Pride NYC

[Plain Old Jane]

this sunday is the pride parade in NYC, I'll be at 5th and 23rd prolly if anyone wants to meet up. Looks like its gonna be a blast ^_^

yay for pridizzle.

[Baboinga]

If I were anywhere near there, I'd absolutely come by.

[Marshall]

I may be at the one in Atlanta on friday night.

I was convinced to go by two friends of mine and I have no idea what to expect.

[johnny]

i think it's pride week in toronto right now so i guess one of these days there will be some kind of big parade in the gay village. maybe that's where neil is..? haven't heard from him lately

[raublekick]

when's Shame Week?

[Cid]

Probably just after people see footage of themselves at the pride parade;)

[Mr Biglesworth]

Toronto Chief of Police:
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/fab_100704.jpg

[Mike]

Gay Pride Parade ... I don't get it man. People want everybody treated equally, they want everybody to be blind when it comes to sexuality, and race, and gender, and what not .. but then at the same time, want to advertise it and announce as loudly as possible that they are different.

[Baboinga]

That's the typical statement. But Pride Parade is more than overtly showing everyone that they're different. It's showing that the population exists, and they are real people and a real presence in whatever city. There are a million reasons for it, and they just celebrate the ways that they are different in a public scenario instead of stuck in a basement club in short shorts shaking their hienies around with joe and jane average having no idea what they're doing.

[johnny]

Toronto Chief of Policeformer! chief of police.

[Mike]

That's the typical statement. But Pride Parade is more than overtly showing everyone that they're different. It's showing that the population exists, and they are real people and a real presence in whatever city. There are a million reasons for it, and they just celebrate the ways that they are different in a public scenario instead of stuck in a basement club in short shorts shaking their hienies around with joe and jane average having no idea what they're doing.

"It's showing that the population exists, and they are real people and a real presence in whatever city."

I think that Gay Pride Parades do nothing but show that they are not "real people." Examples:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/focus/xinsrc_2b56f96bab1211d787080004230fa702_Gay-Pride-parade-on-Fifth-3.jpg

http://www.gothamist.com/images/2004_06_gaypride.jpgp

http://www.cgpix.com/images/Newyork/gaypri10.jpg

Just three pictures out of hundreds of pictures when you google "Gay Pride Parade." (http://images.google.com/images?q=Gay%20Pride%20Parade&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&rls=DVXA,DVXA:2005-19,DVXA:en&sa=N&tab=wi) I could give a shit when people want to make it known that they exist in a city or area ... Whether it's lobbying, running campaigns, making advertisements. But from the perspective of the typical American who really could give a shit about gays, having a parade where people dance around in ridiculous, nearly-illegal outfits, publicizing what should be something private... I think it makes them look like an UNreal group of mental patients.

ANd those parades are rarely celebrating the ways that they are different. Last year it seemed like everybody wanted to make the case that the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is that homosexuals simply like people of their own sex... and that the love is real and genuine, and that nothing else is different. However, when Gay Pride Parades advertise homosexuality as people clowns pushing dogs, naked men on floats, and frivolous guys wearing next to nothing and dancing provocatively in public with one another ... it sends a very different message. The notion of having a parade, itself, to separate homosexuals and heterosexuals undermines any efforts for others to see anybody else as simply "people." Everybody calls for society to be blind, but then do as much in their power to make themselves stand out apart from everything else.

If Gay Pride Parades were all about solidarity and togetherness in the community, then that'd be great, I'd have absolutely no issue with it (and I really don't have any issue with it now)... but... when what is celebrated most is a ridiculous flandering of skin and pompous difference ... it's audacious. I've yet to have a parade with my girlfriend where we publicize and simulate our sexuality ... and if I did, we'd probably be arrested. Doing the same at a Gay Pride Parade is celebrated, and if anybody were arrested, it would be a hate crime.

--edit--

Why should Joe or Jane Average have to know what people are doing? I don't think that Joe and Jane Average setup nationally televised and advertised events proclaiming their sexual misadventures ... I don't see why who somebody likes to have sex with should be a public affair ... worthy of celebration.

[raublekick]

I'm with Mike on this one. Gay Pride events liberate the gay community, but they alienate them from everyone else. If there was a Straight Pride parade held in some big city people would have a fit. Just like if there was a Caucasian Pride parade, although cultural/heritage pride parades are much more appropriate.

I think we all have some sort of "gaydar". If a gay person wearing similar clothes as me told me he was gay I'd respect it. If a half naked man ran up to me on the street and danced around while telling me he was gay I'd be so fucking annoyed and I wouldn't want to be seen around them. It's OK to be different, but don't forget that there are other people around you as well.

[Baboinga]

Maybe I should've said it this way. It's important to the gay community. So who cares.

As part of the community, I appreciate the exposure that it brings, and I'm not the one in the short shorts or parading around without a shirt on, I'm not in the business of slapping people in the face with my pride. But in smaller places (ie: not toronto) the community showing it's face IS a big step. Like Edmonton, Alberta for example. I'm not offending anyone, so I don't see why I should be discouraged in taking part of something that doesn't offend me. *shrug*

[thecreeper]

it's easy for me to say it doesn't bother me because i live in the middle of nowhere, but if i was living in the a bigger city and it was thrown in my face, like raub said, i feel it might be a little annoying. but i can't really say either way except that its good that people can get together to celebrate who they are, it just doesnt need to fill in the blatant stereotypes most older people have and will never stop believing. i get annoyed whenever a stereotype is fulfilled. at magfest last year, there were a lot of cool people, but there were also the "convention" people, the uber nerd assholes who complained that the minibosses played too long and held up their cosplay show. or when i go to a concert and see the people who have become obsessed with the image of the fans of the band less so than liking the music themselves...or the big fat shitheads who just come to mosh and hurt people. this isn't indicative of the majority of the population, but often times these are the people inadvertently representing it.

[Mr Biglesworth]

ah loosen up, party boys

[raublekick]

gay pride parades are important in terms of getting attention and being noticed. i don't think they do much in terms of acceptance. there are a lot of people out there who have absolutely no problem with gays, but they do have a problem with flamboyant gays. so while the community may think it's important it's really for the wrong reasons. i'm all for being different and individuality, but i also think there is, and should be, a decent universal public behavior. for example, my mom was telling me that there was a girl that applied as a receptionist at her office who met all the qualifications. but, she asked if all her piercings (i think more than our friend Jesse) would be a problem, and they most definitely would so she didn't get the job. it's ok to act how you want around like-minded people or people who can accept that behavior, but when you go into a public setting you should know how to tame it down. i like to be really vulgar with my friends, but i know some people just don't like that, so i try to act politely when i'm in a different setting. being an individual is more than just being "who you are", it's being a dynamic person who can adapt to different social settings while still retaining their own beliefs and opinions.

[Mike]

Maybe I should've said it this way. It's important to the gay community. So who cares.

Something being important to a particular community cannot be justification enough to let it pass. Lynching Black people was important to the KKK community. Now while Gay pride parades are not Klan rallies... though it'd be funny if they were ... it seems that they're counter-productive.

As part of the community, I appreciate the exposure that it brings, and I'm not the one in the short shorts or parading around without a shirt on, I'm not in the business of slapping people in the face with my pride.

I just don't see why it has to have exposure. I don't feel the need to advertise who I prefer to have sex with... I don't see the need for anybody else. As an individual, a heterosexual person and a homosexual person are just as unique... they like the same things, they love for the same reasons, and have a very similar way of life... at least, that's the census from the last two years. So why should one person be less proud, and why should one person feel that they need to display who they like by walking around dressed up as a clown? Why is one deserving of exposure?

[Mike]

I couldn't agree more with Raub. When I watch movies in my house, I LOVE yelling "FIRE" in the middle of them and going absolutely crazy in my house, running all around. IT's one of the few things I really enjoy doing, and nobody cares. But, people really don't like when I go to movie theaters and yell "FIRE" in the middle of them... so I usually don't.

[raublekick]

Someone throw something in here for me an Mike to disagree on, cus I feel really weird right now.

[Baboinga]

What it boils down to seems to be this. You guys think that gays shouldn't act flamboyantly gay in public.

I can't even argue against that, it's ridiculous. If there is a small amount of the population who are douchey in their representation of the whole, who the fuck cares. Similar to those idiots who get more excited of the image of a band instead of seeing or enjoying the bands music, there are gay people who are so excited about representing the most flamboyant end of the bell curve of gay society, that they go a little overboard. That is their right. If that's how they choose to present themselves, power to them. Same to the idiots with the music. It's not my place to say how they should enjoy music or how they should dress.

A lot of the people in pride parades that you don't see on the news are just walking with maybe a rainbow painted on an arm and holding the hand of their partner, marching in support of the idea of the pride parade. After the parade there are usually events where you have the oppertunity to learn about gay friendly events in your area and stuff like that. There isn't a gay clubhouse where we all meet and decide stuff, so it's good to have an oppertunity to meet people who are similar to you. Of course there are going to be idiots dressed up certain ways and making the general population look silly, but who cares, it would happen anyway. Sort of the, I will never support that, but I support the right to do it.

Mike: Of course you don't have to advertise who you sleep with. It's fucking obvious because it's the norm. Black people don't have to wear pride pins because they're BLACK and you can see it. They're a MINORITY. You sleep with women. Of course you don't have to have a pride parade because you're in the majority and you don't get discriminated against because of that. If you want to have a parade expressing your pride in enjoying Vagina, fuck it, I'll join you. But gays are in the minority and deserve the right to at the very least show their numbers in a public setting, so that Joe McDuff of Rural wherevertown can actually be shown that gay people exist. And don't give me the shit that everyone knows gay people exist, they don't. When I came out to my parents, my Mom confessed that she thought it was the sort of thing that happened on TV, and she'd never honestly encountered someone who was openly gay.

It is an important event so that people can watch the news and say "Oh, wow. Look at that, there's a bunch of gay people in our town." It's for gay people to congregate and not be afraid of the paradigms that exist in a lot of the rural places and unite in a cause of being a recognized population that shouldn't be ignored. If gay people want rights such as marriage, they (we) should be showing that we are a significant portion of the population that can't be overlooked.

It's nothing at all like the KKK. The KKK deserve no recognition for what they are or what they do. Look at it more this way, think of a group of cancer survivors who get together for meetings as a part of recouperation and healing and adjusting back to their regular lives, or even perhaps if they're still going through treatments or whatever. Now, these people have a right to be recognized, if, for example, they were lobbying for money in Cancer research. They would want their numbers to be known. Freedom is a right that we have in America and Canada, and if they wanted to have a parade of some sort, why shouldn't they be able to be? Cancer victims are another minority that would get less attention if people didn't actively campaign for money for more cancer research or for individuals with cancer to get money to pay for treatments or WHATEVER.

The point is, they're a part of the population that deserves to be recognized, and just because of some of the outfits offend your delicate sensibilities you think that they don't deserve a parade.

wtf is so offensive about this?
http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004%20images/paradephotos/CSF.jpg
http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004%20images/paradephotos/lambda.jpg
http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004%20images/paradephotos/LC.jpg

Source: http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004-Parade%20route.htm

[johnny]

but if i was living in the a bigger city and it was thrown in my face, like raub said, i feel it might be a little annoying.well i live in a city which has fairly big pride festivities every summer, and if it weren't for the occassional mention of pride week in news reports and newspapers, i probably wouldn't even have known that it was going on. it's not like all of toronto turns into queertown for a week.. the parades and all the other parties mostly happen in and around the gay village area, so it's pretty easy to avoid if you don't want to see/hear about it.

[Plain Old Jane]

I got in from the parade last night around frikkin 9pm, the fair was tubular. Btw, I didnt see that guy but two other guys, hair old, and in lingerie, I hugged one, it was hawt. haha, everyone laughed and had a good time, especially the (dare I say) guys in drag. I think thats a good thing, while there are proportionally more visible forms of fuck-upedness among queer folks, I bet you could find just as much among straight people. From the straight people who are unassuming business suit wearing people in the day, but at night are very very naughty boys who need to be punished. *brandishes whip*

Or the 40 year old men who have a penchant for 20 year old (or even earlier, fucking freaks) and insist when being intimate being called "daddy." Thats far more terrifying and potentially damaging to both people, but you never see it.

How about that maybe-gay guy in the parade that from the front was holding hands with a girl and cheering and was covered in ropes which I found interesting at first, but when he passed us, you could see a FUCK of a lot of whip marks on his back. very unassuming, and rightous fun if you ask me.

Also, I saw the orthodox jewish gay float, which was playing jewish music and everyone was dancing, it was grand.

I think that there are plenty worse things to do than have a gay pride parade. Straight people and black people have affirmation all the time from simply the way they talk, to weddings, to the million man march, to kwanza (whoever the fuck celebrates that.) and valentines day. or just go to the movies, you wont see ANY queer romances. (theres one or two indie ones.)
But my affirmation just happens to be a parade in which a HUGE HAIRY gay guy with "Bear Pride" written all over him slapping a "BRIDE To Be" sticker on me.

I have to say, I was slightly annoyed when I saw the crossdressers, if only cuz I was like, "This? This is whose represnting me?" Fuck it, next year, I'm getting my own float. And this is why theres a parade to make visible the big ole spectrum of gender and orientation, so when joe average meets big gay al at a frat party, he wont immidiate think hes a freak and stab him. (like this fucker, Lil Macho who christine might have heard of, did once when I met him. Not to me, he relayed the story to me.) Even as little visibility as queer people are allowed, its a step in the right direction. It lets people know they exist are people, and folks'll get pissed if they hurt or maim them just as anyone would be for a straight person.

"I think that Gay Pride Parades do nothing but show that they are not "real people.""

Go to one and then say that.

the ONLY person who didnt have a great time and a sore throat by the end of that parade was this asshole on a bike going to everyone and saying: "Gay people are the reason that the twin towers came down. Any idiot can see that. Thank you." and then walking off to accost someone else. THATS damaging, THAT is annoying, THAT is hateful and is what the parade is all about discouraging. Also, two little kids pushed me out of my spot at the front, how about an excuse me, little brats...

I also saw a car with two old men and a plaque towards the back showing that they've been together 60 years and were married in canada. (im not sure if that means they were married for 60 years.)

[Mr Biglesworth]

thank you jep, that's awesome. I love the energy of the whole thing.
Btw I've been following the fate of same-sex marriage legislation and up to now it's been uncertain, as the Conservatives had a few aces up their sleeve to stop or at least delay its passage. But as of last thursday it's all but guaranteed to be passed very shortly. gOh Canada

[Cid]

Straight, white guy pride parade/million man march in Akron next week. Who's in???

[GT2000]

Ok.

[Baboinga]

fyi gay marriage isn't legal in all of canada, it's only legal in one or two provinces. And not my redneck province, our premier states SPECIFICALLY that he would fight the law heatedly to make sure that Alberta doesn't get gay marriage.

[Mike]

I typed a long post in response to Baboinga's reply up there, but realized it was mostly useless ... picking apart various things and making points off of accidental fallacies in the post (I had particular fun with the cancer thing)... But anyway, it was all useless and would have led to just more and more posts about the same thing.

My general point is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same thing, in that they involve individuals being sexually attracted to individuals... and there is no difference. If it is not made a public affair, then nobody will ever be judged by that sexuality--at least, today. I think that we've made great strides in moving society towards an ideal of sameness between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because they're at root the same thing... And so I have contention with people who seek to actively separate the two... both the heterosexuals who paint unfair pictures of homosexuals, and then the homosexuals who paint unfair pictures of homosexuals. I then take issue with those homosexuals painting unfair pictures who then turn around and demand blindes and equality in society ... the very society that they are actively seeking to see them as something different from everybody else.

I also have a really big problem with who determines who or why somebody is part of a minority. Minorities tend to be more "who can cry the loudest" as opposed to people who are actually minorities and who are actually discriminated against.

[heX]

omg you are all fighting like a bunch of fags



edit: you fucking fags disgussed me. i hate your limp wrists, your little fag lips.. and your faggy... tight... hard asses...

[Mr Biglesworth]

Minorities tend to be more "who can cry the loudest" as opposed to people who are actually minorities and who are actually discriminated against.

Liberals and Conservatives must be the biggest minorities around then!

[Baboinga]

If it is not made a public affair, then nobody will ever be judged by that sexuality--at least, today.
What the fuck? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
I've been trying to be polite in my responses thus far, but really, I can't even respond to this legibly, because your entire post is bullshit. There is a huge amount of discrimination against gays throughout Canada and the US. If gays didn't have parades, it wouldn't be "Oh, I met a gay guy at work today, what a nice fella" it would be "I met one of those sick fucking AIDS bearers at work, I hope he doesn't talk to me by the watercooler."
It is necessary to have parades and such to show the population, as I said before. You can't just pretend that discrimination doesn't exist because you'd rather there not be a gay pride parade. You're an idiot. Seriously.


I think that we've made great strides in moving society towards an ideal of sameness between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because they're at root the same thing...
Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state. The church is supposed to be separated from the state, but it's not. ATHEISTS can get married, but gays can't? WTF is that? And in a lot of places (mostly rurall, where they have little exposure to gays) the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because marriage is some sacred thing that they think their religion invented, which is bullshit anyway. The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did.
Whatever, the point is, that gays are actively discriminated against, and we have taken strides, sure, but we are FAR from having homosexuals being accepted as actively as heterosexuals. The idea of having a heterosexual pride parade is stupid BECAUSE every fucking day for straight people is a pride parade. People openly walk down the street hand in hand, on posters, in advertisements, commercials, books, magazines, everything is straight this and straight that. The cliche story is "boy meets girl" or "adam and eve" or whatever else you want to see it as. When is the last time you saw a mainstream movie that's main characters involve a gay or lesbian couple? I can barely think of any ever. Oh, Kissing Jessica Stein, but she turned out straight in the end. That's a GREAT message.

Anyway, the point is, straight people don't deserve a parade for being straight, because they don't live in a society that stifles their sexuality.

the very society that they are actively seeking to see them as something different from everybody else.

............................
Gay people have sex with the same gender, and they have their own culture. It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences. It's like Quebec in Canada, some people think they should just fall in line and stop bitching about losing their culture and being so bitchy about everything. I don't mind that Quebec is like that, because they're the only province left that actively stays bilingual. I'd rather them have their own culture and the rest of Canada have our culture and each learn from each other, than force them to be more like the rest of Canada which way Anglo.

[johnny]

fyi gay marriage isn't legal in all of canada, it's only legal in one or two provinces. And not my redneck province, our premier states SPECIFICALLY that he would fight the law heatedly to make sure that Alberta doesn't get gay marriage.i think the bill on same-sex marriage (bill c-38 i think it's called...?) will be passed without much trouble, because the liberals are working with the ndp and the bloc quebecois, so things will be different soon. ralph klein and stephen harper will probably keep on bitching and moaning about it, but they're a pair idiots. (in fact, yesterday stephen harper was saying that if the bill passed it would lack legitimacy because the liberals are working with the bloc, who really have no interest in canada--just quebec. which is somewhat true, but right now they're still all canadians, and harper and the conservatives worked with the bloc to try to topple the government in april and may. i guess it's only lacks legitimacy if somebody other than stephen harper votes with the bloc!)

[Mr Biglesworth]

it's gonna be passed tonight

[johnny]

should provide a good story for night-time newscasters to go on and on about.

[raublekick]

Although I agree that some of Mike's post was a bit... bullshit... I still don't thinkthat kinda stuff is necessary. I live in a very rural conservative area, I'm one of the very few democrats in my town, the rest are bleeding heart conservative republicans. This is not a very gay area. So what was my first experience with a gay person outside of the media? It was when i was 16 and got hired at a job where one of the managers happened to be gay. It wasn't hard to tell that he was gay, but he wasn't so flamboyant that he was annoying.

The point is that I didn't need a parade or any awareness activity to help me become aware and accepting of gays. All I needed was contact with a gay person like I would have with any straight person. THere's no way I'm gonna try to say this is the universal case, because there will always be those who will fear anything out of the norm. But I think a lot of people would benefit more from normal human contact with gays than a parade that they'll probably ignore or be annoyed with.

[Mr Biglesworth]

something nice like that happened in my last year at university. My roommate was a big homophobe, real smart aleck too. Then he befriended this guy steve, who i think he really looked up to. When he found out steve was gay, instead of tossing out his friendship he changed his opinions. He still jokes around about queers and i'm sure he would be damn uncomfortable with alot of gays, but he's softened up.

I'm pro pride because it's alot more fun than anything you hetro stiffs come up with.

[heX]

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state.


The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did


Christians or catholics? two different things you can call yourself Christian but not catholic.

new thought:

id love to see one example of a union of a man and a woman that takes place before two believers in God did it.

if you are a Christian you believe in the creation of the world with Adam and Eve. If you're not a Christian looking at history there has always been a belief in a god, the oldest recorded documents showing the Jewish church who believed in a sacred union of a man and a woman referred to as a marriage. marriage was formed by the church like it or not. do i think people just hooked up with out being married back then, well yeah. was that refereed to as a holy union of two people? well no. as far as what we call marriage today, it came down right through the Jewish church. it is a tradition from the church that is believed to be a commandment of God. so if you don't believe in God then why would you wanna follow his commandments? you are letting yourself be manipulated by the church if you feel it is that important to be married.

Is it a matter of expectance by the rest of the world? You want everyone to validate your feelings for your girl/boy as being equal to there feelings for there wife/husband? Thats fine but marriage is something that comes from the church. The problem here is that the state is interfering with the church. The church, not the state is what kept records and preformed marriages. Looking at the history of the world it is fairly a new thing that the state is the one in charge of marriages. For example i have a family tree dated back to the 1700s starting 3 generations into Germany directly to me that my family has been working on for a while. the records of marriage are not found in the German governments vaults, but in the Lutheran church's books. Marriage is the creation of the church from a atheists point of view, and a creation of God from a Christians point of view. If you are gay and consider yourself Christian and feel you should be married then this would be a completely different argument. As far as Atheists being married goes, that also came around after marriage was taken over by the state in the church they would not preform marriages unless the two people would at least fake there beliefs. By todays standards of what marriage is, fuck it let gay people get married no one even takes marriage seriously for what it was intended.


edit: not to play my best friends are gay card.. but my best friend at work is gay, i have nothing but respect for him and love hanging out with him. even was about to go to the gay pride parade with him.

[Plain Old Jane]

marriage, before it was called that, was an advent of sultans and prussian princes who kept a menagerie of women that wouldnt sleep with anyone else, as a matter of protection against disease that spread easily through the hetero and homo sexual peasents as there was no marriage. (fun factoid: the rulers also HIRED castrato men to guard their palaces. No sex, but room, board, and respect (maybe) maybe that was a big deal back then.)

Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now.

Its not strictly christian, it wasnt made by believers or god, its not only between a man and a woman, its now a bond of love, and you can better fucking believe there was horny have mores before there was the advent of god, morals, and whats in the good book.

hex, that thin line between church and state is ALSO a new thing, so just because there arent records doesnt mean thats how it has ALWAYS been.

in conclusion, Marriage was never an advent of god or the church, just of horny (hetero and homo sexual) males who were in charge and didnt want their royal dick to fall off with the syph.

[heX]

marriage, before it was called that, was an advent of sultans and prussian princes who kept a menagerie of women that wouldnt sleep with anyone else, as a matter of protection against disease that spread easily through the hetero and homo sexual peasents as there was no marriage. (fun factoid: the rulers also HIRED castrato men to guard their palaces. No sex, but room, board, and respect (maybe) maybe that was a big deal back then.)

Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now.

Its not strictly christian, it wasnt made by believers or god, its not only between a man and a woman, its now a bond of love, and you can better fucking believe there was horny have mores before there was the advent of god, morals, and whats in the good book.

hex, that thin line between church and state is ALSO a new thing, so just because there arent records doesnt mean thats how it has ALWAYS been.

in conclusion, Marriage was never an advent of god or the church, just of horny (hetero and homo sexual) males who were in charge and didnt want their royal dick to fall off with the syph.

omg your talking out of your ass jep. tell you what you show me the first doccumented marriage you can find that wasnt done by the spiritual leaders of the time and ill show you where you made something up or didnt do enough research.

"Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now. "

since aids didnt come around untill after the vaccine for polio was developed are you implying marraige came after that? furthermore what are you even basing thats what marriage was intended for? you are just saying what seems to make sense in your head nothing that you know to be fact.

[Plain Old Jane]

omg, I'm not playing this game anymore hex, you provide evidence that marriage was created by the almighty, and I'll gladly go scour the earth for evidence that your a stupid prick who should learn to listen to logic and not the priest that touched you when you were little... i mean, evidence that proves my point.

::has a migraine::

[Plain Old Jane]

::and is going to go play some Xenosaga::

[heX]

omg, I'm not playing this game anymore hex, you provide evidence that marriage was created by the almighty, and I'll gladly go scour the earth for evidence that your a stupid prick who should learn to listen to logic and not the priest that touched you when you were little... i mean, evidence that proves my point.

::has a migraine::
ok thats fine i will show you a documented marriage by the church that took place before your sultan marriage. can you provide me a date to work with or is that too hard considering you have no date.you were too busy once again confusing the catholic church with Christianity with the priest comment to do any real research before your reply.

edit: i said marriage was created by God from a Christian stand point. so unless you are saying you are a Christian im not trying to prove it was created by God to you. I'm trying to prove it was done by the church to you.

edit edit : you know what never mind. i can already see where this going, like mike said. ill make a point then you'll regurgitate the same jep bitchness spouting up random facts that never quite make a point, that would help your argument. then take a couple cheap shots at the catholic church (which im not catholic or belong to any organized religion with a chain of command). then you would feel happy with yourself that you got to spit out your random factoid about marriage that doesnt fit the same time period as to what i was reffering. then think it was cool that maybe not everyone here already knew about it and feel you put me in my place with out ever really proving me wrong. so jep go fuck a girl and call your self a lesbian because you've never made sense to me so just give up on it. no matter how hard you try you are a attention deprived 6 year old boy wishing mommy and daddy loved you in my eyes.

[malta]

"::and is going to go play some Xenosaga::"

HOT. I just started playing.

[thecreeper]

"::and is going to go play some Xenosaga::"

HOT. I just started playing.


prepare to be disappointed, annoyed, and bored.

[Plain Old Jane]

choke on a cock, hex

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/history.html
"10,000 to 3,000BC
A family was viewed as belonging to the male as his property. A female in a family had to be monogamous but a male could mate with unattached females..and he sure did! The world's population exploded to over one hundred million by 3,000BC. Women were totally subservient to men - possessions to be used as men wished, in these early civilizations. Some of history's earliest writings contain references to laws against a women having more than one husband."

summation: men were allowed to have many partners, also aludes the reason was fear of disease.

addendum: "One of the most sacred positions for a single women was as a temple prostitute. "Every women..must once come in her life go and sit in the temple and there give herself to a strange man....She is not allowed to go home until a man has thrown a silver coin into her lap and takes her outside to lie with him....The women has no privilege of choice - she must go with the first man who throws her the money. When she has lain with him, her duty to the goddess is discharged and she may go home...Tall handsome women soon manage to get home again, but the ugly ones stay a long time before they can fulfill the conditions which the law demands - some of them, indeed as much as three or four years." (Herodotus, a Persian historian who lived from 484 to 425 B.C.)"

"With an increase in prostitution came an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, living impetus to Puritan desires to (eventually) make it illegal."

Fun factoid cuz it chaps hex's ass:
"As the exploration of the New World began, "civilized man" was introduced to bizarre sexual customs, such as those of the Incas and Mayans, who preferred homosexuality for adults. The Incas also attempted to preserve the purity of their race through incest; the Aztecs practiced polygamy; and the Mexicans perfected the art of prostitution."
"As Europeans game to America, they brought strict puritan views of sex. By the 1800s the woman was more than content to be the weak, vulnerable creature, needing protection by a man. American Doctor Alice Stockholm (a woman) wrote in 1894 that any husband who required marital intercourse except for conceiving children was making his wife into a private prostitute. Sex with a "real" prostitute, however, was fine as long as there was no love or passion involved. Unofficial estimates claim there were over 100,000 prostitutes in Paris by 1900. Philadelphia had about one prostitute for every 60 people."

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ja8n/labhome/Thrall_Antonovics_Dobson_2000.pdf

"It has been speculated that Monogamy is an outcome of sexually transmitted disease."

Summation: Later the paper goes on to say in so many words that behavior affects likely hood of transmission, and transmission affects the success of mating, so cutting down on partners was a likely outcome.

On Wealthy Middle Eastern secks: http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html

"The Muslim countries of the Middle East, Asia and North Africa often have polygamous marriages. Muslim men are allowed by law to have up to four wives. Polygamy is usually only used by men who are wealthy enough to support more than one wife"

On Same Secks Marriages, completely NOT what this topic was supposed to be about, same site:

"Marriage shifts constantly through time to fit the needs of each individual society. A look at the historical context of marriage shows the myriad forms of marriage that have been socially acceptable, and reveals the likelihood for further fluctuations. Marriage, its purposes and intents, have changed repeatedly over the centuries. It is naive to assume that any one social standard of marriage will stay the same forever."

"The different types of marriages listed above show that marriage is not one set, unchangeable definition. Even in male-female marriage practices, there are many variances in what is acceptable. However, the average American citizen may not have such a global awareness of marriage. This may in part be due to the Christian heritage of the majority of US citizens. This country directs the most marriage exposure to Christian church weddings. It may not occur to many people that there are other traditions of marriage in other countries that are considered equally valid. What this country considers the most natural and normal is not necessarily a universal standard. That the range of acceptable marriage practices may change in the future is not an unprecedented possibility nor is it unrealistic to expect changes. Marriage has never been an immutable and fixed standard."

"Historical marriages documented in the Bible were barbarous, in which women were seized during warfare to become wives. Parents viewed their daughters as child-bearing commodities, and just as frequently sold their children into slavery. Polygamy was frequent, especially in early Biblical marriages, such as the stories of Solomon and his "700 wives, princesses and 300 concubines,

[Plain Old Jane]

-continued from last post-

Also on the anthropology of marriage and definition thereof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

"Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far less common than those that do not and monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced, followed distantly by polygyny, which is found primarily in tribal cultures; other marriage arrangements are extremely rare. Since the latter decades of the 20th century many of society's assumptions about the nature and purpose of marriage and family have been challenged"

"Other unusual variations include marriage between a living human and a ghost (Taiwan), two or more dead people (Mormonism), a living human and a recently-deceased human with whom they were emotionally involved (France), and between a human being and God (Catholic and Orthodox monasticism)."

The whole religious reasons just ring a tad BS to me. They say between a man and a woman for reproductive reasonings, but by that reasoning, sterile people, post op transsexuals, and full and partial AIS (XY chromosomal, context is visibly female marrying male, most full AIS dont know they are XY.) sufferers shouldnt be able to marry, but they are.
By the same token. AIS suffers who wish to marry females are not allower even though by court law they're considered male in some states. Or Post Ops who want to marry another female even though by some state laws they're considered male. (though thankfully, one can have a new birth cert issued and have your records sealed so that sort of thing wont be a problem.)

anyway, back to the definition of marriage:
"Couples usually seek social sanction for their marriages, and many societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. Sociologists thus distinguish between a marriage ceremony conducted under the auspices of a religion and a state-sanctioned civil marriage."

"Under the principle of church-state separation, libertarians criticize the government regulation of and the state's involvement in marriage, because many now consider marriage a religious institution. The libertarian view is that if government must recognize marriage at all, it should be treated as a contract like any other between two freely consenting parties, which would essentially reduce family law to a subset of contract law. The religious aspects should remain the province of one's church and that church's ecclesiastical courts (if it has them). Relatively new legal developments like palimony have already tilted certain governments slightly in this direction."

stfu, hex

In conclusion, xenosaga in my opinion is... too pretty... too many animations, too many characters, too much unexplained minutia, too much minutia in general. I like minutia, but dayum...

Times are changing, and we arent THAT far from segregation, slavery, and the absence of womens rights, why should we stop when we're so close to utopia and true equality that the USA was founded to enact, true equality, true freedom, true class mobility.

::resists saying anything about how the bushies' are taking that all away through legislative consolidation and striking up the bickering between the religious right and liberal left::
(hes not even republican anymore, he's trancended politics into pure evil...)

dont ever tell me i dunno what I'm talking about...

[Mike]

What the fuck? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
I've been trying to be polite in my responses thus far, but really, I can't even respond to this legibly, because your entire post is bullshit. There is a huge amount of discrimination against gays throughout Canada and the US. If gays didn't have parades, it wouldn't be "Oh, I met a gay guy at work today, what a nice fella" it would be "I met one of those sick fucking AIDS bearers at work, I hope he doesn't talk to me by the watercooler."
It is necessary to have parades and such to show the population, as I said before. You can't just pretend that discrimination doesn't exist because you'd rather there not be a gay pride parade. You're an idiot. Seriously.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'm glad that you can make a comment saying that without Gay Pride parades people would say "I met one of those sick fucking AIDs bearers..." and then call me the idiot. Please, you just made a comparison between being Gay and having Cancer. Maybe you didn't notice this but Cancer is a DISEASE. Now, would you like to make the argument that being a homosexual is a disease? You were so blatantly off balance with that argument that I let it die because it was so weak. You're comparing being a homosexual to having a life threatening illness. Sorry, but last I checked, when you find people of the same sex attractive, it doesn't kill you. Maybe I don't understand homosexuality. Or maybe you're making an argument that if you like somebody of the same sex, then you get a terminal illness, like AIDs. Sorry, but I'm not going to pass that judgement. Repeating your point that it is "necessary to have parades to show that Gay people exist" does not make it right. Everybody knows that Gay people exist, except for apparently, your mother. THough, I suppose that your mother is an accurate model for the millions of people that live in North America. That's a rather boistrous assumption, don't you think? "My mother didn't believe that she would know a gay person, therefore the 296 Million people in America and 32 million people in Canada (actually, 31,999,999 ... because you, I suppose, know that gay people exist) must think the exact same way as this one woman." See, the world has changed... and it has not changed because Gay people have had parades. IF that were the case then nobody would accept any minority unless they have a parade. I am polish, I have never been to a Polish parade. Poles are an ethnic minority in this country, I am generally accepted as a Polish person. The same goes for pretty much every group in the country.

Most Americans could really give two shits about what two people do in their house, especially in the last 15 years. THe courts have ruled that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house; law makers have made laws that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house... Pretty much nobody gives a fucking shit about what people do in their house. A person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex IS homosexuality... by definition, by interpretation. VERY few people care about one person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. QUID PRO QUO VERY FEW people care about homosexuals. However, those who do care don't care about homosexuals, they care about pricks who over step the bounds of what they can do in public, or what is generally acceptable in public. These people who overstep the bounds are not "what is Homosexuality." Homosexuality is the definition provided ... NOT individual people wearing thongs and riding rollerskates. When parades for Homosexuals are known more by the people in clown suits dancing with half naked men ... The Parades CHANGE from being something celebrating homosexuality to being something that celebrates a ridiculous carelessness for social decency.

(I'm going to speak on behalf of the United States, because I'm from the US, not Canada, and I'm not going to defend Canada.)

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state.

Wait a second .. Gays can't adopt children!? Holy shit, that's news... especially considering that I have three cousins who were adopted by two homosexual women more than 20 years ago. And they also have friends who have adopted children ... whom I happen to know on very personal relationships. They do exist. I guess I'm going to have to call DSS and the police on them for actively breaking the law ... Or maybe you're just misinformed. Probably the latter.

The church is supposed to be separated from the state, but it's not. ATHEISTS can get married, but gays can't? WTF is that? And in a lot of places (mostly rurall, where they have little exposure to gays) the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because marriage is some sacred thing that they think their religion invented, which is bullshit anyway. The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did.

Your knowledge of constitutional law, basic politics, and Christianity is lacking. Find the clause in the US Constitution that says that the Church is supposed to be separated from the state. You're not going to find it. Why? Because it isn't there. Regarding religion, the courts consider the establishment clause and the free exercize clause.. neither of which explicitly call for a separation of CHurch and state, because those who wrote the Constitution KNEW that politicians were people and that they had religious convictions that inform their philosophy ... just like how you have convictions that inform your philosophy (and how I have convictions that inform my philosophy. Like your idea that the state is somehow archaic, that there is an explicit separation in the Constitution, and that homosexuality is a flamboyant, flagrant, and boistrous display of social indecency ... all convictions that inform your philosophy).

The sentence that begins "The majority opinion is that..." is the clearest example that you have absolutely no idea what is going on in the world and what other people think. I guess the only way to begin a response to that sort of point is, "No." Christians and Catholics do not think that they invented marriage. WHat is the most obvious example of this? The book that generally governs the moral choices of CHristians and Catholics is the Bible. The Bible has a collection of pages called "THe Old Testament." The Old Testament is a collection of predominantly Jewish texts about Jewish people, many of whom got married. Now, there would be quite the incongruency for Christians to claim that they invented marriage when marriage is mentioned ad nauseam in a collection of chapters about people who are not Christians. Rather than making up what you think Christians, Catholics, and those against Gay Marriage believe ... and then justifying your opinion on that make-believe universe, why don't you justify your beliefs on what people actually believe. WHat most will tell you isn't that marriage is something made up by Christians or Catholics, or even Jews, but rather, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman... per definition. This has been the case in American culture for about 400 years, it was informed by Western philosophy, which also shares some roots in Western religion (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; predominantly). So the "majority" who are opposed to Gay marriage do not think that way because it discriminates against homosexuals, because it doesn't. It'd be like a rock with absolutely no aerodynamics wanting to fly by its own power. Nature is not discriminating against that rock; nature has defined flying and defined what that rock is. PEOPLE have defined marriage and what marriage is.. and homosexuals want to do something that is NOT marriage. If Marriage is the union between and man and a woman, and homosexuals do not want to have a union with a man or a woman, then they do not want marriage... they want something else. And it is entirely up to their chosing how they want to handle that, what they want to call it, and what the definition of it is. Hence, marriage is not a right. You mentioned Atheists being able to get married, and this proves my point. Well, it proves two points. One of them is that you're basing your justifications off of misinterpretations of what other people believe ... and then accosting them for your own misunderstanding. Secondly, it proves that Christians and Catholics don't believe that marriage was invented by their religion and for the sole use of their religion ... or else, they would not allow Atheists to get married.

If you want to talk about rights--then I am probably in complete agreement with you. I thought, 10 years ago, when I began to venture into politics, culture, and society, that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals, and within the last 10 years, this has happened... to the point that nearly all medical facilities recognize a legitimate homosexual partner, nearly all insurrance companies recognize homosexual partners, and most states will grant the same the same opportunities to homosexuals partners, pending application. I bolded "legitimate" because just like heterosexuals, a medical facility can use their discression when allowing people to visit patients... and this is because there are so many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, with flanderous, dangerous sex lives. They turn people away as actively with heterosexuals as they do homosexuals, and even married spouses.

(cont)

[Mike]

==THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE PREVIOS POST==

Whatever, the point is, that gays are actively discriminated against, and we have taken strides, sure, but we are FAR from having homosexuals being accepted as actively as heterosexuals. The idea of having a heterosexual pride parade is stupid BECAUSE every fucking day for straight people is a pride parade. People openly walk down the street hand in hand, on posters, in advertisements, commercials, books, magazines, everything is straight this and straight that. The cliche story is "boy meets girl" or "adam and eve" or whatever else you want to see it as. When is the last time you saw a mainstream movie that's main characters involve a gay or lesbian couple? I can barely think of any ever. Oh, Kissing Jessica Stein, but she turned out straight in the end. That's a GREAT message.

Well, I guess you can ignore all of my mention that I am not in favor of a heterosexual pride parade... but really, that's irrelevent. The reason "everything" is "Straight this" and "straight that" is because the majority of the population is heterosexual, so if you want your advertising to appeal to the majority of people, you market it towards them. Advertisings generally show adults or people over the age of 16 in their advertisements ... should this all change? Should we show babies and three year olds using iPods, instead of people in their 20's? When somebody is driving a car in a commercial, should that person be a 9 year old, instead of an adult? NO, because the majority of car drivers are adults and the majority of people using iPods are in their later teens, 20s, and 30s... Just like the majority of people in America are heterosexual. Take for instance a commercial about Diamonds ... like the DeBeer's commercials... they show a black and white background with what is obviously a man and a woman sharing that diamond. Is this an active display of heterosexuality? No. Did the producers of that commercial purposely put a man and a woman in the ad? YES! Because heterosexual men are their primary target audience... the majority of their sales are to heterosexual men, so it only makes sense to advertise with heterosexual men in mind. This is not pushing the Heterosexual agenda, it is smart advertising.

Television and movies, however, are quite different. THe homosexuals are usually the most active characters ... for some reason, people can make careers out of being homosexual and being on TV. This doesn't bother me, because it's marketed well. One of the most popular shows in America is "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," I don't really watch it, but I think it's a funny show and the hosts are pretty crazy, and it is entertaining. Ellen DeGeneres has a talk show because she is a Lesbian... Now, it also happens that the show is a pretty good show, but there would be no interest if she wasn't a lesbian. Proof of this is that you can find 100s of other shows, throughout history, that have had leading female roles... when those shows have ended, the female roles rarely have had their own television talk shows. Nearly every new sitcom on network television tried to work the "Gay angle" into their stories, because homosexuality in television sells and it makes interest. People like to watch those shows. And the shows that have elements of homosexuality in them have those elements emphasized... those characters and story lines are typified by their homosexuality. You'd be hard pressed to find a Gay character in a television show where the essence of what that character is, is not a Homosexual man. However, I can go through every show and list the heterosexual characters where their sexuality, throughout every episode and every season, is barely mentioned.

Anyway, the point is, straight people don't deserve a parade for being straight, because they don't live in a society that stifles their sexuality.

I have mentioned already that I was never in favor of a straight parade. You're thinking that I am so that you can base your argument on this idea. I'm not. Your argument is baseless.

Like I said above, nobody could care less about the sexuality of any random person. People can do whatever they want in their homes when it comes to sexuality. Even outside of the home, people aren't as stifling as you may think. It is not uncommon to see two men walking down the street holding hands, or two women who are involved sitting in a park together. With the exception of obtuse old people, nobody has a problem with that. If I saw two men making out in a park, I'd probably have a problem with that, but that's also because I'd have a problem seeing a man and a woman make out in a park... It's neither the time nor the place for either.

Sexuality is not the clothes you wear, the way you talk, or the way you present yourself. It is your sexual attraction. Very few people care about anybody else's sexual attraction enough to actively seek to discriminate against them.

...........................
Gay people have sex with the same gender, and they have their own culture. It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences. It's like Quebec in Canada, some people think they should just fall in line and stop bitching about losing their culture and being so bitchy about everything. I don't mind that Quebec is like that, because they're the only province left that actively stays bilingual. I'd rather them have their own culture and the rest of Canada have our culture and each learn from each other, than force them to be more like the rest of Canada which way Anglo.

"Gay people have sex with the same gender." That's a stupid sentence. It is impossible to have sex with a gender because, as anybody who has ever taken any course on sociology knows, gender is not in the essence of an individual, where as sexuality is. My sex is that I am male... I happen to assume the gender roles of a male (for a number of reasons). I could have sex with somebody who takes the same gender roles as I do, and that does not make me a homosexual. There are many women who have, for whatever reason, assumed the gender roles of a man ... or "do male gender"... if I, as a male, had sex with a female who had assumed the gender roles of a man, I would not be committing an act of homosexuality.

"It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences."

This is just a difference of opinion between you and I. I do not see my sexual preference as something to be necessarily proud of because in and of itself, it doesn't exist. While it can be good to celebrate similarities and differences, with that celebration comes resentment ... If I celebrate how great a basktball player I am (though I am not), somebody who is not a great basketball player may resent me celebrating it. Me celebrating does not change the type of basketball player I am, and the type of basketball player I am does not cause resentment. The active celebration causes resentment.

Now, as you began this post, you mentioned that you were trying to be polite. Frankly, I don't care if you're polite or impolite, but I'd rather you have a concernl to facts, the philosophy of others, and of the issue at hand. If you want to say that you can have intercourse with a gender; If you want to use Christianity and Catholicism as the same thing; If you want to say that Homosexuals cannot adopt children; If you want to think that the separation of Church and State is explicit in the Constitution; And if you want to believe that marketing to heterosexuals is anything more than smart business ... Then you can. You'll be wrong. You'll look stupid. But you can.

You'll also free to call me an idiot, but maybe if you studied some of the things you're talking about, you'd rethink that word choice.

[Mike]

BTW -- Hex and I may agree on ends, but we probably do not agree on means. Don't take his arguments for mine.

[Baboinga]

I didn't compare aids to being gay, I compared the VICTIMIZATION and MINORITY values of the two. I'm not saying one is like the other in all ways, I'm saying that they have similarities. If you can't understand simply that, then I can't argue anything with you. You simply take whatever you want to read out of what I'm writing, and it's not worth it to bother. It's like you're a horse with blinders on to whatever the person is trying to say, and you only see what you prefer to see, or read it how you would like to. Have you never heard somebody compare something before? It's like someone saying "Jean jackets are so ugly, I like jeans as pants, though," and you're like "WTF FUCKER? Jeans go on your LEGS, idiot, they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS". I'm not saying one is the other, far from, I'm not saying being gay is like having a disease, why the fuck would I ever even imply that?

Like your idea that the state is somehow archaic, that there is an explicit separation in the Constitution, and that homosexuality is a flamboyant, flagrant, and boistrous display of social indecency ...
wtf, can you read? I believe none of those things except that the integration of specifically christian beliefs (which is discriminatory in cases to people who either don't believe in God, or who aren't christian) into the legal system is archaic.
As far as the AIDS bearer comment is concerned, I'm glad you live in your little bubble of righteousness, but in the real world there is discrimination, and people believe ridiculous shit like that. (note things like this site: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=77 ) I'm not quoting something I saw on a talk show, I've seen it in real life. In some cases, I've experienced it. People claiming that gay people are pedophiles, or people who claim to be "non-bias" but will still state bullshit statistics as though they are fact, ie: "Gay people are fine in my book, but it's a fact that when they raise children, the children are more likely to be gay". If there is a modicum of truth in this, it would be that the children are in a more open environment, so they would be more likely to come out of the closet; which is an entirely different context and still renders the original statement untrue. The point is, there is a stupidly large percentage of people who are bias, whether they believe so or not. You can laugh at me saying something about people thinking that all gays have aids, but in places, that's what the stereotype is, and there's simply no one there to dissuade them.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf (table five, bias motivation; for 2003 three the number of hate crimes for sexuality is approximately the same as the number of anti-religious crimes, literally... give or take ten) (if for some reason it doesn't open, 1430 anti sexuality hate crimes, subtracting 15 anti heterosexual crimes; 1415 anti homosexual/bisexual crimes. anti-religion crimes = 1426; for 2003. Also Anti hispanic or other ethnic origin crimes number to 1236. Anti racial hate crimes are a bit more than triple the anti-sexuality crimes)

It might also be noted that (table seven, by offense type) there were six murders inspired by homophobia; which outnumbers the other categories, even murders inspired by race. (Which is five, but still)
I'm too lazy to go through the actual state-by-state analysis of the crimes, but ignorance breeds hate, and those that don't know a lot of gay people, or those who aren't EXPOSED (key word, as that's where the pride parade comes in) to gay people are those that assume that they're all the same and can stereotype them. As Jep said, if you actually attended one, you would have a good time and wouldn't keep your panties bunched about what a few people are wearing.


Also I thought I summed up in the last post that you're an idiot that can't be conversed with, so the arguement is over.

[Baboinga]

Ellen DeGeneres has a talk show because she is a Lesbian...
Not true. How often does Ellen mention being gay on her show? You can watch ten shows in a row and hear her mention it once, MAYBE. I would know, because I've watched many, many episodes of her show. Ellen had a successful comedy career before her show, which is why she has her show. Because she's funny and charming. Even in her comedy shows (Such as her most recent DVD out, I believe called "Here and Now" she mentions being gay in the very begining, and then not again throughout the entire thing.

Alternately, there is a woman called Elvira Kurt. She's a Canadian lesbian comedienne; and SHE capitalizes on the lesbian thing. She has a show because she's charming and funny and a lesbian, this is very significantly different from the Ellen situation. ( http://www.elvirakurt.com/ )
However, I can go through every show and list the heterosexual characters where their sexuality, throughout every episode and every season, is barely mentioned.
Again... this is because their sexuality is the default and is assumed. Television shows use gimmicks for people, someone being "straight" isn't a gimmick, but someone being gay is. The fact that there are homosexuals on television now is at times a blessing and a curse. It gives it homosexuality more exposure, which is a great thing; but on the other hand, it perpetuates the stereotypes. Some television shows like "The L Word" (I believe it's called) whose cast is mostly lesbians, is a bit more honest than, say, Will and Grace. Will and Grace shows more stereotypical gays (oh, haha queen lol decorating, haha, we dress so nicely) but isn't as bad as some other shows that have the typical gay character who has the same stereotypical aspects as in the parenthesis above, but those are ALL that defines the character. At least in W&G the characters are more dynamic and are shown in relationships and being "normal" instead of just the implied odd homosexual lifestyle.
I will admit though, it is a new adventing time of gays in the media, and that's great. But so far it's just been spattered in television shows, and it's not necessarily a strictly positive thing, if it is just continuing to put forth old stereotypes. But positive in the exposure aspect, and in time it will lead to more and more honest characters who are interesting. Will and Grace is a pretty good example of this. Queer as Folk is also a good example of this; while they embrace the stereotypes in a way (some of them are lispy, they joke about fashion and decorating and basically slutty behavior) they still function in a fundamentally human, dynamic way. As in, it shows relationships happening and difficult decisions that makes you empathize with them. A token character on Suddenly Susan, for example, isn't shown as having long relationships or being a dynamic character, which is fine, only a few main characters on sitcoms are, but the exposure is always more positive when it's easier to see the person being real.

I'm aware of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, I also think it can be funny. *shrug* Not much else to say on that.

This is not pushing the Heterosexual agenda, it is smart advertising.
Well fucking duh. Did I sound like I wanted all ads all the time directed at me? Or at heterosexuals? No. But I was saying as an arguement towards straights having a pride event, which you didn't even say, so that part doesn't pertain to you. So don't shit yourself over it.

People like to watch those shows. And the shows that have elements of homosexuality in them have those elements emphasized... those characters and story lines are typified by their homosexuality. You'd be hard pressed to find a Gay character in a television show where the essence of what that character is, is not a Homosexual man. However, I can go through every show and list the heterosexual characters where their sexuality, throughout every episode and every season, is barely mentioned.
Right, because on television shows there is token black guy who has a few extra lines once a season when he confides to the main character some difficulties because he's black. Same with gays. It's their schtick, it's the role that they're given. This is going back to what I said earlier.

[Mr Biglesworth]

Mike you're going to be a really bad father. As demonstrated by the infamous haircut mp3.

[Plain Old Jane]

==THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE PREVIOS POST==

dost thou mock me?

Please, you just made a comparison between being Gay and having Cancer. Maybe you didn't notice this but Cancer is a DISEASE. Now, would you like to make the argument that being a homosexual is a disease? You were so blatantly off balance with that argument that I let it die because it was so weak. You're comparing being a homosexual to having a life threatening illness.

This being the first in your infractions, you're taking her words out of context, assuming we're talking about the same gay people in two social situations, one with exposure and one without, the supposed feelings of the straight people around the water cooler was the crux, not the presupposition that all gays have aids which is false.

Its akin to people saying "Niggers" are lying cheating motherfuckers, will rape all your daughters, and can put their boners on the ground and spin around on them.
Also akin to Polish people, who stereotypes say are dumb as fucking bricks, make long posts about the wrong points of contention, misconstrue most things and manipulate the meaning to fit their own ends, and they're dumb and are dirty dendriphiliacs.

But all of that stuff isnt true, its (regarding dem black peopas) just a presupposition that some severly biggoted people have that is unfortunate and should be discouraged, and look what happened with black folks, they had parades and widespread attention in the media for a few years, reduced rights and whatnot, but now, due in part to activism and visibility they used, they're accepted as full citizens, can vote, hold property, and can have as much fried chicken and orange soda as they want, without anyone telling them different.

the point of that section wasnt the stereotype, but what they're doing to get over it.

As far as poles go, they are a proud and noble people, deeply intelligent with a deep running history, whose only problems lately were the navy tests in the 90s involving the submarines that kept sinking due do a engineering problem. (SCREEN DOORS, YOU MANGY POLLOCK!) I love you mike!

See, poles were looked on as a minority and were looked on as dumb and stuff when they were new around the turn of the century. Made fun of because, the formal bilingual education wasnt invented, and due to restrictions in the language, poles were made fun of for not being used to the TH sound. Also, I recall seeing in a movie, a new immigrant eating a banana with the skin on and all the people laughing at him. But they're accepted and treated like any other white person now. In fact, due to breeding, I havent really seen any trueblood polish people lately.

Sexuality is not the clothes you wear, the way you talk, or the way you present yourself. It is your sexual attraction. Very few people care about anybody else's sexual attraction enough to actively seek to discriminate against them.

-www.godhatesfags.com
-www.rememberourdead.org
-ANY jack chick book (if anyone actually converts because of these, I'll start eating meat again.)
-that fucker during the parade on his bike.
-Mayor of jerusalem who actually made a gay pride ban (recently lifted and fucker made to pay 6500 our of his own pocket.) http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1727617,00.html
-Ohio protest against pride - http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3453
-Lead the fight against GSA's in your school now! http://www.afajournal.org/2005/june/605GSA.asp
-anything on this page - http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/
-the protest on the harvey milk school
-matthew shepards (and MANY others) murder

"Gay people have sex with the same gender." That's a stupid sentence. It is impossible to have sex with a gender because, as anybody who has ever taken any course on sociology knows, gender is not in the essence of an individual, where as sexuality is.

ah ah ah, MY specialty! hehe, actually, you do a very good job of describing the social base of gender and sex.

if I, as a male, had sex with a female who had assumed the gender roles of a man, I would not be committing an act of homosexuality.

except this part, its a matter of perspective. my friend amanda's gender is VERY MUCH male, her sex, converse to that, is female, but I'll be damned if she was ever to date any straight guys.
or at least, if she did, she'd make them informed that she considers it homosexual in nature, sort of akin to my own struggles with sexuality, but thats neither here nor there and I dont wanna hear creeper and hex bitch about it for the next twenty posts.

I do not see my sexual preference as something to be necessarily proud of because in and of itself, it doesn't exist.

in reference to earlier post, you aluded to race in the same way, that it doesnt matter, but we still have black history month, million man marches, black people have their own culture, language, and vernacular. Very much the same way homosexuals have been remanded to such. But the true question is, would they still be the same way if there wasnt the discrimination?

stuff on adoption and how mike knows someone

Florida has a gay adoption ban - http://www.lethimstay.com/
texas and missouri has a ban on gay and bisexual foster parents http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?sectionid=75

[heX]

im gonna have to go back to the "youre being a fag" arguement... and i just skimmed through jeps post but did he post a link with the word "bible/history" in it to prove to me he could find something before biblical marraige?

if you will except the bibal as a source of marriage history with out me having to show historical proof from another angle, you've made this too easy to prove you wrong.

[Mike]

Mike you're going to be a really bad father. As demonstrated by the infamous haircut mp3.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Dude, Beat.wav was so much better. Haircut.wav was just a cheap knockoff.

[Mr Biglesworth]

still driving in your nigga van?

[Mike]

Not true. How often does Ellen mention being gay on her show? You can watch ten shows in a row and hear her mention it once, MAYBE. I would know, because I've watched many, many episodes of her show. Ellen had a successful comedy career before her show, which is why she has her show. Because she's funny and charming. Even in her comedy shows (Such as her most recent DVD out, I believe called "Here and Now" she mentions being gay in the very begining, and then not again throughout the entire thing.

Alternately, there is a woman called Elvira Kurt. She's a Canadian lesbian comedienne; and SHE capitalizes on the lesbian thing. She has a show because she's charming and funny and a lesbian, this is very significantly different from the Ellen situation. ( http://www.elvirakurt.com/ )

I really like Ellen Degeneres, and I like her show, and I think that she is very funny. However, there are dozens of very funny women actors who have had their own sitcoms who were never offered their own talk show. The only other that I can think of that was offered a show was Christina Rey (sp?) who had a short-lived sitcom, and then took over the Rosie O'Donnel show after Rosie O'Donnel left... But had Rosie O'Donnel not started that show, Christina Rey would have never had it ... it wouldn't have existed. Ellen, on the other hand, was given a show not because she's a charming, funny comedian ... because there's hundreds of them ... but because she was a comedian who made a splash on her television show by being a Lesbian. Ellen also hosted the Emmy's or one of those award shows not long ago ... she hosted this because she is funny and witty, but there are hundreds of other funny and witty women who have had their own relatively shortlived sitcom... and none of them were ever given the job of hosting the Emmy's. She is as famous as she is BECAUSE she is a funny and witty Lesbian... and homosexuals are a big draw on television.

Again... this is because their sexuality is the default and is assumed. Television shows use gimmicks for people, someone being "straight" isn't a gimmick, but someone being gay is. The fact that there are homosexuals on television now is at times a blessing and a curse. It gives it homosexuality more exposure, which is a great thing; but on the other hand, it perpetuates the stereotypes.

Exactly. Just like how Gay Parades that are known for their flamboyant display of indecency stereotype homosexuals into this category of ridiculous dressing and acting people who lack any and all morals. Now, I don't believe that is what a homosexual person is, because I don't think that somebody's sexual preference predetermines how they act in civil society. While the majority of people at these parades are looking to strengthen community and push the modest homosexual agenda, the parades are known for being this display of morbid irregularity (this is evident in if you google image "Gay Pride Parade" the entire first page is filled with crazy people; and when people talk about Gay Pride parades, they generally tend to focus on the crazy outfits and expression of others). (this paragraph also corresponds to the continuation of that paragraph)

Well fucking duh. Did I sound like I wanted all ads all the time directed at me? Or at heterosexuals? No. But I was saying as an arguement towards straights having a pride event, which you didn't even say, so that part doesn't pertain to you. So don't shit yourself over it.

You were saying that every day is Straight Pride Parade and then cited people holding hands, advertisements, and marketing techniques that feature heterosexuals. If it doesn't pertain to me, then don't include it in your post. That post was obviously directed at me. I wouldn't start spewing on about the fouls of communism, which would obviously be directed at Jep (as Jep and I have many a discussion on Communism and poli-economics), in a reply to one of your posts. If a post is directed at me and you do not want me to respond to a particular point, then announce that this point is irrelevent to our conversation and does not pertain to me.

Right, because on television shows there is token black guy who has a few extra lines once a season when he confides to the main character some difficulties because he's black. Same with gays. It's their schtick, it's the role that they're given. This is going back to what I said earlier.

Well Black people aren't really a good example anymore, because Black people generally have more varied roles and have for some years. There are more shows based on the lives of Black people than there are on the lives of white people (rarely would you have "Friends" mention the whiteness of 'the friends' unless it was making fun of them; in a show like "Sistas" on UPN or the WB, whatever network that is, the blackness of 'the sistas' is the premise of most of the episodes). But in pertainance to homosexuals, I have a philosophical problem with this because I do not think that sexuality makes people innately different... I think that its like liking the color red or the color blue... it is something that does not predetermine every decision, outfit, and the way you act for the rest of your life. I think the only thing that it changes is who you go to sleep with at the end of the night and who you think about the next day. The Gay-media-blitz, coupled with the stereotypical image that Gay Pride Parades put out, perpetuate the idea that the effects of homosexuality on a person are ridiculously different than the effects of heterosexuality on a person... which in and of themselves, they are not... they're different sides of the same coin.

[Mike]

I didn't compare aids to being gay, I compared the VICTIMIZATION and MINORITY values of the two. I'm not saying one is like the other in all ways, I'm saying that they have similarities. If you can't understand simply that, then I can't argue anything with you. You simply take whatever you want to read out of what I'm writing, and it's not worth it to bother. It's like you're a horse with blinders on to whatever the person is trying to say, and you only see what you prefer to see, or read it how you would like to. Have you never heard somebody compare something before? It's like someone saying "Jean jackets are so ugly, I like jeans as pants, though," and you're like "WTF FUCKER? Jeans go on your LEGS, idiot, they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS". I'm not saying one is the other, far from, I'm not saying being gay is like having a disease, why the fuck would I ever even imply that?

I always take point against any comparison to two things that are in their essence entirely different. People, by their nature, like to compare themselves to irreversible diseases because it makes them look like a victim against the odds of nature. You could have compared being homosexual to being a rare vegetable, but nobody wants to compare themselves to something that does elicit a feeling of guilt in the other person. It's a technique that everybody uses, I do it with other subjects; if I do it, though, then I expect to be called out on it. If you don't expect to be called out by comparing homosexuality to a deadly and destructive disease, even if you are only comparing likewise characteristics of both, then don't do it.

wtf, can you read? I believe none of those things except that the integration of specifically christian beliefs (which is discriminatory in cases to people who either don't believe in God, or who aren't christian) into the legal system is archaic.

That's not archaic, it's called "politics." Politics consists of, among other things, legislators and politicians who are people. People, as we've already established, have convictions... everybody does. Legislators and politicians base their politics and their legislature on their convictions. This is legitimate, because 'beliefs are beliefs are beliefs.' The very idea of a legal system, of equality, and basic human rights is from a belief system. It may not be Christian, though Christianity has certainly propagated it in Western culture, but it is a philosophy based in subjective human beliefs. The only way to prevent this "discrimination" is to turn to a Nietzchean paradismo. If people feel that Western culture discriminates against them more than it helps them, then I do not know why they continue to live in a Western culture.

As for "believing none of those things," why would you say that "there's supposed to be a separation of Church and State" if you do not believe it? You also said "this Archaic state," clearly calling the State archaic. The use of that phrase wasn't even in the context of your argument that Christianity informing politics is archaic, but something different ... that Gays cannot marry (which is as much a Christian idea as it is an idea of the philosophy of semantics), and that gays cannot adopt. If you do not believe that the state is archaic, then don't say say that people hold beliefs "because of this archaic state." If you were using the word "state" as in "form," then you should clarify, because just several lines earlier you referred to "Church and State" referring to a political body--but I'm fairly certain you were referring to a political body, or else, the argument would be senseless. The third part, about believing that homosexuality is a boistrous display of indecency was a purposeful twist of words, and I wouldn't think that you would believe that anyway... So, ignoring that, you still seemed to believe two out of those three. Say saying "I believe none of those except two of the three..." is stupid.

As far as the AIDS bearer comment is concerned, I'm glad you live in your little bubble of righteousness, but in the real world there is discrimination, and people believe ridiculous shit like that.

Yes, some people ... but not the majority of people. If the majority of people believed that, then "rights" for homosexuals would not be getting anywhere. The majority of people believe otherwise, and not because of Gay Pride parades. Gay pride parades do more to stereotype than they do to kill those stereotypes. People do not believe that all homosexuals are AIDs bearers because it is inconsistant philosophy.

The point is, there is a stupidly large percentage of people who are bias, whether they believe so or not. You can laugh at me saying something about people thinking that all gays have aids, but in places, that's what the stereotype is, and there's simply no one there to dissuade them.

I don't think that this is the case anymore, at least, not in the United States--even in the most rural of areas.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf (table five, bias motivation; for 2003 three the number of hate crimes for sexuality is approximately the same as the number of anti-religious crimes, literally... give or take ten) (if for some reason it doesn't open, 1430 anti sexuality hate crimes, subtracting 15 anti heterosexual crimes; 1415 anti homosexual/bisexual crimes. anti-religion crimes = 1426; for 2003. Also Anti hispanic or other ethnic origin crimes number to 1236. Anti racial hate crimes are a bit more than triple the anti-sexuality crimes)


It might also be noted that (table seven, by offense type) there were six murders inspired by homophobia;

I didn't view the PDFs because I'm on my work computer and it will suffer from Adobe Acrobat from opening... but I'll take your word for it on the numbers and the wording. Given that, I do not think that there is an active discrimination against religion... and if there is an ardent believer on these forums, it is me. I believe that there is an active bias in academia against religion, but that does not reflect the majority of people. Furthmore, the "six murders inspired by homophobia" is probably a pretty subjective summary. Typically, when anybody cites "homophobia" as a reason for murder, it translates pretty well to that it was a motive that they could not find, but it involved a heterosexual and a homosexual, so the heterosexual must be "afraid" of the homosexual or homosexuality. I'd also like to see, of those murders, how many of the murderes have clinical problems.

I'm too lazy to go through the actual state-by-state analysis of the crimes, but ignorance breeds hate, and those that don't know a lot of gay people, or those who aren't EXPOSED (key word, as that's where the pride parade comes in) to gay people are those that assume that they're all the same and can stereotype them. As Jep said, if you actually attended one, you would have a good time and wouldn't keep your panties bunched about what a few people are wearing.

Well, I'm one of the few active criticizers of many of the demands of the homosexual agenda who does attend some events. I don't go to homosexual parades because I do not attend any parades at all, really. I do, however, go to lectures on homosexual 'rights', I've been to two homosexual weddings in my home state, my employer is homosexual, and I have a number of close friends who are homosexual. The gay marriages, my homosexual employer, my homosexual friends do not perpetuate the stereotypes of homosexuality... The two Gay marriages happened to be two of the more respectful "marriage" services that I've been to... and they are burying homosexual stereotypes. However, the public opinion of homosexual marriages (the services themselves) are much different than the public opinion of Gay Pride Parades (the parades themselves), and this is because the nature of those "marriages" is far different than the nature of a Gay Pride Parade.

Also I thought I summed up in the last post that you're an idiot that can't be conversed with, so the arguement is over.

I'd like to bet that this argument is not over. If you don't respond, I'll commend you for keeping your word ... but considering that you've gone back on what you've said a number of times in this thread already, I don't expect you to end the argument. If you'd like to continue to think I'm an idiot, feel free. I'll just quote what I said in the last post:

If you want to say that you can have intercourse with a gender; If you want to use Christianity and Catholicism as the same thing; If you want to say that Homosexuals cannot adopt children; If you want to think that the separation of Church and State is explicit in the Constitution; And if you want to believe that marketing to heterosexuals is anything more than smart business ... Then you can. You'll be wrong. You'll look stupid. But you can.

You'll also free to call me an idiot, but maybe if you studied some of the things you're talking about, you'd rethink that word choice.

[Mike]

Jep -- I can't read your topic just yet, I'll probably read/respond to it later tonight... I'm at work now and I have to do some stuff for some people, and I'm goign to a James Taylor concert at 4:30-ish... I'll be back around midnight-ish... And if I respond to it tonight, it'll be around then. The one thing I did read was the beginning, and no, I wasn't mocking you, I actually ran out of space. At first, it was more uniform ... the first post said "==this is continued in the next post==" but I was like ... 15 characters over the limit with the first post, so I just removed that line and put in (cont.) instead. So, no, I wasn't mocking you, I legitimately ran out of room.

[Mike]

still driving in your nigga van?

Wait a second ... was that another mp3/wav!? I totally forgot about that one. You bastard!

But, no, I am no longer driving the nigga van.

I entirely forgot about that one ... so I asked my friend...

JimiVibes: did you remember a song we made called "nigga van" or something like that?
Myfriend: oh man
Myfriend: elephant zebra im yo NIGGA MAN
JimiVibes: OH YES!
Myfriend: pepsi cola
JimiVibes: I TOTALLY FORGOt
Myfriend: we ride in the NIGGA VAN
JimiVibes: HA HAHAH AH AH AH A
Myfriend: nigga nigga nigga.. DO THE NIGGA DANCE
JimiVibes: "Pepsi Cola we drink from a nigga can"
Myfriend: yeahhhhhhhhh
Myfriend: plymouth chrysler*
Myfriend: we ride in the nigga van

[Plain Old Jane]

im gonna have to go back to the "youre being a fag" arguement... and i just skimmed through jeps post but did he post a link with the word "bible/history" in it to prove to me he could find something before biblical marraige?

if you will except the bibal as a source of marriage history with out me having to show historical proof from another angle, you've made this too easy to prove you wrong.

wrong? I just proved all my points, backed them up with sources and quoted like mad! I deserve a fucking A+++++++ would do business with again!

I believe the offending link was on the history OF the bible, not history FROM the bible. Though if the good book is as wonderful as you say it is, the two should be synonomous.

[heX]

I believe the offending link was on the history OF the bible, not history FROM the bible.
jep it quoted exact scripture. i am done. you are too focussed on wishing you were right to even give it a second thought. id have a better debate if i were talking to a gender confused blade of grass.

[Baboinga]

This thread is just a big fiesta of rolleyes.

[Marshall]

No way, this is the best thread in the history of threads!


IT IS A BEAST!

[Plain Old Jane]

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/history.html
this is a page about the history of family values that people think other people had at one time. It briefly goes back 10000 years and describes the familial settings. It makes a statement about the effect cultures moving about had on eachother, and the religious effects, VERY briefly.

It has two lines of scripture in it, to illistrate life back then. You wouldn't know a clue if it walked up to you, bit you on the ass, and announced in a loud booming voice, 'I AM A CLUE!'.

now go take a long walk on a short peer, you hemeroid chewing internet fuck. Go get real cancer.

[heX]

jep you amaze me you arent just a idiot but you find new and inventive ways going to great lengths to discover new idiocy. i just finished reading that site, it is directly making reference to the bible in its examples. so once again if you are using this site to further your point then you are saying the bible is accurate in this topic.

[heX]

jep seriously let this go your making an ass of yourself and you are completely oblivious to it.

[johnny]

you guys all suck at posting!

[Baboinga]

hex learn how to read. of course it has scripture in it, it's a fucking christian site and it's discussing how to react to the history, while keeping the biblical suggestions for lifestyle in mind.

it's not saying "READ THE BIBLE IT WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT HISTORY" it is saying "this is history" "how history pertains to you today, well here is an exerpt from the bible to help you understand that, because we're a christian site".

*shrug* it states pretty clearly at the begining stuff that doesn't have to do with the bible, but what has to do with marriage.

[heX]

it is saying "this is history"


..then goes on to refer to the old testament as history. ONCE again, if you are saying the old testament of the bible is a valid source of history then im already right. this site does not help you at all unless you are validating the accuracy of the Christians old testament / the Jewish bible.This site looks like it was made by a 7 year old with frontpage whith no accurate knowldege of what they believe, just a want to believe in it.

basically you can not cite two sources from different parts say they are both right and they flow together as long as you dont continue to read the first source.


example:

"america is a continent" then later goes on to say it is on the planet earth. - accurate source to quote if this is what you see as fact and its making your point.

"the continent is in space surrounded by green goop" then goes onto say earth is just a matrix - also a accurate source to quote if this is what you see as fact and its making your point.


however "america is a continent, the continent is in space surrounded by green goop. the green goop is on earth" just to prove the continent goop is on a non-matrix earth. it doesnt make sense at all unless thats just what you want to belive. You would be siting two different sources, merging them saying they are both true but just the parts that aply to your arguement.

this person has taken two different beliefs and reconize them both as being accurate by directly making refference to the scripture as fact. this is not a case of well its in the Bible and also happens to be true he is making refference to recorded history in the Bible, not something that is also found in other doccuments. so to say this area is true and accurate "because the Bible says so" as his only leg to stand on would leave your arguement wide open for me to go into ealier scripture and prove what hes saying makes no sense.

ps
Baboinga learn WHAT your are reading before you talk. ty.


pps

i never said im against gay marriage, so chill the fuck out. you never have given the origins of marriage a second thought till i stated where they come from. now you scurry the internet looking up any half-ass theoretical site you can to say something close to what you decided would fit your opinions the best. i said marriage spawned from the churches beliefs. if you want to spend your life with some one you could do it with out being a mindless drone and conforming to the system set by society. since you want to be like everyone else to validate your gay relationship go ahead be married i seriously don't care. don't kid yourself on where it came from. you made outrageous claims without thinking about it and now you are backing those up because you feel like if you're proven wrong here you'll lose the whole battle. this isnt about the right for gay people to be married to me i really think they should if they want to. My point is dont lie to yourself where it came from just so you can feel warm and fuzzy knowing you are not activily practicing church tradition.

[Baboinga]

No, I have researched the origins of marriage a number of times before this thread. I'm just too lazy to bother finding the same sites and citing them, because I'm lazy and if you think that the bible invented marriage or something ridiculous like that, then whatever, or whatever you think, is fine. I'm confident with what I believe, so in this case I'm willing to let you stay on your soap box and believe what you believe as well.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567
cntl f5 "religion" this is more the point that I was skirting in previous posts.

[heX]

i didnt say the bible invented marriage. you were citing the bible as the source of your beliefs, i was just pointing out you were argueing a self defeating debate.

[Plain Old Jane]

good source, babs