want the government to be able to deny you a marriage license just because you deviated from the missionary position? Do you want the government to say you cannot be married just because you enjoy sex?”

On a side note I was asked to list a few people/groups who are not opposed to gay marriage and also are able to marry people (join two people in marriage). Firstly there are Pagans. The Pagan world is very lose and ecclectic, each facet of Paganism is different, some of them are pro gay marriage. There is also the fact that there are people who are given the power to marry people (join two people in marriage) by the state, meaning that they have NO religious affiliation. Depending on the views of this individual they may or may not be pro gay marriage. Furthermore there are also people like ship's captains and other people of certain rank who are afforded the power to marry people (join two people in marriage), and again their willingness or unwillingness to join any two people is entirely their own. Right now the only thing that prohibits gay marriage is their inability to obtain a marriage liscense. That too is not a religious matter, but rather a matter of the state.

To counter An appeal to reason:
Firstly They suggest that sex is simply for reproduction. This is obvious in animals, surely they only have sex for reproduction! Of course that is entirely incorrect. Sexual reproduction is meant to be between a male and a female, but that does not mean that the act itself is for reproductive purposes only. Firstly most animals would have little to no concept of the survival of their genes. They would not be having sex to have offspring. They do it because they are wired to, it is instinct. There are also animals that do it for sheer dominance, such as dogs. Male dogs will hump other male dogs as a show of dominance, as will female dogs hump other female dogs or even males as a show of dominance. There is also an ape called the Bonobo, in their “society” they substitute aggression for sex. Sex is not limited to just male-female interactions and appears to be a strong influence in their social behavior. See: http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
Also male elephants engage in long lasting homosexual relationships that are actually more caring than their heterosexual relationships. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Homosexuality
So it seems as if even biology has developed several different reasons for sexual contact than simple reproduction.

Another example of why sex is not purely for reproduction can be found under your own clothing. The average penis size for a chimp is about 3 inches, and the time it takes to ejaculate is about 15-20 seconds. The average penis size for humans is 5-7 inches and I believe the average time it takes to ejaculate is around 2-5 minuets with some people possibly lasting for hours at a time. This is inefficient for reproduction. The length of the human penis and the time it takes to reach climax (for both genders) is a clear indicator that sex is for pleasure first and for reproduction second. In biology we have a saying "Form dictates function" and our form obviously shows that we're built for the pleasure and not for reproductive efficiency.

The next argument is a simple statement that homosexual behavior is against the way that we are meant to function and can be unhygienic. There are obviously several illness that can be caused by certain forms of sexual interaction. The fact of the matter is that to say this should not be allowed because it is bad for their health is absurd for more than a few reasons. Firstly, we allow people to drink and smoke, corroding their livers and searing their lungs. We cannot deny them these things. They do it because they enjoy it, or because they’re addicted to it. There is also the fact that just about everything in today’s world causes or leads to some disease. And in the end we are all mortal, we will ALL die. Who are we to deny a group of people the right to pursue happiness just because we think it’s unhygienic? With proper precautions and regular checkups the involved parties can also avoid any serious issues.

There is also the issue of tattoos. In many cultures tattoos are ritualized and cover a large portion of the body. This is an uneeded practice that has no basis in biology. It can result in sever infections that can cause fatal fevers. Still such things are done. They are not banned because a few people become ill. I would like to see the percentages that any of the diseases mentioned actually manefest themselves in homosexual and heterosexual couples. In any case, to make the issue about health is really a non-issue. People do things every day that are unhealthy. And as I said before it all leads to the same place, death. We are all equally mortal.

Some will bring up AIDS in the fight. I won’t in the least. The fact is that AIDS is not caused by homosexuality nor is it limited to homosexuals. It’s an issue for ALL people who engage in sexual relations. If anything allowing gay marriage would cut down on the number of partners (assuming that gays just have sex with everybody, which of course is false) and therefore would decrease the spread of disease. (I realize that was very biased sounding, it was meant to).

An appeal to reason also brings up the notion that homosexuality will somehow lead to a dangerous decrease in our population. Although I am disappointed that homosexuals are (from a biological standpoint) a waste of perfectly good genetic material our species is far from endangered. If anything we are severely overpopulated. We could easily produce enough food to support our numbers but the world would not run horribly efficiently. If anything we could use a good plague to wipe out a portion of our number to give this planet a bit of a break.

To counter top 10 reasons against gay marriage

10) All the homosexuals I've known are pro gay marriage. "homosexuals see marriage as a key feature of the heterosexual culture which they wish to demolish in their attempt to radically change sexual morality in our society." Do they have secret gay meetings to plot world domination?

9) "Especially after last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling which overturned Texas’ law against sodomy" Er... that bit pretty much shows that the Supreme Court does not think homosexuality is immoral enough to be illegal. America has decided that it's "OK to be gay."

8) Until recently no one knew that homosexuality was, in fact, a sexuality. Human sexuality was not even studied until very recently. What history knew of homosexuality was nothing. I would like to think that we can benifit from education, science, and psycology. Not blatently ignore it.

7) Language? You've got to be kidding me. I'm supprised they used this one, I certinaly wouldn't have. Not to mention that the term "Homosexual" is a VERY new term. It did not exist in language for quite some time. So you really can't compare the two. They being based on concepts concieved at two very different time periods.

6) "homosexuals who now lobby for same-sex “marriage” will not stop at mere governmental endorsement of their immoral activity; one day they will insist that all society -– including evangelical churches -– condone, protect and even bless these “marriages.”" That's rediculous. Why would someone want to force someone to marry them? That is to join them in marriage. You cannot force a priest to do that. You simply must find someone willing to do it. Such is the case for any couple. A priest may decline to marry a person for whatever reason they want. Perhaps they will want the religous to be nice to them and not tell them they're going to hell. But that's common curtesy... not to mention that you convert no one by condeming them.

5) The "Slippery Slope" argument was used when people apposed interratial marriages as well. I see how this is no different. Not to mention that I argue the same slippery slope. If we start pandering to one religion all the others will begin to DEMAND that their religious views be honored, no matter what they are. Be they polygamy, insest, animal sacrifice, drug use, etc...

Let me also give an excerpt from my critical thinking class:Silppery Slope (black-and-white fallacy). A line of reasoning in which there is not gray area or middle ground. It argues for (or against) the first step because if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last (which is usually quite horrible...). They flat out use the term "Slippery Slope" when by doing so they are using the name of a form of fallacy. Basically they are arguing that if gay marriage is allowed it will "open a can of worms" when it's absolutely possible that it may go no further. Let me give another example: Kids who smoke pot will start on other drugs. They will slowly graduate from pot to harder and harder substances as they are introduced to that particular vein of society. This will lead to homelessness then imprissionment. In prison they will be raped and murdered.
So... kids shouldn't smoke pot. Although the statement is probably true (prehaps they should if they have certain diseases or are told to take a drag or get shot in the head)... but the argument isn't based on fact. And I would urge anyone who beleives that allowing Gay Marriage is the first step on a "Slippery Slope" to back up that claim with real world examples and not shakey fallacy.

4) That is true, but not entirely. There are several examples in the animal kingdom, that i have allready mentioned, where such things are completely natural.

3) "“Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child’s best interest,”" What of single parents? Should they give the child up so they can have a mother and father? I would think that two loving parents are better than one, any day. And we have nothing against single parents.

2) How will same-sex marriage make the current marriage situation worse? Marriage is what you make it, you reap what you sow. If a marriage fails it is their fault, and the blame can lie no where else.

1) It's a government issue. Not everything is about Christianity. To them it may be the one truth, but it's not everyone's truth. Nor are all marriages of a spiritual nature.

Now why would gays want to get married? Why do they disserve the right?

Marriage doesn’t even seem to be about love anymore with more than half of marriages resulting in divorce. People simply do not think of marriage the same way they used to. In any case there are SEVERAL issues that need to be addressed.

There are many benefits to being married that homosexual couples should be allowed to enjoy. If they are devoted to each other and are life partners then they should be afforded the same treatment as any other couple that is so devoted. If one of the people gets a new job somewhere else (say they are promoted) the company usually pays to move them out there, including their family (their spouse and their children if they have any). If the couple was gay (and thusly not married) then they only pay for one to move and if they have children and they are listed under the other partner then they are not paid for either. This is simply unfair. Just because of their sexual preference they are not allowed to seek happiness in a more lucrative job? Must they be forced to choose between love and money? That’s just plain sick!

There are several other issues, most of which are listed here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

The fact of the matter is that they DISSERVE to be happy and to enjoy the same benefits of marriage.

Gay Marriage and the Restriction of Religious Freedom

I've recently discovered that in many places in Canada gay marriage is legal. However, and this may even be a trend among countries that allow gay marriage, religious freedom is restricted. New Canadian legislation may make the Christian Holy Bible illegal as it might be labled "hate literature". Firstly this is wholy false. The message therein has nothing to do with hate. It's insane to think that people could be so ignorant and intollerant. Hate literature is perfectly legal. It's a freedom of speech/the press thing. I know not all countries are as lenient about such things as the US is but that is a basic undeniable human right. I want to make it known that although I do support gay marriage I do not support anything that restricts religious freedom in such a manner. I urge all who support gay marriage to be more tollerant. Even if it may seem as if the majority of Christians are intollerant towards your beliefs/lifestlyes, that does not give you the right to hipocritically be intollerant in return.

Feel free to suggest other arguments as to why gay marriage is something the government should disallow. Keep in mind that I will be trying to discredit them. Also do not try to tell me religious reasons why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong. You can, however, suggest reasons why religion does have a say in things (expect all such comments to be shot down quickly.) I welcome you to try and prove me wrong, I welcome you to try and provide other arguments. Put them in the comments below, do not message me about it.

2004-08-18 [Leelo]: Ok look, I will not argue with you or anything, but I am going to say this, I don't believe in gays marrying. If I wasn't a Christian I would still say I don't belive gays should marry. And yes it is sick to see gays. It is sick to watch them. I am a person of good morals, and my morality doesn't allow me to accept gay marrages. Now I am not saying I hate gays. I am friends with some gays and they know where I stand on the issue.

2004-08-18 [HiddenFire]: Understandable. I am more than capable of wraping my mind around differing viewpoints. *shrugs* But I do believe in it, and I figured that logic is extremely lacking in arguments from both sides. Seeing as how I am for gay marriage I decided that I should apply my logic to it's side. Not only that but it is infinately easier to argue for gay marriage. Anyone willing to argue agaist it (with logic and intelligence) certainly has my deepest respect. It is quite a challenge.

2004-08-23 [Leelo]: Oh yeah don't take this personally because I am not trying to start a fight or anything, but you can't change peoples minds. What they believe in is what they believe in and theres no changing it. However you may manage to change atleast one persons mind, but doesn't mean you can change the worlds. And I have respect for the fact that you have your own opinion, which is I have mine as well, so please don't try to change it, because you will get a lot of people ticked off. I am not ticked off, I understand what and why our opinions are so different, but sometimes it's better to not ask why. And still I am no trying to sound mean

2004-08-23 [HiddenFire]: The funny thing is that for the most part I am straight. *shrugs* or at least I am attracted to women. So my stance is not biased in any why shape or form by my own wish to marry my prince charming. I figure "if I can't get people to believe in gay marriage, I might be able to get them to realize that they would be giving up their own rights to accomplish it, and MANY would rather just let them get married than lose said rights." With this strategy i don't have to change anybodies mind. ^_^

2004-08-23 [Leelo]: Ok. Just making sure your not out to change peoples minds, that's one thing that ticks people off the most, is when their mind is made up and some one tries to change it. Theres a difference between stating your opinions and trying to change some one's mind. I don't really see why you want to argue the point, the point of the matter is, is that every one is different and so they will have different opinions, some will agree with gay marrage and some won't. That's just how life is, no since in arguing about it to see who's right or wrong, it's just facts. People have their own opinion about things. Might as well leave it that way

2004-08-23 [HiddenFire]: Just because the KKK believes in racial purity and hate all non-whites doesn't mean that other people should promote tollerance. I happen to think the parallel fits quite nicely. No offense. But there are many cases where people's minds should be changed. Especially if their opinions and thought patterns are harmful to themselves or others. I need to get around to the reasons why homosexuals diserve to get married. @.@

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: I know when the time is to argue and fuss about such things. And I know when not to. Disagreeing on the things about gays doesn't mean it's going to hurt me or them, they're still going to be that way, they can still be together with out having to get married. If there was to be homosexuals, then there wouldn't of have been eve, it would have be steve.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: Not nessicarily. Note that Adam was alone for quite some time. And i would thank you to never use that arguent. No offense but it NEVER works. I'm in the process of writing up the reasons why gays should be allowed to get married, so i wont cover them here yet. ^_^

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Whatever, and I wasn't using that, I was just stating that there would be no females if there was to be gays, there would just be guys. If I was going to use the bible I would have done it already. And trust me i know how to use the bible.^^

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: There It's up. There are apes that engage in hetero and homsexual behaviors for reasons other than reproduction. So it's not like biology does not enfluence sexual behavior. Homosexuals are not having sex for reproduction, it's supposed to be the deepest expression of love. Then again sometimes it's just raw carnal lust. *shrugs* but who are we to deny them such pleasures?

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Yeah well whatever, I'm no condeming them, that's the last thing on my mind, and i don't hate them, just hate what they are doing. And you are right marriage ain't what it is anymore. But you know love is between a man and a woman. Too much crazy stuff is going on these days for people to truly be inlove, but there are a few who are actually inlove.

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: And gays having sex, is just grose.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: people also think that foot jobs and oral sex is gross. *shrugs* it's all about preference. Love is not limited to just between a man and a woman! I don't understand why it should be. There is no reason. The bible does say "Love thy neighbor as thyself" not "love they nieghbor as thyself only if thy neighbor be the opposite of thy gender." and who are you to tell people if they are or are not "in love"? As far as I am concerned who a person is in love with is neither their choice nor your business. *shrugs* Live and let live. Love and let love.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: Just because someone thinks it's gross doesn't mean it's wrong. People eat bugs! MANY think that is just plain gross, should we tell them they cant eat bugs just because a few people gag from the idea? Don't hold it against them because what they prefer to eat is not what you prefer to eat. @.@ *is annoying himself with all these analogies* @.@

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Yeah thats gross too. Yeah guess what theres a difference in love some one and being inlove with someone. I love my neightbore, but I am not inlove with them. That is waht the bible is saying. LOVE your neightbore. Meaning love them how you would want to be love. That doesn't mean go out and be inlove with the same sex. And yeah your right it's not my choice, but it is my buisness when i have to live around it.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: The issue I'm addressing here is also not whether or not homosexuality is wrong. It is about whether or not they should be allowed to get married. Although the two issues are somewhat related The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not illegal. Therefor it can be inferred that the government is ok with homosexuality. From that standpoint it's a wonder they're against their getting married. *shrugs* Thus the debate.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: Then lets taxi right into the next question: "what threat does gay marriage pose you?"

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: I poses a great threat. Mostly the fact I'll have to live around it. And the fact that marriage won't be marriage anymore, and the fact my kids will have to grow up around it.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: Marriage is allready a big joke. But what is wrong with two people being commited to each other in marriage? Gay couples have been living together and some have had very long engagments. The only difference between them and married couples is the fact that gay couples do not get to experience ANY of teh benifits associated with marriage. Homosexuals pose not threat to you or your family. Homosexuality is not a disease that spreads from person to person. There is no "gay cootie". letting them marry is just to give them the same rights as the rest of us. Right now it just is not fair.

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Yeah true. I know it's not a disease, but I just don't want my kids having to see that kind of thing. Ummm I can't think of the word, I was going to use I had it in my head and now it has left me. It is to fair, and i have wondered, how come all of a sudden all the gay crap has popped up.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: It popped up because bush was trying to ban gay marriage. Honestly I was raised in a household that is open about sex. If we had questions we got answers. you can't protect your children from the world, they have to be out in it some day. It is better for them not to be ignorant of what is going on. The homos wont currupt your children. They're going to go to school with gay kids anyway. *shrugs*

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Hmmmm ok...... Yeah your right, but I will let them know when they are old enough.

2004-08-24 [Dumnorix]: Hidden Fire in her page states that the planet is dangerously overpopulated, and gay marriage wouldn't cause any harm. I'm afraid in Europe (where the pro-gay movement is strongest) there IS a dire need for population. The population is aging, and even regressing. Old people will soon not have enough youngsters to ensure their pensions, due to this regression. In Africa, where there is TOO MUCH natality, there is no gay marriage issue. I think the gay marriage issue is taking place in the wrong place. Europe is in bad need of children, and tax money must be sent to retirees, not improductive couples.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: Perhaps. But you do have to admit that less people means more jobs and higher paying jobs! ~_^ LOL

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Yeah true....^^ But still doesn't make it right.

2004-08-24 [Dumnorix]: I'm afraid I am facing this issue myself. If it weren't for immigrants, the collapse of pensions would have taken place far earlier. But chances are, I'll have worked my arse (pardon my language) off all my life and will die poor.

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Yeah...I didn't catch all of that...But I think I got what you were getting at. I know with gays there will be less people, but it still doesn't make it right, and I know that there will be more jobs opened and stuff. But I still don't believe it's right. i am not trying to change peoples minds, don't get me wrong. But...ah what's the use, everyone always throws somethign back up in my face. Well my opinion on the whole gay thing still stands. I do not believe it's right.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: sorry to say but most people will work their "arses" off and end up dieing poor. That's life. You can't blame it all on homosexuals. Perhaps Europe needs to find ways to encourage immigration? *shrugs*

2004-08-24 [Dumnorix]: We already have enough immigrants as it is. And remember, do not generalise Europe. Spain is open to immigrants, France is not. And it is all for reasons. Perhaps an army of unemployed is not what we want? Perhaps an army of unemployed, improductive immigrants who do NOT pay taxes would be useless? We want LEGAL immigrants. And those are rare to find. P.S: [Leelo]: Feel free to join the anti-gay marriage movement at An appeal to reason! Contact me if you want to join!

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Yeah same here

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: Sorry, You used Europe as the base of the gay movement. So I did the same. I don't know what's going on over there. I am not a horribly learned person when it comes to things that do not concern me. (even though this arguement doesn't really concern me). In any case I can't help but notice that it seems as if homosexuals are being used as a scapegoat. Hitler did that, "it's not the governments fault wer're all poor, it's the Jews!" To me its the same thing, blaming homosexuals for a population decrease, or poverty, or anything else you can think of. BTW forgive the comparison to Hitler, good comparisons are best used when extreme. @.@

2004-08-24 [Dumnorix]: Here, here! If we're going to be calling each other nazis, I could say the same about Hitler having been elected by a confused majority! A minority (the nazi party --> The homosexuals) Trick a majority into voting for them through much noise and vicious slander. And comparing me to Hitler would mean that I would aim to exteminate someone. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to prevent you from destroying a sacred and logical tradition.

2004-08-24 [Dumnorix]: [HiddenFire], I frankly didn't think you would resort to insults and offensive attitude! you disappoint me, good sir!

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: I meant it as no insult. I'm just making a comparison. To me it seemed as if you where looking for a scapegoat, some group of people to blame. Hitler would be an extreme example of that. I could have chosen any number of examples he happens to be the most well known. Offended is an essay of mine dealing with why people are offended and what should be done about it. I admit that I was probably dancing on the line there, but I was just making a point.

2004-08-24 [Dumnorix]: Listen, Freud, you don't need to have read Immanuel Kant to understand offense when you've been compared to one of the most destructive megalomaniacs in history.

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: That is true. I wont go into it because it will just make it worse. just leave it at the fact that I did not compare you to hitler in an attempt to cause you any sort of offense. It was just to prove a point.@.@

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: When debating such issues, someone is bound to be offended. *shrugs* You can't offend me though, or at least I highly doubt it. I've been conditioned to examine myself when I am offended. Even if you did manage to offend me I would just end up learning something new about myself. *shrugs*

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: Wow some how I don't seem to be the one arguing th point anymore......

2004-08-24 [shotokan_gal]: Interesting discussion... see you've got your hands full HF, at least its another distraction eh? ;)

2004-08-24 [Leelo]: ......................

2004-08-24 [HiddenFire]: Indeeed! Debating such things is more than rather difficult. @.@

2004-08-24 [The Red Baron]: Had Mr. HiddenFire been a reader between the lines, he'd have known that my entry to an appeal to reason is a PURELY SCIENTIFIC one, based on the facts I know and see. I do know, and have a sound knowledge that sexual intercourse is also a pleasurable activity. But is its primary function pleasure? No. Firstly it is to produce offspring then comes pleasure (or during the process). Read between the lines. I have an argument about AIDS that will literally shock the brainwaves out of your neurons. Wait and see.

2004-08-24 [The Red Baron]: Had HiddenFire been a reader between the lines, he'd have known that my entry to an appeal to reason is a PURELY SCIENTIFIC one, based on the facts I know and see. I do know, and have a sound knowledge that sexual intercourse is also a pleasurable activity. But is its primary function pleasure? No. Firstly it is to produce offspring then comes pleasure (or during the process). Read between the lines. I have an argument about AIDS that will literally shock the brainwaves out of your neurons. Wait and see.

2004-08-25 [HiddenFire]: I allready know that AIDS is running rampent. But It does not care what gender you are. The function of sex started as reproduction but it is evident in other species that it is no the sole purpose. In our species sex is not just for reproductions sake and it is not that way just in the immoral. If sex where horrifically painful for both parties they would more than likely opt for obstinance. It seems that sex aslo has a social role as well as a means of strengthening bonds.

2004-08-25 [HiddenFire]: Admitedly I do not have such an extensive medical knowledge, nor do I know the links to all the sources I could site. I really should get around to doing deeper research into it all. Right now this is mostly stuff I've learned in school. That's right! Public state education!

2004-08-30 [~*spawn*~]: ...sorry to butt in here, but mr nazgul if homosexual sex has no biological reason for it, why does it go on in the first place?

2004-08-30 [HiddenFire]: Homosexual sex does also happen in some animals. So it obviously has some biological basis, some reason for happening. Whether it be domination, or agression management, or something completely different It still happens in the wild.

2004-08-30 [~*spawn*~]: i'm pretty sure i read somewhere that it's an important tool for social stuff - in some chimp colonies, the females interact sexually with each other and it strengthens the bonds between them

2004-08-30 [HiddenFire]: *points up* bonobos. ^_^ related to chimps, related to us as well. ^_^

2004-08-30 [Tiezu Star]: does ne 1 no about the senetor from NJ that is resigning from office b/c he is gay. is he chosing to or r they making him b/c hes gay?

2004-08-30 [HiddenFire]: I have no idea, but it is likely that he is being pressured to resign. More than likely he is embarrased by it all and just wants to get out of the spotlight so that people do not blow it out of proportion.

2004-08-30 [Tiezu Star]: o, ok

2004-08-31 [~*spawn*~]: yay for chimps!

2004-09-02 [Adorable Ducky]: OMG i love you fire! i didnt realize you had this page! yay for you! *hugs*

2004-09-02 [HiddenFire]: ^_^ Thanks! I put a lot of work into it. A fair amount of research... though not as much as the anti-gay/gay marriage people have. It seems it's much easier to defend what is right than to justify what is wrong. ^_^

2004-09-02 [~*spawn*~]: ~agrees~

2004-09-02 [Tiezu Star]: hey, i was just wondering, im havin a debate in class and im in the gay marrige one, could i use this for som referance?

2004-09-02 [HiddenFire]: Certainly! ^_^ Though I'm just as much of a kid as anyone else. I'm not sure how much weight some 19 year old Straight Male Texan's going to do you. ~_^ but you can still use this, and feel free to use the references that I use as well. ^_^

2004-09-03 [Tiezu Star]: THNX!!! -^.^-

2004-09-09 [Tiezu Star]:
10. Many homosexuals are on our side. While the homosexual lobby has pushed for the “right” to “marry” as part of its broader public policy strategy to gain acceptance and endorsement, it’s clear that many homosexuals really don’t want to marry. Indeed, homosexuals see marriage as a key feature of the heterosexual culture which they wish to demolish in their attempt to radically change sexual morality in our society.

10. Many homosexuals are on our side. While the homosexual lobby has pushed for the “right” to “marry” as part of its broader public policy strategy to gain acceptance and endorsement, it’s clear that many homosexuals really don’t want to marry. Indeed, homosexuals see marriage as a key feature of the heterosexual culture which they wish to demolish in their attempt to radically change sexual morality in our society.

that is the most STUPIDEST readon I heard
10. Many homosexuals are on our side. While the homosexual lobby has pushed for the “right” to “marry” as part of its broader public policy strategy to gain acceptance and endorsement, it’s clear that many homosexuals really don’t want to marry. Indeed, homosexuals see marriage as a key feature of the heterosexual culture which they wish to demolish in their attempt to radically change sexual morality in our society.

2004-09-09 [HiddenFire]: Indeed. I said I would eventualy get around to it. Yes that was one of the things i was going to say. It's my opinion that their information is biased. Based on a simple example here on ET, if we compare the membership of Support Gay Marriage to The Straight Way it seems obvious what the people want. Granted it includes many non-American members (on both sides) as well as differences in advertisement and exposure and so forth. That said, it is also likely that the reason Support Gay Marriage gets more exposures is simply because people are more interested in it's message as apposed to The Straight Way. Not to mention that as an artistic communtiy ET's more liberal

2004-09-10 [HiddenFire]: At the time of this comments posting Support Gay Marriage has 857 members. The Straight Way has 53 members. Although there are more issues involved it seems that this is a clear indication that the majority of people WANT gay marriage. At least as far as the Elftown community is concerned.

2004-09-10 [Pale-Suzie]: but, at the moment the straight way is growing very quickly, which worries me a bit. when i started commenting in there they ahd just reached 20 i think, and that's not to long ago... but yeah, support gay marriage has more members, and does continue to grow... but eventhough i don't agree with teh straight way, i still like to comment in there more, mostly because i think there's more real debate in there, then there is a support gay marriage. i think in the straight way you get to talk to ppl from both side, were as in support gay marriage, any comments against gay marriage is usualy recived very badly... sorry about my pointless rambling here, i just think it would be nice if we could

2004-09-10 [Pale-Suzie]: all talk to eachother instead of fighting... *shrugs* won't happen though...

2004-09-10 [HiddenFire]: The people who populate both wiki-pages tend to do very little. They chat about random stuff and shy away from acutal debate. @.@

2004-09-10 [Pale-Suzie]: well, you chat on both pages don't you? and i chat on both pages, and trust me, i don't mind a good debate... :P

2004-09-10 [HiddenFire]: ok, I occasioanlly digress to their level out of sheer bordom. @.@

2004-09-10 [Pale-Suzie]: heh, we all do... because, well personaly i love a good debate... but sometimes it's also nice just to talk to ppl...

2004-09-10 [HiddenFire]: indeed. I am looking for a certain poll. I remember it croping up somewhere by some random person but I can't remember who it was or where it is. The poll was about gay marriage with at least 4 choices: Homo/bi-pro, hetero-pro, homo/bi-anti, hetero-anit gay marriage that is. I wanted to use it here... I've been searching for a while now and I could use some help. @.@

2004-09-11 [Pale-Suzie]: sorry, dunno where you found that one... hope you find it again. (you could make the same poll though)

2004-10-09 [HiddenFire]: Apparently some believe that gay marriage somehow "cheapens" marriage. I'll have to discover what they really think gay marriage will do to marriage in general. I am simply incapable of seeing how anyone getting married could effect anyone elses marriage... or perhaps they mean the "concept of marriage" in which case. WHO THE HELL CARES! Marriage is what you make it... not some pre-set definition that you must conform to.

2004-10-09 [Tiezu Star]: oh, [HiddenFire] y not put it in a forum. . . that might work

2004-10-09 [HiddenFire]: That's a good Idea... A forum specifically for the intelligent debate of gay marriage. hmmmmmm... it could work. I'de have to expect that a great many people will simply fill it up with useless crap though... I'll certainly think about it. ^_^

2004-10-10 [Tiezu Star]: i mean send a reply for the poll to see if ppl no were it is . . .-^.^- . . . luv that smiley

2004-11-07 [Dil*]: beautiful wiki, i shall watch it now.

2004-11-07 [HiddenFire]: Thanks. ^_^

2004-11-07 [Dil*]: here's another thing that i heard of: animals can have homosexual tendancies as well, new studies found that out. So it is natural.

2004-11-07 [HiddenFire]: It's up there. I cited Bonobos especially becaue they're so closely related to us. Homosexuality can be for a number of reasons or no reason at all. Be it pleasure or population control, it happens all the time in the animal kingdom. so the "it's just not natural" arguement are totaly debased. ^_^

2004-11-07 [Dil*]: oops, missed that one :P, but 'disserve' is spelled deserve though..i think

2004-11-07 [HiddenFire]: I have no idea. @.@

2005-03-05 [Willow Darkling]: uhm, I'm just butting in here, didn't even bother to read the whole bit... All though I will hopefully someday.... Wanted to point out two major facts...Homosexuality was very widespread for example in Roman times (don't know the exact age) then it was more "fashionable" for a man to have a male lover (mistress) than a female one. At this time wives were supposed to be in the kitchen, cooking and taking care of the kids, or be seen but not noticed. Oh, and homosexual behavior has been observed in many species of animals, and I do believe that lions do have non-reproductive sex (someone told me male lions have intercourse up to 50 times a day...) Just trying to help

2005-03-06 [alkabong8888]: Is there anyone that have half the intelligence of a cucumber who is against gay marriage?

2005-03-06 [Dark Sekret Love]: I love this wiki. I applaud you! Thank you!

2005-03-06 [duende_negro]: Indeed...I agree. Exelent wiki, great arguments. I will also applaud you.

2005-03-06 [Dil*]: Where did you get the information that Canadian legislature is trying to make the holy bible illegal? Never heard of this.

2005-03-07 [HiddenFire]: I heard from a Canadian. I also checked it out on the net... I really should get better at citing my sources 'eh? From what I understand it's mostly just one gay politician with a vandeta against the church. *shrugs* but I should expect any such claims to be more than a little biased. In any case, it's one man, not the entire Gay-Canadian community.

2005-03-07 [Dil*]: That's what I thought...because it certainly doesn't represent the general opinion of the population.

2005-04-18 [jojo-kun]: My mom thinks that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, the whole ideal of "marriage" will crumble. I say it's progress. It's so frustrating when people try to bar others from what should be their basic rights as human beings on the basis of fear and ignorance. Just because they don't like the idea of same-sex couples in general, they want to relegate gays and lesbians to second-class citizenship. It's just not right.

2005-04-18 [HiddenFire]: I completely agree. I'm also taking critical thinking this quarter... this being one of the topics *hopes she gets put in that group* I've done my research on this one. *crosses fingers*

2005-12-28 [Dil*]: hmm, alot of people argue that civil unions should work for gays and they shouldn't change the def. of marriage because it's not the govt's to change.

2006-02-12 [grey wanderer]: Oho, you're good. I almost wish I dissagreed with you so I could argue *ahem* DEBATE.

2006-05-17 [Fizban]: Actually...hmms..perhaps the sheer pleasure of reproduction, gives it even more of an allure...causing it to in its own way, increase sexual efficiency...not in the act itself but in the motivation...~heh-heh~ Lol...

2006-07-06 [Thε ßαd Turkεy]: ぬ

2006-07-06 [Dil*]: If you bothered to read the page, you wouldn't be spewing this ignorant nonsense about god. Not all married couples decide to have children, but they can still have children. If they're offered that right, gay people should be able to get married too. And besides, lesbian couples can be artificially impregnated with donor sperm, so in that case, they would be 'contributing more children'.

2006-07-06 [Dil*]: You dropped a 'god hates fags' link. I find that insulting. If you don't believe in any marriage, then why are you exclusively picking on the gay marriage?

2006-07-06 [Dil*]: I think this hasn't been said enough yet: NOBODY CARES IF YOUR GOD DOESN'T LIKE GAYS, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, THERE IS A LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

2006-07-06 [Dil*]: Oh, and not all supporters are rude. I find this page to be quite polite about the whole thing. I'm just disgruntled after years of debate regarding this, and the only thing people can seem to bring up is: My god doesn't like gays, so they can't marry. Of course, the first part of the page addresses this issue headon..and perfectly at that, and you still drop a 'god hates fags' link. I don't suffer fools gladly.

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: Your a funny guy Narcisst...you call us rude and the first thing you do on this page is drop links of hate, and insult the foundation of how I am sure most of us were brought up on this page. You can go and and not beleive in love, but that doesnt mean theres no such thing. I love it when people do that...to me its like, when people say they dont beleive there is air, or that there is a sun in space lol...so funny. As though because they don't beleive in it, its not real. People are so cute sometimes...and I find just as many supporters are rude as are non-supporters..why? cause were all flawed people on both sides of an argument, neither group is inherinetly better then the other.

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: I also pity you, cause I am betting your either going to go against your non beleif in love, or your going to have a passionless barren life lol...thats sad :(...unless by believe love is wrong, you mean dirty or soemthing and only lust or osmeting...then I feel just plain bad for you, cause ya don't know real love heh ^_^...now was this rude (gasp) or blunt? :/

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: Then I don't understand your personal feelings towards it. Whats wrong with it?

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: Thats further adjectives describing your opinoun upon it,...basically you didnt answer the question. Why do you hate it? Why do you feel its ridiculus?

2006-07-07 [Dil*]: Are you going to give us some coherent reasons why you're against gay marriage, or are you just going to waste our time?

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: Hah!! omg, isn't he just a regular idiot. Spouts his mouth off and really has nothing to say. Now, was that rude, or just plain blunt? :O

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: >_>....You would. But I still see nothing more then pointless comments with no contributing substance upon the claims you fail to suppport.

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: I am well aware, thats why I corrected it before you entered that little tid bit, and no, you idiot I am not pressing that sequence of buttons sorry...you only need to put a space there.

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: gasp, how difficult of a thing to understand what you meant. The parades, have you ever been to them? Okay, tell me how many guys would screw girls non-stop if they could? How many straight relationships are based on love or the sex huh? Just as many homosexual. perhaps a little mroe, cause were dealing with just guys...not trying to find pairings of moralless slutty girls and penis lead guys. So tell me, how many gay couples have you met and interviewed? How many gay people do you know? personallly, not by name or jsut someone you mingled with. Once you get past the stereotypical idiotic misconceptions, then come back here. You might, ~might~ just have something relevent to say.

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: They are people, just like anyone else, they can love, and they have passions. Just because they are homosexual doenst mean they arent prone to the same human sin, nor does it deny them the same human emotions.

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: as a psychology teacher would teach it, there are many different kinds of relationships. Currently they are broken up by intamicy, passion, and some other specifical applicable field that when I take the course I will be able to remember. Either way, romantic relationships are ones that are formed from intimacy, and passion...lustful ones are held by mostly passion, and frienships are held mostly by intimacy. The reason the gay guy has 6 friends that are girls, and one guy thats a boyfriend, is becasue he can become intamite with anyone, but passion must come in there somewhere. This is why people can be friends with anyone, but to actually transcend that level into a fullblown

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: relationship of that category, there must be a passion. People who reportedly have passion for only the opposite sex, are straight, people who can only feel passion for the same sex, are homosexuals, and those that can feel passion for all, are bi. Obviously there are levels weaving in and out of these, but you get the jist of what I am describing here.

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: Its not saying you cant fall in love with the opposite sex, infact from most gays I have interviewed, most would prefer to be able to fall in love with the opposite sex. The only reason they define themselves as gay, is because they can't, or havent seemed to be able to up to that point...

2006-07-07 [Fizban]: -_-

2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Sooo.... Did this guy just delete all of his comments? Because they sounded thoroughly entertaining.

2006-08-04 [Fizban]: Wah! this makes me look like I am talking to myself...lol

2006-08-04 [tuff ghost]: Yer! At first I was like, come on, Dil. Theres no need to keep going on like that.

2006-08-05 [Dil*]: yeah, they deleted their comments.

2006-08-05 [Fizban]: loosers lol

2006-08-25 [Franc28]: I am against gay marriage because I am against all marriage, at least as defined and recognized by the religio-statist complex. I have absolutely nothing against anyone getting together with anyone in any number.

2006-08-26 [Dil*]: Yeah, you're against gay marriage, but you're also married. For benefits. (hmm, a bit of a friends dispute going on here). If straight-couples can marry for benefits, why can't gays?

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: Oh hello Dil. Yes, I am married, but it was forced by the situation. If we could see each other without having to marry, we wouldn't have. I am not against gay marriage because I am against gay people (which is absurd), I just don't think we should be spreading undue benefits around. It's kinda like saying that, because soldiers are allowed to kill without reprisals, we should all be able to do the same.

2006-08-26 [Dil*]: I thought you were into universal morality.

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: Yes, morality must be universal, if it is to be more than personal opinion or prejudice. A moral or political principle must apply equally to all individuals.

In any case, there are two options, the positive or the negative:

1. If it is right for some people to marry, then it must be right for all to marry.

This is the liberal argument.

2. If it is not right for some people to marry, then it must be right for none to marry.

This is the natural consequence of the Christian argument ("it is not right for gays to marry because...", with points which are ably refuted on this page), and a conclusion they would no doubt decry.

2006-08-26 [Dil*]: yes. exactly.

2006-08-26 [Fizban]: I am confused here, it just seems you traversed in a bit of a circle here.

So...why don't you agree with gay marriage?

simply because you dont want to waste the gained taxes that marrying will deprive the country if it gives benefits to gays?

because it doesn't seem to be a moral thing.

2006-08-26 [Dil*]: No, he's a market anarchist, he's against all things govt sanctioned.

2006-08-26 [Fizban]: "Sacntion-Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom."
~or~
"Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid"

Gov't approves and supports going to college, are you against that?

I don't know if that counts...hmmm. But I dont see under the definition of sanctined how marriage would count anymore or less.

Or is it the affiliation...the fact that you have to get a marriage liscense is that what bothers you? Becuase without permission, thats the problem?

So what about fishing liscenses, and Hunting, and bussiness, and all the other cheap ways to monitor the activities of the people while extracting money from them?

Sorry, never met a real anarchist that wasn't more interested in drawing idiotic symbols on the backs of there hands, then in the actual idea. So if I sound ignorant to what it is exactly that you believe, don't be offended. It's merely my lack of exposure to someone who truly believes something further then that the gov't is just bad nothing else too it, nothing that can be done.

2006-08-26 [Franc28]: Oh hello. Yes, I am a "real anarchist", not a bomb-throwing black-flagger who just wants more state intervention (i.e. they are only called "anarchists" because they are violent). That is to say, I am against violence and coercion because those are the tools of the state, not of mature people living in society. I support the right of people to trade in order to live in any way they desire. This is also called "market anarchy".

2006-11-18 [tuff ghost]: My state just passed a gay marriage ban.
It was vote 'yes' or vote 'no.'
An unholy number of people were confused, and I'm positive that many people voted 'yes,' thinking that they were for gay marriage. The whole situation is depressing.

2006-11-18 [Fizban]: That is depressing...:/

They need a re-vote.

2006-11-18 [Franc28]: So anyway, do I win then? Do we all agree that gay marriage is wrong?

2006-11-19 [Dil*]: NO.

2006-11-19 [tuff ghost]: Ha! Where did that come from?
But yes, I almost agree. I'm against any marriage benefits. And vice versa, in the way that people who AREN'T married are denied certain rights. (example: hospital visitation)

2006-11-19 [Franc28]: Dil, you're just being contrarian.

2006-11-19 [Panda-monium]: No she isn't, she thinks you're wrong, and you are wrong. Gay marriage is no more or less wrong than heterosexual marriage. Sorry, didn't mean to speak for you there Dil and feel free to contradict me, but he's being belegerant and that irks me.

2006-11-19 [Franc28]: "Gay marriage is no more or less wrong than heterosexual marriage."

Well, we both agree on that. Can we all agree on that then?

2006-11-19 [Fizban]: Who is we all?

and yeah...thats easy. Your the only one I see here who doesn't.

2006-11-19 [Franc28]: No, I agree completely with the proposition that "Gay marriage is no more or less wrong than heterosexual marriage."

2006-11-19 [Fizban]: LOL, I am sorry, I forgot that you don't agree with any marriage.

Well, technically that statement still stands in comparison with everyone else. Because we all do think they are no more incorrect or immoral then the other, but thats because we don't think it is, and you think they both are.

Why again do you hate marriage?

2006-11-19 [Dil*]: it's kinda hypocritical of you to be against marriage, and yet have married for benefits.

2006-11-19 [Fizban]: OMG, he did! That is so funny.

Yeah, it's okay to marry for money...but for love?! whooo, what a horrible idea.

2006-11-19 [Dil*]: No, he married to be with his wife fizban, his wife is american, and thus he can have a dual citizenship and see her more. It wasn't for the money, but those are still benefits.

2006-11-19 [Franc28]: No Dil, I didn't marry for benefits. I got married because I wanted to be with my girlfriend and I couldn't enter the "US." If you're going to attack me personally, at least do it from the truth, sticky goth.

2006-11-19 [Dil*]: Those are benefits you moron. And I was defending you.

he said you married for 'financial benefits' I corrected him by saying you married for 'more closeness romantic' reasons. geesh.

2006-11-19 [Fizban]: Hmmms...they are indeed. I still think thats hypocritical.

2006-11-19 [Franc28]: It's not hypocritical, it's called "using the system or it eats you alive." I bet you think I shouldn't pay taxes and go to jail, too. You're the hypocrite one- I bet you use the system all the time, even things you don't believe in.

2006-11-19 [Fizban]: Silly anarchist.

Betting is irrelevant.

Using the system? You are indeed, but that was hardly an "eat's you alive situation"

nope, sorry, there are several institutions that I believe needs revision, but I don't disagree with anything. All governments are flawed, but they are also all better then no gov't at all.

But, I wouldn't go waving your fingers around pointing at other people when you can do nothing but assume bad things about them, lol...

Besides. I just turned 18, thats a poor assumption that I "use" the system that I just became a full member within.

But thats okay, I am sure you didn't think very long before you said that.

2006-11-20 [Franc28]: So you don't rebel against ANY system? Wow. I bet you were really repressed as a child.

2006-11-20 [Fizban]: As a child? Lol, that is like...what, a year ago? You make it again, sound like it's so long ago.

Rebel? Against what system and why? They don't bother me, and I don't bother them.

You tell me what systems of gov't you rebelled against "as a child" and I will tell you why I didn't.

2006-11-20 [Franc28]: That's really sad.

2006-11-20 [Fizban]: No it's really not. I did whatever the hell I wanted to. I don't see why it's sad I didn't do as the cliche teen and pointlessly rebel.

Enlighten me as to what you rebelled against, and why my life is lacking without it. You don't even have to do the latter of the two, the first would suffice. Easy enough right?

Unless of course you really did nothing, and have nothing better to do but make cheap shots, when you fall short as well.

2006-11-25 [Pyra]: [Franc28], I don't know why, And I don't know why I'm telling you this, but you really, really piss me off.
[Dil*], I say we ban together and throw flaming bags of napalm into the White House.

2006-11-25 [Dil*]: an atheist amen to that.

2006-11-25 [Fizban]: Oh look, I forgot about this,...why, because he didn't have an answer. *gasp* what a surprise.

2006-11-26 [Franc28]: I don't talk to the emotionally stunted. Sorry.

2006-11-26 [Pyra]: Get over yourself, [Franc28]. And when you've come up with a better reply then that, talk to us.

2006-11-26 [Fizban]: Teehee, emotionally stunted. See I make fun of your reactions, because I can see and judge them.

I don't have to resort to guessing and making pathetic assumptions based on my character, that you are so far off on, it's even more fun for me. :P ^_^

Especially when it's smart guys too. Because if you were dumb, I could understand why, but your not...so it's even better that your retorts are so pathetic.

2006-11-26 [Franc28]: I told the truth. Fizban has psychological problems. I am sorry that this is not acceptable to you. And you know what? I don't care. Argue amongst yourselves, emotionally stunted, prissy, angst-ridden teens.

2006-11-26 [Pyra]: If you dislike us so much, then leave. *Points* There's the door right there. All you have to do is stop commenting on this page. And FYI, I doubt any of us are angst-ridden. Find some better insults.

2006-11-26 [Fizban]: Look, now he fancies himself to be a psychiatrist.

You have done nothing but insult others, if your really to lazy to even do that right, let alone participate anymore, leaving is indeed the best course of action.

Aww, but I will lose my little playmate here on this page. Darn, now what will I do. Woe is me...whatever will I do with all this angst I apparently have.

2006-11-28 [Pyra]: Ahaha. Why waste your valuable time arguing with the likes of him?

2006-11-29 [Fizban]: Cause it's fun :P

He beleives himself to be superior, and then acts like it...but then falters in the proof. He has ideas, but is too lazy to back them up.

Which is fine...but then why do you show up at a debate wiki if your too lazy?

2008-07-05 [windowframe]: "8) Until recently no one knew that homosexuality was, in fact, a sexuality. Human sexuality was not even studied until very recently. What history knew of homosexuality was nothing."

Wait, what? Exactly how recently do you mean, by 'recently'? 2000 years recently? :P

You can, however, suggest reasons why religion does have a say in things

As far as I'm concerned, religion has no right to demand or condemn other people for their homosexuality; however, I find it equally silly that people expect a church to allow gay marriages, when it goes against the morals of the church. If you don't agree with a religion, don't be a part of that religion, and accept that they won't let you get wed in their place of worship.

2008-07-06 [Fizban]: Yeah that's weird. I don't know whats up with them. I think there is confusion there. But tolerance isn't about conforming others to their ideals, but allowing free practice of your own.

2008-11-10 [HiddenFire]: Wow, such bickering in my absence... I suppose it's a hot topic and there is no shortage of morons on this planet. I'll leave it at that.

[windowframe], much more recently than 2000 years. I don't know the exact dates but it was within the last 200 years. I'll have to do some research of my own to get something more concrete.

You also hit the nail on the head by pointing out that religion has no say in the matter. I merely suggest that the religious out there must first convince me that religion is a valid point of argument before they use religion as an argument.

On another note, Prop 8 sucks donkey balls.

2008-11-10 [windowframe]: But the Ancient Greeks had homosexual relations - history knew about homosexuality. Sexuality was discussed back then, you just need to look at the ancient playwrights to see that, but do you mean that it wasn't studied scientifically?

Number of comments: 164
Older comments: (Last 200) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .0.

Show these comments on your site